Politics and Charismatic Wildlife: Convincing People to Save Other Species — Can Charismatics Do the Job?
Bruce Rocheleau
Charismatic wildlife are widely recognized to be the key to helping those favoring conservation of species to achieve protection for biodiversity. Either directly or indirectly, fascination by the general population and organized groups for certain species has been a major factor behind legislation and other efforts aimed at protecting species. This article is aimed at analyzing the role that charismatic wildlife has played in politics affecting biodiversity.
What Are Charismatic Species?
Jamie Lorimer is a pioneer in the study of charismatic wildlife. He studied how humans become enraptured by particular species such as corncrakes (birds) which led to efforts and laws to protect this species and changed human farming practices. He showed that the essence of nonhuman charisma lies in the pleasure or jouissance that interaction with the species brings to humans (Lorimer, 2007). This pleasure can derive from a wide variety of characteristics associated with the species (“affordances” as Lorimer calls them) such as the distinctive call of a bird or the beauty of a butterfly or other aspects of its appearance that are attractive to many humans like such as large eyes and a furry coat. Certain species have been consistently identified by large sector of humans as “charismatic.” For example, according to a recent survey, the twenty most charismatic species included lions, elephants, giraffes, panthers, pandas, cheetahs, polar bears, wolves, and gorillas (Céline et al., 2018). The authors note that large terrestrial mammals dominate this list but non-mammals such as birds are also extremely popular. For example, Kareiva et al. (2006) found that fifty-seven non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are dedicated specifically to birds but only four represent invertebrates. Fish are generally viewed as less charismatic than land animals but certain fish such as seahorses and game fish like marlins have obtained a following (Turner, 2005). It’s not just appearance that is important but unusual behaviors can attract human following such as the “odd behavior” of the Florida scrub jay that is loud and inquisitive about humans and thus captured the imagination of human followers because “it’s easy to anthropomorphize” them (Bodine, 2017). The importance of charismatic wildlife is demonstrated by the U.S. General Accounting Office’s (U.S.GAO, 1988) study of the implementation of the ESA. GAO found that most of the “discretionary recovery funds have been directed toward a small percentage of species generally acknowledged as having high public appeal.” Czech & Krausman (2001, 73) point out that the resources and organizational skills of the Desert Tortoise Council resulted in the fact that the vast majority of funds spent on endangered reptiles in 1993 (98 percent) were devoted to turtles and tortoises. They note that the underlying reason for this support is that turtles and tortoises are “associated with positive cultural” symbols.
The political importance of charismatic wildlife is based on the fact that many humans are willing to devote major time, financial and other resources to advocate for these species — their support is generally not based on an expectation that they will financially benefit from their efforts. Rather, it is an emotional attachment, not a rational monetary cost-benefit calculation, that governs their actions. Consequently, positive attachments to species such as elephants, pandas, and whales have been the basis for fund-raising efforts to achieve protections so that these species have been labeled “flagship species” because of the widespread positive public attraction and concern for them that draws financial and non-financial (e.g., letter-writing and other forms of lobbying) support for them (Brambilla et al., 2013; Walpole and Leader-Williams, 2002; Soniak, 2015). Charismatic species may be but are not necessarily “keystone species” which have been defined as those whose “impacts on its …ecosystem are larger than would be expected from its relative abundance” (Leader-Williams & Dublin, 2000, 56). Charismatic wildlife also may or may not be “umbrella species” — so that protection of them may help several other species through preservation of their habitat because this habitat includes areas critical for other species. Many experts have criticized over-concentration of protections on charismatic species leaving other species unprotected despite the fact that these less charismatic species may be more important to ecosystems (Hutchinson, 2021 et al.). However, it is possible for protection of charismatics to provide relief for other species from human practices that harm them. For example, requirements that nets used for fishing have exclusion devices have decreased somewhat the destructive effects not only on whales but other marine mammals that become entangled in fishing gear (Dean, 2009). Likewise, the introduction of wolves has led to recovery of lynx and hares through reduction of coyotes and ungulates and thus helped to transform the habitat of the area to help other species (Ripple & Beschta, 2012).
Lorimer says that animals, in effect, exercise “agency” and influence events that affect them. The mechanism that allows them to do this is the fact that humans who are attracted to wildlife, especially charismatic wildlife, often form groups or contain powerful individuals who take actions on behalf of the species. Indeed, Catherine Hill points out that the often-used phrase “human-wildlife conflict” actually represents conflicts among varying human stakeholders — often one group whose livelihoods are negatively impacted by a species versus those who are acting to protect the interests of the species (Hill, 2017). These conflicts are prevalent throughout the world and can be among the most intense political issues in the nations due to the strength of attachment of many humans to certain species, especially those that are charismatic. Although groups such as NGO’s are most often involved in these conflicts, powerful individuals can also single-handedly affect outcomes. For example, Vladimir Putin pushed for and implemented efforts to save the tiger in Russia (Kopnina, 2015). Likewise, Indira Gandhi played a central role in spurring measures to preserve tigers in India (Rahmani, 2003). In terms of wildlife conservation, the positive role that powerful leaders such as Putin and Gandhi can be crucial but reliance on a powerful leader can be offset by the fact when these leaders leave office, their successors may rapidly reverse course as occurred in the Gandhi case. If a powerful leader like President Teddy Roosevelt who was fascinated with wildlife works through institutions like the U.S. Congress passing legislation (e.g., the Antiquities Act), the changes are likely to be more enduring.
The Role of Charismatic Wildlife in the Passage of Legislation Aimed at Preserving Species
The passage of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other legislation aimed at preserving biodiversity was closely associated with the public’s concern with charismatic species. Petersen (1999) cites how major editorials by the Washington Post and other media supporting the passage of the ESA referred to charismatic megafauna like “the bald eagle, mountain lion, grizzly bear, black footed ferret, cheetah…” and she cites Senator Roth’s of Delaware speech admiring “the graceful and inspiring flight of the few Bald Eagles” that remained. In 1976, the emphasis on charismatic species is exemplified by the statement of the director of USFWS in 1976 that he was concerned not to lose the ESA due to “a couple of spiders” (Tobin, 1990, 116). A conservative Republican, Jake Garn (R., Utah) once complained about the ESA protecting “animals that nobody cares about” and distinguished them from “some really fine endangered species” worth protecting” (Tobin, 1990) In short, it was the power of charismatic wildlife that fueled the near unanimous passage of the Endangered Species Act including its powerful and inclusive language protecting species that many people did not “care about.” The breadth and power of the ESA did not become evident to most people (and key groups like businesses) until the Supreme Court enforced protection for a tiny fish (snail darter) that stopped a dam from being built (Murchison, 2007). The popular attachment to charismatic wildlife explains why the early implementation of the ESA focused on individual species rather than ecosystems or habitat necessary for these and other species to survive so the ESA. The bias toward charismatics cannot just be blamed on the ESA and politicians — academic researchers also focus most of their research on them. For example, “invertebrates…have 1,000 times fewer conservation papers than do turtles” (McClenachan, 2012).
Changes in the law and the practices of its implementing agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), have led to emphasis now on protecting ecosystems and habitat, not just individual species. The Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) process was introduced in 1983 revision of the ESA in which “incidental takes” of threatened species are permitted if an adequate plan is developed to minimize and mitigate impacts is developed. The HCP process adopts a stakeholder type of approach in which a group is formed composed of a wide variety of interests including developers, local and national environmental organizations, landowners, local government officials, and relevant state and federal officials (Beatley, 1994, 41). Although HCPs were introduced in 1983, they didn’t take off until the Clinton Administration. The HCP process is designed to encourage compromise and consensus but its success nevertheless depends on the existence of the strong, uncompromising language of the ESA and the willingness of the Federal judiciary to enforce it with “listings” to protect threatened species if necessary.
The Power of Positive Charisma
It is instructive to look at examples of the most charismatic species such as whales and how groups of humans have acted to protect them. For example, in 1966, the International Whaling Commission imposed a moratorium on hunting humpback whales that been successful in restoring the population to more than 20,000 in U.S. waters. The protection of these charismatics often has other important effects of conservation of natural resources. For example, according to Goldfarb (2014), conservationists resisted removal of protections for whales not just because of concern with the whales but because the listing has been their major tool to block other projects to block drilling in the Arctic (and for Canada) for the construction of pipelines. Charismatics can be and often are used as “proxies” for achieving other conservation goals such as protection of habitat. A classic example of this usage was the fact that protections for old growth forests in order to protect spotted owls in northwestern U.S. resulted in major reductions of logging of these forests. Protections for spotted owls in the Northwest U.S. became transformed from being an “owl only issue” in the 1970s to “ecosystem protection” in the 1990s because these protections for old growth forests helped other species that depended on them (Grumbine, 1995). Devotion to charismatics can win protection for habitats that otherwise would lose out to development. For example, Barcott (2008) provides another example of the impact of the charisma of whales, citing how a salt factory in Belize was not stopped by concerns about vulnerable mangroves or scallops but by “two words: baby whales.” Concern with whales was a major factor behind the passage of the Marine Mammals Protection Act in 1972 focusing on blue whales because of their “apparent intelligence” and “highly-developed social system” but this Act also aimed to protect other threatened marine mammals (Petersen, 1999).
Even the most charismatic of wildlife such as whales have opponents who fight protection for them because certain groups perceive their interests being harmed by these protections. For example, nations such as Japan and Norway continue to press their rights to harpoon and harvest whales. Chadwick (2008) cites Iceland as a country that stopped and then resumed whaling despite the fact that whale-watching is a million-dollar industry in the country. Defenders of commercial whale hunting such as Kalland (1994) criticize the anthropomorphizing of whales into “caring, playful, family-oriented, singing, kind” human-like creatures, lumping together the characteristics of several different whales (blue-largest, humpback-singing, largest brain-sperm) into one “superwhale” in an attempt to invalidate the consumption of them. Mooallem (2013a) says that resentment against not only seals and whales but also the Federal government appeared in 2006 in Hawaii when President Bush established the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument that blocked some fishermen from using the area they had previously fished. Due to proposals to protect species such as humpback whales and sea turtles as well as the seals, some local Hawaii residents said that the government was taking away the rights of fishermen and divers.
Protections proposed for charismatic wildlife generally initiate a political process in which supporters of protections battle groups whose perceived interests oppose such protections and battles between these groups can go on indefinitely (Hill, 2017). If the protections are successful in increasing the population of the protected species, there is often pressure to remove these protections, declaring the species as being no longer threatened. When this happens, the issue no longer is focused so much on preventing extinctions but more on animal welfare issues and thus some environmental groups may support taking of the individual members of the species as long as it no longer threatens the existence of the entire species while others want to retain protections for moral reasons.
Attracting the attention of media is crucial to achieving protections for wildlife and biodiversity. Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society made their environmental reputations to a great degree by tracking and (in the Sea Shepherd’s case) attacking whaling ships (Heller, 2007). The main point of these efforts was to bring attention from the media on the issue to force international pressure on whalers. Watson, the Sea Shepherd Captain, says “If you have an action and no one covers it, it didn’t happen” (Heller, 2007). Thus media coverage plays a huge role in the politics related to charismatic wildlife because people are likely to pay attention to stories about them in contrast to other less charismatic species that fewer people care about. Many humans were disturbed by videos of whales that “scream and thrash” when they are harpooned and then shocked by “thousands of volts of electricity” though Norwegian veterinarians claimed that most die instantly from grenades that “blow their brain apart” (Economist, 2003). Whale supporters recorded the death of whales and used media to drum up support for anti-whale hunting measures (Heller, 2007). Focusing on charismatics can be essential in obtaining widespread media coverage which is a key element of building support among the general population for protections for all wildlife.
Whales have obtained consistently widespread support from numerous nations around the world and this support has been strong and consistent enough so that it resulted in establishment of the International Convention for Regulation of Whaling that included five types of regulation: 1) Quotas on the size and species to be harvested; (2) Specifying areas open for whale hunting; (3) “Seasonal” and “geographic” limitations; (4) Treatment after killing whales; (5) “Supervision and control” requirements (Kobayashi, 2006). The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is in charge of regulation of whaling but, like all international organizations, its effectiveness is limited by its dependence on individual countries to enforce its rules. Also, countries are given the chance to “opt out of IWC regulations” when they are first established (Jordan, 2011–2012). Whale-watching is a fast-growing worldwide industry even in countries that harvest whales. In 2008, there were more than 190 thousand whale-watchers in Japan and it is also popular in Iceland (Cunningham et al., 2012). However, there are substantial differences among nations in the attitudes of their general publics concerning whale-hunting with substantial majorities opposing all whale-hunting in Germany and Australia while majorities support whale-hunting in nations such as Norway and Japan (Freeman and Kellert, 1994). One exception made for whale-hunting in some countries concerns aboriginals for whom whale-hunting is part of their history and important for their subsistence — Greenland asked for permission to kill 50 humpback whales to feed its aboriginal population (New York Times, 2009). Although there are international agreements to protect whales, nation-states and their decisions are still the major factor in whether these agreements are enforced.
Recently, whale supporters have been engaged with certain elements of the fishing industry over efforts to protect Right Whales in the Atlantic Ocean. This controversy illustrates how protections generate counteractions by interests that are hurt. The (U.S.) National Marine Fisheries Service issued regulations that prohibited lobster fishing with vertical buoy lines in the “Gulf of Maine” during the fall and winter. North Atlantic right whales total less than 400 and the ruling was intended to protect them from getting tangled in the lines (Whittle, 2022). A union of lobstermen and fishers filed a challenge against this restriction. The Maine Lobstermen’s Association characterized the ruling as a “distressing setback” for lobstermen who fish the area (Whittle, 2022). Key elements of the dispute include scientific issues with lobstermen challenging the government’s modeling that showed many right whales inhabited the area and also questioned whether entanglement was a major cause of right whale decline (Beitsch, 2021). Later, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, Sens. Susan Collins (R) and Angus King (I), and Reps. Chellie Pingree (D) and Jared Golden (D) pleaded for a delay in deadlines for whale protections noting the cost to the industry and the unavailability of the new gear that was required (Associated Press, 2022B). Also, Senators from Florida and the Carolinas said speed restrictions on ships to protect right whales were “too costly” (Patterson, 2022). Protection of wildlife species, especially species with wide-ranging habitats, almost always threatens the interests of some group of humans and thus results in continuing debates over protections for them.
Protection of species can cause discord among subgroups of the environmental movement. The Wind Industry has had to compromise in order to comply with protection for whales. Noise from offshore wind installations causes problems for the whales so that recently one company reached agreement with the conservation group (National Resources Defense Council) to “envelope the foundations in curtains of bubbles, foam or both during construction” to reduce noise (Grandoni, 2022). Other wind industry firms have agreed to halt “pile-driving” operations to install turbines during the winter season which is the “peak whale season” for the area. Some whale supporters still feel that the wind turbines are really “power plants” and that despite these changes, their noise will nevertheless affect whales (Grandoni, 2022) even with the bubbles. In short, even “green” industries supported by the environmental community can threaten charismatic and other species leading to a dilemma and possible splits among environmentalists most concerned with climate change versus animal welfare groups most concerned about protecting animals from harm.
One key element that can play a factor in human fascination with species concerns their “intelligence” — the idea that species that are intelligent and thus are more similar to humans and thus worthy of protecting. For example, Bradshaw (2009) reports that an elephant passed “the mirror self-recognition test” thus indicating they possess “self-awareness.” She (Bradshaw, 2009) also points out that elephants have a complex social hierarchy and have the ability to “distinguish among themselves” and have shown the ability to mimic sounds such as “trucks and lawnmowers.” Elephants also show “wrenching grief” over lost loved ones and make “repeated visits to the bones of relatives” (Bradshaw, 2009). Likewise, Angier (2010) reports that “…many biologists who study whales and dolphins…urge that negotiators redouble efforts to abolish commercial whaling and dolphin hunting entirely” because “the evidence is high and mounting that the cetacean order includes species second only to humans in mental, social and behavioral complexity” and that “At the very least, you could put it [i.e. whaling] in line with hunting chimps” “according to Hal Whitehead, who studies sperm whales at Dalhousie University in Halifax. Greenberg (2010) says that people will never feel the same way about tuna as they do about whales because whales are mammals with large brains who “nurse their young.” Whitehead says that “when you compare relative brain size, or levels of self-awareness, sociality, the importance of culture, cetaceans come out [ahead] on most of these measures compared to chimps and concludes “they fit the philosophical definition of personhood” (Angier, 2010). Thus human perceptions of what humans view as intelligence can affect the protection of species. Although scientific evidence contributes information to the debate over whether animals such as whales and chimpanzees possess self-awareness, the issue of protecting them also involves moral and economic values — issues that cannot be resolved by science alone.
Deer illustrate the complexity of human perceptions of charismatic animals and politics concerning them. A large proportion of the public hold positive perceptions of deer because they are non-threatening mammals and are associated with positive cultural symbols (e.g., Bambi) and most humans enjoy observing them. Hunters value deer as game. However, with the growth of deer populations in suburban locations, a smaller but significant proportion of the public views them as a pest because they eat valued vegetation. Also, from an environmentalist perspective, they may deprive endangered species of food they need (Edelblutte, 2021). A recent book (Cambronne, 2013) details harmful effects of deer such as forcing foresters to “bud cap” trees to prevent deer from eating the buds off every seedling, as well causing more than one million deer-vehicle crashes and spreading Lyme disease. Consequently, Brant (1997) reports that “deer have created the most difficulties of any wildlife species with three-quarters of the states having problems with them.” Deer can arouse intense feelings like other charismatics. Brant tells of one incident in North Haven (New York) which involved two parties, one in favor of controlling deer by hunting and another opposed to hunting and in favor of the use of immunoception as the method of control. Brant (1997) says that one Village Board member was told that if “a deer dies” …one of your family will die.” Indeed, passions over deer in places like Staten Island, New York are so bitter that the only “safe” solution is immunocontraception though this method is difficult because it must be “readministered regularly” but alternatives such as culling were not viewed as viable because of lack of community support (Jarvis, 2021).
Wild horses represent an example of a highly charismatic species that a majority of humans find appealing which has resulted in in one of the most difficult-to-solve problems for the U.S. How strong is the support of wild horses? Kellert and Berry (1980) report that horses ranked second after only dogs as the most liked animal in the U.S. Despite the fact that they are not a native species, their decline in numbers (to 9500 by 1971) won the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 that banned lethal controls of them (U.S. GAO, 2008). The Act declared that the horses are “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people” (US GAO, 2008). The support for protecting wild horses has been bipartisan — for example, recently, the Republican governor of North Dakota, Doug Burngum, recently pressed the National Park Service to abandon its plan to remove about 200 wild horses from the Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota, arguing that it was not only a major tourist attraction but “an indelible symbol of the untamed character of the Badlands” (Hotakainen, 2023). At one point, the Trump Administration advocated lifting regulations that forbade euthanasia of wild horses but later a Trump Interior announced a change in their position — the official stated that that euthanasia is “not an option that’s being discussed in the Bureau or the Department” (Streater, 2019B). The 1971 Act has been very effective — so much so that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been faced with the problem that their population has become so large that it is harming other species such as grouse and pronghorn antelope because they eat vegetation which these and other species rely upon (Schirtzinger, 2010). One method to deal with some of the effects of these horses are roundups so that they can be contained in an area with possibilities of being “adopted” or having contraception methods applied to them. Since 1971, BLM has corralled horses often using helicopters or other methods that horse supporters view as brutal — there are nearly 60,000 horses in captivity now (Elbein & Udasin, 2022). As with deer, most people refuse to accept killing these horses (e.g., by slaughter houses) as an acceptable solution, thus leaving some form of “fertility control” or possibly “adoption” as the only solutions they can tolerate. BLM began an adoption program in 2019 in which there was a thousand dollar ($1000) incentive offered to individuals. Over 7300 horses were adopted in 2021 but a news story asserted that some of these horses were later sold at auctions and likely sent for slaughter which brought this program under scrutiny from Congress (Streater, 2022). BLM conducted an investigation and now requires that a veterinarian certify that the adopter complies with the program requirements.
There are groups opposed to wild horses such as ranchers represented by the Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Nevada Bighorns who view the horses as consuming vegetation that their cow herds need to consume. Environmentalists such as Ted Williams (2011) and Guilford (2013) speak about their “voracious appetites” and “domination of water holes” that threaten other mammals and plants. In support of the wild horses are a variety of organizations ranging from general animal welfare groups like The Humane Society to groups specifically dedicated to protecting wild horses like American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign and the Cloud Foundation. Supporters of roundups and fertility controls argue that the excessive number of wild horses will result in their death from starvation and thirst which they argue is worse than harm caused by roundups and also argue that euthanasia would be more humane than starvation or dying from thirst. In the Navajo land in Arizona, about 200 horses were found dead in a dried-up pond leading some Navajo to advocate for slaughter such as through “export” but in 2018 Congress “rejected a proposal to allow the culling of tens of thousands of horses and burros that roam the West or are held in government-funded corrals and ranches” (Phillips, 2018). A Navajo spokesperson later stated their opposition to culling of horses because “horses are considered sacred animals, so you just can’t go out and euthanize them” (Phillips, 2018). Obama Administration officials created a plan that would have resulted in “an aggressive spay and neuter program to sterilize thousands of wild horses and burros over a 12-year period” but the plan never advanced when submitted to the Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) (Streater, 2019A).
As with deer, the only “compromise” solutions are difficult and costly but the degree of support and opposition on both sides of the argument is so strong that these are the only options that are likely to result in resolution of the issue. The political power of wild horses is illustrated in a controversy over herd of herd that lives on a Federal parkland in the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Battles over reduction in the herd demonstrated according to one observer that “in the arena of politics and public sentiment, the horse wins hands down” (Beil, 2012). The universality of the appeal of wild horses is illustrated by the fact that Australia has experienced similar problems with their non-native horses. When the Australian wild horse population was attempted to be reduced by shooting from helicopters, it became an “animal rights” issue and resulted in protections for the horses (Franklin, 2006).
Negative Charisma
In reviewing the history of animals and especially carnivores, it can be said that some animals have what I refer to as “negative charisma” — the ability to evoke passionate dislike and hatred on the part of humans that goes beyond rational concern with economics alone. Some people are positively fascinated with wolves, sharks, rattlesnakes but these species have evoked fear and hatred among a large proportion of humans and there is a distinct difference in politics of these “negatively charismatic” species from those associated with “positive charisma” like whales and wild horses. Some of the negative reactions of certain groups of humans for species such as wolves are rational. Wolves threaten the income of groups such as ranchers of cows and sheep. On occasion (very rare), they may threaten human lives or the pets of humans. For groups such as ranchers, part of their dislike of wolves is understandable. However, evidence clearly shows that the hatred of many humans for this species far exceeds anything with a rational economic basis. Coleman (2004) studied the interaction between wolves and humans in the U.S. throughout our history and found that they were viewed as “fearsome beasts” of “mythical proportions” and consequently some watched their slow torturous deaths “with glee.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) describes the wolf as having been “pursued with more passion and determination than any other animal in U.S. history.” Nie (2003) describes how people didn’t just kill wolves but sometimes tortured them such as setting them on fire or “pulling their jaws out” and setting their dogs on them. Stanley Young, who helped to build the Federal program (now known as “Wildlife Services” in the Department of Agriculture) referred to wolves as “gangsters” (Robinson, 2005). Theodore Roosevelt who loved birds and wildlife and acted to protect birds that he viewed as beautiful referred to predators such as wolves and mountain lions as “varmints” deserving of being shot if not poisoned (Brinkley, 2009). In short, though there is a rational basis for dislike of wolves, the animosity and hatred for them among a significant proportion of the population illustrate that they can exert an emotional “non-rational” reactions among many humans and thus a kind of “negative charisma.”
By 1960, wolves had been virtually eliminated from states like Wisconsin and Michigan. The passage of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973 (almost by a unanimous vote in the House and Senate) demonstrated that a majority of the general population favors protection for wildlife including predators such as wolves. The passage of the ESA engendered a wolf recovery plan begun in 1978 but the animosity of anti-wolf groups has made this program “controversial to say the least” (Nie, 2003). The history of wolf restoration efforts exhibits the classic case of “human-wildlife” conflict in which groups supporting wolves carry on continuous political battles with groups opposed to them. Some hunters, who generally support environmental causes, view wolves as competitors — for example, Alaska passed a statute in 1974 to reduce predators (wolves and grizzlies) that consumed and thus reduced the numbers of game like moose (Miller et al., 2011). But, even in states like Alaska where its Board of Game supports killing of wolves and grizzlies to benefit hunting, the views of the general population are quite different. For example, in 1996, 58.49% of the electorate voted in a Referendum to outlaw the airborne hunting of wolves and other predators but in 2000, forces within Alaska’s State Legislature overturned the results of this vote (Ballotpedia, 2023). Initiatives resulting in referenda have occurred regularly and often concern charismatic species. For example, Maine held a vote to ban “leghold” traps in 1996 and California approved a ban on mountain lion hunting in 1980. Hunter groups and wildlife professionals criticize such bans as “ballot box” biology and several states (e.g., as Oregon, Florida and Idaho) have banned all types of initiatives to prevent such votes (Hart, 2005). The success of these initiatives demonstrate once again the huge difference between policies that are controlled by state wildlife management agencies and votes in which the general population participates.
The Federal government and its Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) employs the authority of the ESA to enforce the protection of species like wolves in a very careful (i.e., “reluctant”) manner so as to prevent their extinction and these protections have prevailed in Federal Courts when challenged. The FWS is extremely conscious of the strong western state constituencies of ranchers, farmers, and hunters who are opposed to wolves and FWS has taken steps to assuage them in several ways. The FWS major requirement is that states must maintain a minimum population of wolves that FWS calculates as necessary to prevent their extinction — if their numbers fall below this minimum, then the wolves will be relisted which means reinstatement of Federal protections for them which these states strongly dislike. Consequently, some of these western states have made it their goal to make this required minimum number of wolves — the maximum they will tolerate and have implemented measures to keep wolf numbers near this minimum. In other words, this “minimum” (number of wolves) also becomes the maximum (these states will tolerate). For example, in 2022, Idaho created a million-dollar fund to kill wolves — its goal being to kill 90 percent of the estimated 1500 wolves in the state (Associated Press, 2022A).
There is a notable disconnect between the overall majority support of the general public for protection of wolves and the actual policies pursued by Western state governments. For example, a survey of public opinion in Idaho conducted in March of 1992 found that 72 percent of Idaho residents favored having wolves in the state’s wilderness areas (Wilson, 1999). Yet, Idaho politicians such as former Governor C. L. “Butch” Otter, a rancher turned governor, have made a career of aggressively opposing wolves that has helped him in being elected and reelected. In 2010 while running for reelection, Otter wrote to the Interior Department, that Idaho would no longer “manage wolves as the designated agent of the Federal government” (Otter, 2010) and “ordered Idaho wildlife managers not to arrest those who poached wolves” (Miller, 2010). In his letter to the head of Interior at the time (Ken Salazar), Otter referred to them as “your wolves.” How do we explain political outcomes like this Idaho case? Ranchers play a dominant political role in Idaho and many other western states and their influence is especially strong over state wildlife management agencies and the institutions like wildlife commissions that set their policies. Although hunters overall as a group generally are supportive of protections for public lands and biodiversity, Kellert et al. (1996) states that a “small minority rabidly anti-predator” have an “outsized impact.” Consequently, in these states, determined and strongly motivated anti-predator groups like ranchers and some hunters dominate policies about wolves. The case of wolves illustrates a general point about politics involving species like wolves that have “negative charisma:” intense and organized hatred of a smaller group usually prevails over the mild support of the majority. Ranchers and hunters who dislike competition from wolves (and grizzlies), flock to state legislative committees and advisory boards on wildlife management so that their influence far outweighs the more numerous but less intense majority.
Controversies over grizzlies are similar to those of wolves in that hunters view them as competitors and thus Alaska’s Board of Game blamed them for limiting the moose population (Boertje, 2010) though research by the National Wildlife Federation and Audubon Society (Miller, Schoen, Faro, & Klein, 2011) refuted these charges. The hatred that humans have for wolves does not appear to be as great for grizzlies. For example, when grizzlies are reported to have acted in a threatening manner or even killed on occasion humans visiting parks like Yellowstone or Denali, a “criminal investigation” is employed by the Park Service to determine if the grizzly was acting in a natural manner (e.g., protecting its cubs) (Grose, 2012). Grizzlies pose a much more actual threat of attacking humans though more often than not such attacks are rare and usually have been caused by the inappropriate behavior of the humans involved. The incidence of wolves killing humans is extremely small. Indeed, interviews with people who had survived bear attacks revealed that they did not blame the bears for the attack — they admitted it was their own fault (Rauber, 1993). The presence of a predator capable of killing humans actually helps to create the charisma associated with grizzlies and other predators. For example, reports that a polar bear had “mauled and killed” a man attracted tourists to Churchhill (Canada) where tour operators said that “if there was a chance of being ripped part, people were into it” (Mooallem (2013b). Wolves also attract attention and interest of visitors to parks where they exist and much of this interest reflects a positive attraction to them. For example, the former governor of Wyoming, Dave Freudenthal, acknowledged that he thought that the battle that many waged against repopulating wolves in Yellowstone was lost when he visited a store and saw “cute stuffed wolves on sale to be put into a baby’s crib” (Farquhar, 2006).
This positive attitudes among the general public for predators like grizzlies and wolves is proven time and again such as when referenda (e.g., the 1996 Alaska case cited above) and when FWS calls for comments affecting protections for carnivores. Consistently the proportion of comments is hugely in favor of protecting the carnivores. For example, Keiter (2003) states that there were over 160,000 mostly positive comments concerning the environmental impact statement on wolf reintroduction which helped spur the USFWS to take action to import Canadian wolves into Yellowstone. Willcox (2013) reports that 99.9 percent of the 210,000 comments submitted to the USFWS concerning their decision to delist grizzlies were negative to the proposal. The positive symbolism attached to grizzlies is evidenced by their use as “mascots” of teams such as the University of Montana (Gadbow, 2010).
Indeed, there is strong evidence that wolves and grizzlies bring in much more revenue into western states through tourism at the same time these states are attempting to reduce their numbers. Rauber cites one Wyoming Tourism official as saying that Glacier “park naturalists get more questions about wolves” than any other topic and tourist shops sell loads of wolf memorabilia. Seideman (1996) reported that 40,000 people lined up the previous (1995) summer for ranger-led talks about wolves and that a University of Montana economist estimates that 110 million dollars will be brought to the state by “wolf watchers.” Duffield et al. (2008) compared the costs of wolves (including livestock losses and losses of game to hunters) with the positive benefits of tourist spending and concluded that wolves bring a net benefit of $58 million dollars in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. In short, cost-benefit analyses shows a strong net benefit from these species for these states coupled with the fact that a majority of the constituents have favorable attitudes towards them.
Yet, despite convincing evidence that the majority of westerners in states like Idaho and Montana have favorable attitudes towards wolves and grizzlies, politicians continue to win elections after taking action against them. For example, Montana’s Governor, Gianforte, illegally trapped and then shot a wolf and his Administration aims to reduce Montana’s population to a “sustainable” (i.e., the Federal government’s requirement) level of 450 (Devereaux, 2022). In addition, his Administration legalized the use of bait and authorized trappers to kill entire packs of 20 wolves. They also authorized use of aerial hunting and night vision and bright lights to capture them as well as snares that would kill not only wolves but other wildlife (Devereaux, 2022). These measures directly contradict the concept of “fair chase” that originated in England but has been the ethic followed by Teddy Roosevelt and other sports hunters which holds that hunters should have to learn the habits of their prey and use their skills in order to “take” wildlife — not use bait or other artificial means. Moreover, many of the states where wolves are controversial compensate owners for the loss of livestock due to wolf depredation (Treves et al., 2009) but a study showed that those compensated by such a fund were no more tolerant than other livestock owners of wolves (Naughton-Treves, 2003). Part of the FWS strategy in implementing its restoration of wolves has been to allow killing of wolves as long as it doesn’t threaten their extinction — the idea that allowing killing of them would decrease anger and promote acceptance but research show that after a culling of wolves program, tolerance for them actually decreased (Browne-Nunezi et al., 2015).
The dynamics of how the smaller coalition of rancher-hunter interests dominate the majority are exemplified in Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (Janega, 2008) held sessions open to the public concerning the holding of annual wolf hunts in 72 counties across the state and they were packed by hunters resulting in a vote of 4482 to 772 in favor of wolf hunts. Thus, while hunters only make up about 14 percent of Wisconsin’s population, it’s no wonder that the State and Federal wildlife management agencies pay more attention to them and other wolf opponents like ranchers than wolf supporters — these groups express their anti-wolf views strongly to state agencies and legislatures and turn up at meetings (Janega, 2008). Thus their negative charisma can be so strong that it can enable smaller groups to prevail over larger numbers of less intense carnivore supporters.
Though wolves are the primary example of negative charisma, other species such as rattlesnakes and sharks also have what I call negative charisma. Snakes in general are feared and hated by a significant portion of the population based on socialization of societal attitudes at an early age. Scientific evidence shows that they are rarely harmful to most humans and the attacks of poisonous snakes are defensive in nature — these facts are widely known (Renki, 2020). Nevertheless, “ingrained” human fears of them continue to produce negative charisma that results in people deliberately killing them and in some areas, snake “roundups” are held like one held in Sweetwater (Texas) where a hundreds of rattlesnakes were butchered (Associated Press, 2022C). One major method used by those who bring in the snakes is to capture them by “smoking them out” by pouring gasoline in their burrows thus harming the habitat for not only the snakes but other wildlife that inhabit it (Fernandez, 2014). Franke (2000) described how the decapitation of the snakes at some of these roundups is justified by references to the bible as being “biblical serpents.” The science that documents their value to the ecosystem is overwhelmed by media coverage such as “fake rescue videos” in which “snakes attack pet cats, dogs, lizards….the kills are thwarted by human saviors who conveniently come upon them or hear the animals’ cries in time to prevent carnage” (Maron, 2021). It should be noted that positive charismatics also can suffer from their positive charisma too — for example, the beauty of scarlet macaws leads to poaching and illegal wildlife trade that threatens them (Barcott, 2008).
The source of the negative charisma of sharks is very similar to that of rattlesnakes — people fear that they will be bitten by them. Sharks also illustrate the huge impact that media coverage has on perception of a species: The 1975 film Jaws led to strong negative perceptions of sharks and resulted in shark-killing “tournaments.” Although actual deaths due to shark bites is small, when they do happen such as seven (over three years) in Australia, it leads to a media frenzy and, in the Australian case, to a culling of sharks (DuPree, 2008). As with grizzlies, scientists have shown that these deaths are usually accidental and most can be prevented by taking appropriate precautions such as not swimming at dawn or dusk in “murky waters” (Baird, 2014). According to a survey, over 80 percent of Australians do not believe that sharks should be killed (Baird, 2014).
The impact of media on perceptions of wildlife has been demonstrated time and time again, not only with sharks but with badgers in Britain who were blamed for transmission of bovine TB and once viewed as “vermin.” The badgers became transformed by Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows so that they became known as “good badgers” (Cassidy, 2017). This case illustrates that human perceptions of species are subject to change especially due to media coverage. For example, Wallace (1994) states that manatees did not use to be a popular species in Florida but became so popular that it became the “official Florida state mammal” and have attracted major support resulting in speed limits on boats as well as major rescue efforts when they have been suffering in cold weather. These examples show that prevalent perceptions of wildlife can be changed over time through media.
Conclusion
Charismatic wildlife have played an essential role in legislation (and treaties) protecting biodiversity such as the Endangered Species Act of the U.S. Over time, through the dissemination of scientific findings, governments and the agencies implementing this legislation have focused on broader biodiversity protection concepts such as protecting ecosystems and habitats rather than specific species. However, the popularity of individual species continues to play an important role in politics affecting biodiversity. There are significant limitations to the impact of charismatics in their political impact. Protections for popular species (e.g., whales and wild horses) inevitably conflicts with the interests of some significant group such as fishers and ranchers resulting in everlasting conflict between groups attracted to these species and those who feel these species negatively affect their lives. In a large percentage of the cases, the organized smaller groups negatively affected by protections can win out over the larger population that favors protections because of their higher intensity. The situation is especially difficult for species who rouse what I have labeled “negative charisma” such as wolves that spur negative emotions among some groups who live near the species. Conflicts between groups supporting and those opposing protections can go on forever with governments finding it impossible to find solutions that are acceptable to both sides.
Even when protections for charismatic (and other) species are secured and are successful in restoring the species to plentiful enough numbers that their biological existence is no longer threatened, this success does not necessarily end political struggles over the species. We have used the examples of whales, wild horses, and deer to illustrate this point. While a good portion of environmentalists are willing to weaken or even stop protections for species assured of survival, animal rights groups do not accept the lethal take of species such as wild horses. In short, the politics of charismatic wildlife has no easy end point. There is no doubt that charismatic species have carried the load in spurring action to preserve biodiversity. However, the general population needs to be aware that these few species that receive most of human attention are parts of ecosystems and saving individual species is not sufficient.
References
Angier, Natalie. (2008). “Noble Eagles, Nasty Pigeons, Biased Humans.” New York Times. April 29, 2008 Accessed 4/25/13 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29angi.html?ref=woodpeckers&pagewanted=print
Associated Press. (2022A). Idaho wolf control board will have $1M to kill wolves. Politico, Jan. 20. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/01/20/idaho-wolf-control-board-will-have-1m-to-kill-wolves-285391
Associated Press. (2022B). Maine governor, delegation want whale protections delayed. February 8. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/02/08/maine-governor-delegation-want-whale-protections-delayed-ee-00006618
Associated Press. (2022C). Rattlesnake roundups take 2 paths, drawing praise and scorn. Politico, March 11. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/03/11/rattlesnake-roundups-take-2-paths-drawing-praise-and-scorn-00016465
Baird, Julia. (2014). “The Great White Shark’s Image Problem.” New York Times, November 30. Accessed 12/1/14 from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/opinion/the-great-white-sharks-image-problem.html?emc=edit_ty_20141201&nl=opinion&nlid=10365419&_r=0
Ballotpedia (2023). The Alaska Prohibit Airborne Hunting. Initiative. https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Prohibit_Airborne_Hunting,_Measure_3_(1996)#cite_note-2
Barcott, Bruce. (2008). The Last Flight of the Scarlet Macaw. One Woman’s Fight to Save the World’s Most Beautiful Bird. New York: Random House.
Beatley, Timothy. (1994). Habitat Conservation Planning: Endangered Species and Urban Growth. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Beil, Laura. (2012). Herd’s Fate Lies in Preservation Clash. New York Times, May 7. Accessed 2/20/14 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/science/wild-horses-fate-in-outer-banks-lies-in-preservation-clash.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Beitsch, Rebecca. (2021). Court reinstates lobster fishing ban implemented to save whales. The Hill.com, November 17.
Bodine, Renee. (2017). Saving the Florida Scrub Jay. Morning Ag Clips, Dec. 6. https://www.morningagclips.com/saving-the-florida-scrub-jay/
Boertje, Rodney D,; Keech, Mark A.; & Paragi, Thomas F. (2010). Science and Values Influencing Predator Control for Alaska Moose Management. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(5):917–928.
Bradshaw. G. A. (2009). Elephants on the Edge: What Animals Teach Us About Humanity. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brambilla, Mattia; Gustin, Marco, & Celada, Claudio. (2013). Species appeal predicts conservation status, Biological Conservation, 160 (April), 209–213.
Brant, Anthony. (1997). “Not In My Backyard.” Audubon Magazine. September-October, 58–62 & 86–87 & 102–103.
Click here to cancel reply.Brinkley, Douglas. (2009).The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Browne-Nuñez, C.; Treves, A.; MacFarland, D.; Voyles, Z.,& Turng, C. (2015). “Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations” Biological Conservation, in press, accessed 9/19/15 from http://faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/wolves/wolfpubs/Browne-Nunez_2015.pdf.
Cambrone, Al. (2014). “Can’t See the Forest for the Deer.” Wall Street Journal, March 12. Accessed 3/12/14 from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304704504579429583302400534#printMode
Cassidy, Angela. “Badger-Human Conflict: An Overlooked Historical Context for Bovine TB Debates in the UK.” In Catherine M. Hill, Amanda D. Webber, and Nancy E.C. Priston, Eds. 2017, Understanding Conflicts about Wildlife: A Biosocial Approach. New York: Berghahn.
Céline, Albert; Luque, Gloria M., & Courchamp, Franck. (2018) The twenty most charismatic species. Plos One, July 9, 2018; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199149
Chadwick, Douglas. (2008). “Whatever happened to ‘Save the Whales’”? Sierra Magazine. July/August 52–54 & 72.
Coleman, Jon T. (2004). Vicious: Wolves and Men in America. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Cunningham, Paul A.; Huijbens, Edward H. and Wearing, Stephen L. (2012). From whaling to whale watching: examining sustainability and cultural rhetoric. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 20, №1, 143–161
Czech, Brian & Krausman, Paul R. (2001). The Endangered Species Act. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dean, Cornelia. (2009). The Fall and Rise of the Right Whale. New York Times. March 17. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/science/17whal.html
Devereaux, Ryan. (2022). Rocky Mountain Massacre: Was Yellowstone’s Deadliest Wolf Hunt an Inside Job? The Intercept, July 20. https://theintercept.com/2022/07/20/wolves-yellowstone-ranger-montana-greg-gianforte/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter
Duffield, John W.; Neher, Chris J.; & Patterson, David A. (2008). Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone: Park visitor attitudes, expenditures, and economic impacts. Yellowstone Science, 16(1), 20–25. Accessed 6/19 from http://www.greateryellowstonescience.org/sites/default/files/references/YS_16_1_Duffield_et_al_sm.pdf
Dupree, Joe. (2008). The Most Important Fish in the Sea National Wildlife Federation Magazine. 46(2). Accessed 2/6/2008 from http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=120&articleID=1556&utm_source=NationalWildlifeMagazine&utm_medium=Article&utm_term=Feb08&utm_content=MostImportantFishInSea&utm_campaign=1
Edelblutte, Émilie ; Anne G. Short Gianotti, Anne G.; & John P. Casellas Connors, John P. (2022). Perceptions, concerns, and management of white-tailed deer among municipal officials, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 27:5, 436–456, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2021.1959963
Elbein, Saul & Udasin, Sharon. (2022). Equilibrium/Sustainability — Wild horses could help temper Western wildfires. The Hill. Aug.2. https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/3585146-equilibrium-sustainability-wild-horses-could-help-temper-western-wildfires/
Farquhar, Brodie. (2006). “WY: Governor defends wolf stance.” Twin Observer: Accessed 2/9/13 from http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/?p=2717
Fernandez, Manny. (2014). “Rattlesnake Wranglers, Armed With Gasoline.” New York Times. March 30, 2014. Accessed 3/30/14 from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/us/rattlesnake-wranglers-armed-with-gasoline.html?emc=edit_tnt_20140330&nlid=10365419&tntemail0=y&_r=0
Franke, James. (2000). Rattlesnake Roundups: Uncontrolled Wildlife Exploitation and the Rites of Spring. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 3(2), 151–160
Franklin, Adrian. (2006). Animal Nation: The True Story of Animals and Australia. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press Ltd.
Freeman, Milton M.R. and Kellert, Stephen R. (1994). International Attitudes to Whales, Whaling and the Use of Whale Products: A Six-Country Survey. Pp. 293 in Milton R. Freeman. Editor, Elephants and Whales: Resources for Whom? Switzerland: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Gadbow, Daryl. (2010). “A Bear’s Best Friend.” Montanan. Fall. Accessed 4/20/13 from http://www2.umt.edu/montanan/f10/A%20Bears%20Best%20Friend.asp
Goldfarb, Ben. (2014). “Are we smart enough to solve our raven problem?.” High Country News, July 21 Issue.Accessed 7/25/14 from http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.12/are-we-smart-enough-to-solve-our-raven-problem
Grandoni, Dino. (2022). These whales are on the brink. Now comes climate change — and wind power. Washington Post, April 21. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/04/21/right-whales-biden/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=wp_energy_and_environment&wpisrc=nl_green
Grose, Jessica. (2012). A Death in Yellowstone. Slate. April 2. Accessed 4/20/13 from _bear_attacks_how_wildlife_investigators_found_a_killer_grizzly_in_yellowstone_.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_2
Greenberg, Paul. (2010). Tuna’s End. New York Times. June 21. Accessed 1/6/12 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/magazine/27Tuna-t.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
Grumbine, R. Edward. (1995). Using Biodiversity as a Justification for Nature Protection in the U.S. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations. 21(1): 35–59
Gulliford, Andrew. (2013). High Country News. April 15 issue. Wild horses: Too much of a good thing. Accessed 4/23/13 from http://www.hcn.org/wotr/wild-horses-too-much-of-a-good-thing/print_view
Hart, David. (2005). “The Hocus Pocus of Ballot Box Biology.” National Rifle Association: Institute for Legislative Action. Accessed 10/30/2012 from http://www.nraila.org/hunting/articles/the-hocus-pocus-of-ballot-box-biology.aspx?s=ballot+box+biology&st=&ps
Heller, Peter. (2007). The Whale Warriors. The Battle at the Bottom of the World to Save the Planet’s Largest Mammals. New York: Free Press.
Hill, Catherine M. (2017). Introduction: Complex Problems: Using a Biosocial Approach to Understanding Human-Wildlife Interactions in Catherine M. Hill, Amanda D. Webber, and Nancy E.C. Priston, Eds. Understanding Conflicts about Wildlife: A Biosocial Approach. New York: Berghahn.
Hotakainen, Rob. (2023). N.D. fights NPS plan to remove Roosevelt park’s wild horses. Politico, Jan. 31. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2023/01/31/n-d-fights-nps-plan-to-remove-roosevelt-parks-wild-horses-00080391
Hutchinson A, Stephens-Griffin N and Wyatt T (2021) Speciesism and the wildlife trade: Who gets listed, downlisted and uplisted in CITES? International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. Advance online publication. https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/1945
Janega, James. (2008). “Vote to consider wolf hunting triggers debate.” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 26. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2008-04-27-0804260192-story.html
Jarvis, Brooke. (2021). Deer Wars and Death Threats. New Yorker, Nov. 15. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/15/deer-wars-and-death-threats?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Magazine_Daily_Subs_110821&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9cf0924c17c6adf3b5b31&cndid=49211607&esrc=&utm_term=TNY_Magazine_Daily_Subs
Jordan, Tara. (2011–2012). Revising the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling: A proposal to End the Stalemate within the International Whaling Commission. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 29(4), 833–868.
Kalland, Arne. (1994). “Whose Whale Is that? Diverting the Commodity Path.” Pp. 159–186 in Milton R. Freeman. Editor. Elephants and Whales: Resources for Whom? Switzerland: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Kareiva, Pewter; Timothy H. Tear, Stacey Solie, Michelle L. Brown, Leonardo Sotomayor, and Christopher Yuan-Farrell. (2006). “Nongovernmental Organizations.” Pp.176–194 in The Endangered Species Act at Thirty. Volume I. Renewing the Conservation Promise. Edited by Dale D. Goble, J. Michael Scott, & Frank W. Davis. Washington: Island Press.
Keiter, Robert B. (2003). Keeping Faith with Nature: Ecosystems, Democracy, & America’s Public Lands. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kellert, Stephen R. & Berry, Joyce K. (1980). Phase III: Knowledge, Affection and Basic Attitudes Towards Animals in American Society. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, #024–010–00–625–1.
Kellert, Stephen R.; Black, Matthew, Rush, Colleen Reid; Bath, Alistair J. (1996). Human Culture and Large Carnivore Conservation in North America. Conservation Biology, 10(4), August, 977–990.
Kobayashi, Lisa. (2006). Lifting the International Whaling Commission’s Moratorium on Commercial Whaling as the Most Effective Global Regulation of Whaling. Environs, 29(2), 177–219.
Kopnina, Helen. (2015). “Of Tigers and Humans: The Question of Democratic Deliberation and Biodiversity Conservation.” Pp. 63–71 in George Wuerthner, Eileen Crist, and Tom Butler, Editors. Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness, The Foundation for Conservation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Leader-Williams N & H.T. Dublin H.T. (2000). Charismatic megafauna as “flagship species”. In: A E, Dunstone N, editors. Priorities for the conservation of mammalian biodiversity: Has the panda had its day? Cambridge University Press: 53–81
Lorimer, Jamie. (2007). Nonhuman charisma Jamie. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2007, volume 25, pages 911–932.
McClenachan, Lorena et al. (2012). “Extinction risk and bottlenecks in the conservation
of charismatic marine species.” Conservation Letters, 5(1), 73–80.
Maron, Bydina Fine. (2021). How fake animal rescue videos have become a new frontier for animal abuse. National Geographic, June 30. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/how-fake-animal-rescue-videos-have-become-a-new-frontier-for-animal-abuse?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=crm-email::src=ngp::cmp=editorial::add=Animals_20210701_rid=1575E2A05F37205A27CA72946056EAE7
Miller John. (2010). Idaho governor pulls state management of wolves in dispute over wolf hunt October 19, 2010, The Associated Press Accessed 4/27/13 from http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/idaho_wont_manage_wolves_under_esa/20166/
Miller, Sterling D., Schoen, John W.; Faro, Jim; & Klein, David R. (2011). Trends in Intensive Management of Alaska’s Grizzly Bears, 1980–2010. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(6):1243–1252.
Mooallem, Jon. (2013a). “Who Would Kill a Monk Seal?” New York Times Magazine. May 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/magazine/who-would-kill-a-monk-seal.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=print
Mooallem, Jon. (2013b). Wild Ones. New York: The Penguin Press, 2013.
Murchison, Kenneth M. (2007). The Snail Darter Case: TVA versus the Endangered Species Act. Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas, 2007.
Naughton-Treves, Lisa; Grossber, Rebecca; & Treves, Adrian. (2003). Paying for Tolerance: Rural Citizens’ Attitudes toward Wolf Depredation and Compensation LISA Conservation Biology, 17(6), 1500–1511.
New York Times, (2009). Editorial: A Non-Ban on Whaling.” June 28. Accessed 1/10/14 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opinion/28sun3.html?pagewanted=print
Nie, Martin A. (2003). Beyond Wolves: The Politics of Wolf Recovery and Management. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ottter, C.L. “Butch.” (2010). Letter to The Honorable Ken Salazar. Termination of Designated Agent Status, Oct.18. https://idfg.idaho.gov
Patterson, Steve. (2022, October 31). Senators from Florida, Carolinas call NOAA plan to save right whales ‘costly,’ ‘excessive’. https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/environment/2022/10/31/plan-protect-right-whales-excessive-rubio-scott-tell-noaa/10601107002/
Petersen, Shannon (1999). Congress and charismatic megafauna: legislative history of the endangered species act. Environmental Law, 29(2), 463–492.
Phillips, Kristine. (2018). “Nearly 200 free-roaming horses died searching for water on Navajo’s parched land.” Washington Post. May 6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/05/06/nearly-200-free-roaming-horses-died-searching-for-water-on-navajos-parched-land/?utm_term=.95bdb1e6759e&wpisrc=nl_animalia&wpmm=1
Rahmani, Asad R. (2003). “Conservation Outside Protected Areas: Case Studies of Bustard Protection.” Pp. 117–135 in Vasant K. Saberwal & Mahesh Rangarajan, Editors, Battles Over Nature: Science and the Politics of Conservation. New Delhi, India: Permanent Black.
Rauber, Paul. (1992). Illusions of Wilderness. Sierra Magazine. July-August, 33–34. PaulRauber@SierraClub.org
Rauber, Paul. (1993). Sierra Magazine. “When Nature Turns Nasty.” Sierra Magazine. November-December: 46–52.
Renki, Margaret. (2020). The Misunderstood, Maligned Rattlesnake. New York Times, June 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/opinion/rattlesnakes.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20200622&instance_id=19607&nl=opinion-today®i_id=10365419&segment_id=31539&te=1&user_id=1575e2a05f37205a27ca72946056eae7
Ripple, William J. & Beschta, Robert L. (2012). Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation. 145(1): 205–213.
Robinson, Michael J. (2005). Predatory Bureaucracy: The Extermination of Wolves and the Transformation of the West. Boulder: The University Press of Colorado.
Schirtzinger, Alexa. (2010). Horse Ills A controversial new effort aims to protect the Wild West. Audubon Magazine. March-April, 20.
Seideman, David. (1996). Out of the Woods. Audubon Magazine. July-August, 66–75
Soniak, Matt. (2015). Why you want to save the whales, but not the crickets. The Week, January 8. https://theweek.com/articles/450037/why-want-save-whales-but-not-crickets
Streater, Scott. (2019A). The lost plan to save the West’s wild horses. EE News, October 10.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/09/10/stories/1061111767
Streater, Scott. (2019B). The lost plan to save the West’s wild horses. EE News, October 10.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/09/10/stories/1061111767
Streater, Scott. (2022). BLM finalizes wild horse protections for adopted animals. Politico, Jan. 26. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/01/26/blm-finalizes-wild-horse-protections-for-adopted-adopted-animals-ee-00002494
Tobin, Richard J. The Expendable Future: U.S. Politics and the Protection of Biological Diversity. Durham: Duke University Press. 1990.
Treves, Adrian; Jurewicz, Randle L.; Naughton-Treves, Lisa; & Wilcove, David S. (2009). The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodiversity Conservation, 18, 4003–4021.
Turner, Pamela S. (2005). Struggling to Save the Seahorse. National Wildlife Federation Magazine. June/July, 43 (4). Accessed 3/19/13 from http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2005/Struggling-to-Save-the-Seahorse.aspx
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS). (2003). Gray Wolf. March. http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/singleitem/collection/document/id/111/rec/16
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1988). Endangered Species: Management Improvement Could Enhance Recovery Program. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, and the Environment, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. GAO/RCED-89–5. December.
U.S. General Accountability Office. (2008). Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses. Oct.2008. Washington, D.C.: USGAO, GAO-09–77
Wallace, Richard L. (1994). The Florida Manatee Recovery Program, Pp. 1341–156 in Tim W. Clark, Richard P. Reading, & Alice L. Clarke. Eds., Endangered Species Recovery: Finding the Lessons, Improving the Process. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Walpole, Matthew J. and Leader-Williams, Nigel Leader. (2002). Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 543–547
Whittle, Patrick. (2022). Court reinstates ban on lobster gear to protect right whales. AP News, July 13.
Willcox, Louis. (2013). Is the proposal to hunt Yellowstone grizzlies based on sound science and public support? Posted January 9, 2013 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places. Accessed 1.19.1=2913 from http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lwillcox/is_the_proposal_to_hunt_yellow.html\
Williams, Ted. (2011). Incite: Saddle Sores. Audubon Magazine, January-February, 28–36.
Wilson, Patrick Impero. (1999). Wolves, politics and the Nez Perce: Wolf recovery in Central Idaho and the role of native tribes. Natural Resources Journal 39, 543–564.
