The Animal Welfare Challenge to Hunting At Cape Cod National Seashore: Does Social Conflict Predict Onsite Conflict? Walter F. Kuentzel Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources University of Vermont

Pro-Hunting/Anti-Hunting Controversy

What’s All the Fuss? 1961 Enabling Legislation Permitted Hunting Not Many Hunters (~2000) Perhaps Low Profile Poor Habitat

The Legal Challenge Fund for Animals Fund for Animals, Humane Society of US, Area Residents Stopped the Pheasant Hunt Conditions Have Changed Ordered an EIS - All Hunting Programs

Recreation Conflict Literature Early Research –Activity Based –Status Based –Asymmetrical

Recreation Conflict Literature Goal Interference Activity Style Resource Specificity Mode of Experience Tolerance for Lifestyle Diversity

Recreation Conflict Literature Social Values Conflict –Face-to-Face contact not necessary –Ideological Position

How do we know when people are different? and How do we know when those differences matter? Social Identity Theory 1) Positive In-Group; Negative Out-Group Attributions 2) Variation in Willingness to Attribute Differences 3) Self-Identity and Group Membership

Hunting Attitudes Group Identification Onsite Conflict Hunter Survey –Field –License –Volunteer Resident Survey –6 Cape Towns –Seashore Property

Mailed Questionnaire August – Sept., Contact Protocol Hunter – 60.4% (n=413) Resident – 57.9% (n=754)

Onsite Conflict Hunters: I have been harassed by people who were not hunting at the Seashore. While hunting at the Seashore, I have argued with non-hunters Residents : I have felt unsafe seeing people hunting in the Seashore. I have felt unsafe hearing shots from people hunting at the Seashore. 4-Point Scale: 1)No, not at all 2)No, not much 3)Yes, somewhat 4)Yes, definitely

Hunter Harassment How were you harassed? (n=323, 46.5%) 94 – Verbal abuse 15 – Noise (car horns, whistles, loud music 42 – Field protests 5 – Obscene gestures 6 – Called the authorities 7 – other (frightening dogs, scratching vehicles

Hunter Harassment What did you do about it? 44 – Ignored them, went about my business 61 – Moved away, continued my hunt 14 – Talked with the people 7 – Contacted Seashore officials 14 – Left the Seashore 6 - Other

Hunter Arguments What was the argument about? (n=47, 13.4%) 16 – Anti-hunting 2 – Pheasants 7 – Hunters and safety 2 – Conflicting activities 15 – Miscellaneous hunting issues 5 – Not specified

Residents Who Felt Unsafe Around Hunters What did you do about it? (n=232, 33.6%) 60 – I did nothing 16 – Contacted Seashore officials 14 – Wore blaze orange 49 – Moved away from hunters 56 – Left the Seashore 5 – Asked hunters to move 23 - Other

Residents Who Felt Unsafe Hearing Shots What did you do about it? (n=236, 35.6%) 78 – I did nothing 12 – Contacted Seashore officials 7 – Wore blaze orange 42 – Moved away from hunters 54 – Left the Seashore 5 – Asked hunter to move 28 - Other

Pro-Hunting/Anti-Hunting Scale 8 Pro-Hunting Statements – 8 Anti-Hunting Statements (Adapted from Wood, 1997) Examples: Pro-Hunting Hunting is an important wildlife management tool Hunting should be supported, because it is an important tradition in American culture Examples: Anti-Hunting Hunting encourages a culture of violence in today’s society Hunting is cruel, because hunters wound and cripple too many animals Additive Index from -32 to +32

Attitudes About Hunting

Social Identity Scale 5 Semantic Differential Scales Quiet-Loud Safe-Unsafe Humble-Arrogant Courteous-Discourteous Friendly-Unfriendly Sum the Differences – Average – 0 to 96

Importance of Group Differences

Onsite Conflict Model Pro-Hunting/Anti-Hunting (~Social Values Conflict) Social Identity Resource Specificity (Hunters) Frequency of Use (~Activity Style) Onsite Conflict