1. Public survey regarding attitudes toward wolf management in Wisconsin (2004-5) Lisa Naughton, Ph.D.,Assoc. Professor and Adrian Treves, Ph.D.,Research Scientist University of Wisconsin, Madison

2. Survey Objective Measure attitudes regarding ‘problem wolf’ management and compensation programs between: 1. contributors to ER fund vs. general public 2. livestock producers vs. non-livestock producers

3. 2004 Survey (n=2400) Frequency of Percentage of Endangered Resources License Plates purchased in each Wisconsin Zipcode 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Bins 0.4 1 1.62.22.83.4 4 4.65.25.86.4 7 Percentage of ER Plates over Total Plates (%) Number of Zipcodes Fond du Lac Butternut Sister Bay Owen Wausau Madison

4. 2400 surveys mailed RESPONSE RATE* 63.7% *Excluding 47 surveys that were undeliverable. Note that sample size varies for each question due to the fact that not all individuals answered every question.

5. Attitudes regarding wolf management By Contribution

6. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Madison (n=199) Fond du Lac (n=175) Sister Bay (n=177) Wausau (n=188) Butternut (n=240) Owen (n=194) Contributors Non-contributors Contributors to Endangered Resources fund (n=1173)

7. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Should be compensated in any case Only if following BEST HUSBANDRY PRACTICES Should not be compensated Contributors to ER fund (n=229) Non-contributors (n=930) agreement Under what conditions should individuals be compensated for loss of livestock to wolves? - Part 1 Pearson chi-square=38.7 p<0.001

8. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Should be compensated in any case Only if EVIDENCE OF WOLF is found Should NOT be compensated Contributors to ER fund (n=227) Non-contributors (n=934) agreement Under what conditions should individuals be compensated for loss of livestock to wolves? – Part 2 Pearson chi-square=20.0 p<0.001

9. Contributors to ER fund (n=227) Non-contributors (n=934) agreement Pearson chi-square=19.7 p<0.001 Under what conditions should individuals be compensated for loss of hunting dogs to wolves? Should be compensated in any case Only if EVIDENCE OF WOLF is found Should NOT be compensated 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

10. My tolerance for wolves would decrease if compensation programs were no longer available. (contributors vs. non-contributors) Pearson chi-square=23.8 p<0.001

11. Even when wolves are no longer threatened or endangered, compensation programs should continue. (contributors vs. non-contributors) Pearson chi-square=7.6 p=0.108

12. Who should pay for compensation programs (contributors vs. non-contributors) ER=Endangered Resources Private insurance=purchased by livestock owners agreement

13. Attitudes toward lethal control of wolves 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% livestock killed family pet killed hunting dog killed on public land Contribution (n=230) No contribution (n=951) favor lethal control * * * Pearson chi-square * p<0.001

14. Attitudes regarding wolf management Livestock producers* vs. Non- livestock producers *Defined in this survey as all those individuals who at any time in their lives depended on raising livestock as a significant source of income, and also those individuals whose parents depended on raising livestock as a significant source of income.

15. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Livestock producers (n=460) Non-livestock producers (n=830) agreement Under what conditions should individuals be compensated for loss of livestock to wolves? Part 1 Pearson chi-square=65.0 p<0.001 Should be compensated in any case Only if following BEST HUSBANDRY PRACTICES Should not be compensated

16. Livestock producers (n=460) Non-livestock producers (n=830) Under what conditions should individuals be compensated for loss of livestock to wolves? Part 2 Pearson chi-square=15.5 p<0.001 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% agreement Should be compensate d in any case Only if EVIDENCE OF WOLF is found Should NOT be compensated

17. Losses/damages caused by wolves are a part of raising livestock and should not be compensated. (livestock producers vs. non-livestock producers) Pearson chi-square=87.3 p<0.001

18. Even when wolves are no longer threatened or endangered, compensation programs should continue. (livestock producers vs. non-livestock producers) Pearson chi-square=44.0 p<0.001

19. Who should pay for compensation programs (livestock producers vs. non-livestock producers) ER=Endangered Resources Private insurance=purchased by livestock owners agreement

20. Conclusions 1. Broad support for compensation of livestock lost to wolves (91% of all respondents vs. 95% among respondents who were contributors to ER fund). 2. Lower public support for compensation of hunting dogs killed by wolves (53% of all respondents vs. 44% among respondents who were contributors to ER fund). 3. Majority of respondents think that compensation should be predicated on: Evidence of wolf attack (80% of all respondents) Best Management Practices (67% of all respondents vs. 55% among respondents who were livestock producers)

21. Conclusions (cont.) Majority of respondents state compensation should be predicated on evidence & BMP (including livestock producers). Majority of respondents prefer ER fund as source of compensation. The majority of contributors to ER opposed to lethal control of problem wolves but were willing to accept a public hunt or trapping season: “if depredations are unmanageable” (72%) “if sustainable” (42%)