Effects of impact perception on acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer

Journal of Wildlife Management

Volumn 72, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 502-509

  Lischka, Stacy A ^a,c   Riley, Shawn J ^a   Rudolph, Brent A ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptance capacity; Impacts; Management; Michigan; Odocoileus virginianus; Stakeholders; White tailed deer

Indexed keywords

DEER; HUNTING; PERCEPTION; STAKEHOLDER; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

MICHIGAN; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

CERVIDAE; ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS;

EID: 39449115931     PISSN: 0022541X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2193/2007-117     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Albert, D. A., S. R. Denton, and B. V. Barnes. 1986. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
2. Brown, T. L., D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley, J. W. Enck, T. B. Lauber, P. D. Curtis, and G. F. Mattfeld. 2000. The future of hunting as a mechanism to control white-tailed deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:797-807.
3. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.
4. Carpenter, L. H., D. J. Decker, and J. F. Lipscomb. 2000. Stakeholder acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:5-19.
5. Clendenning, G., D. R. Field, and K. J. Kapp. 2005. A comparison of seasonal homeowners and permanent residents on their attitudes toward wildlife management on public lands. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:3-17.
6. Cooper, J. L., P. J. Higman, J. Spieles, M. R. Penskar, D. L. Cuthreil, Y. M. Lee, D. A. Albert, and L. Pelz-Lewis. 2000. Inventory and management recommendations for Pinckney and Waterloo State Recreation Areas' natural communities, rare plants and rare wildlife: report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Parks and Recreation Division, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, USA.
7. Davis, J. S., A. C. Nelson, and K. J. Duecker. 1994. The new 'burbs: the exurbs and their implications for planning policy. Journal of the American Planning Association 60:45-59.
8. Decker, D. J., and L. C. Chase. 1997. Human dimensions of living with wildlife - a management challenge for the 21st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:788-795.
9. Decker, D. J., C. A. Jacobson, and T. L. Brown. 2006. Situation-specific "impact dependency" as a determinant of management acceptability: insights from wolf and grizzly bear management in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:426-432.
10. Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:53-57.
11. Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: the Tailored Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.
12. Enck, J. W., D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley, J. F. Organ, L. H. Carpenter, and W. F. Siemer. 2006. Integrating ecological and human dimensions in adaptive management of wildlife-related impacts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:698-705.
13. Frawley, B. J. 2004a. Demographics, recruitment, and retention of Michigan hunters. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division Report 3426, Lansing, USA.
14. Frawley, B. J. 2004b. Michigan deer harvest survey report: 2003 seasons. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division Report 3418, Lansing, USA.
15. Gigliotti, L., D. J. Decker, and L. H. Carpenter. 2000. Developing the wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity concept: research needed. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:76-82.
16. Gill, R. B. 1996. The wildlife professional subculture: the case of the crazy aunt. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1:60-69.
17. Heberlein, T. A., and G. Ericsson. 2005. Ties to the countryside: accounting for urbanites attitudes toward hunting, wolves and wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:213-227.
18. Horner, S. M. 2000. Embryo, not fossil: breathing life into the public trust in wildlife. Land and Water Review 35:23-78.
19. Lischka, S. A. 2006. Enabling impact-based management of acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer in southern Michigan. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.
20. Loker, C. A., D. J. Decker, and S. J. Schwager. 1999. Social acceptability of wildlife management actions in suburban areas: 3 cases from New York. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:152-159.
21. Madill, H., and W. Rustem. 2001. Michigan land resource project. Public Sector Consultants Technical Report, Lansing, Michigan, USA.
22. Manfredo, M. J., and H. C. Zinn. 1996. Population change and its implications for wildlife management in the new west: a case study of Colorado. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1:62-74.
23. Mankin, P. C., R. E. Warner, and W. L. Anderson. 1999. Wildlife and the Illinois public: a benchmark study of attitudes and perceptions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:465-472.
24. Milbrath, L. W. 1984. Environmentalists: vanguard for a new society. State University of New York Press, Albany, USA.
25. Minnis, D. L., and R. B. Peyton. 1995. Cultural carrying capacity: modeling a notion. Pages 19-34 in J. B. McAnnich, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section of The Wildlife Society, 12-14 December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
26. Peyton, B., P. Bull, T. Reis, and L. Visser. 2001. An assessment of the social carrying capacity of black bears in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, East Lansing, USA.
27. Potts, R., E. Gustafson, S. I. Stewart, F. R. Thompson, K. Bergen, D. G. Brown, R. Hammer, V. Redeloff, D. Bengston, J. Sauer, and B. Sturtevant. 2004. The changing Midwest assessment: land cover, natural resources, and people. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Section General Technical Report NC-250, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
28. Riley, S. J., and D. J. Decker. 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:931-939.
29. Riley, S. J., D. J. Decker, L. H. Carpenter, J. F. Organ, W. F. Siemer, G. F. Mattfeld, and G. Parsons. 2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:585-593.
30. Riley, S. J., W. F. Siemer, D. J. Decker, L. H. Carpenter, J. F. Organ, and L. T. Berchielli. 2003. Adaptive impact management: an integrative approach to wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:81-95.
31. Teel, T. L., R. S. Krannich, and R. H. Schmidt. 2002. Utah stakeholders' attitudes toward selected cougar and black bear management practices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:2-15.
32. U.S. Census Bureau [USCB]. 1995. 1990 Census of population and housing unit counts - Michigan. 〈http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cph2/cph-2-24. pdf〉. Accessed 13 Jun 2005.
33. U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistical Service [USDA-NASS]. 2002. 2002 Census of agriculture county profile - Livingston, Jackson and Washtenaw counties, Michigan. 〈http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/ census02/profiles/mi/index.htm〉. Accessed 13 Jun 2005.
34. Vaske, J. J., M. P. Donnelly, D. R. Williams, and S. Jonker. 2001. Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Society and Natural Resources 14:761-776.
35. Warren, R. J., editor. 1997. The challenge of deer overabundance in the 21st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:213-562.
36. Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, and J. J. Vaske. 2000. Social psychological basis for stakeholder acceptance capacity. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:20-33.