-
Identifier
-
Thesis_MES_2022Wi_BlacklawJ
-
Title
-
MAINTAINING LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE NATURAL WORLD:
REINTRODUCTION OF GRAY WOLVES (Canis lupus) TO
OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
-
Date
-
March 2022
-
Creator
-
Blacklaw, James
-
extracted text
-
MAINTAINING LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE NATURAL WORLD:
REINTRODUCTION OF GRAY WOLVES (Canis lupus) TO
OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK
by
James Blacklaw
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
March, 2022
©2022 by James Blacklaw. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
James Blacklaw
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Ralph Murphy, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
MAINTAINING LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE NATURAL WORLD:
REINTRODUCTION OF GRAY WOLVES (Canis lupus) TO
OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK AS A CASE STUDY
James Blacklaw
The Olympic Mountains in northwestern Washington State are home to a unique mixture
of plants and animals, some of whom are endemic and/or listed as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Of the 15 threatened or endangered species
currently listed for the Olympic Mountains, only the gray wolf (Canis lupis) was
deliberately eradicated by early European settlers to the region. The loss of this apexpredator was an unmitigated disaster for this rare ecosystem. It is important to reestablish
gray wolves in Olympic National Park (Olympic NP) to: A) recover lost ecosystem
services, B) maintain prey and mesocarnivore populations at sustainable levels within the
park and adjacent lands, and C) provide federally protected habitat for wolf population
recovery objectives of Washington State. However, wolf reintroductions are controversial
and thus require an examination into possible common ground solutions. Using Human
Dimensions theory as a practical framework, this thesis investigated wolf and human
coexistence in the United States. Additionally, this thesis examined ecological, social, and
political influences on land management decisions made by agencies such as the National
Park Service. Using an internet-based snowball survey, this research focused on people in
the agricultural sector that resided in the Olympic Peninsula Region, near projected wolf
recovery zones to: A) assess their natural resource conservation social norms and values,
B) ascertain demographically which subgroups support/do not support reintroductions and
why, and C) determine if common ground solutions are possible. Findings from the survey
indicate that among this target audience, there is more support than opposition to wolf
reintroductions at Olympic NP and highlighted areas of consensus among stakeholders.
This thesis recommends that a randomized survey of the Olympic Peninsula be conducted
to verify the findings of this pilot study, that Olympic NP immediately begin a wolf
reintroduction social marketing campaign aimed at improving the attitudes that
stakeholders have towards wolves, and to not reintroduce gray wolves at Olympic NP until
at least the first two recommendations have been addressed. If biologists refuse to learn
from mistakes made at Yellowstone National Park after reintroductions in 1995, gray
wolves at Olympic NP likely will be the ones to suffer from history repeating itself.
Table of Contents
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………..…….……..vi
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………..…….x
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………….…….…..xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………5
2.1 - Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….5
2.2 - Gray Wolves in the United States …………………………………………………….7
2.3 - National Park Service: Legacy of Predator-culling Programs ………………………10
2.4 - Reintroductions vs. Recolonization ………………………………………………...15
2.5 - Olympic Peninsula ………………………………………………………………….17
CHAPTER 3: METHODS ……………………………………………………………..28
3.1 - Research Objectives ………………………………………………………………..28
3.2 - Acquiring Data on Human Subjects ………………………………………………..28
3.3 - Survey Instrument …………………………………………………………………..30
3.4 - Analysis …………………………………………………………………………….31
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...…………………………………………………………….32
4.1 – Summary ...…………………………………………………………………………32
4.2 - Background Demographics …………………………...……………………………32
4.3 - Age and Gender: Indicators of Support for Reintroduction ………………………..36
4.4 - Factors for an Acceptable Wolf Management Plan …………………………………38
4.5 - Would Reintroductions be an Advantage or Disadvantage …..……………………..42
4.6 - Coexisting with Wolves ……………………………………………………………43
4.7 - Lethal Removal …………………………………………………………………….45
iv
4.8 - Reducing Human-Wolf Conflict ……………………………………………………46
4.9 - Level of Concern …………………………………………………………………...46
4.10 - Support for Reintroductions ……………………………………………………….47
4.11 - Comments …………………………………………………………………………49
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………..52
5.1 - Introduction ………………………………………………………………………...52
5.2 - Human Dimensions and Findings …………………………………………………..52
5.3 - Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………….54
5.4 - Future Research …………………………………………………………………….54
5.5 - Recommendations ………………………………………………………………….55
WORK CITED …………………………………………………………………………56
APPENDICIES ...……………………………………………………………………….59
APPENDIX A: Institutional Review Board Application ……….…………………….59
APPENDIX B: General Email Introduction ………………………………………….67
APPENDIX C: Institutional Review Board Approval Letter ………………………..68
APPENDIX D: Survey Instrument ……………………………………………………69
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of the historic range of gray wolf vs. current range (after reintroductions at
Yellowstone National Park) in North America (National Park Service, 2022).
……………………………………………………………………………………..8
Figure 2: Moose-wolf population fluctuations at Isle Royal National Park, 1959-2002
(Smith et al., 2003). ………………………………………………..……………..10
Figure 3: Diagram of trophic cascade at Olympic National Park after wolf extirpation
(Beschta et al., 2008). ....…………………………………………….……….…..12
Figure 4: Map of gray wolf packs in Washington State (WDFW, 2021). ……………......16
Figure 5: Estimated abundance of Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula with and
without gray wolves in the Hoh, Queets, and Quinault River catchments from 1900
to 2000 (Beschta et al., 2008). ………………………………………………...….20
Figure 6: Number of trees in stands of black cottonwood (a), and bigleaf maple (b) within
Olympic National Park and black cottonwood (c) outside the park in Quinault
Indian Nation lands by decade. Age classes marked with * are below 95%
confidence limit (Beschta et al., 2008). …………………………………………..22
Figure 7: Native plants aggressively recolonize disturbed habitat in response to elk
exclusionary fencing at Olympic National Park after 26 years (Larson et al., 2007).
……………………………………………………………………………………24
Figure 8: Recovery regions within Washington State for the gray wolf (Bassing, 2021).
……………………………………………………………………………………26
Figure 9: When asked if respondents currently live, work, or own land on the Olympic
Peninsula, 95% of respondents claimed to either live, work, or own land on the
Olympic Peninsula at the time of the survey. This indicates that the majority of
respondents are from the target geographic area (n = 20). …………………….....33
Figure 10: I asked respondents if they work in agriculture to determine if I reached my
target audience, 69% of respondents said they worked in agriculture, and 31% said
they did not. One respondent did not answer this question (n = 19). …………….33
Figure 11: This figure cross tabulated respondents’ answers to: do you work in
agriculture? and their affiliation as a hunter, farmer, forester, or rancher to clarify
if respondents were part of the agricultural sector as a whole. Of the respondents
who answered yes to working in agriculture (69% of the total respondents), 16.67%
said they were a hunter, 61.11% said they were a farmer, 5.56 said they were a
forester, and 16.67% said they were a rancher. Of the respondents who answered
no to working in agriculture (31% of the total respondents), 37.5% said they were
a hunter, 37.5% said they were a farmer, 12.5% said they were a forester, and/or
vi
12.5% said they were a rancher. Only one respondent (11% of the respondents who
answered no to working in agriculture) said they did not work in agriculture and
were not a hunter, farmer, forester, or rancher. One respondent did not answer
either question (n = 19). ………………………………………………………….34
Figure 12: Respondents described themselves as: 10% Native American or Alaskan
Native, 70% White or Caucasian, with 20% selecting that they preferred not to say
(n = 20). ………………………………………………………………………….34
Figure 13: The respondents indicated they were: 30% male, 55% female, with 15%
selecting they preferred not to say (n = 20). ……………………………………..35
Figure 14: Respondents indicated their level of education were: 70% with a bachelor’s
degree, 15% with a master's degree, and an additional 15% with a Ph.D. (n = 20).
……………………………………………………………………………………35
Figure 15: Respondents who answered this question indicated that their ages at the time
of survey to be: 33% between 30 and 39, 11% between 40 and 49, 11% between
50 and 59, 33% between 60 and 69, and 11% between 70 and 79 years old. Two
respondents did not answer this question (n = 18). ………………………………36
Figure 16: This figure cross tabulated the respondents’ answers to: How would you feel
about the prospect of wolves being reintroduced at Olympic National Park? and
their age at time of survey. The result indicated that there is more support for
reintroductions among the younger respondents than among the older ones (n = 20).
……………………………………………………………………………………37
Figure 17: This figure cross tabulated the respondents’ answers to: How would you feel
about the prospect of wolves being reintroduced at Olympic National Park? and
their gender. The result indicates that both female and male respondents were
equally likely to support reintroductions. However, males were very supportive of
reintroductions while females who opposed reintroductions were more likely to be
very opposed than somewhat opposed (n = 20). …………………………………37
Figure 18: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is incorporating input from
all stakeholders when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and 95% of
respondents said it is very important, with 5% remained neutral. No respondents
said it was not at all important or were unsure (n = 20). …………………………39
Figure 19: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is using evidence-based
conservation practices when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and of
the respondents who answered this question 95% of respondents said it is very
important, with 5% remained neutral. No respondents said it was not at all
important or were unsure. One respondent did not answer this question (n = 19).
……………………………………………………………………………………39
vii
Figure 20: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is educating people about
wolves when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and of the respondents
who answered this question 95% of respondents said it is very important, with 5%
remained neutral. No respondents said it was not at all important or were unsure.
One
respondent
did
not
answer
this
question
(n
=
19).
……………………………………………………………………………………40
Figure 21: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is adequately compensating
ranchers and farmers for wolf-killed livestock when making an acceptable wolf
management plan? and 65% of respondents said it is very important, 20% remained
neutral, 10% said it was not at all important, and 5% said they were unsure (n =
20). ………………………………………………………………………………40
Figure 22: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is keeping wolf populations
at agreed upon levels when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and 50%
of respondents said it is very important, 30% remained neutral, 5% said it was not
at all important, and 15% said they were unsure (n = 20). ……………………….41
Figure 23: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is allowing for sport hunting
once wolf populations recover when making an acceptable wolf management plan?
and 20% of respondents said it is very important, 25% remained neutral, and 55%
said it was not at all important. No respondents said they were unsure (n = 20).
……………………………………………………………………………………41
Figure 24: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is returning control to states
as soon as possible when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and of the
respondents who answered this question 6% of respondents said it is very
important, 50% remained neutral, 22% said it was not at all important, and 22%
said they were unsure. Two respondents did not answer this question (n = 18).
……………………………………………………………………………………42
Figure 25: Respondents were asked to what extent do you feel that reintroducing wolves
at Olympic National Park would be a disadvantage or advantage to you
personally? and 20% of respondents said reintroductions would be a huge
disadvantage, 10% said it would be a slight disadvantage, 45% were neutral, 10%
said they it would be a slight advantage, and 15% said it would be a huge advantage
(n = 20). ………………………………………………………………………….43
Figure 26: Respondents were asked in your opinion, where should humans and wolves
coexist? and of the respondents who answered this question 63% of respondents
said historic habitats, 95% said secluded wilderness, 68% said national parks, 68%
said public lands, and 42% said private lands. One respondent did not answer this
question (n = 19). ………………………………………………………………...44
viii
Figure 27: Respondents were asked if you could choose, where do you think wolves should
be allowed to live? and of the respondents who answered this question 74% of
respondents said historic habitats, 95% said secluded wilderness, 74% said national
parks, 74% said public lands, and 42% said private lands. One respondent did not
answer this question (n = 19). ……………………………………………………44
Figure 28: Respondents were asked in your opinion, wolves can be lethally removed if …?
and of the respondents who answered this question 100% of respondents said if it
kills a pet or livestock, 58% said if it threatens a pet or livestock, and 33% said if
it is on public land. 8 respondents did not answer this question (n = 12). ……….45
Figure 29: Respondents were asked how effective are each of the following at reducing
human-wolf conflicts? The data reflects the most effective factor, educating people
about wolves (50%), on the left to the least effective factor, fencing (44%), on the
right. Three respondents did not fully answer this question (n = 17/18). ………..46
Figure 30: Respondents were asked if biologists at Olympic National Park were
considering reintroducing gray wolves, what level of concerned would you feel for
each of the following examples? The data reflects the least concerning example,
increased danger to humans (30%), followed by declines in Elk and Deer
populations (35%), and increased danger to livestock (40%) (n = 20). …………47
Figure 31: Respondents were asked to what extent to you disagree or agree that humans
should be reintroducing wolves to their historic habitats? and 30% of respondents
strongly agree that humans should be reintroducing wolves to their historic
habitats, 20% somewhat agree, 35% disagree, and 15% are neutral (n = 20). ….48
Figure 32: Respondents were asked how would you feel about the prospect of wolves being
reintroduced at Olympic NP? and 30% of respondents are very supportive about
the prospect of reintroductions of wolves to Olympic NP, 20% somewhat
supportive, 25% are very opposed, 15% are somewhat opposed, and 10% are
neutral (n = 20). ………………………………………………………………….49
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Estimated abundance of elk Olympic National Park using survey data collected
between 2008-2015 (Jenkins et al., 2021). …………………………………….…18
x
Acknowledgements
I offer my sincere gratitude to my thesis reader Ralph Murphy, the faculty at Evergreen,
my family, and friends who helped with this thesis and supported me through my
educational journey.
xi
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
“The real wealth of the Nation lies in the resources of the earth—soil,
water, forests, minerals, and wildlife. To utilize them for present needs
while ensuring their preservation for future generations requires a
delicately balanced and continuing program, based on the most extensive
research. Their administration is not properly, and cannot be, a matter of
politics.”
-Rachel Carson
In European folklore and mythology, wolves symbolize “… our fears and our
idealizations of wilderness …” (Jones, 2011, p. 201). These symbolic constructs along
with religious beliefs, capitalism, and manifest destiny would form the European
ideology that would eventually justify the eradication of gray wolves (Canis lupus) who
thrived in North America well before white settlers began to colonize the continent.
Regardless of their biological importance to the ecosystems they inhabit, by the 1930s,
wolves were purged from most of their native range in the continental United States
(Babcock, 2013).
As white settlers trudged west during their conquest of native lands, they
relentlessly hunted wolves out of fear and because humans and wolves compete for the
same resources—food and territory (Babcock, 2013). Eventually, killing wolves became
a social norm that reinforced the values held by the settlers: “… extirpating predators and
resisting federal mandates …” (Babcock, 2013, p. 56). Having little chance to protect
themselves from humans, wolves faced the real possibility of extinction within the United
States (U.S.). Carrol et al. in 2006 noted that by the 1950’s, wolf populations in the U.S.
were critically low, occupying approximately 1% of their native range with less than
1000 individuals.
1
With the rapid disappearance of gray wolves and loss of their habitat in mind,
recovery plans were set into motion with the enactment of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (Babcock, 2013; Carrol et al., 2006). After reintroductions at Yellowstone National
Park (Yellowstone NP) in 1995, negative attitudes from the general public towards
wolves eventually began to improve to a more favorable outlook. However, rural
residents such as farmers, and ranchers with firsthand experience were more likely to
continue with their negative viewpoints regardless of the biological benefits that
reintroductions bring (Williams et al., 2002).
Wolves were reintroduced in 1995 at Yellowstone NP to reverse damage to the
park’s ecosystem caused by an overabundance of elk (Carroll et al., 2006; Stewart et al.,
2009). These wolves successfully reclaimed their place within the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem as the region’s dominant apex predator. Quicker than expected, wolves began
regulating overabundant elk populations, thus beginning the gradual process of repairing
an ecosystem in the midst of a trophic cascade. Yellowstone’s trophic cascades can be
thought of as the domino effect on ecosystems associated with the loss of a keystone
species (Smith et al., 2003). Regardless of how quickly the environment welcomed back
its apex predator, to some researchers, the arrival of reintroduced wolves from a social
acceptance standpoint, was an unmitigated failure with long lasting negative impacts for
both reintroduced and naturally recolonizing wolves (Babcock, 2013). Before
reintroductions began, wolves were listed as an endangered species across the United
States under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, which protected them from
hunting and harassment (Bangs et al., 1996). With these protections in place, wolves
began slowly recolonizing northern portions of their lost habitats in the United States
2
from Canada. Allowing wolves to reestablish themselves more gradually allowed humans
who live on the frontline time to become used to them (Babcock, 2013). After wolf
reintroductions at Yellowstone NP went ahead without utilizing input from local
stakeholders in the final wolf restoration plan, reintroductions became the controversial
political issue that it still is today. Government agents underestimated the animosity held
by local residences towards wolves, who disliked the perceived risks that predators
impose on economic interests (i.e., livestock and farming) outside the protected park
boundaries but within wolf recovery zones (Pooley et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2002).
Unsurprisingly, many people who are directly affected by government mandates such as
the ESA find it hard to support environmental and economic reforms that they themselves
had little input in creating or implementing (Hanson, 1995).
This thesis’ primary objective was to answer the question: Is it time to reintroduce
gray wolves to Olympic National Park? From a biological point of view, a majority of the
literature on this topic would support reintroductions at Olympic National Park. From a
social acceptance point of view from people in the agricultural sector, current attitudes
about wolf reintroductions on the Olympic Peninsula are unclear. There are many
similarities between Yellowstone NP and Olympic NP, however, there are important
differences that could allow for a socially acceptable wolf reintroduction where resource
managers fell short at Yellowstone NP. For example, at Yellowstone NP, the major
resource extraction activities near the park are primarily ranching and farming whereas at
Olympic NP, the closest major activity is timber harvesting. According to Smith et al. in
2003, wolf winter range at Yellowstone NP is 65% within the park and 35% on public
and private lands. In comparison, it has been estimated that the suitable habitat for gray
3
wolves in Olympic NP is located 98% inside the park and U.S. Forest Service wilderness
area, with just 2% on tribal and private lands (Ratti et al., 1999). Economically for the
Olympic Peninsula, there are no projected impacts for timber industry on public or
private lands (Wiles et al, 2011), insignificant impacts projected to livestock production,
and modest impacts projected to ungulate populations (Ratti et al., 1999). However, the
current attitudes of the people in the agricultural sector that will be directly affected by
wolf reintroductions on the Olympic Peninsula are unknown.
I used the principles of human dimensions theory to create an internet-based
snowball survey aimed at finding out what historically opposed locals’ attitudes and
values are in regard to wolf conservation and reintroductions. Research has shown that
conflicts between stakeholders associated with species conservation are more likely
social conflicts that are deeper than the perceived threats imposed by that species (Lute et
al., 2017). Human conflicts about natural resource conservation and restoration are more
likely in response to perceived differences between stakeholders’ attitudes and values
(Redpath et al., 2013; Lute et al., 2017). Understanding the attitudes and values of people
in the wolf recovery zones and incorporating their perspectives prior to wolf
reintroductions is key to creating a successful management plan (Babcock, 2013)
4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 - Introduction
“Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural
resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your
children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy
interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”
-Theodore Roosevelt
Should gray wolves (Canis lupis) be reintroduced to Olympic National Park
(Olympic NP)? In one form or another, people have been suggesting some sort of
reintroduction to Olympic NP since 1935 (Ratti et al., 1999). Almost a century after wolf
populations were extirpated from the Olympic Mountains, biologists at Olympic NP are
struggling to manage unstable elk populations that have wreaked havoc on riparian plant
communities and the stream and riverbanks that the elk need to survive (Carroll, 2006;
Beschta et al., 2008). During the 20th century, conservation efforts were based on
anecdotes and myths rather than a systematic review of the evidence, which strained an
already delicate relationship between people in wolf recovery zones and conservation
biologists (Sutherland et al., 2004).
After the passing of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, which listed the gray
wolf as endangered, plans to bring wolves back into core habitat areas began to be made.
Environmentalists and anti-wolf groups have historically disagreed over wolf
management policies that impact public lands. However, in 1991 a group of stakeholders
made up of federal and state agencies, conservationists, and hunting and ranching groups
called the Wolf Management Committee came together to create a wolf reintroduction
and management plan for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Through negotiations and
compromises, they recommended 1) that wolves that preyed on livestock, working
5
animals, or pets needed to be controlled, 2) returning control to the states as early as
possible, and 3) allowing sport hunting after wolf populations have recovered. However,
their recommendations to Congress were ultimately rejected (Babcock, 2013). That
rejection created opponents who, in 1994, tried to stop biologists from reintroducing
wolves by citing hardships for agricultural interests and disruptions to local lifestyles
(Bangs et al., 1996). Still, without incorporating the committees’ recommendations and in
spite of the opposition’s concerns, reintroductions of 31 gray wolves from Canada began
in 1995, creating significant resentment from people in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem who felt betrayed by the government (Smith et al., 2003). So, in 2012 when
wolves were delisted from the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), long held negative attitudes towards wolves and
mistrust of the government culminated in an unjust slaughter of wolves that were
venturing outside park boundaries trying to fulfill their biological need to expand
(Babcock, 2013).
This literature review examines public reactions to gray wolf reintroductions at
Yellowstone National Park (Yellowstone NP). In the first section of this literature review,
I introduce you to gray wolves in the United States to: A) illustrate their ecological
importance; B) explain how western expansion and government sponsored predatorculling programs lead to a nearly complete removal of wolves in the continental United
States; C) clarify the differences between a species naturally recolonizing an area vs
planned reintroductions to see how each management method influence public attitudes.
In the second section, I introduce the National Park Service to; A) explain how its
Congressional mandates effect management of park resources; B) show the evolution of
6
carnivore management at Yellowstone NP; C) clarify what trophic cascades do to an
ecosystem; and D) consider whether gray wolf reintroductions at Yellowstone NP were
biologically and/or socially successful. In the third section, I introduce the Olympic
Peninsula to: A) explain the process and reasons for colonization by white settlers to the
region, B) answer how the extirpation of wolves caused the resulting trophic cascade, and
C) establish Olympic National Park and give reasons to reintroduce. Finally, the fourth
and final section concludes the literature review and explains why there is a need for
further research.
2.2 - Gray Wolves in the United States
“Almost dead yesterday, maybe dead tomorrow, but alive, gloriously
alive, today.”
- Robert Jordan
In North America prior to European contact, gray wolves flourished from the
Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west, from Mexico in the south and
to Northern Canada and Alaska (Figure 1). Being a generalist species that can adapt to
many different environments and prey species, wolves require a large area to sustain their
populations (Carrol et al., 2006). As the apex predator in the ecosystems they inhabit,
their importance cannot be understated (Carrol et al., 2006). Being the top predator in the
food chain, wolves put direct population-limiting pressure on large herbaceous ungulates
such as deer, elk, bison, and moose. This top-down pressure changes the prey’s behavior,
which indirectly benefits the plant communities that these ungulates depend on (Fortin et
al., 2005).
7
Figure 1: Map of the historic range of gray wolf vs. current range (after reintroductions at Yellowstone
National Park) in North America (National Park Service, 2022).
Wolves often outcompete smaller mesopredators such as coyotes and foxes for
resources and territory, which has the benefit of decreasing their populations while
allowing smaller prey species populations to increase. For example, at Yellowstone NP
after wolves were reintroduced, pronghorn sheep populations increased fourfold with the
decline of coyotes (Ritchie et al., 2009). Without apex predators to perform their
ecologically vital functions, prey populations are able to exponentially increase beyond
8
the carrying capacity that their ecosystem can support, ultimately damaging riparian plant
communities and degrading ecosystem services that humans rely on (Beschta et al.,
2017).
By the late 1940s, wolves began to naturally recolonize Isle Royale National Park
(Isle Royale NP) from Canada. They did this without the aid of humans by crossing Lake
Superior while it was frozen (Smith et al., 2003). Smith et al. (2003) noted that there were
some public concerns about the effects of wolves on overabundant moose populations.
However, public concerns faded when wolves effectively capped the moose population
density on the island, and completely removed coyotes, alleviating their concerns as
people became accustomed to coexisting with wolves and saw that they restored a muchneeded balance within Isle Royale’s ecosystem (Figure 2). Regardless of the apparent
biological gains, however, some people continued to irrationally fear wolves. One
concerned citizen even stated that they worried that after the wolves finished eating all
the moose, they would switch to the next best thing, humans (Smith et al., 2003).
Unfortunately, the controversy that surrounds wolf conservation is disproportionate to the
actual harm that wolves have exacted on humans (Bangs et al., 1996), especially
considering that no serious gray wolf related injuries or deaths have been reported since
1890 (Ratti et al., 1999).
9
Figure 2: Moose-wolf population fluctuations at Isle Royal National Park, 1959-2002 (Smith et al., 2003).
2.3 - National Park Service: Legacy of Predator-culling Programs
“It will be critical for the NPS to incorporate new findings into planning
and adaptation efforts, anticipating that new evidence, new feedback
loops, and new consequences may challenge commonly accepted resource
management practices or decisions.”
-NPS Climate Change Action Plan (2012-2014)
Yellowstone was our nation’s first National Park (Yellowstone NP). It was
established in 1872 and was considered at the time by many to be a wise decision, made
just in time before settlers began claiming land in the area (Jackson, 1942; Dilsaver et al.,
2005). When settlers did begin to colonize the region, Jackson (1942) pointed out that
they did so to capitalize on the abundant natural resources for hunting, ranching, and
10
mining and also to promote ecotourism in the form of hot springs. In all, to protect what
we know as Yellowstone NP today, Congress set aside an unprecedented 3,472 square
miles of pristine wilderness that today borders Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. With such
a large area to protect from vandals and poaching, the U.S. Calvary was used for 30 years
to preserve park resources until 1916 when the National Park Service (NPS) was
established (Dilsaver et al., 2005).
The NPS was established with strong bipartisan support by the U.S. Congress
when it enacted the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916. That act not only
established the NPS, but it also established the services “… dual objectives of protecting
wild-life and retaining the support of the public …” (Wright, 1998, p. 475).
Unfortunately, retaining public support became the NPS’s primary objective once they
began to pander to public influence. Providing consistent wildlife for visitors to view
began a long and controversial history when it comes to carnivore and ungulate
management. Park managers observed that when people visit national parks, they want to
experience seeing animals in the wild but don’t want to feel they are in any danger. So,
park personnel at Yellowstone began a predator culling program and implemented a
policy that kept unsustainably large elk populations fed over the harsh Yellowstone
winter, eventually eradicating wolves, and artificially increasing prey species populations
(i.e., elk, bison, deer, etc.). Through these programs, the NPS unknowingly began a
trophic cascade that was in direct conflict with the Congress’s mandate to protect wildlife
(Figure 3). Unfortunately for wolves, elk, and riparian plant communities across the
National Park System, providing public enjoyment became the NPS’s primary objective
in the early 20th century (Wright, 1998).
11
Figure 3: Diagram of trophic cascade at Olympic National Park after wolf extirpation (Beschta et al.,
2008).
The NPS implemented their predator-culling program in a bid to gain political and
economic support from the public by enhancing their visitors’ enjoyment. The extremally
efficient culling of wolves at Yellowstone NP allowed ungulates such as elk and bison to
unsustainably expand their populations in hopes that tourists would be able to view an
abundance of these animals while they explored the parks (Wright, 1998). This mistaken
policy allowed park visitors to believe that the massive quantities of ungulates were
natural and perpetuated the misconception that wolves were not. While these
12
questionable management decisions did gain the park service considerable support, the
biological cost to the park’s ecosystems have manifested in catastrophic trophic cascades
(Wright, 1998).
At Yellowstone NP, trophic cascades began to develop with the loss of wolves in
the early 1920’s (Peterson et al., 2014). It wasn’t too long before park managers began to
worry about the excessive habitat degradation happening to riparian plant communities
along stream and riverbanks due to the overabundance of ungulates (Wright, 1998). In
the 1930s, elk took advantage of the absence of their primary predator and rapidly
increased beyond the ecosystem’s ability to sustain them. Normally, predators maintain
prey species at carrying capacity, the number of animals that an ecosystem’s food chain
can support, by imposing top-down pressure on their prey, forcing them to weigh the
risks of predation vs. personal security when they forage for resources (Stewart et al.,
2009). When there are no predators to influence elk behaviors, elk tend to stay longer in a
single location, congregate in larger groups, and show more displays of conspectus
behavior (Creel et al., 2005), ultimately exacerbating the degradation of critical riparian
plant communities that are needed to stabilize stream and riverbanks (Beschta et al.,
2017). As elk populations increase beyond carrying capacity and the abundance of
available food resources diminish, their physical condition and pregnancy rates decline
(Stewart et al., 2009). The resulting trophic cascade would be allowed to continue until
park employees in the 1940s began to cull elk herds to protect the environment (Wright,
1998).
By the 1960’s, in a vain attempt to keep elk at a sustainable level and prevent
habitat degradation, Yellowstone personnel were having to cull elk populations by 2013
30% annually (Peterson et al., 2014). Beschta et al (2017) noted that at one point the elk
culling was up to 50% of the population at Yellowstone. The mass slaughter of elk
became an unfortunate but necessary evil to provide visitors to Yellowstone with an
“illusion of a primitive state” while minimizing habitat degradation (Wright, 1998). The
culling wouldn’t come to an end until the plight of the elk was brought to the public’s
attention with national news coverage and publications in popular magazines. It took
public outcry and political pressure that threatened to cut the NPS’ budget to end the
controversial culling programs. The elk were saved but now NPS resource managers felt
that they were unable to use their best judgment when managing over abundant elk
populations due to external pressures imposed by visitors who were ignorant of park
problems (Wright, 1998). The need for a solution to the elk overpopulation issue would
eventually lead to wolf reintroductions at Yellowstone NP in 1995.
Once reintroduced, wolves began to reestablish themselves as the dominant
predator and within a few short years willow, aspen, and other woody plants began to
benefit from lower levels of herbivory from ungulates (Smith et al., 2003). Fortin et al.,
(2005) found that excessive elk herbivory in Yellowstone NP during the wolf-free times,
1927 to 1995, prevented virtually all recruitment of Aspen trees within the park
boundaries. Today, the restoration of wolves at Yellowstone NP has been viewed as a
biological success by scientists, effectively ending an era of unjust predator culling
programs and beginning the process of reversing elk-induced trophic cascades within the
park (Smith et al., 2003). However, biologists failed to recognize the animosity they
would create when they reintroduced wolves without including all the stakeholders’
points of view in the decision making (Babcock, 2013). To some people in wolf recovery
14
zones outside the national park boundaries, wolf reintroductions are a “… symbol of
urban dominance …” (Williams et al., 2002, p. 582).
2.4 - Reintroduction vs. Recolonization
“Hunger drives the wolf out of the wood”
- German Proverb
There are many reasons that people decide to reintroduce rather than let natural
recolonization processes return a species. For example, habitat fragmentation due to land
use changes can prevent or significantly slow a species from moving across the landscape
(Carrol et al., 2006). Allowing a species to recolonize lost territory is the preferred
method when it’s a feasible option, however, for a pair of breeding gray wolves who
actively avoid humans and their development, to recolonize the Olympic Peninsula will
be a challenge (Rio-Maior et al., 2019). The first documented breeding pack of gray
wolves to make it to northeastern Washington was in 2008. Since then, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) estimate that wolf populations have grown to
178 individuals within Washington State (WDFW, 2021).
It is highly unlikely for wolves to naturally recolonize the Olympic Peninsula in a
reasonable time frame due to a few major reasons. First, wolves would have to establish
themselves south of Interstate 90 (I-90) in the central Cascade Mountains. Unfortunately,
thus far no breeding pairs of wolves have been recorded south of I-90 (Figure 4),
although it might soon be possible with the newly opened wildlife crossing structures
installed by Washington State’s Department of Transportation near Snoqualmie pass.
Second, wolves would have to navigate across the fragmented habitat of the Puget
lowlands, an area that has had rapid land use changes due to agriculture development,
15
urbanization, road and infrastructure construction, and an influx of people moving to the
region. Third, maybe the biggest obstacle for wolves to migrate to the Olympic Peninsula
would be their need to cross Interstate 5 (I-5) which bisects the Puget lowlands and
currently has no wildlife crossing structures. Wiles et al. (2011) identified the southern
Cascades Mountains and Olympic Peninsula as areas where recolonization would be slow
or difficult. If wolves are ever successful in crossing I-5, it would only be a matter of
time before they would make their way north into the peninsula, so long as their progress
isn’t impeded by local residents.
Figure 4: Map of gray wolf packs in Washington State (WDFW, 2021).
Since wolf recolonization without human aid isn’t likely in the near future for the
Olympic NP, resource managers should consider beginning the process of human-aided
reintroductions. Either way, for wolves to successfully reclaim their lost habitat on the
16
Olympic Peninsula, biologists need to understand the human dimensions that shape the
beliefs and attitudes of the people in the projected wolf recovery zones well beforehand.
Understanding their belie attitudes is important in order to reduce conflicts, improve
relationships between stakeholders, and increase tolerance towards predators (Lute et al.,
2017; Pooley et al., 2016).
2.5 - Olympic Peninsula
“This clash of destiny and fierce reality is the story of the Olympic
Peninsula. It sounds a lot like America’s story. The story of a culture
haunted by its own destiny. The story of a culture forced to reckon with its
own mistakes. And yet, it is also the story of a culture that still manages to
hope—some might argue to the point of delusion, though I’m not one of
them. You’ll find the root of my optimism growing somewhere on the
banks of a nameless creek near the heart of the peninsula. As long as that
exists, I have reason to hope.”
-Jonathan Evison
Olympic NP located in the mountains and along the northwest coast of the
Olympic Peninsula is home to many endemic plants and animals and is considered a
stronghold of native Roosevelt Elk due to its geographic isolation (Jenkins et al., 2021).
Glaciers and their runoff during the last ice age created a biogeographical island effect for
the Olympic Peninsula, effectively placing a filter on the habitat connectivity corridors in
the Puget lowlands from the nearby Cascade Mountain Range (Anunsen, 1993). While
some species can be found in both mountain ranges (i.e., elk, deer, red alder, cedar, etc.),
other species can only be found in the Olympics (i.e., Olympic marmot, short-tailed
weasel, Olympic Mountain milkvetch, etc.) Ratti et al., (1999) estimates that the available
habitat and available prey within Olympic NP would support 56 wolves with 6 to 7
breeding pairs.
17
In 2021, the National Park Service published a report that estimated the current
mean population of Roosevelt Elk within Olympic NP. Unfortunately, the report didn’t
explicitly state the park’s estimate for the total population within Olympic NP. The report
did, however, supply their mean population abundance estimates for 5 subpopulations of
elk within Olympic NP/projected wolf recovery habitat using survey data that was
collected between 2008 and 2015 (Table 1). Park resource managers estimate elk
populations to be: 1) 236 elk within the park core areas as of 2015, 2) 81 elk within the
Elwha area as of 2014, 3) 15 elk within the Northwest area in 2011, 4) 213 elk within the
Quinault area in 2014, and 5) 100 elk within the Southeast area in 2013 (Jenkins et al.,
2021). Their statistical analysis showed that elk abundance has declined by an average of
16% annually within the park over each of the last 8 years, however, they say that this
finding was of low confidence due to variations with the data set and overall small
sample sizes (Jenkins et al., 2021).
Table 1: Estimated abundance of elk Olympic National Park using survey data collected between 20082015 (Jenkins et al., 2021).
18
Gray wolves were once native to the Olympics where they were considered a
keystone species due to how much influence they have over the other species they
interact with. However, early settlers to the peninsula in the 1890s began competing with
wolves for resources and territory by harvesting lumber, raising livestock, planting crops,
and hunting predators and ungulates. Eventually, Roosevelt Elk populations began to
dwindle due to over-hunting by settlers. In an effort to conserve elk before they
disappeared, a Peninsula wide moratorium on hunting elk was imposed in 1905. To then
protect elk populations further from hunting and their habitat from resource extraction,
Congress created Mt. Olympus National Monument in 1909. Without understanding the
trophic cascades that would follow, the competition between wolves and settlers for the
Peninsula ended predictably with the settlers and the federal government launching an
extremely effective eradication campaign against wolves, completely removing these
beneficial carnivores from the peninsula in the 1920s (Scheffer, 1993; Beschta et al.,
2008). By the time that Olympic National Park was created in 1937 to add permanent
protections for elk and their habitat, wolves had already been exterminated and native elk
populations were allowed to exponentially expand, causing significant long-term
consequences to riparian plant communities and considerable damage to stream and river
systems (Beschta et al., 2008) (Figure 5). Along with elk population issues, non-native
coyotes began to colonize the peninsula, which has been associated with the decline of
the endemic Olympic Marmot populations to the point that they are categorized as a
candidate for Washington States’ Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Species List
(Witczuk et al., 2013; Griffin et al., 2007; WDFW, 2021). Witczuk et al. (2013) noted
that controlling coyote populations will be the only way to conserve the endemic
19
Olympic Marmot and that wolves could help resource managers by limiting new coyotes
from migrating into Olympic NP.
Figure 5: Estimated abundance of Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula with and without gray wolves
in the Hoh, Queets, and Quinault River catchments from 1900 to 2000 (Beschta et al., 2008).
Today, besides native Cougar, Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula no longer
have an effective apex predator, such as the gray wolf, to help maintain them at an
appropriate carrying capacity with the available food supply (Scheffer, 1993; Stewart et
al., 2009). Without the risk of wolf-predation, elk on the Olympic Peninsula have been
allowed to apply high levels of herbivory on native palatable plants (Stewart et al., 2009;
Jenkins et al., 2021). When an ecosystem is in equilibrium, low levels of herbivory by elk
can be beneficial to native plant species diversity (Stewart et al., 2009). Carnivores such
as wolves indirectly influence plant communities by putting biological limits on ungulate
populations (Fortin et al., 2005), and changing their behavior (Creel et al., 2005). When
20
wolves were removed from the Olympic ecosystem, it triggered the beginning of a
catastrophic trophic cascade for the peninsula (Beschta et al., 2017).
Researchers examining trophic cascades in Olympic NP determined that elk were
causing significant long-term damage to park wetlands, forests, and rivers (Beschta et al.,
2008). Due to heavy browsing of palatable trees and shrubs (i.e., Black Cottonwood,
Bigleaf Maples, Vine Maples, Ferns, etc.) in riparian habitats along streams and
riverbanks, elk dramatically changed the composition and diversity of riparian plant
communities, thus giving unpalatable species (Sitka Spruce, and Red Alder) a
competitive advantage to dominate riparian ecosystems they were once only a minor
component (Stewart et al., 2009; Beschta et al., 2017) (Figure 6). Besides the direct
effects on the riparian plant communities, indirect effects of heavy grazing along
riverbanks in Olympic NP led to rivers shifting from single, tight channels to braided
channels, allowing river widths to increase, a decrease of large woody debris in the river
system, and a reduction of biodiversity (Beschta et al., 2008). This heavy browsing also
significantly degrades the ecosystem services that an intact riparian ecosystem provides
(i.e., erosion control, shade during the summer for climate mediation, flood resistance,
etc.) (Beschta et al., 2017). Wolves reduce elk abundance in riparian areas due to their
tendency to use riparian corridors to travel and to hunt for ungulates (Fortin et al., 2005).
Low levels of herbivory by ungulates are an important process in riparian ecosystems
because it prevents one species from dominating the plant community and it allows more
species to coexist, thus increasing the biodiversity in that system (Stewart et al., 2009).
Unfortunately, with the absence of an effective apex predator over the last century, elk
have caused long-term degradation to ecosystems of Olympic NP.
21
Figure 6: Number of trees in stands of black cottonwood (a), and bigleaf maple (b) within Olympic
National Park and black cottonwood (c) outside the park in Quinault Indian Nation lands by decade. Age
classes marked with * are below 95% confidence limit (Beschta et al., 2008).
22
Humans are a poor substitute for wolves when it comes to managing ungulate
populations. For example, at Yellowstone after reintroductions, studies showed that
wolves help keep elk population more fit by killing very old (approximately 14 years old)
females. In contrast, humans outside Yellowstone killed young females (approximately 6
years old) in the prime of their reproductive life. Bull elk (approximately 5 years old)
were killed by both humans and wolves (Smith et al., 2003). Studies have shown that
wolves prefer to prey on animals that have little reproductive value, such as the old and
sick (Peterson et al., 2014).
Ecosystems that have a complete food chain with its appropriate apex predators
have shown to support more diverse plant and animal species, are more productive, and
provide enhanced ecosystem services (Larson et al., 2007). When ecosystems have more
diversity of species, it is more likely to contain “disturbance-resistance species,” which
will make it more resistant to anthropogenic changes (i.e., climate change, habitat
fragmentation, etc.) and herbivory by large ungulates (Stewart et al., 2009). To see if
restoration actions would help restore native plant communities in degraded areas,
researchers-built enclosures that excluded elk from elk-preferred grazing areas in the
Olympic rainforest (Figure 7). Quickly woody shrubs and saplings of Western Hemlock
began to vigorously recolonize the non-native grassy areas created by elk (Larson et al.,
2007). These findings were a good sign for resource managers at Olympic NP and are in
line with what researchers found at Yellowstone after wolves were reintroduced.
23
Figure 7: Native plants aggressively recolonize disturbed habitat in response to elk exclusionary fencing at
Olympic National Park after 26 years (Larson et al., 2007).
At Olympic NP, elk dominate due to NPS policies that protect them from being
hunted and the legacy of predator culling programs (Beschta et al., 2008). These policies
have resulted in trophic cascades that have caused long-term degradation to park riparian
plant communities and rivers. Olympic NP faces damaged ecosystems, snowpack in
decline since the 1970’s (Jenkins et al., 2012), and unprecedented climate change models
that project shorter, wetter winters and longer, warmer summers for the Olympic
Peninsula (Nadkarni et al., 2019). Park managers should be looking for any way to make
Olympic NP more resilient. Reintroducing wolves at Yellowstone demonstrated that
trophic cascades can be reversed (Smith et al., 2003). However, they also demonstrated
24
that reintroducing wolves without gaining the support from communities in recovery
areas was a failure from a social acceptance point of view (Babcock, 2013).
One of the main requests that the Wolf Management Committee at Yellowstone
recommended to Congress in 1991 was to return the management of wolves to the states
as soon as possible (Babcock, 2013). Unfortunately, this request was rejected by
Congress due to the ESA’s requirement that an endangered species must be restored to a
“… significant portion of its range … (i.e., significant portions) of suitable habitat within
historic ranges …” before delisting was possible (Carrol et al., 2006, p. 25). From a
scientific standpoint, this provision was a win for environmentalists though the elation
from winning was short lived. Wolves that venture out of their protected core recovery
areas to recolonize suitable habitats face significant dangers associated with habitat
fragmentation and hostility from anti-wolf opponents (Carrol et al., 2006). Regrettably,
animosity grew among opponents, culminating in the mass slaughter of wolves in 2007
when wolves were briefly delisted in the outside Yellowstone NP (Babcock, 2013). The
final decision in 2011 to officially delist wolves in the greater Yellowstone area was
based on political ideology rather than science or law (Babcock, 2013).
While wolves were delisted from the ESA in 2011 from the eastern side of
Washington State, wolves remained federally protected in western Washington until
January 2021 when gray wolves were officially delisted from the continental United
States, relinquishing the rights to reintroduce wolves to the state and/or to tribal agencies,
although this decision has been contested (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2021). Returning
control to the State of Washington, where wolves are still classified as endangered under
state law, might make it easier for the state to accomplish the goals of its Wolf
25
Conservation and Management Plan, established in 2011. Washington State’s ultimate
wolf recovery intention is to reestablish 4 breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years within
each of their recovery regions (Eastern, North Cascades, and the Southern Cascades &
Northwest Coast regions) (Figure 8) with an additional 3 breeding pairs anywhere else
within the state (Wiles et al., 2011). Of the three regions, only the Eastern region has met
the delisting requirement to date. As of 2020, the North Cascades region has documented
their first year with 4 successful breeding pairs. However, no breeding pairs of wolves
have yet to be documented in the Southern Cascades & Northwest Coast region, the
region that Olympic NP resides within (Bassing, 2021).
Figure 8: Recovery regions within Washington State for the gray wolf (Bassing, 2021)
26
Reintroducing wolves to Olympic NP would simultaneously begin the process of
healing the parks degraded riparian ecosystems from an elk induced trophic cascade, and
provide a federally protected population of wolves to fulfil the states requirements for
delisting gray wolves under the state’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan
(Bassing, 2021; Carrol et al., 2006). Resource managers need to examine the attitudes of
all the applicable stakeholders prior to any reintroduction attempt to mitigate for the
backlash that wolves faced after the Yellowstone reintroductions in 1995 (Babcock,
2013). Understanding these attitudes is critical for long term sustainable conservation
efforts (Hernandez et al., 2017).
27
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
3.1 - Research Objectives
To answer my thesis question, is it time to reintroduce gray wolves to Olympic
National Park, I conducted an in-depth literature review of the best available sources
(i.e., peer reviewed journals, books, and government documents) on gray wolf
reintroductions and human dimensions theory. This literature review found that a
majority of researchers would support the idea of gray wolves returning to Olympic NP
from a biological feasibility standpoint (i.e., adequate habitat and prey base available)
(Ratti et al., 1999; Beschta et al., 2017; Wiles et al., 2011). However, from a human
dimensions standpoint (i.e., factors that influence public attitudes) it remained unclear if
people in the agricultural sector adjacent to Olympic NP would support it. Since Wiles et
al., (2011) revealed that approximately 75% of the overall general public in Washington
State supports wolf restoration efforts, I wanted to find out what local people in the
agricultural sector on the Olympic Peninsula specifically would think about it due to the
tendency of this population to oppose wolf reintroductions in other regions of the country
(Babcock, 2013).
3.2 - Acquiring Data on Human Subjects
It took many steps to obtain the approvals needed to acquire data on human
subjects for this thesis. The first step was to create a survey instrument (questionnaire)
specifically crafted to assess the level of social acceptance that people who work in the
agricultural sector on the Olympic Peninsula feel towards wolf conservation and
reintroductions (Appendix D). Second, after a lengthy review process, Evergreen’s
Institutional Review Board approved my application to conduct research that included
28
working with human subjects (Appendix A). On February 24 th, 2021, this pilot study
received final approval to begin collecting data on human subjects (Appendix C). To
reach the study’s target audience, it was necessary to craft an internet-based snowball
survey that I would administer remotely using ArcGIS’s Survey 123. This survey method
was chosen because it allows the survey instrument to be customized for the intended
target audience and would allow respondents to refer other potential respondents to take
the survey who wouldn’t have otherwise been able to be reached. The reason this target
audience was chosen was because an individual’s occupation is a strong indicator of their
attitudes towards wolves (Liordos et al., 2016), and because a majority of people within
the agricultural sector, primarily ranchers and farmers, in wolf recovery zones around
Yellowstone NP oppose wolf reintroductions (Bangs et al., 1996).
While this target audience was initially difficult to connect with, 117 potential
survey candidates contact information (i.e., name, email address) were eventually
identified by methodically searching the internet for agricultural organizations (i.e., farm
bureaus, cattlemen’s associations, natural resource workers, farmers markets, etc.)
located on the Olympic Peninsula to contact. After identifying these potential
respondents, each was sent an individualized introduction email that explained who I was
and asked them if they would like to participate in this confidential snowball survey
(Appendix B). Referrals from respondents generated an additional 10 potential
respondents, bringing the total number of people contacted for this pilot study to 127. In
all, 20 people responded out of 127 sent survey invitations.
29
3.3 - Survey Instrument
Alongside the findings in chapter 4 from the data that was collected, the survey
instrument itself is an important contribution of this research project (Appendix D). The
survey was custom tailored to the target audience to learn the level of social acceptance
that local people in the agricultural sector have towards wolves on the Olympic
Peninsula. To accomplish this, the survey was strategically designed to be as easy as
possible for potential respondents by customizing the questioner’s content, formatting,
organizational elements, and by streamlining the way they access the questionnaire. For
example, when designing the questionnaire controversial demographic questions (i.e.,
respondents geographic coordinates, political affiliation, religious beliefs, annual income,
etc.) were out. I used font to size 14 on the questionnaire instead of the smaller size 12
font, to make it easier for people to read, thus making the survey easier in hopes of
increasing the response rate. The questions and answers were presented in a standardized
way on the questionnaire, thus making questions less complicated and easier to answer.
The questionnaire (Appendix D) itself contained 19 questions. Each question fit
into at least one of 5 subcategories: 1) target audience verification, (Questions 1, 2, and
12), 2) personal beliefs and values in regard to wolf reintroductions (Questions 3, 5, 10,
11, and 19), 3) opinions on factors that make an acceptable wolf management plan,
(Questions 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9), 4) demographics (Questions 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17), 5)
snowball referrals (Question 18). These subcategories were developed to help determine
what respondents found important about wolf reintroductions.
30
3.4 - Analysis
The survey data that was collected on Survey 123 was analyzed using Microsoft
Excel. To transfer the data from Survey 123, the responses were downloaded as an .xlsx
file and uploaded to Excel. Once in Excel the data was cleaned and organized into pivot
tables, which enabled cross analysis of multiple variables to tease out details that were
important to the thesis findings and discussion sections. Next, bar and pie charts were
created to aid in identifying themes for analysis and to visually display these findings.
The method this thesis utilized was designed to determine the thoughts and
attitudes of the targeted respondents. Identifying themes that motivated respondents
helped in the development of recommendations based off their input for future research
and ways to improve social acceptance of wolves on the Olympic Peninsula prior to any
future reintroduction efforts.
31
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
4.1 - Summary
Of the 127 survey invitations sent to potential respondents, 20 responded. While
the sample size for this survey was too small to be a representative sample that can be
generalized to the broader population. The information that was gathered was interesting
and helped to better understand the attitudes and values that motivate the respondents in
regard to wolf reintroductions at Olympic NP. These findings indicate that from a
socially acceptable standpoint, gray wolf reintroductions might have more support than
opposition on the Olympic Peninsula among people in the agricultural sector (Figure 33),
a subgroup of the population that have historically opposed reintroductions in other
regions of the United States (Babcock, 2013).
4.2 – Background Demographics
Of the 20 respondents, 95% said they currently live, work, or own land on the
Olympic Peninsula (Figure 9). When asked if respondents worked in agriculture (Figure
10), 69% of respondents said they do, however, of the 31% who responded that they did
not, all but one respondent said they were either a hunter, farmer, forester, or rancher
(Figure 11). When respondents were asked to best describe themselves, 10% of
respondents said they were Native American or Alaskan Native, with another 70% saying
they were White or Caucasian, and 20% selecting prefer not to say (Figure 12). As for
their gender, they identified themselves as 30% male, 55% female, with 15% selected
prefer not to say (Figure 13). All of the respondents were college educated, with 70%
possessing a bachelor’s degree, 15% possessing a master’s degree and 15% having
32
achieved a Ph. D. (Figure 14). The age range for the respondents at the time of the survey
were between 31 and 79 years of age (Figure 15).
Response Per Person
Do you currently live, work, or own land on
the Olympic Peninsula?
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Yes
No
n = 20
Figure 9: When asked if respondents currently live, work, or own land on the Olympic Peninsula, 95% of
respondents claimed to either live, work, or own land on the Olympic Peninsula at the time of the survey.
This indicates that the majority of respondents are from the target geographic area (n = 20).
Do you work in agriculture?
No
31%
Yes
No
Yes
69%
Figure 10: I asked respondents if they work in agriculture to determine if I reached my target audience;
69% of respondents said they worked in agriculture, and 31% said they did not. One respondent did not
answer this question. One respondent did not answer this question (n = 19).
33
Response Percent
Do you work in agriculture brocken down by
if the respondent considers themselves a
hunter, farmer, forester, and/or rancher.
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Hunter
Farmer
Forester
Rancher
Yes
16.67
61.11
5.56
16.67
No
37.5
37.5
12.5
12.5
Yes
No
n = 19
Figure 11: This figure cross tabulated respondents’ answers to: do you work in agriculture? and their
affiliation as a hunter, farmer, forester, or rancher to clarify if respondents were part of the agricultural
sector as a whole. Of the respondents who answered yes to working in agriculture (69% of the total
respondents), 16.67% said they were a hunter, 61.11% said they were a farmer, 5.56 said they were a
forester, and 16.67% said they were a rancher. Of the respondents who answered no to working in
agriculture (31% of the total respondents), 37.5% said they were a hunter, 37.5% said they were a farmer,
12.5% said they were a forester, and/or 12.5% said they were a rancher. Only one respondent (11% of the
respondents who answered no to working in agriculture) said they did not work in agriculture and were not
a hunter, farmer, forester, or rancher. One respondent did not answer either question (n = 19).
How would you best describe yourself?
16
Response Per Person
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Native American or Alaskan
Native
White or Caucasian
Prefer not to say
n = 20
Figure 12: Respondents described themselves as: 10% Native American or Alaskan Native, 70% White or
Caucasian, with 20% selecting that they preferred not to say (n = 20).
34
What is your gender?
12
Response Per Person
10
8
6
4
2
0
Male
Female
Prefer not to say
n = 20
Figure 13: The respondents indicated they were: 30% male, 55% female, with 15% selecting they
preferred not to say (n = 20).
What is the highest degree or level of
education you completed?
16
Response Per Person
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Bachelor's degree
Master's degree
Ph.D.
n = 20
Figure 14: Respondents indicated their level of education were: 70% with a bachelor’s degree, 15% with a
master's degree, and an additional 15% with a Ph.D. (n = 20).
35
Age at time of survey?
7
Response Per Person
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 - 59
60 - 69
70 - 79
n = 18
Figure 15: Respondents who answered this question indicated that their ages at the time of survey to be:
33% between 30 and 39, 11% between 40 and 49, 11% between 50 and 59, 33% between 60 and 69, and
11% between 70 and 79 years old. Two respondents did not answer this question (n = 18).
4.3 - Age and Gender: Indicators of Support for Reintroduction
When I cross tabulated the respondents’ ages and their support for wolf
reintroductions at Olympic NP, the findings showed that age was a strong determining
factor when it came to their support or opposition to wolf reintroductions at Olympic NP
(Figure 16). For example, the younger a respondent was, the more likely they were to
support reintroductions. Comparatively, gender was not as much of a determining factor
although the results did show that males were more likely than females to strongly
support reintroductions (Figure 17). However, for both age and gender, when respondents
did not provide their age (left blank) or if they preferred not to say their level of support
for reintroductions, they were more likely to oppose reintroductions (Figures 16, and 17
respectively). These findings suggest younger people who work in the agricultural sector
on the Olympic Peninsula will more likely support reintroductions, thus could be
potential allies for wolf restoration efforts. The average age of respondents who oppose
36
reintroductions at Olympic NP is 59.1 years old while the average age of respondents
who support reintroductions at Olympic NP is 43.7.
Age at time of surey and support for wolf
reintroduction at Olympic National Park
Response Per Person
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Very Opposed
Somewhat Opposed
30 - 39
40 - 49
Neutral
50 - 59
60 - 69
Somewhat
Supportive
70 - 79
Very Supportive
No age given
n = 20
Figure 16: This figure cross tabulated the respondents’ answers to: How would you feel about the prospect
of wolves being reintroduced at Olympic National Park? and their age at time of survey. The result
indicated that there is more support for reintroductions among the younger respondents than among the
older ones (n = 20).
Response Per Person
Gender and support for wolf reintroduction at
Olympic National Park
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Very Opposed
Somewhat Opposed
Female
Neutral
Male
Somewhat
Supportive
Prefer not to say
Very Supportive
n = 20
Figure 17: This figure cross tabulated the respondents’ answers to: How would you feel about the prospect
of wolves being reintroduced at Olympic National Park? and their gender. The result indicates that both
37
female and male respondents were equally likely to support reintroductions. However, males were very
supportive of reintroductions while females who opposed reintroductions were more likely to be very
opposed than somewhat opposed (n = 20).
4.4 - Factors for an Acceptable Wolf Management Plan
When asked about how important each of the following factors are when making
an acceptable wolf management plan, three factors were clearly favored by respondents
who participated in this survey. 95% of respondents indicated that incorporating input
from all stakeholders, using evidence-based conservation practices, and educating people
about wolves were very important with only 5% of respondents saying they were unsure
(Figures 18, 19, and 20 respectively). When asked about adequately compensating
ranchers and farmers for wolf-killed livestock, only 65% of respondents thought it was
very important factor (Figure 21). With even less importance to the respondents, keeping
wolf populations at agreed upon levels were only very important to 50% of respondents
(Figure 22). Respondents indicated that allowing for sport hunting after wolf population
recovered was only very important to 55% (Figure 23). Returning control to states was
the factors that respondents were the most conflicted about when determining what
factors were important when making an acceptable wolf management plan with only 6%
saying it was very important, 50% saying they were neutral, 22% saying it was not at all
important and 22% saying they were unsure about it (Figure 24).
38
Incorporating input from all stakeholders
20
Response Per Person
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very Important
Neutral
Not at all important
Unsure
n = 20
Figure 18: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is incorporating input from all stakeholders
when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and 95% of respondents said it is very important, with
5% remained neutral. No respondents said it was not at all important or were unsure (n = 20).
Using evidence-based conservation practices
20
Response Per Person
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very Important
Neutral
Not at all important
Unsure
n = 19
Figure 19: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is using evidence-based conservation
practices when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and of the respondents who answered this
question 95% of respondents said it is very important, with 5% remained neutral. No respondents said it
was not at all important or were unsure. One respondent did not answer this question (n = 19).
39
Educating people about wolves
20
Response Per Person
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very Important
Neutral
Not at all important
Unsure
n = 19
Figure 20: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is educating people about wolves when
making an acceptable wolf management plan? and of the respondents who answered this question 95% of
respondents said it is very important, with 5% remained neutral. No respondents said it was not at all
important or were unsure. One respondent did not answer this question (n = 19).
Adequately compensate ranchers and farmers
for wolf-killed livestock
14
Response Per Person
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very Important
Neutral
Not at all important
Unsure
n = 20
Figure 21: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is adequately compensating ranchers and
farmers for wolf-killed livestock when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and 65% of
respondents said it is very important, 20% remained neutral, 10% said it was not at all important, and 5%
said they were unsure (n = 20).
40
Keeping wolf populations at agreed upon
levels
Response Per Person
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very Important
Neutral
Not at all important
Unsure
n = 20
Figure 22: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is keeping wolf populations at agreed upon
levels when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and 50% of respondents said it is very
important, 30% remained neutral, 5% said it was not at all important, and 15% said they were unsure (n =
20).
Allowing for sport hunting once wolf
populations recover
Response Per Person
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very Important
Neutral
Not at all important
Unsure
n = 20
Figure 23: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is allowing for sport hunting once wolf
populations recover when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and 20% of respondents said it is
very important, 25% remained neutral, and 55% said it was not at all important. No respondents said they
were unsure (n = 20).
41
Returning control to states as soon as possible
10
Response Per Person
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Very Important
Neutral
Not at all important
Unsure
n = 18
Figure 24: Respondents were asked how important of a factor is returning control to states as soon as
possible when making an acceptable wolf management plan? and of the respondents who answered this
question 6% of respondents said it is very important, 50% remained neutral, 22% said it was not at all
important, and 22% said they were unsure. Two respondents did not answer this question (n = 18).
4.5 - Would Reintroductions be an Advantage or Disadvantage
When respondents were asked if it would be an advantage or disadvantage to
them personally if wolves were reintroduced at Olympic NP, their responses were almost
equally distributed between huge disadvantage, and huge advantage (Figure 25). The
neutral option was by far the most selected response at (45%). When considering
responses to two other questions, respondents indicated that educating people about
wolves is very important to them (see Figures 20, and 29), so perhaps with a little
knowledge about the benefits of having an intact ecosystem with its apex predator, the
respondents wouldn’t have been so neutral with their answers for this question.
42
Response Per Person
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
To what extent do you feel that reintroducing
wolves at Olympic National Park would be a
disadvantage or advantage to you personally?
9
4
3
2
Huge disadvantage Slight disadvantage
2
Neutral
Slight advantage
Huge advantage
n = 20
Figure 25: Respondents were asked to what extent do you feel that reintroducing wolves at Olympic
National Park would be a disadvantage or advantage to you personally? and 20% of respondents said
reintroductions would be a huge disadvantage, 10% said it would be a slight disadvantage, 45% were
neutral, 10% said they it would be a slight advantage, and 15% said it would be a huge advantage (n = 20).
4.6 - Coexisting with Wolves
Respondents were asked where should humans and wolves coexist? (Figure 26),
and where do you believe wolves should be allowed to live? (Figure 27). Each question
shared five identical possible answers (historic habitats, secluded wilderness, national
parks, public lands, and private lands). These questions and answers were almost
identical to each other, but were designed to assess the respondent’s tolerance for wolves
on different land types when compared to each other. The comparative analysis found
that respondents agreed that secluded wilderness and private lands were equally
acceptable place for wolves to live and for humans and wolves to coexist. Interestingly,
there appears to be marginally higher levels of tolerance for wolves to live in historic
habitats, national parks, and public lands if coexistence with humans is left out (11%,
4%, and 4% respectively).
43
Response Per Person
In your opinion, where should humans and
wolves coexist?
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Historic Habitats
Secluded
Wilderness
National Parks
Public Lands
Private Lands
n = 19
Figure 26: Respondents were asked in your opinion, where should humans and wolves coexist? and of the
respondents who answered this question 63% of respondents said historic habitats, 95% said secluded
wilderness, 68% said national parks, 68% said public lands, and 42% said private lands. One respondent
did not answer this question (n = 19).
Response Per Person
If you could choose, where do you think
wolves should be allowed to live?
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Historic Habitats
Secluded
Wilderness
National Parks
Public Lands
Private Lands
n = 19
Figure 27: Respondents were asked if you could choose, where do you think wolves should be allowed to
live? and of the respondents who answered this question 74% of respondents said historic habitats, 95%
said secluded wilderness, 74% said national parks, 74% said public lands, and 42% said private lands. One
respondent did not answer this question (n = 19).
44
4.7 - Lethal Removal
When asking respondents to indicate when a wolf should be lethally removed,
only twelve of the twenty people surveyed answered at least one of the three possible
options. Of the respondents who answered this question, 100% said it would be
acceptable to lethally remove a wolf if it kills a pet or livestock, 58% said it would be
acceptable if it threatens a pet or livestock, and 33% said it would be acceptable if it is on
public land (Figure 28). While I did not offer a wolves should not be lethally removed
option, it’s possible that at least some of the eight respondents who left their answers
blank for this question would have chosen that option because when these same
respondents were asked how effective is lethal removal of wolves at reducing human-wolf
conflicts? (Figure 29), two respondents said that lethal removal is not at all effective, two
others said they were neutral, and one said they were unsure.
In you opinion, wolves can be lethally
removed if ... ?
14
Response Per Person
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
It kills a pet or livestock
It threatens a pet or livestock
It is on public land
n = 12
Figure 28: Respondents were asked in your opinion, wolves can be lethally removed if …? and of the
respondents who answered this question 100% of respondents said if it kills a pet or livestock, 58% said if
it threatens a pet or livestock, and 33% said if it is on public land. 8 respondents did not answer this
question (n = 12).
45
4.8 - Reducing Human-Wolf Conflict
I asked respondents to rate six different factors that influence human-wolf
conflicts. The respondents indicated that educating people about wolves was the most
important factor followed in descending order by avoiding high risk areas, management
plans, lethal removal, non-lethal hazing, and finally the least effective factor fencing
(Figures 29). These findings are important in determining possible areas where biologists
Response Per Person
can focus their efforts when trying to reduce human-wolf conflicts.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
How effective are each of the following
examples at reducing human-wolf conflicts?
Educating people Avoiding high risk
about wolves
areas
(n = 18)
(n = 18)
Very effective
Management
plans
(n = 18)
Neutral
Lethal removal
(n = 18)
Unsure
Non-lethal hazing
(n = 17)
Fencing
(n = 18)
Not at all effective
Figure 29: Respondents were asked how effective are each of the following at reducing human-wolf
conflicts? The data reflects the most effective factor, educating people about wolves (50%), on the left to
the least effective factor, fencing (44%), on the right. Three respondents did not fully answer this question
(n = 17/18).
4.9 - Level of Concern
To gauge the level of concern that my respondents associated with possible
reintroductions of wolves at Olympic NP, I asked them what their level of concern was
for the following examples: increased danger to humans, declines in elk and deer
populations, and increased danger to livestock (Figure 30). Findings indicated that
46
respondents were most concerned with increased danger to livestock followed by
declines in elk and deer populations, with the lowest level of concern to increased
danger to humans. Respondents indicated that they were most concerned about livestock
depredation, followed by declines in elk and deep populations, and were least concerned
about humans being in danger. Biologists should be mindful of these concerns because
researchers project that the danger to livestock would be insignificant (Ratti et al., 1999).
Response Per Person
10
If biologists at Olympic National Park were
considering reintroducing gray wolves, what
level of concern would you feel for each of the
following examples?
8
6
4
2
0
Increased danger to humans
Declines in Elk and Deer
Increased danger to livestock
populations
Not at all concerned
Neutral
Very concerned
n = 20
Figure 30: Respondents were asked if biologists at Olympic National Park were considering reintroducing
gray wolves, what level of concerned would you feel for each of the following examples? The data reflects
the least concerning example, increased danger to humans (30%), followed by declines in Elk and Deer
populations (35%), and increased danger to livestock (40%) (n = 20).
4.10 - Support for Reintroductions
To assess how respondents felt about wolf conservation efforts, I asked them two
similar questions about reintroductions: 1) how they felt in general about humans
reintroducing wolves to historic wolf habitats (Figure 31), and 2) how they felt about
possible reintroductions to Olympic NP (Figure 32). Interestingly, when comparing
answers to both questions, I found that 30% of respondents were very supportive/strongly
47
agree with reintroductions in general and at Olympic NP, and a further 20% of
respondents being somewhat supportive/somewhat agree to the same. Similarly,
respondents were equally somewhat opposed/somewhat disagree (15% respectively) to
the reintroduction of wolves at both historic habitats and at Olympic NP. The real
difference between the two sets of answers came from one respondent who was neutral
about wolf reintroductions in general switching to very opposed to reintroductions at
Olympic NP. Overall, there seems to be a decent amount of support from these
respondents.
To what extent do you disagree or agree that
humans should be reintroducing wolves to
their historic habitats?
Strongly Agree
30%
Strongly Disagree
20%
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
15%
Somewhat Agree
20%
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Neutral
15%
Figure 31: Respondents were asked to what extent to you disagree or agree that humans should be
reintroducing wolves to their historic habitats? and 30% of respondents strongly agree that humans should
be reintroducing wolves to their historic habitats, 20% somewhat agree, 35% disagree, and 15% are neutral
(n = 20).
48
How would you feel about the prospect of
wolves being reintroduced at Olympic NP?
Very Supportive
30%
Very Opposed
25%
Very Opposed
Somewhat Opposed
Neutral
Somewhat Supportive
Very Supportive
Somewhat
Supportive
20%
Neutral
10%
Somewhat Opposed
15%
Figure 32: Respondents were asked how would you feel about the prospect of wolves being reintroduced at
Olympic NP? and 30% of respondents are very supportive about the prospect of reintroductions of wolves
to Olympic NP, 20% somewhat supportive, 25% are very opposed, 15% are somewhat opposed, and 10%
are neutral (n = 20).
4.11 - Comments
For the last question of the survey, I used an open-ended style question to ask
respondents if they had any comments about wolf reintroductions at Olympic NP to 1) to
give respondents an opportunity to write me a confidential message that could help me
understand possible motivations behind answers they gave; and 2) gain insights that will
help me improve the survey instrument itself. Nine respondents decided to submit a
comment with their survey responses, five in opposition, and four in support of gray wolf
reintroductions at Olympic NP. The Don’t ask, just do it comment submitted by a Very
Supportive Respondent I found to be interesting because attitudes like that are
counterproductive and are exactly why there is so much opposition to wolf
reintroductions. Here are all the comments I received, organized by their level of support
or opposition to wolf reintroductions at Olympic NP.
49
“I[sic] KNOW RACHERS[sic] IN EASTERN WASHINGTON WHO
CANNOT LET THEIR[sic] CHILDREN OUTSIDE[sic] TO PLAY”
-
Very Opposed Respondent
“I think this would be a real hazard to hikers and campers. It is too
populated, except high in the mountains, and as much as proponents
would wish it, wolves do not respect human's idea of borders or barriers.”
-
Very Opposed Respondent
-
Somewhat Opposed Respondent
“Good luck! ;)”
“I do not support reintroduction, they will get here on their own. Some
Peninsula residents believe they have seen wolves in the Clearwater
area.”
-
Somewhat Opposed Respondent
“Not sure about the idea of re-introducing wolves into the ONP. I do not
know enough about wolves to be able to comment very objectively Prey
such as elk do not remain in high country and range close to humans. The
proximity to large populations of humans could create problems. Wolves
are territorial and this could create dangers to people. Not as concerned
about elk, deer of livestock as I am about the wolves and people conflict.
Do NOT support sport hunting.”
-
Somewhat Opposed Respondent
“Leadership at Olympic National Park makes decisions based on politics,
not what is best for local stakeholders. They don't care what locals want
or need. They cater to a national audience of out-of-town national park
tourists.”
-
Somewhat Supportive
Respondent
“One of the biggest issues in my mind is if/how to ensure WDFW would
adjust hunting pressure in response to potential deer/elk declines on the
OP following wolf reintroduction. Also, would wolves have any impact on
the spread of TAHD? The concerns about reducing deer and elk
50
populations could be partially mitigated if there was proof that wolves
would reduce TAHD prevalence. As of now no such proof is possible in
the near future, and reintroducing wolves to find out is too large a
gamble.”
-
Somewhat Supportive
Respondent
“2 comments. After visiting Yellowstone subsequent to wolf[sic]
reintroduction, I got a good sense of how important it is to restore balance
to the wilderness. There have been so many positive changes to the
greater Yellowstone ecosystem after the reintroduction of wolves. I think
that serves as a good template for what to do in other regions where
wolves were extirpated. II also have a bun guesthouse I believe it would
be a boon to the tourism of the area to have wolves back”
-
Very Supportive Respondent
-
Very Supportive Respondent
“Don't ask, just do it!”
51
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
5.1 - Introduction
Olympic National Park (Olympic NP) was established in 1937 to conserve the last
stronghold of Roosevelt Elk and the primeval forests that sustain them. Unfortunately,
prior to the park’s establishment, gray wolves had already been extirpated from the
Olympic Peninsula, well before biologist realized how vitally important apex predators
are at preventing trophic cascades. Rather than being apprehensive to reintroducing gray
wolves to Olympic NP, resource managers can instead choose to learn from the mistakes
made at Yellowstone NP. This literature review and pilot study demonstrate that there is
a great need to launch a social information/education marketing campaign aimed at
educating people in potential wolf recovery zones on the Olympic Peninsula prior to
reintroduction attempts. Educational topics should utilize evidence-based conservation
practices and be accessible to all potential stakeholders.
5.2 - Human Dimensions and Findings
To improve human-wildlife conflict mitigation efforts, researchers need to assess
the human dimensions (i.e., values and attitudes) associated with carnivore management
(Liordos et al., 2016). Conflicts between stakeholders can occur when people disagree
about the methods utilized when managing species (Liordos et al., 2016). One way to
find out what values and opinions shape a person’s attitude toward wildlife conservation
is to conduct a survey. Williams et al. (2002) analyzed 28 years’ worth of survey data
associated with wolf conservation and discovered that there are key demographic factors
(age, gender, education level, hunting membership, etc.) that can indicate what
someone’s attitude might be toward wolf conservation. They found that the general
52
public overall had positive attitudes toward wolves with the most support coming from
urban residents, females, people in environmental groups, people with higher education
levels, and hunters. The more negative indicator factors were older people, males, people
with more experience with wolves, farmers, and ranchers. Resource managers can use
this kind of information to find allies or to appeal to stakeholders who might oppose their
management strategies.
To find out what how the general public felt about wolf conservation when
creating the Washington State’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan in 2011,
researchers found two independent surveys from 2008 and 2009 that found that
approximately 75% of the general public supports wolf recovery efforts (Wiles et al.,
2011). In comparison, my survey, which focused directly on people in projected wolf
recovery zones outside Olympic NP found that 50% of respondents would support
reintroductions (Figure 32). Williams et al. (2002) stated that the best strategy to finding
allies for a wolf management plan is to appeal to the general public, females, those with
higher education and/or higher income, and hunters/trappers.
I think that the most compelling data that I collected with this survey was the
survey responses about creating an acceptable wolf management plan. Most of my
findings show that there are a lot of differing opinions concerning other aspects of wolf
reintroductions; however, I was able to determine there were three areas where a strong
consensus of respondents (95%) that agreed that including input from all stakeholders,
using evidence-based conservation practices, and educating people about wolves were
very important factors when creating a wolf management plan (see figures 10,11, and
12). While 65% agreed that adequately compensating rangers and farmers for wolf-killed
53
livestock, and 50% agreed that keeping wolves at agreed upon levels was very important
(see figures 13, and 14).
5.3 - Conclusion
Biologists need to do a better job at understanding the human dimensions
involved in resource management. Utilizing all stakeholder input, not just biologists’ and
politicians’, increases the likelihood that a management plan will be socially acceptable
to everyone involved, thus improving the possibility of a successful restoration project.
Conflict managing strategies need to be a major component of any managing plan,
especially any highly controversial government-sponsored wolf conservation plan.
Advocates and opponents to wolf reintroductions can learn a lot from each other. I
believe that on the Olympic Peninsula there is more support for reintroductions than
opposition, however, opponents should not be excluded from any future Olympic Wolf
Management Plans because if biologists refuse to learn from mistakes made at
Yellowstone NP, wolves at Olympic NP will be the ones to suffer.
5.4 - Future Research
Future research on gray wolf reintroductions at Olympic NP should investigate
potential impacts on Treponeme-associated hoof disease (TAHD) in the Roosevelt elk
population on the Olympic Peninsula if wolves were reintroduced. Another area of
research that should be investigated is whether Olympic NP should consider
reintroducing wolves to combat climate change under current National Park Services
climate change policies.
54
5.5 - Recommendations
I have three recommendations based on this literature review and the findings
from this pilot study. Recommendation: 1) Although this survey had a small sample size,
its findings indicate that there could be some support for reintroductions at Olympic NP
from people in the agricultural sector (see figure 24). It will be important to verify these
findings by conducting a random sample of the population of the Olympic Peninsula are
impacted by a potential wolf reintroduction to gain a more complete understanding of
public opinion. Recommendation 2) Olympic NP resource managers will need to
assemble a coalition of pro-wolf reintroduction stakeholders prior to actually
reintroducing wolves. Thus, my second recommendation is that Olympic NP immediately
begin a wolf reintroduction social information and education marketing campaign aimed
at improving the level of tolerance that stakeholders have towards wolves. To accomplish
this goal, Olympic NP personal should utilize evidence-based conservation practices,
examples learned from Yellowstone NP’s experiences with wolf reintroductions, and an
open-minded approach to finding common ground. Recommendation 3). While I
personally would support reintroductions from a biological standpoint, from a social
acceptance standpoint, it would be premature to recommend that anyone reintroduce gray
wolves to Olympic National Park until the first two recommendations have been
addressed.
55
WORK CITED
Anunsen, C., & Anunsen, R. (1993). Response to Scheffer. Society for Conservation
Biology. 7(4), 954-957.
Babcock, H. (2013). THE SAD STORY OF THE NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN
GRAY WOLF REINTRODUCTION PROGRAM. Fordham Environmental Law
Review, 24(1), 25–62.
Bassing, S. (2021). Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2020 Annual
Report. 46.
Bangs, E., & Steven, F. (1996). Reintroducing the Gray Wolf to Central Idaho and
Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife society bulletin (1973-2006), 24(3), 402-413.
Beschta, R., & Ripple, W. (2008). Wolves, trophic cascades, and rivers in the Olympic
National Park, USA. Ecohydrology, 1(2), 118–130.
Beschta, R., & Ripple, W. (2018). Wolf‐triggered trophic cascades and stream channel
dynamics in Olympic National Park: A comment on East et al. (2017). Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms, 43(4), 930–935.
Carroll, C., Phillips, M., Lopez-Gonzalez, C., & Schumaker, N. (2006). Defining
Recovery Goals and Strategies for Endangered Species: The Wolf as a Case
Study. BioScience, 56(1), 25–37.
Creel, S., Winnie, J., Maxwell, B., Hamlin, K., & Creel, M. (2005). Elk Alter Habitat
Selection as an Antipredator Response to Wolves. Ecology, 86(12), 3387–3397.
Dilsaver, L., & Wyckoff, W. (2005). THE POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY OF NATIONAL
PARKS. Pacific Historical Review, 74(2), 237–266.
Fortin, D., Beyer, H., Boyce, M., Smith, D., Duchesne, T., & Mao, J. (2005). Wolves
Influence Elk Movements: Behavior Shapes a Trophic Cascade in Yellowstone
National Park. Ecology, 86(5), 1320–1330.
Griffin, S., Taper, M., & Mills, L. (2007). Female Olympic Marmots (Marmota olympus)
Reproduce in Consecutive Years. The American Midland Naturalist, 158(1), 221–
225.
Hanson, L. (1995). Turning Rivals into Allies: Understanding the Wise Use Movement.
Alternatives, 21(3), 26–31.
Hernández, F., Corcoran, D., Graells, G., Ríos, C., & Downey, M. (2017). Rancher
Perspectives of a Livestock-Wildlife Conflict in Southern Chile. Rangelands,
39(2), 56–63.
Jackson, W. (1942). The Creation of Yellowstone National Park. The Mississippi Valley
Historical Review, 29(2), 187–206.
56
Jenkins, K., Happe, P., Beirne, K., Hoffman, R., Griffin, P., et al. (2012). Recent
Population Trends of Mountain Goats in the Olympic Mountains, Washington.
Northwest Science. 86(4), 264-275.
Jenkins, K. (2021). Elk monitoring in Mount Rainier and Olympic national parks: 2008 ‒
2017 synthesis report. National Park Service.
JONES, K. (2011). Writing the Wolf: Canine Tales and North American EnvironmentalLiterary Tradition. Environment and History, 17(2), 201–228.
Larson, A., & Paine, R. (2007). Ungulate Herbivory: Indirect Effects Cascade into the
Treetops. National Academy of Sciences. 104(1), 5-6.
Liordos, V., Kontsiotis, V., Georgari, M., Baltzi, K., & Baltzi, I. (2016). Public
acceptance of management methods under different human–wildlife conflict
scenarios. Science of The Total Environment, 579, 685–693.
Lute, L., Carter, H., Lopez-Bao, V., Linnell C. (2017). Conservation professionals agree
on challenges to coexisting with large carnivores but not on solutions. Biological
Conservation. 218, 223-232.
Nadkarni, N., & Kohl, K. (2019). Elements of disturbance that affect epiphyte vitality in
a temperate rainforest: An experimental approach. Journal of Plant Ecology,
12(2), 306–313.
Peterson, R., Vucetich, J., Bump, J., & Smith, D. (2014). Trophic Cascades in a
Multicausal World: Isle Royale and Yellowstone. Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 325–345.
Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart, W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., Loveridge, A.,
Macdonald, D., Marvin, G., Redpath, S., Sillero‐Zubiri, C., Zimmermann, A., &
Milner‐Gulland, E. (2016). An interdisciplinary review of current and future
approaches to improving human–predator relations. Conservation Biology, 31(3),
513–523.
Ratti, J., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, University of
Idaho, Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, & Idaho Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit. (1999). Feasibility study on the reintroduction of gray
wolves to the Olympic Peninsula. United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Western Washington Office.
Redpath, S., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W., Sutherland, W., Whitehouse, A., Amar,
A., Lambert, R., Linnell, J., Watt, A., & Gutiérrez, R. (2013). Understanding and
managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(2), 100–109.
Rio-Maior, H., Nakamura, M., Álvares, F., & Beja, P. (2019). Designing the landscape of
coexistence: Integrating risk avoidance, habitat selection and functional
connectivity to inform large carnivore conservation. Biological Conservation,
235, 178–188.
57
Ritchie, E., & Johnson, C. (2009). Predator interactions, mesopredator release and
biodiversity conservation. Ecology Letters, 12(9), 982–998.
Scheffer, B. (1993). Reply to the Anunsens. Conservation Biology 7(4), 958.
Smith, D., Peterson, R., & Houston, D. (2003). Yellowstone after Wolves. BioScience,
53(4), 330.
Stewart, K., Bowyer, R., Kie, J., Dick, B., & Ruess, R. (2009). Population Density of
North American Elk: Effects on Plant Diversity. Springer, 161(2), 303-312.
Sutherland, W., Pullin, A., Dolman, P., & Knight, T. (2004). The need for evidencebased conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(6), 305–308.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2021). Gray Wolf Conservation and
Management. https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/graywolf
Wiles, G., Allen, H., & Hayes, G. E. (2011). Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.
301.
Williams, C., Ericsson, G., & Heberlein, T. (2002). A Quantitative Summary of Attitudes
toward Wolves and Their Reintroduction (1972-2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin
(1973-2006), 30(2), 575–584.
Witczuk, J., Pagacz, S., & Mills, L. S. (2013). Disproportionate predation on endemic
marmots by invasive coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy, 94(3), 702–713.
Wright, R. (1998). A Review of the Relationships between Visitors and Ungulates in
National Parks. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 26(3), 471–476.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2021). Gray Wolf Conservation and
Management. wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/gray-wolf.
Wiles, G.J., Allen, H.L., & Hayes, G.E. (2011). Wolf Conservation and Management
Plan for Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
Washington.
Williams, Christopher K., Göran Ericsson, and Thomas A. Heberlein. 2002. “A
Quantitative Summary of Attitudes toward Wolves and Their Reintroduction
(1972-2000).” Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 30 (2): 575–84.
Wright, R. Gerald. (1998). “A Review of the Relationships between Visitors and
Ungulates in National Parks.” Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 26 (3): 471–
76.
58
APPENDICIES
Appendix A: Institutional Review Board Application
1) Project Abstract (500 words)
The Olympic Mountains in northwestern Washington State are home to a unique
mixture of plants and animals, some of whom are endemic and/or listed as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Of the 15
threatened or endangered species currently listed for the Olympic Mountains, only
the gray wolf (Canis lupis) was deliberately eradicated by early white settlers to
the region. The loss of this apex-predator was an unmitigated disaster for this rare
ecosystem. It is important to reestablish gray wolves in Olympic National Park to:
A) recover lost ecosystem services, B) maintain prey and mesocarnivore
populations at sustainable levels within the park and adjacent lands, and C)
provide federally protected habitat for wolf population recovery objectives of
Washington State. However, wolf reintroductions are controversial and thus
require an examination into possible common ground solutions. Using Human
Dimensions theory as a practical framework, this thesis investigated wolf and
human coexistence in North American from western expansion in the 19 th and
20th centuries to present. Additionally, this thesis examined ecological, social, and
political influences on land management decisions made by agencies such as the
National Park Service and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Using an internet-based snowball survey, this research focused on stakeholders
that resided in the Olympic Peninsula Region, where wolves are not present, and
other regions of Washington State where wolves are actively recolonizing to: A)
assess if natural resource conservation social norms and values differed between
these groups, B) ascertain demographically which subgroups support/do not
support reintroductions and why, and C) determine if common ground solutions
are possible.
Recommendations: may include suggestions for educational programs, policy
changes or legislative actions.
2) Bibliography
Babcock, Hope M. (2013). The Sad Story of the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray
Wolf Reintroduction Program. Fordham Environmental Law Review 24
(1): 25–62.
Carroll, Carlos, Michael K. Phillips, Carlos A. Lopez-Gonzalez, and Nathan H.
Schumaker. (2006). Defining Recovery Goals and Strategies for
Endangered Species: The Wolf as a Case Study. BioScience 56 (1): 25–37.
59
Dilsaver, Lary M., and William Wyckoff. (2005). The Political Geography of
National Parks. Pacific Historical Review 74 (2): 237–66.
Hanson, Lorelei. (1995). Turning Rivals into Allies: Understanding the Wise Use
Movement. Alternatives 21 (3): 26–31.
Jackson, W. Turrentine. (1942). The Creation of Yellowstone National Park. The
Mississippi Valley Historical Review 29 (2): 187–206.
Ratti, John T, (1999). Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to
the Olympic Peninsula. Lacey, WA, USA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
National Park Service. (2012). “Climate Change Action Plan 2012–2014.”
Accessed December 12, 2020.
National Park Service. (2010). “Climate Change Response Strategy.” Accessed
December 12, 2020.
Smith, Douglas W., Rolf O. Peterson, and Douglas B. Houston. (2003).
“Yellowstone after Wolves.” BioScience 53 (4): 330.
Sutherland, William J., Andrew S. Pullin, Paul M. Dolman, and Teri M. Knight.
(2004). “The Need for Evidence-Based Conservation.” Trends in Ecology
& Evolution 19 (6): 305–8.
Williams, Christopher K., Göran Ericsson, and Thomas A. Heberlein. 2002. “A
Quantitative Summary of Attitudes toward Wolves and Their
Reintroduction (1972-2000).” Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 30
(2): 575–84.
Wright, R. Gerald. (1998). “A Review of the Relationships between Visitors and
Ungulates in National Parks.” Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 26
(3): 471–76.
3) Risks and Benefits
Please describe the possible risks to human subjects. Specify possible kinds and
degrees of risks, e.g., minimal, emotional risk in the form of distress or
embarrassment. Outline the precautions that will be taken to minimize these risks,
and how the benefits outweigh the risks.
a) Specific level of risk to subjects
To estimate the risk level that my study might impose on its subjects, I
estimated the probability of the survey causing harm and weighed the
60
magnitude of that harm to my subjects if it occurred. I concluded that the
probability and magnitude of harms were of minimal risk to potential subjects.
Thus, I believe that keeping my respondent’s responses confidential will be
sufficient to protect my subjects.
These are the steps I will take to assure the probability and magnitude of
harms are of minimal risk to my subjects:
Make it very clear that this is survey is for research purposes only and
that no one, to my knowledge, is actively trying to reintroduce wolves
at ONP.
Ensure that the subjects are at least 18 years old.
Design the survey to be confidential.
Allow people to quit at any time.
Explain that their participation is voluntary.
Not ask for or keep any personally identifiable information.
Generalize the survey questions to minimize the probability of causing
emotional distress.
Restrict access to the data to people who need to see it to help me with
my thesis.
Keep my data on a password protected computer.
Delete the data once my thesis has been completed.
b) Benefits of the research
It has been over 100 years since wolves were removed from the Olympic
Peninsula. The main benefit of this research will be that state and federal
agencies could use it to justify a more thorough survey of the Olympic
Peninsula Region. Ultimately, my goal with this research is to make
recommendations for educational programs, policy changes, or legislative
actions that will be socially acceptable to people that work in agriculture on
the Olympic Peninsula.
4) Purpose and Research Design
My thesis will attempt to answer the question: Is it time to reintroduce gray
wolves to Olympic National Park (ONP)? My literature review on the subject
found that reintroductions are supported at ONP from a biological feasible
standpoint. However, the literature is unclear if wolf reintroduction would be
socially acceptable to residents who live in the Olympic Peninsula. Thus, I
decided to create an internet-based snowball survey to reach agricultural workers
from the Olympic Peninsula. I will utilize Survey 123 by ESRI to design,
implement, collect data, and for basic analysis of my survey. The survey will be
61
administered 100% remotely and will be conducted in accordance with
Washington state and The Evergreen State College Covid-19 procedures.
To analyze my data, I will use Excel and Survey 123 for cross tabulations, and
simple statistics. I will not be collecting any locational data other than verifying
that the person must live, work, or own land on the Olympic Peninsula due to the
sensitivity of my research topic. I believe my survey findings will help me gauge
the level of support or opposition from local farmers to the idea of reintroducing
wolves at Olympic National Park. I think that the findings will also help me
understand what factors might change their minds on the topic.
5) Problem Statement (300 words) Provide the HSR a clear description of what the
research aims to examine)
In the 18th and 19th centuries, European settlers colonized the Pacific Northwest
and purposefully hunted gray wolves (Canis lupus) to the brink of extinction.
Settlers removed the wolves out of fear, without considering their ecological
importance as a keystone species. In the Olympic Mountains, the last recorded
gray wolf was killed in the 1920’s. The lack of a primary predator on the
Peninsula profoundly changed predator/prey dynamics. Ungulates such as elk and
deer have had free range to degrade critical ecosystems by over-grazing and
causing erosion (Carroll et al., 2006). Coyotes (Canis latrans) filled the ecological
niche that the wolves once occupied; unfortunately, coyotes prefer smaller game,
so the endemic Olympic Marmot populations have suffered.
Researchers and environmentalists in the second half of the 20 th century began to
recognize the vital role that gray wolves provided to the landscape. After the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced them to Yellowstone in 1995, wolves
began to heavily influence interspecific competition within forest and riparian
ecosystems in ways that significantly affected forest growth and composition
(Carroll et al., 2006). However, recolonization of the Olympic Mountains is
extremely unlikely without human assistance. Without wolves, natural ecological
functions within the park will continue to deteriorate this unique ecosystem
(Douglas, 2003).
Public opinion of gray wolves has changed over the past few decades, particularly
since wolf reintroductions were biologically successful in Yellowstone National
Park. Williams et al. (2002) told us that people’s attitudes towards wolves and
their reintroduction change overtime due to many factors. My survey will help me
gauge the level of support or opposition from local agriculture workers and
hopefully shed light on possible common ground solutions.
62
6) Research Question
Is it time to reintroduce gray wolves to Olympic National Park?
7) Selection and recruitment of participant
How will the recruitment of human subjects for your proposed project be carried
out? Include your recruitment criteria and procedures. Attach copies of any
advertisements, flyers, announcements, or messages you will use to recruit
participants.
My target audience will be agricultural workers who live on the Olympic
Peninsula. Here is my list of recruitment criteria.
Prospective subject criteria:
o Subject must live, work, or own land on the Olympic Peninsula
o They must work in agriculture
o They have access to the internet for contact and survey purposes
o They are legally able to give informed consent
o They must be at least 18 years of age
I will recruit prospective subjects by initially contacting agricultural workers
using internet searches and/or recommendations via the snowball method. Below
is an example message I will send to a prospective subject.
Example Introductory Email
Dear Agricultural Worker,
I am a U.S. Coast Guard veteran currently enrolled in graduate school and I am
working on a research project involving agriculture in the Olympic Peninsula. The
reason I am contacting you is because I am conducting a survey to find out what
those in the agricultural field working in the Olympic Peninsula would think
about gray wolf reintroductions at Olympic National Park (ONP). I am not a prowolf reintroduction advocate or activist; this survey serves no purpose outside of
my project and is not sponsored by any person or agency. To the best of my
knowledge, no organization is actively working on reintroducing gray wolves to
ONP.
That being said, I believe that a controversial topic like the one I am working on
needs to have input from all points of view, especially from people who are
63
directly affected by policy decisions. If you decide to participate in the survey,
your responses will remain confidential. I will not ask you any personally
identifiable questions and you are free to quit the survey at any time. I estimate
that it should take approximately 10 to15 minutes to complete.
To ensure confidentiality, the data you provide will be stored on a password
protected computer and will only be shared with faculty members on a need-toknow basis. My findings will be made publicly available once I complete my
thesis. If you are interested in finding out more about my research project, you
can request a copy of my final report by emailing me directly at
blajam03@evergreen.edu.
If you have any question about this survey, I would be happy to answer them as
best as I can. If you know of any other agricultural workers located on the
Olympic Peninsula that you think would be interested in taking this survey, please
consider helping me contact them.
I appreciate your time.
Respectfully,
James Blacklaw
8) Data collection process and protocol
Include the procedures and protocols to which humans will be subjected, (i.e.,
questionnaires, interviews, audio, or video recording). Provide detailed
description of when, where, and how data will be collected, and the procedures
and protocols used. Please attach a copy of all the questions you will be asking.
I will be collecting my data using an internet-based snowball survey method.
After this application is approved by the IRB, I will begin emailing and calling
agriculture organizations to recruit subjects to take this survey. The survey will be
conducted remotely using Survey 123 by ESRI. When a subject completes the
survey, the data will be collected automatically and be protected by password on
Survey 123. Once I feel that I have enouph respondents, I will begin cleaning the
data and prepare to move into my analysis phase.
I have attached a copy of my survey questions with this application.
9) Debriefing Procedures (For studies that use deception or pose more than
minimal risk)
64
N/A
10) Confidentiality and Anonymity
Explain whether the participants will be protected through confidentiality or
anonymity and how this protection is appropriate for the level of risk and how this
protection will be managed. Include how information from this study will be
distributed, and how will the promise of confidentiality be kept or carried out in
the final product.
This survey is estimated to be of minimal risk to my subjects. Due to the
controversial nature of my topic, I have designed the survey to be confidential.
Here are the ways I will ensure confidentiality.
I will not ask for any personally identifiable information.
Data will be stored on a password protected computer.
Raw data will be deleted after my thesis is completed.
The only people who will have access to the raw and cleaned data will be
myself and Evergreen faculty members on a need-to-know basis.
I will not be collecting locational data from my subjects. However, if any
location data is accidentally collected, I will delete it during the data
cleaning process.
My findings will be reported in aggregate to further ensure that individual
respondents will not be easily identifiable.
11) Data Management and Storage
Explain how the data will be managed (transferred, used, shared) and stored once
it is collected. Include how long the data will be kept, and why that amount of
time is necessary.
The data for this research project will be collected using my Evergreen provided
Survey 123 account. I plan on downloading the raw data from Survey 123 into an
Excel file. I will be analyzing the data in Excel on my password protected
personal computer. To ensure I do not prematurely erase needed data, I plan to
keep the data on my computer until I complete my thesis. Once my thesis is
completed, I will delete the data from my personal computer and from Survey
123.
I will not share the data with anyone other than Evergreen faculty on a need-toknow basis to maintain confidentiality and anonymity.
12) Informed Consent Process and Form
65
Explain how informed consent will be obtained and attach the specific informed
consent form for this study. (See sample sections for informed consent)
I have attached an example consent form that I plan to attach to the beginning of
my survey. I will ensure that my subjects have given their informed consent by
having them read the consent form and agree to it before they can take the survey.
You are being invited to participate in a research study titled: Maintaining Long-term Sustainability of the Natural
World: Reintroduction of Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) to Olympic National Park. This study is being done by James
Blacklaw from The Evergreen State College.
This is only a student research project. To the best of my knowledge, no organization is actively trying to reintroduce
wolves to Olympic National Park. The purpose of this research study is to help me gauge the level of support or
opposition from agricultural workers on the Olympic Peninsula. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to
complete a confidential online survey. This survey will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete and will ask
you for your opinions on natural resource management and gray wolf reintroductions.
You may not directly benefit from this research. However, your participation in the study may help me make
recommendations for educational programs, policy changes, or legislative actions that reflect your opinions.
Risks to you are minimal and are likely to be no more than mild discomfort with sharing your opinion. The survey will
not collect information that could be linked to you personally. To the best of my ability your responses will remain
confidential. With any online related activity, however, the risk of a breach of confidentiality is always possible. I will
minimize any risks by; 1) not ask for any personally identifiable information during the survey, 2) deleting any
personally identifiable information if accidentally given, 3) protecting your survey responses on a password protected
computer, and 4) erasing the data after my thesis is complete.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you can withdraw at any time. You are free to skip any
questions that you choose.
If you have questions about this project or if you have a research-related problem, you may contact the researcher,
James Blacklaw at blajam03@evergreen.edu. If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research subject,
or you experience problems because of your participation in this research project, you may contact Rhonda Woods,
IRB Staff at The Evergreen State College at irb@evergreen.edu.
Once you complete the survey and see what kind of questions I am asking, feel free to recommend others that you
think would help me with this project by also taking the survey. I would greatly appreciate it.
By clicking “I agree” below you are indicating that you are at least 18 years old, have read and understood this
consent form and agree to participate in this research study. Please print a copy of this page for your records.
I Agree
I Do Not Agree
66
Appendix B: General Email Introduction
Participant,
My name is James, and I am currently enrolled in graduate school in Olympia
working toward a Master of Environmental Studies degree. I hope you don’t mind
my contacting you directly, I found your contact info on a list of agricultural
businesses in the Olympic Peninsula. I am writing my thesis on the social
acceptability of gray wolf reintroductions to Olympic National Park (ONP), and I
am conducting a survey to learn the opinions of those in the agricultural field
working in the Olympic Peninsula. I am not a pro-wolf reintroduction advocate or
activist; this survey serves no purpose outside of my project and is not sponsored
by any person or agency. To the best of my knowledge, no organization is
actively working on reintroducing gray wolves to ONP.
That being said, I believe that a controversial topic like this one needs to have
input from as many viewpoints as possible, especially from those who are directly
affected by policy decisions. If you decide to participate in the survey, your
responses will remain confidential, and you are free to quit the survey at any time
if you so wish. I estimate that it should take approximately 10-15 minutes to
complete.
My findings will be made publicly available once I complete my thesis. If you are
interested in finding out more about my project, you can request a copy of my
final report by emailing me directly at: blajam03@evergreen.edu.
If you have any question about this survey, I would be happy to answer them as
best as I can. If you know of any other agricultural workers located on the
Olympic Peninsula that you think would be interested in taking this survey, please
consider helping me contact them.
To access the survey, click on this link: https://arcg.is/O0qyv.
I appreciate your time.
Respectfully,
James Blacklaw
67
Appendix C: Institutional Review Board Approval Letter
68
Appendix D: Survey Instrument
You are being invited to participate in a thesis research study titled: Maintaining Longterm Sustainability of the Natural World: Reintroduction of Gray Wolves (Canis lupus)
to Olympic National Park. This study is being done by James Blacklaw, a Master of
Environmental Studies student from The Evergreen State College.
This is only a student research project. To the best of my knowledge, no organization is
actively trying to reintroduce wolves to Olympic National Park. The purpose of this
research study is to help me gauge the level of support or opposition from agricultural
workers on the Olympic Peninsula. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to
complete a confidential online survey. This survey will take approximately 10 to 15
minutes to complete and will ask you for your opinions on natural resource management
and gray wolf reintroductions.
You may not directly benefit from this research. However, your participation in the study
may help me make recommendations for educational programs, policy changes, or
legislative actions that reflect your opinions.
Risks to you are minimal and are likely to be no more than mild discomfort with sharing
your opinion. The survey will not collect information that could be linked to you
personally. To the best of my ability your responses will remain confidential. With any
online related activity, however, the risk of a breach of confidentiality is always possible.
I will minimize any risks by; 1) not ask for any personally identifiable information during
the survey, 2) deleting any personally identifiable information if accidentally given, 3)
protecting your survey responses on a password protected computer, and 4) erasing the
data after my thesis is complete.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you can withdraw at any
time. You are free to skip any questions that you choose.
If you have questions about this project or if you have a research-related problem, you
may contact the researcher, James Blacklaw at blajam03@evergreen.edu. If you have any
questions concerning your rights as a research subject, or you experience problems
because of your participation in this research project, you may contact Rhonda Woods,
IRB Staff at The Evergreen State College at irb@evergreen.edu.
By clicking “I agree” below you are indicating that you are at least 18 years old, have
read and understood this consent form and agree to participate in this research
study. However, by selecting "I Do Not Agree" below you are indicating that you are not
at least 18 and/or do not want to participate in this research study. Either way I appreciate
your time. Please print a copy of this page for your records.
69
Informed Consent Select one
a) I Agree
b) I Do Not Agree
Thank you for your participation in this survey. Below are 19 questions that
will help me understand what your opinions are about wolf reintroductions
at Olympic National Park.
1) Do you consider yourself a …? Select all that apply
a)
b)
c)
d)
Hunter
Farmer
Forester
Rancher
2) Do you work in agriculture? Select yes or no (this question uses skip-logic)
a) Yes – go to 2.5
b) No – go to 3
2.5) If yes, what is your primary focus in agricultural? Select one
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Dairy Farming
Flowers
Forestry
Fruit
Livestock/Ranching
Produce
Other (please specify)
3) To what extent do you disagree or agree that humans should be
reintroducing wolves to their historic habitats? Select one
a) Strongly Disagree
b) Somewhat Disagree
70
c) Neutral
d) Somewhat Agree
e) Strongly Agree
4) In your opinion, how important are each of the following factors when
creating an acceptable wolf management plan? Select level of importance for
each factor
a)
b)
c)
d)
Not at all important
Neutral
Very important
Unsure
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Incorporating input from all stakeholders
Keeping wolf populations at agreed upon levels
Returning control to states as soon as possible
Allowing for sport hunting once wolves recover
Using evidence-based conservation practice
Educating people about wolves
Adequately compensate ranchers and farmers for wolf-killed
livestock
5) To what extent do you feel that reintroducing wolves at Olympic
National Park would be a disadvantage or advantage to you personally?
Select one
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Huge Disadvantage
Slight Disadvantage
Neutral
Slight Advantage
Huge Advantage
6) In your opinion, where should humans and wolves coexist? Select all that
apply
a) Historic habitats
b) Secluded wilderness
c) National Parks
71
d) Public lands
e) Private lands
7) In your opinion, wolves can be lethally removed if… Select all that apply
a)
b)
c)
d)
it kills a pet or livestock
it threatens pet or livestock
it is on private land
it is on public land
8) How effective are each of the following examples at reduce human-wolf
conflicts? Select level of effectiveness for each of the examples
a)
b)
c)
d)
Not at all effective
Neutral
Very effective
Unsure
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Educating people about wolves
Avoiding high risk areas
Fencing
Non-lethal hazing (i.e., loud noises, paintball guns, etc.)
Management plans
Lethal removal
9) If you could choose, where do you think wolves should be allowed to
live? Select all that apply
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Historic habitats
Secluded wilderness
National Parks
Public lands
Private lands
10) If biologists at Olympic National Park were considering reintroducing
gray wolves, what level of concerned would you feel for each of the
following examples? Select level of concern for each example
72
a)
b)
c)
d)
Not at all concerned
Neutral
Very concerned
Unsure
a) Declines in Elk and Deer populations
b) Increased danger to humans
c) Increased danger to livestock
11) How would you feel about the prospect of wolves being reintroduced
at Olympic National Park? Select level of opposition or support
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
12)
Very Oppose
Somewhat Oppose
Neutral
Somewhat Support
Very Supportive
Do you currently live, work, or own land on the Olympic Peninsula?
Select one
a) Yes
b) No
13)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
14)
How would you best describe yourself? Select all that apply
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Native American or Alaskan Native
White or Caucasian
Prefer not to say
Other (please specify)
What is your gender? Select one
73
a)
b)
c)
d)
15)
Male
Female
Prefer not to say
Other (please specify)
What is the highest degree or level of education you completed? Select
one
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
16)
No diploma
High school diploma / G.E.D.
Some college, but no degree
Technical / Associate / Junior college
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Ph.D. or higher
What occupation are you currently employed in? Write your occupation
in box
17)
What year were you born? Click on calendar icon inside the box to select
your birth year
a) yyyy
18) Will you help me contact other agricultural workers who work, live,
or own land on the Olympic Peninsula that might be interested in taking
this survey? Select one
a) Yes
b) No
19) If you have any comments that you would like to add regarding wolf
reintroductions at Olympic National Park, please enter them below. Write
comment in box
74
