Progress 10/01/12 to 09/30/17

Outputs
Target Audience:Washington State Legislature, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Cattlemen's Association, Wolf Management Coalition, Seattle Times, Researchers involved in human dimensions of wildlife management Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Catherine Gowan, completed her MSc (Wildlife Professional Perceptions of Wolf Management: Occupational and Organizational Psychology in State Wildlife Agencies) in 2015. Carol Bogezi, advanced to candidacy in 2016 completing her oral and written exams as well as successfully defending her dissertation proposal. Colin Noteboom, completed his undergraduate thesis in 2015. Malia Prescott, completed her undergraduate thesis in 2015 How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Student participated in Sammamish High School STEM fair as expert in wildlife science in May 2016. Student presented the overview of her dissertation to the staff and community of the Bullitt Foundation at the student award dinner in September 2016. Student was the presenter at the World One Health day celebration at the University of Washington in November 2016. One Health research initiative realizes the need to use interdisciplinary approaches to address issues of public, animal, and environmental health. Wirsing, A. J. 2014. Using a multidisciplinary approach to explore the consequences of wolf recolonization in Washington. Vashon Allied Arts Science Lecture Series, Vashon Island, WA 2016 (Wirsing) Panelist for forum on wolf conservation titled, "Crying wolf in Washington State: Unraveling out complicated relationship with wolves", hosted by the Woodland Park Zoo What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? We have completed the analysis of rancher and other stakeholder interviews, which addresses objectives 1-3. Interview and follow-up survey the community of ranchers who currently coexist with wolves to determine mechanisms by which stock and wolves can coexist and the costs of employing effective mechanisms. Interviews and follow-up surveys the community of ranchers who live among wolves and who feel coexistence of livestock and wolves is not possible to determine barriers to coexistence. Survey landowners' motivations and perceived constraints to retaining wolves on their lands. We are currently implementing a statewide online survey designed by the student in SEFS is currently being implemented by Gfk using their probability sampled online panel of the Washington residents. The survey sample will be 400 completed interviews. The survey we are presently conducting will address objectives 7-10. Survey residents of Washington determine public's perspectives towards coexisting with wolves and wolf conservation. Specific interest in and costs/benefits of establishing a wolf-safe beef certification program and a wolf-centered ecotourism business. Determine public's willingness to pay for economic incentives that will enable livestock producers to increase better coexist with wolves. Determine the price premium that shoppers in western Washington would be willing to pay for wolf-safe beef. Determine the economic incentives that the public will participate in that will raise funds for coexistence programs. Determine the monetary amounts that the public are willing to pay. Determine the political will of Washington residents and the Washington State legislature to develop a wolf conservation funding mechanism either through a mandatory tax or voluntary contributions (e.g. non-consumptive wildlife license or tag) and a wolf-livestock coexistence license plate.

Publications

• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2014 Citation: October 2014, Carol Bogezi and Catherine Gown presented preliminary results at the Pathways 2014: Common Futures conference in Estes Park, CO.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: June 2017  Carol Bogezi spoke at Olympic Natural Resources Center, Forks, WA. Presented results from her chapter on ranchers perceptions and participation in economic incentives to coexist with wolves in Washington State.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: April 2017  Carol Bogezi was the Earth Day 2017 keynote speaker at Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA. After the keynote address, was member of the panel who answered questions from the audience about the interactions between people and wildlife especially wolf-livestock conflicts.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2017 Citation: February 2017 - Carol Begezi was an invited speaker at Methow Valley Conservancy, Twisp, WA. Presented results from her chapter on ranchers perceptions and participation in economic incentives to coexist with wolves in Washington State.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2016 Citation: November 2016  One Health Day 2016 speaker at Center for One Health Research, University of Washington. Presented about human wildlife interactions in Washington State and especially highlighted how human wildlife interactions can most effectively be addressed in a multi-disciplinary approach similar to One Health.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2016 Citation: October 2016  Presented at the Student Conference on Conservation Science (SCCS) New York, held at the American Museum of Natural History. Title of the talk: What fosters ranchers commitment to participate in wolf conflict mitigation

Progress 10/01/15 to 09/30/16

Outputs
Target Audience:Target audiences include: Academia - graduate student presented results of her third dissertation chapter to the University of Washington's School of Environmental and Forest Sciences Graduate Student Symposium. Non-profit community - PI discussed results with non governmental organizations interested in wolf recovery. Press--PI discussed project with Seattle Times environmental writers. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Ms. Bogezi advanced to candidacy completing her oral and written exams as well as successfully defending her dissertation proposal. She has now completed a draft of the first chapter of her dissertation. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Ms. Bogezi participated in Sammamish High School STEM fair as expert in wildlife science in May 2016. Ms. Bogezi presented the overview of her dissertation to the staff and community of the Bullitt Foundation at the student award dinner in September 2016. Ms. Bogezi was the presenter at the World One Health day celebration at the University of Washington in November 2016. One Health research initiative realizes the need to use interdisciplinary approaches to address issues of public, animal, and environmental health. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We are currently implementing a statewide online survey designed by Ms Bogezi is currently being implemented by Gfk using their probability sampled online panel of the Washington residents. The survey sample will be 400 completed interviews. The survey we are presently conducting will address objectives 7-10: Survey residents of Washington determine public's perspectives towards coexisting with wolves and wolf conservation. Specific interest in and costs/benefits of establishing a wolf-safe beef certification program and a wolf-centered ecotourism business. Determine public's willingness to pay for economic incentives that will enable livestock producers to increase better coexist with wolves. Determine the price premium that shoppers in western Washington would be willing to pay for wolf-safe beef. Determine the economic incentives that the public will participate in that will raise funds for coexistence programs. Determine the monetary amounts that the public are willing to pay. Determine the political will of Washington residents and the Washington State legislature to develop a wolf conservation funding mechanism either through a mandatory tax or voluntary contributions (e.g. non-consumptive wildlife license or tag) and a wolf-livestock coexistence license plate.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? We have completed the analysis of rancher and other stakeholder interviews, which addresses objectives 1-3. Interview and follow-up survey the community of ranchers who currently coexist with wolves to determine mechanisms by which stock and wolves can coexist and the costs of employing effective mechanisms. Interviews and follow-up surveys the community of ranchers who live among wolves and who feel coexistence of livestock and wolves is not possible to determine barriers to coexistence. Survey landowners' motivations and perceived constraints to retaining wolves on their lands.

Publications

• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Bogezi, C. 2016. What fosters ranchers commitment to participate in wolf conflict mitigation? Presentation at the Student Conference on Conservation Science (SCCS), New York, October 20-22, 2016. Abstract available online at: http://www.amnh.org/content/download/148754/2399481/file/SCCS 2016 Abstracts Talks.pdf

Progress 10/01/14 to 09/30/15

Outputs
Target Audience:Scientific community was targeted by professional presentations. Wildlife managers in Washington State were targeted by workshop held to discuss implications of lethal wolf control. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Both graduate students (Bogezi and Gowan) presented professional papers, helped host professional meetings, and worked on their theses, which in part are formed from the research needed to complete this project. By working on this project Ms. Gowan has completed the requirements for her MSc Degree. She successfully defended her thesis, which considered the Occupational and Organizational Psychology of WDFW's wolf management, in August, 2015. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?A summary of our findings and activities was presented to the Washington State Legislature. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We will begin publishing results of stakeholder interviews. We will conduct two surveys about wolf attitudes and economic incentives that affect them; the first will target the general population of Washington State, the second will target ranchers.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? We conducted a series of interviews with nine stakeholder groups from February to April 2014. These stakeholders included: 1. Ranchers in wolf-inhabited areas, 2. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 3. WDFW Commission, 4. Policy makers, legislators, and county representatives, 5. Cattle buyers/ Beef processors, 6. Outfitters both hunting and other recreational outfitters esp. in wolf country counties, 7. Retail beef sellers, 8. NGOs, and 9. School clubs such as FFA. These interviews helped us clarify the feasibility of the alternatives discussed with the ranchers and potential modifications based on the ranchers' recommendations. We talked to the outfitters about the possibilities of agro- and wolf tourism, bringing up the concerns of the ranchers and talking the economics of the enterprises. With the Department of Fish and Wildlife interviews, we got more information about non-consumptive licenses, co-existence license plates, other economic incentives, and their relationship with the ranchers in the state. The meat processor interviews focused on the possibilities of predator friendly beef and possible premiums for ranchers in wolf country. We are using results from these interviews to design next surveys.

Publications

• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Carol Bogezi, Catherine Gowan, Stanley Asah, and John Marzluff. Washington State Ranchers Preferences for Economic Measures to Offset Costs of Wolf Damage to Livestock. Conference presentation to 2014 Pathways Common Futures Meeting. Oct 5, 2014, Estes Park, CO. This presentation incorporated information from the interviews with ranchers from 2013 as well as interviews of WDFW employees conducted over the course of the previous year.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Catherine Gowan, Carol Bogezi, Stanley Asah, and John Marzluff. Power, ambiguity, and trust: occupational and organizational culture in wolf recovery in Washington State. Conference presentation to 2014 Pathways Common Futures Meeting. Oct 5, 2014, Estes Park, CO.

Progress 10/01/13 to 09/30/14

Outputs
Target Audience: Target audiences include the Washington State legislature, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Cattlemen's Association, the Wolf Management Coalition, researchers, educators, students, and the general public. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Both undergraduates completed their required capstone projects using data from this program. Both graduate students gained experience preparing their preliminary results for presentation at a national meeting and are making progress towards their advanced degrees. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Nothing Reported What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? We are planning to: Present research at the Pathways 2014: Common Futures Conference in Estes Park, CO, in October 2014. The presentation will incorporate information from the interviews with ranchers from 2013 as well as interviews of Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife employees conducted in 2013-2014. Co-host, with Pacific Wolf Coalition/Conservation Northwest, a wolf conservation symposium in October 2014. The symposium participants will discuss the effects of lethal control on the recovery of wolves and the effectiveness of lethal control of wolves in reducing livestock wolf depredations. We will post video of the meeting online, and we will compile results from the symposium into a white-paper to help inform wolf recovery programs in the Pacific Northwest. Complete at least one graduate student project (Gowan). Analyze existing data. Prepare publications. Survey statewide stakeholders.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? We recruited and interviewed stakeholders who have a vested interest in the recovery of wolves in Washington: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) employees: We interviewed WDFW staff to assess the feasibility of implementing economic programs to aid ranchers with wolf conflict. WDFW is the leading agency on wolf recovery issues and as such has a large impact on the process of helping ranchers coexist with wolves. WDFW is in charge of handling compensation claims and cost-share programs and as such, their role is important to understand when assessing the economics of wolf recolonization. The feelings, perceptions, and opinions of the staff may be germane to how economic programs are implemented and accepted in ranching communities. Additionally the way other stakeholders, especially ranchers and conservationists, view the WDFW can impact the way their view wolf recolonization in the state. We held extensive interviews five managers in the wildlife program in Olympia, two regional directors, and 10 field staff who are directly working on wolf recovery. Wildlife conservation-focused NGOs: Many conservation NGOs are involved in wolf recovery in Washington. These NGOs are performing a variety of functions including outreach and technical/financial support for ranchers. We sought opinions about different economic incentives to help the ranchers mitigate wolf depredations as well as information about what NGOs were doing or plan to do to promote the economic and social feasibility of wolf recovery. We interviewed officials from nine NGOs working with wolf conservation in Washington. WDFW Commission: The WDFW Commission endorses policies to be followed by the WDFW staff at all levels. The Commission also also hires (and can fire) the WDFW executive director. The thoughts of the Commission are hence valuable. Members of the Commission board come from different professional backgrounds; their individual perceptions and attitudes towards wolf recovery may affect the social feasibility of wolf recovery and the attainment of a wolf economy. We interviewed two members of the 2014 WDFW commission, one of which also served on the commission when the Wolf plan (2010) was accepted. Policy makers: We sought to understand the opinions of policy makers on a wolf economy for Washington State. Since the senate creates the budget for WDFW programs we sought to understand limitations and opportunities that the policy makers would recommend. Given that wolves are often used as a political agenda by some politicians, we thought it was critical to get the opinion of policy makers about wolves and how wolf issues should be handled. We interviewed two senators, one house representative, and three county commissioners. Range-riders: The main roles of range-riders are: move cows to fresh pastures, watch the herd for weak and sick animals, and keep the herd safe from predators. With wolves recolonizing the state, some range-riders are being trained to use telemetry and GPS data from collared wolves to keep the cattle away from areas with wolves. We concentrated our efforts on interviewing range-riders who have been trained to look for wolves. We sought to understand whether range-riding was a feasible economic activity and whether or not it would be possible to recruit and dispense volunteer riders to help affected ranchers protect their herd from wolf depredations. We spoke to three range riders. Cattle Processors and Middle-Men: Most ranchers we interviewed thought that the economic options such predator-friendly beef could only work if the people who ranchers sold their cattle to were willing to pay more money per cow to the ranchers. We sought to understand whether there would be a market for predator-friendly beef and whether they would be willing to pay ranchers extra money for livestock raised without lethal control of predators. We spoke to one butcher, one processer, one middleman, and one auctioneer. Hunting/recreational outfitters: Like the ranchers, outdoorsmen interact with wolves and other predators directly. Our interviews focused on whether these hunters and outfitters thought of wolf recovery as a new opportunity for recreational business or as a new potential hunting species. We spoke to eight individuals who were either hunters or owned a hunting and outdoor recreational outfit. College-clubs focused on agriculture: We thought it would be helpful to hear from younger generations of people who hope to be involved in ranching and ag-related careers after college. We contacted members of the Future Farmers of America clubs, and the Dairy clubs in different universities in Eastern Washington. We held one focus-group interview with five recently graduated students who actively participated in ag-related projects during their undergrad studies and hoped to develop careers in farming in the future. We asked what the students felt about the recent return of wolves to Washington State, what they would do to prevent wolf depredations on their future ranches, and what they thought about different economic incentives to mitigate for wolf depredations. We have made efforts to recruit members from the Colville and Yakima Tribes, but have not yet succeeded. We also interviewed six more key ranchers. We used similar base interview guides for all the stakeholders, with the addition of appropriate targeted questions for each of the groups. We asked about their thoughts and feelings concerning wolf recovery in Washington State, what they thought of various economic incentives to help ranchers mitigate wolf depredations, and brainstormed ways in which the different stakeholders thought their work could affect wolf recovery in Washington State. Data Analysis We analyzed data from the ranchers and WDFW field staff extensively using a grounded theory. All other stakeholder interviews will be analyzed qualitatively in the coming months. The responses will then be compared in order to understand what different stakeholders feel about economic incentives to mitigate for wolf depredations. Results Catherine Gowan focused on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife interviews for her work. Using a framework of occupational psychology, she highlighted some of the concerns of employees from multiple levels and positions in the organization within the context of wolf recovery. These included: role ambiguity on the part of the conflict specialists who have been hired to act as liaisons between livestock producers and the Department, inefficient and complicated communication chains hampering wolf management, and tensions between various job categories in the Department. These organizational difficulties may be obstructing effective communication with the public, especially livestock producers, about wolf issues as well as making more general wolf management more difficult. Based on the interviews with the ranchers, it may be difficult to implement strong economic programs without a functioning and positive relationship between the WDFW and ranching communities. Carol Bogezi coded the responses from ranchers according to several themes: costs ranchers incur, measures they are implementing to reduce risk, and attitudes and perspectives towards different economic measures as an offset for the damage costs due to wolves. Responses showed that ranchers preferred range-riding programs to other options such as premium-priced predator-friendly beef and agri-tourism. Our findings also point to the importance of considering the unique characteristics of ranches (i.e. type of husbandry) and ranchers' feelings about offset options before soliciting participation in cost-offset programs. Our findings show how State agencies and private conservation groups could save resources, including time, by presenting specific options to specific ranchers as may suit the rancher's needs and willingness to participate.

Publications

Progress 10/01/12 to 09/30/13

Outputs
Target Audience: Target audiences include: 1. Ranchers in wolf-inhabited areas 2. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 3. WDFW Commission 4. Policy makers, legislators, and county representatives 5. Cattle buyers/ Beef processors 6. Outfitters both hunting and other recreational outfitters esp. in wolf country counties. 7. Retail beef sellers 8. NGOs 9. School clubs such as FFA 10. Tribes Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? In addition to the events listed in the Other Products section of this report, our graduate students attended the following training: December 16 – 17th, 2013:, NVivo training workshop by QSR international. The two-day training workshop was held in Kirkland, Washington. During these training sessions, the graduate students learned the skills for analyzing qualitative data we have collected. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? A significant amount of outreach is included in our discussions with interviewees and meeting attendees (see 4 and 5, above). In addition we met with scientists at Washington State University, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, and Western Wildlife Outreach to discuss our planned activities and coordinate actions. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? We are just beginning data analysis of the 45 interviews. All recorded discussions have been transcribed and we are in the process of proofing and correcting the transcriptions. Table 1 shows the summary of all interviews carried out so far. They include a variety of rancher types, with the goal of encompassing both ranchers who have favorable attitudes towards co-existing with wolves and those that have unfavorable attitudes, young and old, long term and new, women and men, and some non-ranchers who were referred to us by the ranchers. The next phase of the project will include coding the above interviews to create a typology of ranchers and get a clearer sense of the ranchers’ perspectives and attitudes towards certain programs and conditions under which they are willing to cope and adapt to living with wolves. All transcripts will be coded using qualitative analysis software (NVivo) to group interview responses into themes. We will develop themes from the questions asked as well as the responses given during the conversations. We will then analyze the data to see if the thematic responses show any pattern with specific respondents and their attributes. We will also conduct a series of interviews with the nine other groups of stakeholders. The timeline for these other stakeholders’ interviews is February to April 2014. These interviews should help us clarify the feasibility of the alternatives discussed with the ranchers and potential modifications based on the ranchers’ recommendations. We will be talking to the outfitters about the possibilities of agro- and wolf tourism, bringing up the concerns of the ranchers and talking the economics of the enterprises. With the Department of Fish and Wildlife interviews, we hope to get more information about non-consumptive licenses, co-existence license plates, other economic incentives, and their relationship with the ranchers in the state. The meat processor interviews will be focused on the possibilities of predator friendly beef and possible premiums for ranchers in wolf country. By the mid-summer (July), we will also have two surveys designed, one for the general population and one for the ranchers. Interview results will be used to design these surveys.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Our first aim was to develop an in-depth interview script for cattle ranchers in Washington who live with and among wolves. In July and August, 2013, we sourced ranchers and their contacts from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, and the internet. In the later part of August and first half of September, 2013 we recruited potential interviewees and scheduled interviews. We identified ranchers, from two broad regions, who were most likely to interact with wolves and interviewed them in two phases: Phase I, Central Washington in the counties of Yakima, Kittitas and Chelan; and Phase II, North and Northeast Washington in the counties of Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille. We contacted thirty-three ranchers in Central Washington and requested that they participate in interviews that occurred between 12th to 30th September 2013. We carried out eleven Key-informant interviews and one Focus Group Discussion (with eight interviewees). All but two interviewees were active ranchers. We contacted over forty ranchers from North and Northeast Washington. We also attended a Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association meeting on November 7th. Although only one rancher would agree to an interview at the actual meeting, it seems that our presence convinced many of the ranchers of our sincerity, thus increasing our response rate later in the month. We interviewed twenty-six respondents through key-informant interviews and focus-group discussions; one focus-group discussion of seven people, three interviews with two people each, and thirteen key-informant interviews. The respondents included three county commissioners, one former commissioner of wildlife in Stevens County, one hunting outfitter, and twenty-two ranchers (one of the county commissioners also is a rancher). All respondents had some direct link to ranching, such as growing hay or raising horses, which they supplied to or received from ranchers. To date, in both areas we have interviewed a total of forty-five respondents via two focus group and several key informant interviews.. We conducted the interviews as conversations where the respondent was allowed to talk all he/she could about the following broad topics. These were the questions used to shape and direct the conversations: What the ranchers’ thoughts/ feelings/ and opinions were on the return of wolves in Washington State. What the ranchers’ experience (both currently and anticipated) with wolves was (whether direct, indirect, or never). What costs ranchers incurred in wolf country, including anticipated costs and costs to other predators. What measures ranchers currently use to offset costs from predators. What ideas do ranchers have for economic offsets that would allow them to coexist with wolves. In addition to responses given, prompts were used to elicit discussion of economic offsets that included (a) selling ranch products for a premium, (b) thoughts on certification of their ranch products, (c) creation of a wolf fund to provide an annual check to cover costs of wolves, to pay for extra range riders, or to establish a community service, and (d) agro-tourism on ranches that had wolves. We collected basic background information on the rancher and the ranch. This included the age/generation of the ranch, the size and nature of operation, the products from the ranch, and whether the rancher’s future progeny would take on the ranch. The final question asked the rancher to share any information that they wanted beyond what we had asked. In north and north-central Washington, we augmented the above questions with one that allowed ranchers to discuss their relations with the WDFW, and generally to discuss what would allow them, either financially or otherwise, to coexist with wolves.

Publications