The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens' Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation
Abstract
Abstract: As wolf ( Canis lupus ) populations recover in Wisconsin (U.S.A.), their depredations on livestock, pets, and hunting dogs have increased. We used a mail‐back survey to assess the tolerance of 535 rural citizens of wolves and their preferences regarding the management of “problem” wolves. Specifically, we tested whether people who had lost domestic animals to wolves or other predators were less tolerant of wolves than neighboring residents who had not and whether compensation payments improved tolerance of wolves. We assessed tolerance via proxy measures related to an individual's preferred wolf population size for Wisconsin and the likelihood she or he would shoot a wolf. We also measured individuals' approval of lethal control and other wolf‐management tactics under five conflict scenarios. Multivariate analysis revealed that the strongest predictor of tolerance was social group. Bear ( Ursus americanus ) hunters were concerned about losing valuable hounds to wolves and were more likely to approve of lethal control and reducing the wolf population than were livestock producers, who were more concerned than general residents. To a lesser degree, education level, experience of loss, and gender were also significant. Livestock producers and bear hunters who had been compensated for their losses to wolves were not more tolerant than their counterparts who alleged a loss but received no compensation. Yet all respondents approved of compensation payments as a management strategy. Our results indicate that deep‐rooted social identity and occupation are more powerful predictors of tolerance of wolves than individual encounters with these large carnivores.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Human‐Carnivore Conflict and Perspectives on Carnivore Management Worldwide
TREVES, A., & KARANTH, K. U. (2003) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x · Cited by 1,618
Self-citationTop Predators as Conservation Tools: Ecological Rationale, Assumptions, and Efficacy
Sergio, F., Caro, T., Brown, D., Clucas, B., Hunter, J., Ketchum, J., McHugh, K., & Hiraldo, F. (2008) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173545 · Cited by 670
Co-Managing Human–Wildlife Conflicts: A Review
Treves, A., Wallace, R. B., Naughton-Treves, L., & Morales, A. (2006) · Human Dimensions of Wildlife · doi:10.1080/10871200600984265 · Cited by 579
Self-citationHuman-Elephant Conflict: A Review of Current Management Strategies and Future Directions
Shaffer, L. J., Khadka, K. K., Van Den Hoek, J., & Naithani, K. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2018.00235 · Cited by 367
Longitudinal Analysis of Attitudes Toward Wolves
TREVES, A., NAUGHTON‐TREVES, L., & SHELLEY, V. (2013) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12009 · Cited by 263
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- NAUGHTON‐TREVES, L., GROSSBERG, R., & TREVES, A.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1500-1511
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2145172040
- Cited by
- 535
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens' Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00060.x
- The paper
- NAUGHTON‐TREVES, L., GROSSBERG, R., & TREVES, A. (2003). Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens' Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00060.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.