Of wolves and worldviews: Navigating the social landscape of wolf management in Minnesota.

摘要

Large carnivore conservation is a complex and challenging endeavor that is often situated in a social landscape that seems neither logical nor predictable. Conservation biologists need maps to help them navigate the deep seated beliefs and values that contribute to management conflicts, which frequently appear intractable. A Q-methodology study, conducted to examine the different knowledge systems, authority structures, and human-nature relationships that shape the unique and distinct worldviews of participants in the Minnesota, USA wolf debate, revealed three primary factors, or shared belief systems, about wolf management in the state. The Idealist Perspective tells a redemption story of sin and atonement, the Institutional Perspective endorses scientific management and rationality, and the Localist Perspective promises justice, respect, and acknowledgement for its champions. Evaluations of these perspectives revealed that the nature of the Minnesota wolf problem is a fundamental conflict of meaning and identity, which is expressed as a search for legitimacy over core normative claims and stakeholder roles. Participants in the Minnesota wolf debate have also crafted a picture of the nature of the solution to this problem, which focuses on consensus about the establishment of a democratic process for citizen participation, the realization of dignity for all participants, and fair and efficient depredation compensation programs. A policy problem emerges, however, because trends in management are moving away from the community's demands for democratic participation. Policy alternatives are generated and evaluated in response to constitutive demands; these alternatives consider the important components of Minnesota's wolf management program, the different types of public participation, and the phases of decision-making in which public participation may be appropriate. These participation assessments will help to meet the needs of participants in the Minnesota wolf debate by effectively informing a strategy that is problem oriented, contextual, and focused on the common interest.