If you have talked to ranchers or people who live near wolves about being able to shoot them without landing in prison with a mandatory Federal jail sentence, the response is clear: Wolves have to be controlled. If you talk to urban activists or people who hike on state game lands a few weekends a year, wolves are cute and anyone who shoots one should go to jail.

Yet that is not the real issue, according to the authors of a new paper that used surveys as their evidence. They believe the reason for the rancor is fear of wolves or the urge to care for canis lupis. It's simply social identity theory at work. People who live near wolves have never heard of that but they already know where the article in PLOS ONE is going.

"People who are for or against this issue are often cast into traditional lots, such as gender, political party or where they live," said Meredith Gore, associate professor of fisheries and wildlife
at Michigan State University
and co-author of the study. "This issue, however, isn't playing out like this. Concerns about hunting wolves to reduce conflict are split more by social geography and less by physical geography."

Gore believes social psychology will help. People just need to talk to each other. Like in the Mid-East, where they know each other as well as any two people can know each other and get along just fine.

Fear and caring are driving the wolf-hunting debate. Credit: G.L. Kohuth

"The concept of how our identity drives our activism is quite interesting," said Gore. "Our findings challenge traditional assumptions about regional differences and suggest a strong role for social identity in why people support or oppose wildlife management practices."

In other words, it is urban versus rural. People who don't live there have an easy time endorsing a policy that does not impact their livestock, children or pets. 

The majority of the nearly 670 surveys were collected from Michigan residents interested in wolf-hunting as a management response to wolf conflicts. However, a small percentage of the data was gathered from participants in 21 states. Noting that there's sharp polarization in debates about wolf management is not new. However, providing empirical evidence of its existence is new and meaningful because it provides a framework for improving engagement between the fighting factions.

For example, communications may be better directed toward each identity group's concerns of fear and care for wolves. These missives could be more effective than messages simply directed toward pro-hunters or anti-hunters. Identity-specific communications may also help build trust between agencies and stakeholders.

"These types of communications may not only build trust, but they can also contribute to a sense of procedural justice," Gore said. "This, in turn, may increase support for decision-makers and processes regardless of the outcome."

Also, by shaping and discussing the issue in terms of care and fear, rather than traditional qualifiers, may help usher in a greater agreement about management strategies, they believe.