Attitudes of Mexican Citizens about Wolf Translocation in Mexico

Attitudes of Mexican Citizens about Wolf Translocation in MexicoAuthor(s): Magdalena Rodriguez, Paul R. Krausman, Warren B. Ballard, Carlos Villalobos andWilliam W. ShawSource: Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Winter, 2003), pp. 971-979Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784441 .

Accessed: 09/09/2014 23:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and Wildlife Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to WildlifeSociety Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 59.167.65.133 on Tue, 9 Sep 2014 23:36:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wildlife

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784441?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ATTITUDE SURVEY 971

Attitudes of Mexican citizens about wolf translocation in Mexico

Magdalena Rodriguez, Paul R. Krausman, Warren B. Ballard, Carlos Villalobos, and William W Shaw

Abstract Questionnaires have not been used to determine the attitudes of Mexicans toward the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) and its recovery in Mexico. We surveyed Mexican citizens from Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico, and Mexican citizens attending the University of Arizona in Tucson. Questionnaires were distributed at a conference, by mail, and by personal contacts. Respondents were divided into groups based on state of residence and affiliation with the livestock industry or academia. Academics in Chihuahua presented the most positive attitude and highest knowledge scores. Most respondents (63%) were in favor of translocation. Fifty percent of respondents who were against translocation said they would change their minds if compensation for livestock lost to wolves were available. Respondents associated with livestock in Sonora had the highest number of respondents against translocation (36%). Respondents with higher knowledge scores and more positive attitudes toward wolves were more likely to be in favor of translocation. Respondents were concerned that translocated wolves would lead to more livestock losses-a concern that should be addressed prior to translocation. Additional surveys should be conducted in rural areas and administered to the general public to determine their attitudes toward wolves and wolf translocation.

Key words attitudes, Canis lupus baileyi, Mexican gray wolf, Mexico, survey, translocation

Many people react strongly to proposals to translocate wolves (Canis spp.)-i.e., transport them to and release them in a location different from where they originated, a location where the species may presently occur or historically occurred naturally (Nielsen 1988). Negative views and fears of the wolf are widespread and have caused many rural residents and livestock owners in North America to resist translocation efforts that they perceive may harm their livelihoods or fami- lies (Gilbert 1995). The belief that wolves are dangerous to humans is ingrained in the consciousness of North Americans, but there is still a strong positive attitude toward wolves among many people (Bath 1987).

Polarized public attitudes are one reason public involvement in wolf translocation efforts is important. Funding, recovery actions, translocation programs, monitoring, and survival cannot succeed without public acceptance (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Direct persecution by humans was the reason an experimental release of wolves in Michigan did not succeed beyond 8 months (Hook and Robinson 1982). Attitude surveys can aid managers in understanding public preferences and provide a basis for better public relations and education programs (Bright and Manfredo 1996).

The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) was listed as an endangered subspecies in 1976

Address for Magdalena C. Rodriguez, Paul R. Krausman, and William W. Shaw: School of Renewable Natural Resources, Univer- sity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; present address for Rodriguez: 36976 Mulberry Street, Apartment A, Newark, CA 94560, USA e-mail for Rodriguez: magrod7l @yahoo.com; e-mail for Krausman: [email protected]. Address for Warren B. Bal- lard and Carlos Villalobos: Department of Range, Wildlife, and Fisheries Management, Texas Tech University, Box 42125, Lubbock, TX 79409-2125, USA.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 2003, 31(4):971-979 Peer refereed



972 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2003, 31(4):971-979

(United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). It is the southernmost and smallest of gray wolf subspecies (Brown 1983). From 1982 to the present, public attitudes toward the Mexican wolf and translocation plans were surveyed in Arizona and New Mexico (Biggs 1988,Johnson 1990, Duda and Young 1995, Schoenecker and Shaw 1997). In addition, during 1991 and 1992 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service held 4 public meetings in Arizona and New Mexico to allow public input on translocation efforts (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). However, similar efforts have not occurred in Mexico, even though translocation efforts there have been discussed (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1996).

A difference in politics, economics, land ownership, and border issues may be among the reasons translocating Mexican wolves into Mexico has not occurred. Mexican authorities had planned to release 2 wolf packs into Chihuahua and Coahuila by the end of 2000 (Hinrichsen 2000), but the translocation did not occur. Livestock production and row-crop farming are dominant land uses that could hinder wolf-translocation efforts in Mexico. Knowledge about public attitudes toward the wolf will be important if successful restoration efforts are to begin. This type of information could provide managers with a basis for addressing some of the concerns about wolf restoration and perhaps minimize potential conflicts if translocation were to proceed. There are no published reports of public attitude surveys conducted in Mexico concerning the Mexican wolf. Our objective was to gather information on attitudes and knowledge about Mexican wolves from different interest groups in Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico and Mexican citizens studying at the University of Arizona in Tucson, USA.

Study area Our study was conducted in Sonora and

Chihuahua, Mexico. Chihuahua (247,087 km2) and Sonora (180,833 km.2) were Mexico's 2 largest states (Presidencia de la Republica 1991). In 1995 Sonora's human population was 2.1 million (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica 1996) and Chihuahua's was 2.8 million (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica 1997). Climate in Sonora was generally arid and semi-arid with an average of <25.4 cm of rain annually (Banco Nacional de Comercio

Exterior, S. A. 1960). Most of Chihuahua received <51 cm of rainfall annually.

The tropical deserts of Sonora and north-central Mexico were characterized by sparse desert scrub vegetation. Distinctive ecosystems composed of short grasses, scattered shrubs, and a variety of cacti and other succulents existed on the higher por- tions of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan steppes. Hares (Lepus spp), rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.), and snakes were abundant in the deserts and steppes. Larger animals such as the coyote (Canis latrans), puma (Puma concolor), and deer (Odocoileus spp.) were in both states (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca 1997).

Methods We assessed opinions of several groups of

Mexicans toward Mexican wolves, translocation plans for Mexican wolves, knowledge and fear of Mexican wolves, and the importance of the translocation issue to them. We determined relationships between and among sample groups concerning their attitudes, knowledge, and willingness to translocate Mexican wolves into Mexico. We considered reasons respondents were either in favor of or opposed to translocation of Mexican wolves into Mexico. We also examined Mexican private landowners' knowledge, attitude, and willingness to have wolves translocated into Mexico.

We used a modified version of the questionnaire designed by Bath (1987) that has been used in several studies across the United States and Canada. We divided the questionnaire into 4 sections: attitu- dinal, consisting of 18 questions; knowledge, consisting of 13 questions; social demographics, consisting of 7 questions; and a section directed solely at private landowners, consisting of 11 questions (Rodriquez 2002). All participants received a cover letter explaining the study, and all information (cover letter and survey instrument) was written in Spanish.

We used Dillman's (1978) standard survey methodology to pretest the survey instrument. In July 1999 we mailed 20 pre-questionnaires to randomly selected addresses from a Nogales, Sonora phonebook. Return envelopes were labeled with a post office box address in Hermosillo, Sonora. In October 1999 we mailed an additional 20 pre-questionnaires to different randomly selected Nogales addresses. These return envelopes were labeled with a University of Arizona address inTucson, USA.



We contacted the National Association of Diversified Ranchers (ANGADI); Secretariat of the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries (SEMARNAP); cattlemen's associations; and univer- sities in Sonora and Chihuahua to participate in the study. In addition, we distributed questionnaires to attendees of the 36th National Meeting of Livestock Research in Hermosillo, Sonora. We collected questionnaires in the lobby on the same day they were distributed. We also mailed questionnaires to Mexican citizens attending the University of Arizona between December 2000 and January 2001. We sent follow-up letters and questionnaires to nonrespondents 3 weeks after the initial mailing.

For comparison, we divided respondents from each organization into 5 groups based on state of residence and affiliation to livestock or academia. Livestock groups in Sonora (LS) and Chihuahua (LC) consisted of respondents associated with the livestock industry (e.g., rancher, livestock veterinar- ian, agriculture engineer) and residing in either state. Academia groups in Sonora (AS), Chihuahua (AC), and at the University of Arizona (AUA) consisted of respondents who were associated with academia (e.g., professor, student, researcher) and resided in the corresponding state. Respondents from the national meeting of livestock researchers who responded to the survey and resided in states other than Sonora or Chihuahua, Mexico, or Arizona were not included in comparisons.

We used descriptive statistics to evaluate why respondents were in favor of or opposed to wolf translocation in Mexico, whether respondents who were opposed to translocation would change their mind if impacts were mitigated, and their perceived danger of wolves to humans. We used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare attitude score, knowledge, and willingness to translocate wolves by groups. We used regression to determine whether gender, age, education, state, or place of residence (rural vs. urban) had an effect on attitude or knowledge. We used ANOVA to evaluate whether acceptance of translocation was affected by attitude or knowledge.

Results Our efforts to pretest the questionnaires failed: of

the 20 questionnaires, 2 were returned. We mailed an additional 20 pre-questionnaires with a return address of the University of Arizona (to see whether an official address would generate a high-

Attitude survey * Rodriguez et al. 973

er response); 0 questionnaires were returned. Due to the low response rates via mail, we decided to distribute the questionnaires in person.

The ANGADI and SEMARNAP in Chihuahua did not reply. The SEMARNAP in Sonora agreed to participate, but we did not receive the requested mailing list. The University of Sonora's Department of Sciences agreed to participate, and we gave 50 questionnaires to a contact, but due to changes in administration the questionnaires were not distributed and were subsequently lost. We gave 80 questionnaires to a contact in Chihuahua to be distributed to cattlemen in the state. We gave 40 questionnaires to a contact at the University of Chihuahua to be given to science students and fac- ulty. One hundred and fifty questionnaires were given to a contact at ANGADI Sonora to be distributed to members. One hundred and fifty questionnaires were given to a contact at the cattlemen's association in Sonora to be distributed to members. We made efforts to obtain a higher response rate for ANGADI and Sonoran cattlemen, but they failed due to contact personnel changes.

We distributed 899 questionnaires and received 375 completed responses (response rate of 42%). Number of responses for individual groups was AS (n= 31), AC (n=35),AUA (n=87), LS (n=70), and LC (n= 47). Ninety-one respondents were from states other than Sonora, Chihuahua, or Arizona, and 14 respondents left either their occupation or state blank and were therefore not included in the analysis. All who responded to the private landowners section were included in the analysis regardless of residence or occupation.

Attitude Attitude scores had a potential range from -16 to

16; a higher score indicated more positive attitudes toward Mexican wolves. Mean attitude scores for LS and AS were negative, while those for LC, AC, and AUA were positive (Table 1). There was convincing evidence that mean attitude scores differed among groups (F4252= 10.66, P< 0.001). Attitude toward wolves by AC was significantly higher than by AS (t= 4.33, P<0.001), LC (t=2.57,P=0.01), and LS (t=5.18,P <0.001). Attitude toward wolves by AUA was higher than AS (t=3.63,P<0.001) and LS (t=4.77,P<0.001). Attitude toward wolves by LC was higher than AS (t= 2.02, P=0.04) and LS (t=2.40, P=0.007). Chihuahuan residents (ivestock and academia) had a more positive attitude toward Mexican wolves than Sonoran residents (livestock and academia) (t= 4.88, P=<0.001).



974 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2003,31(4):971-979

Factors affecting attitude. We tested gender, age, education, place of residence (rural vs. urban), and state of residence to see whether they were associated with attitude scores. Age, gender, and place of residence did not show an association with how respondents felt about wolves. Respondents with a higher education level were more likely to have higher attitude scores (F= 3.57, P=0.002). Attitude scores also differed by what state respondents were from (F=9.02, P<0.001). Respondents from Chihuahua had the most positive attitude toward wolves (3.1); those from Sonora had the most negative attitude (-2.1).

Knowledge Knowledge scores could range from 0-13, with

each correct answer given a score of 1. Groups' mean knowledge scores ranged from 3.1-5.5 (Table 1). Mean knowledge scores among groups differed (F4253=5.57,P<0.001). Academia Chihuahua differed significantly from AS (t= 2.90, P= 0.004), AUA (t=4.08, P<0.001), LC (t= 3.02, P=0.003), and LS (t = 4.54, P< 0.001). Chihuahuan residents (livestock and academia) possessed a significantly higher knowledge of Mexican wolves than Sonoran residents (livestock and academia) (t= 3.17, P=0.002).

Factors affecting knowledge. We used gender, age, education, place of residence (rural vs. urban), and state of residence to identify any association with respondents' knowledge of wolves. Knowledge was not associated with gender, age, place of residence, or education level. However, respondents' knowledge scores did show an association with their state of residence (F= 8.07, P <

Table 1. Respondents' attitudes toward and knowledge of Mexican gray wolves based on answers to 16 attitude and 13 knowledge questions from an attitude survey conducted in Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico, and Tucson, Arizona, during 1999-2000.

Attitude Knowledge Groups n x a SD n x b SD

Academics Chihuahua 34 5.2 4.73 32 5.5 0.42 Sonora 28 -2.3 7.29 28 3.7 0.45 University of Arizona 86 3.1 6.62 86 3.5 0.26

Livestock Chihuahua 39 1.1 6.53 44 3.8 0.36 Sonora 70 -2.1 7.41 68 3.1 0.29

a Attitude scores had a potential range from -1 6 to 16. b Knowledge scores had a potential range from 0 to 13.

0.001). Chihuahuan respondents received a higher knowledge score than Sonoran residents (t= 2.82, P = 0.005) and Arizona residents (t= 3.83, P< 0.00 1).

Acceptance of translocation We asked respondents whether they would be in

favor of, against, or indifferent about translocating wolves into Mexico. Thirty-seven percent of all respondents were against or had no opinion toward translocating wolves; 63% favored translocation. Academia Chihuahua had the highest number of respondents in favor of translocation (94%), while LS had the highest number against (36%, Table 2). Acceptance of translocating wolves was different among interest groups (x70= 54.44, P< 0.001).

Factors affecting acceptance. Acceptance of translocation was affected by attitude of respondents (F2,254=86.80, P <0.001). Attitude scores of those in favor of translocation were higher than those against (t= 11.71, P <0.001). Knowledge of wolves also affected whether respondents were in favor of or against translocating wolves (F2,255 = 12.64, P <0.001). Respondents who were in favor of translocating wolves scored an average of 1.5 points higher in knowledge than those who were against (t= 3.73, P <0.001).

Mitigation We asked respondents who were not in favor of

translocating the Mexican wolf into Mexico if their opinions would change if potential impacts were mitigated. Of the 100 people who chose no or no opinion to translocating wolves into Mexico, 95 answered the mitigation section. Fifty percent of those against translocation said they would change

Table 2. Respondents acceptance of translocating Mexican gray wolves into Mexico based on their response from an attitude survey conducted in Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico, and Tucson, Arizona, 1999-2000.

Response (/)

Groups n Yes No opinion No

Academics Chihuahua 35 94 3 3 Sonora 31 54 23 23 University of Arizona 87 77 17 6

Livestock Chihuahua 47 57 32 11 Sonora 70 37 27 36



their opinion if a compensation program were established for livestock losses attributed to wolves. Fifty-one percent of those against translocation said they would change their opinions if livestock losses were kept <1%. Sixty-three percent of those against translocation said they would change their opinions if it were possible to keep the wolves inside a nature reserve. Forty-six percent of those against translocation said they would change their opinions if wolves that killed livestock were destroyed.

Perceived danger of wolves We asked respondents to choose which animal

(wolves, bears [Ursus spp.], pumas, or all 3 animals) was the most dangerous to humans. Thirty-two percent chose all 3 animals as being equally dangerous. Only 10%'o of all respondents chose wolves as most dangerous to humans. Livestock Sonora had the highest percentage of respondents (27%) who perceived wolves as most dangerous to humans, while all other group percentages were <10%.

Reasons for translocation opinion After respondents chose against translocation,

we asked them to pick from a list of 4 possible primary reasons (livestock losses would be excessive, cost of translocation would be excessive, loss of big game would be too high, or other). Over a third of respondents (36%, n = 88) were against translocation because they felt losses to livestock would be excessive.

After respondents chose in favor of translocation, we asked them to pick from a list of 4 possible primary reasons (wolves are a part of our heritage, to regulate deer numbers, Mexican wolves are in danger of extinction, or other). Most respondents (5 1%, n = 169) were in favor of translocation because Mexican wolves are in danger of extinction.

Private landowners We directed the fourth section of the question-

naire at private landowners in Mexico in an effort to help separate their opinions and attitudes from those of other respondents. The section was com- prised of 11 questions about land-use practices and their history with wolves. Of 375 respondents to the questionnaire, 141 (38%) were private landowners in Mexico. Mean age was 41 years, and 47% possessed a technical degree. Mean ranch size was 2,751 ha (95% CI=2,043-3460).

Attitude. Mean attitude score of private


landowners was -0.64 (95% CI = -1.87-0.59). Attitude score was associated with level of education (F= 2.55, P=0.024) and state of residence (F= 4.31, P=0.006), but not age, place of residence (rural vs. urban), or gender. Sonora and Chihuahua private landowners did not differ significantly in their attitudes toward wolves.

Knowledge. Private landowners had a mean knowledge score of 3.8 (95%, CI=3.4-4.2). There was no evidence that age, place of residence, education, or state of residence was associated with knowledge score.

Acceptance of translocation. Fifty percent of private landowners were in favor of translocating wolves into Mexico. Acceptance of translocation was associated with age (F=7.04,P=0.001). Older private landowners were more likely to be against translocation, while younger respondents were in favor (t= 3.58, P <0.00 1). Mean age of respondents in favor and those against wolf translocation was 37 and 46 years, respectively.

Place of residence (rural vs. urban) was correlated with acceptance of translocation (X28= 18.79, P =(0.043); however, it was not correlated with gender or education level. Willingness to reintroduce wolves also was correlated with state of residence X23= 22.03, P= 0.001). Thirty-four percent of private landowners in Sonora were in favor of translocation, compared to 59% of private landowners in Chihuahua.

Mitigation. Of the 69 private landowners who chose no or no opinion to wolf translocation, 68 answered the mitigation questions. Forty-five percent indicated they would change their opinions if a compensation program were established. Forty- eight percent indicated they would change their opinions if losses were limited to <1%. Sixty-two percent indicated they would change their opinions if it were possible to keep wolves inside a nature reserve. Forty-nine percent indicated they would change their opinions if wolves that killed livestock were destroyed.

Reasons for translocation opinion. Private landowners against translocation (43%) indicated that their primary reason for opposition was "losses to livestock would be excessive," while 47% of those in favor of translocation believed the best reason for translocation was that "Mexican wolves were in danger of extinction."

Wolf conflicts. Twenty-nine private landowners (22%) stated that historically the Mexican wolf has caused damage or losses on their ranch. Losses



976 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2003, 31(4):971-979

included livestock, horses, domestic sheep, and a burro. When asked to approximate the date wolves were last observed in their area, only 2 respondents gave dates more recent than 1980. When asked how wolves were eliminated in the area where they lived, 52% of 69 respondents said a combina- tion of poison, traps, and shooting was used.

Discussion Public survey research in Mexico appears to have

advanced technically, but social and economic het- erogeneity make it difficult to standardize methodology (Escobar and Roberts 1998). Low response rates for both pre-questionnaires eliminated our ability to obtain opinions from the general public. Poor mail service, education level, and lack of famil- iarity with questionnaires could have contributed to our low response rate (Nielsen and Knuth 2001). Using contacts within each interest group to distribute questionnaires was a challenge due to changes in contact personnel, lack of distribution, and incomplete questionnaires. We found that dis- tributing questionnaires at a conference was the best method (61% response rate). Presence of researcher, time limits on completion, and being in a relaxed environment may have been some reasons this method was successful.

We were unable to obtain a representative sample of our target groups due to the limitations in using a standardized survey methodology. Our results should be viewed as preliminary and not extrapolated to all Mexican citizens. However, within and among our sample groups, we discov- ered valuable information about views toward translocation of wolves into Mexico.

Attitude The most important determinant of support or

opposition to translocating wolves has been attitude (Bright and Manfredo 1996). Our results indicated that as a group, cattlemen had more negative attitudes toward wolves than academicians did. Our findings appear consistent with other studies that found those associated with livestock expressed a negative attitude toward wolves (Buys 1975, Kellert 1985, Bath and Buchanan 1989).

Previous studies have found that attitude toward wolves changed with increased education (Hook and Robinson 1982, Kellert 1985). Our findings also showed that as education level increased, attitude toward wolves became more positive.

However, we also found that respondents with just some college education (academic) had the most negative attitude scores (-5.23), and those scores increased positively with each degree earned.

Respondents who lived in cities with popula- tions >10,000 were more positive toward the wolf than those living in smaller cities when we considered only attitude and place of residence. However, when we included other variables such as education level, age, state of residence, and gender, we found that for all respondents, attitude score was not affected by place of residence. This finding conflicts with Bath (1987) and Lohr et al. (1996), who found that place of residence was a factor. Our study included 191 (75%) respondents who resided in cities >10,000 people. Small sample size of people living in rural areas may be a reason for not finding a difference.

Prior studies have found that as respondent age increased, a more negative attitude toward wolves occurred (Hook and Robinson 1982, Kellert 1985, Bath 1987). We found no difference in age of respondent and attitude toward wolves (F= 0.33, P= 0.56). Our study included a wide range of ages (18-73 years) who were associated with academia and livestock. This may have given us a more representative sample from each type of stakeholder group.

Knowledge It is important to effective management to know

the level of knowledge people have about an issue. Hook and Robinson (1982) found that most people got their information from television. We found that respondents from Mexico got their information primarily from television (52%) and magazines (44%). Knowing where people are getting their information can also help managers to find the most optimum way to educate a target audience.

As education increased, knowledge of the wolf increased (Biggs 1988, Bath 1991). We found that although knowledge scores did increase slightly with education level, it was not significant (F= 1.98, P=0.07). Respondents with a doctorate scored on average only 2.4 points higher than those with <8 years of education.

Bath (1987) reported that wolf knowledge scores increased in urban environments. Similarly, we found that knowledge level of those living in cities with >10,000 inhabitants was high (4.0). However, we also found that people living in a rural environment, but not on a ranch, had a high level of knowledge (4.5) about the wolf. Those living in cities



tend to have more education and sources to learn about the wolf. Conversely, those living in rural environments may have had more personal experi- ence and history with the wolf, thereby acquiring more knowledge.

Acceptance of translocation Willingness of people to have wolves translocat-

ed is a key factor in whether a restoration program succeeds or fails. Hook and Robinson (1982) found that hostile behavior of humans toward wolves can limit wolf population growth. A majority of visitors to Yellowstone Park were in favor of translocation (McNaught 1985). We found that 63% of our respondents were in favor of translocating wolves into Mexico, as were 45% of those associated with livestock.

Those in favor of translocating the wolf tended to have a more positive attitude toward wolves and a stronger knowledge than those against wolf translocation. Bath (1987) found similar results for those in favor of translocation, and Lohr et al. (1996) found that knowledge affected willingness to reintroduce. It was not surprising that someone with more knowledge of the wolf would be more positive about translocation, but it does strengthen the argument for better education about the wolf prior to any recovery program. Effective education can be used to dispel fears about the wolf (Schoenecker and Shaw 1997).

Mitigation One of the arguments against wolf translocation

into Mexico was that wolves would kill livestock and harm the livestock industry. One possible solu- tion to this problem could be a compensation program from private organizations for losses due to wolf depredation. In the United States, Defenders of Wildlife compensates ranchers at fair market value for losses of livestock by reintroduced wolves. Since 1987 Defenders of Wildlife has paid out >$ 100,000 to ranchers (Hinrichsen 2000).

Of the 95 respondents who answered the mitigation section, approximately 50% said they would change their opinion from "against translocation" to "in favor of translocation" if livestock concerns were addressed. These findings differed from Bath (1987), who found that a majority of respondents would not change their opinion no matter what mitigation was offered. This information gives hope to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Mexico and the United States that cooperation may


be possible between those against and those in favor of translocation.

Reasons for translocation opinion Understanding why a person opposes to favors

translocation can assist wildlife managers and government entities in determining where to focus their energies toward the public. Attitudes of various audiences can be used to address specific poli- cy alternatives (Arthur et al. 1977). Overall, respondents who were against translocation were concerned with losses to livestock by wolves. This information could help in designing ads or information packets that target a specific group and its concerns.

Private landowners Opinions of private landowners are particularly

important in Mexico because of the influence they have on whether a restoration program succeeds or fails. Historic wolf range occurs in the Sierra Madre Occidental, connecting the states of Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico. Thirty-four percent of our respondents in Sonora and 60% from Chihuahua were in favor of translocation. We did not ask respondents what county or city they resided in, so it is possible that most of those in favor owned land outside areas that would be considered for translocation.

We found that private landowners had a good knowledge of the wolf, yet they still had a slightly more negative attitude than the group as a whole. Knowledge scores were high even though they received 40% and 51% of their information from magazines and television, respectively. Older private landowners were more likely to oppose translocation than younger landowners. This was consistent with Bath (1987), Biggs (1988), and Lohr et al. (1996).

Private landowners were in agreement with the overall group's reasons for being for or against translocation. Thirty-one percent also felt that if a compensation program were established, they would change their opinions from being against translocation. Therefore, just by addressing their concerns, the number of private landowners for translocation would increase to 72%. Sixty-two percent of those against translocation said they would change their opinions if wolves were kept in a nature reserve. This is highly unlikely because of historic land ownership, such as the ejido system, which would make it difficult to close off an area large enough for wolves to exist.



978 Wilaife Society Bulletin 2003, 31(4):971-979

Management implications Success of any translocation program involving

predators depends on public input and compromise. Wolf translocation into Mexico may be attempted in the future. Current studies are being conducted on prey density for wolves and preva- lence of diseases in the Sierra Madre Occidental, to aid in any translocation effort (M. Araiza, Defenders of Wildlife, personal communication).

Government officials and private organizations in Mexico need to concentrate their efforts on edu- cating the public about the wolf. They also should try to implement some kind of mitigation, such as compensation for livestock losses. A rural education program designed specifically to address concerns of fear, monetary losses, and negative attitudes will help to increase support and cooperation of stakeholders. Television, magazines, and information pamphlets could be used to deliver information to target audiences.

Additional questionnaires need to be designed and distributed to rural residents. One of the big problems with our survey was length. Although the survey was similar in size to questionnaires used in the United States, many people complained that it was too long. A shorter survey designed with rural residents in mind would be an alterna- tive. Also, response rates may increase if questionnaires are given out at meetings of special-interest groups and personally delivered to random house- holds. Eisenger et al. (1974) suggested using regis- tered mail to generate a more accurate estimate of return rate in international questionnaires. Registration can be expensive, but it is an option if face-to-face interviews are impractical.

Schoenecker and Shaw (1997: 54) state, "as long as people distrust the source, it is unlikely that they will accept the information provided." To facilitate a cohesive arrangement between landowners and the government, Mexico should address issues stakeholders have about trust. "An agency's public image plays a major role in how quickly a trusting relationship can be developed with community members" (Shanahan et al. 2001: 419).

Nongovernmental organizations are becoming more common in Mexico, and with their involvement, citizens may be more open to compromise. Forty-six percent of respondents felt the issue of wolf translocation was not important. It is essential for wildlife agencies and NGOs in Mexico and the United States to alter this opinion prior to any translocation program (Bright and Manfredo 1996).

Our results indicated that if wolf translocation is to succeed or even go forward in Mexico, several steps must be taken. Because livestock producers represent the group most likely to come in contact with the wolf, it is clear that additional education efforts, compensation programs, and other types of mitigation will be necessary to assure success of a wolf-translocation program in Mexico.

Acknowledgments. C. Alcala assisted with the distribution of questionnaires. The study was fund- ed by the Minority Students Program, the School of Renewable Natural Resources, the University of Arizona, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Literature cited ARTHUR, L. M., R. L. GUM, E. H. CARPENTERAND WW SHAW. 1977. Preda-

tor control: the public viewpoint. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 42: 137-145.

BANco NACIONAL DE COMERCiO EXTERIOR, S.A. 1960. Mexico 1960: facts, figures, trends. Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior, S. A., Mexico, Districto, Federal, Mexico.

BATH,A.J. 1987. Attitudes of various interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf reintroduction inYellowstone National Park. The- sis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA.

BATH,A.J. 1991. Public attitudes in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho toward wolf restoration inYellowstone National Park. Transac- tions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:91-95.

BATH, A. J., AND T. BUCHANAN. 1989. Attitudes of interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:519-525.

Bics, J. R. 1988. Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into New Mexico, an attitude survey. Thesis, New Mexico State Universi- ty, Las Cruces, USA.

BRIGHTA. D.,AND M.J. MANFREDO. 1996. A conceptual model of attitudes toward natural resource issues: a case study of wolf reintroduction. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1: 1-21.

BROWN, D. E. 1983. The wolf in the Southwest. The University of Arizona Press,Tucson, USA.

Buys, C. J. 1975. Predator control and ranchers' attitudes. Envi- ronment and Behavior 7:81-98.

DILLmAN D. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley-Intersection, New York, New York, USA.

DUDA, M. D., AND K. C.YOUNG. 1995. New Mexico residents' opinions toward Mexican wolf reintroduction. Responsive Man- agement Representatives, HarrisonburgVirginia, USA.

EISINGER, R.A.,W PJANIcKI, R. L. STEVENSONAND W L.THOMPSON. 1974. Increasing returns in international mail questionnaires. The Public Opinion Quarterly 38:124-130.

EscoBAR,A.,AND B. ROBERTS. 1998. Surveys as instruments of mod- ernization: the case of Mexico. American Behavioral Scientist 42:237-251.

GILBERT, E E 1995. Historical perspectives on wolf management in North America with special reference to humane treatments in capture methods. Pages 13-17 in L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and



D. R. Seip, editors. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

HINRICHSEN, D. 2000. Wolves around the world: the global status of the gray wolf. Defenders of Wildlife,Washington, D.C., USA.

HOOK, R.A.,ANDW L. ROBINSON. 1982. Attitudes of Michigan citizens toward predators. Pages 382-394 in F H. Harrington and P C. Paquet, editors. Wolves of the world. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey, USA.

INsTITUTo NAcIONAL DE ESTADISTICA, GEOGRAFIA E INFORIvIICA. 1996. Anuario estadistico del estado de Sonora. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica; [Sonora] Gobierno del Esta- do de Sonora, Aguascalientes, Mexico.

INs-rTuTo NAcIONAL DE ESTADISTICA, GEOGRAFIA E INFORMATICA. 1997. Anuario estadistico del estado de Chihuahua. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica; [Chihuahua] Gobierno del Estado de Chihuahua, Mexico, Mexico City, Mexi- co.

JOHNSON,T. B. 1990. Preliminary results of a public opinion survey of Arizona residents and interest groups about the Mexican wolf. Arizona Game and Fish Department, unpublished report.

KELLERT, S. R. 1985. Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biological Conservation 31:167-189.

LOHR, C., W B. BALLARD, AND A. BATH. 1996. Attitudes toward gray wolf reintroduction to New Brunswick. Wildlife Society Bul- letin 24:414-420.

McNAUGHT, D.A. 1985. Park visitor attitudes toward wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, USA.

NIELSEN, L. 1988. Definitions, considerations, and guidelines for translocation of wild animals. Pages 12-51 in L. Nielsen and R. D. Brown, editors. Translocation of wild animals. The Wiscon- sin Humane Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, and Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville,Texas, USA.

NIELSEN, L. A., AND B. A. KNUTH. 2001. People for people: education for the human dimension. Pages 401-422 in D.J. Decker,T. L. Brown, and W E Siemer, editors. Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPUBLICA. 1991. The Mexican Agenda. Direcci6n de Publicaciones, Mexico. Mexico City.

RODRIQUEZ, M. C. 2002. Attitudes of Mexican citizens about wolf translocation in Mexico. Thesis,The University of Arizona,Thc- son, USA.

SCHOENENCKER, K. A., AND W W SHAW. 1997. Attitudes toward a pro- posed reintroduction of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2:42-55.

SECRETARIA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE, RUCURsos NATURALES Y PESCA. 1997. Programa de conservacion de la vida silvestre y diversificacion productive en el sector rural. Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Rucursos Naturales y Pesca Instituto Nacional de Ecologia, Obregon, Mexico, Distrito Federal, Mexico.

SHANAHAN,J. E., D.J. DECKERAND L. M. PELSTRING. 2001. Communica- tion for effective wildlife management. Pages 171-194 in D.J. DeckerT. L. Brown, and W E Siemer, editors. Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement-Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf within its historic range in the Southwestern United States.' United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.


Magdalena Rodriguez (third from left) received her B.S. and M.S. in wildlife and fisheries science at the University of Arizona. She currently serves as a volunteer on the East Bay Parks Advisory Committee in Oakland, California. Her research interests include human dimensions in wildlife, especially at the urban/wildlands interface. She currently tutors children K-12 at the Sylvan Learning Center while looking for a wildlife job in the Bay Area. Paul R. Krausman (second from left) is professor of wildlife and fisheries science, University of Arizona, Tucson. He received a B.S. in zoology from Ohio State University, an M.S. in wildlife science from New Mexico State University, and a Ph.D. in wildlife ecology from the University of Idaho. Paul is co-advisor of the University of Arizona's TWS Student Chapter, Southwestern Section Representative on the TWS Council, associate editor for The Journal of Wildlife Management and Wildlife Society Bulletin, and the new editor of Wildlife Monographs. He is also program chair for the Third International Wildlife Management Congress in New Zealand. His research and teaching emphasize wildlife ecology and management, especially of large mammals in arid ecosystems. Warren B. Ballard (left) has conducted research or worked on nearly every big- game species in North America. Warren is currently professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Range, Wildlife and Fisheries Management at Texas Tech University. He received a Ph.D. in wildlife science from the University of Arizona, M.S. in environmental biology from Kansas State University, and B.S. in wildlife management from New Mexico State University. Carlos Vilialobos (right) is an associate professor in range management at Texas Tech University. He received his B.S. in animal hus- bandry and an M.S. in range science from the University of Chihuahua, Mexico, and his Ph.D. in range science from Texas Tech University in 1995. His current projects include research on the effects of prescribed burning on vegetation and small mammals, the effects of feeding energy and protein in cattle, and irrigation levels on B-Dahl pastures. William W. Shaw is professor and Chair, Wildlife and Fisheries Science, in the School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, where he has worked since 1 974. He has degrees from University of California, Berkeley (ecological science), Utah State (wildlife management), and the University of Michigan (natural resources). His research interests encompass topics that com- bine biology and the sociopolitical dimensions of wildlife conservation. He has published widely on topics dealing with the effects of urbanization on wildlife resources. He has also worked on studies involving relationships between protected areas and local people in many countries throughout the world. In 1988 he received the Daniel Leedy Award for Urban Wildlife Conservation. Since 1999 he has served as a scientific advisor to Pima County, Arizona, and as chair of the Science and Technical Advisory Team for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.

Special editor: Applegate



Documents

Attitudes of Mexican Citizens about Wolf Translocation in Mexico