1. Managing the Public Trust and Hunters’ Trust Brent A. Rudolph – Michigan DNR Shawn J. Riley – Michigan State University Factors Affecting Trust in Agencies & Cooperation with Deer Management

2. Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Rocky Mountain Goats Foundation Safari Club International – Michigan Involvement Committee Managing the Public Trust and Hunters’ Trust Brent A. Rudolph – Michigan DNR Shawn J. Riley – Michigan State University Factors Affecting Trust in Agencies & Cooperation with Deer Management Additional Funding:

3. Wildlife Management North America: late 19 th century: public trust resources state agencies regulate consumption

4. Wildlife Management North America: late 19 th century: public trust resources state agencies regulate consumption sustain the public trust, allow for “use and enjoyment”

5. Michigan: Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) only state with sustained deer infection 1995 ≈ 5% prevalence present ≈ 1% prevalence

6. Michigan: Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) only state with sustained deer infection 1995 ≈ 5% prevalence present ≈ 1% prevalence regulation & economic impacts on livestock and dairy industries

7. Hunter Cooperation Deer population reduction efforts: liberal antlerless hunting opportunity 50-60% purchase antlerless licenses deer numbers declined, then increased again Annual bTB Area Deer Population Estimate

8. Conceptual Framework: Instrumental Instrumental model of behavior: “Rational calculation of utility.”

9. Conceptual Framework: Normative Social Norms Moral Norms Normative model of behavior:

10. Conceptual Framework: Normative Moral Norms “…the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct… his acts… are dictated by his conscience…” - Aldo Leopold (1949)

11. Conceptual Framework: Authority Social Norms Moral Norms

12. Conceptual Framework: Authority Procedural Justice

13. Appropriate exercise of power Internalized obligation to obey or otherwise support authorities Conceptual Framework: Authority Procedural Justice

14. Instrumental Judgments Conceptual Framework: Authority Authorities are protecting individual’s personal interests Provide personal gains

15. Procedural Justice NeutralityInputJustification Goal AgreementEquityPerformance Conceptual Framework: Trust Instrumental Normative Trust Instrumental Judgments

16. Procedural Justice NeutralityInputJustification Trust Conceptual Framework: Trust Goal AgreementEquityPerformance Instrumental Judgments “I trust the MDNR to establish appropriate deer hunting rules.” Instrumental Normative

17. Procedural Justice NeutralityInputJustification Cooperation Conceptual Framework: Cooperation Goal AgreementEquityPerformance Social Normative Gains Moral Personal Gains Deer Hunting Instrumental Judgments Instrumental Normative Antlerless licenses: ≥3 of last 5 years

18. Research Conceptual Framework Expert Review Public Comments Semi-Structured Interviews

19. Research Methods Mail survey Initial sample: 2,824 Adjusted sample: 2,617 1,336 returned (51%) IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Data compilation & review Factor analysis: structure detection, internal validity Software R Logistic regression (logit modeling) Significance tests

20. Procedural Justice Trust Results Instrumental Judgments Statistically significant Good fit to data

21. Procedural Justice Trust Results Instrumental Judgments Instrumental Normative NeutralityInputJustification Goal AgreementEquityPerformance 6 of 14 variables

22. Procedural Justice Cooperation Results Social Normative Gains Moral Personal Gains Deer Hunting Instrumental Judgments Statistically significant Poor fit to data

23. Procedural Justice Cooperation Results SocialMoral Personal Gains Deer HuntingInstrumental Judgments Instrumental Normative 1 of 23 variables NeutralityInputJustification Goal AgreementEquityPerformance Normative Gains

24. Discussion: Normative Influence Trust & Procedural Justice Consistency, best science, explaining alternatives Input: may not be needed when otherwise just may not help when not otherwise just Cooperation & Procedural Justice Justification: negative correlation to bTB eradication

25. Discussion: Instrumental Influence Cooperation & instrumental overall No significant variables Trust & Instrumental Judgments Producing valuable outcomes Sharing goals positive correlation: eradicating deer bTB negative correlation: eradicating livestock bTB

26. Implications Trust may be intentionally influenced, but details matter! Cooperation resists influence trust does not directly translate no apparent personal gains

27. Questions or Future Contacts Brent Rudolph rudolphb@michigan.gov Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center 8562 E. Stoll Road East Lansing, MI 48823 Brent Rudolph rudolphb@michigan.gov Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center 8562 E. Stoll Road East Lansing, MI 48823