1 / 27

Managing the Public Trust and Hunters’ Trust

Managing the Public Trust and Hunters’ Trust. Brent A. Rudolph – Michigan DNR Shawn J. Riley – Michigan State University. Factors Affecting Trust in Agencies & Cooperation with Deer Management. Managing the Public Trust and Hunters’ Trust. Brent A. Rudolph – Michigan DNR

pelagia-aradia
Télécharger la présentation

Managing the Public Trust and Hunters’ Trust

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Managing the Public Trust and Hunters’ Trust Brent A. Rudolph – Michigan DNR Shawn J. Riley – Michigan State University Factors Affecting Trust in Agencies & Cooperation with Deer Management

  2. Managing the Public Trust and Hunters’ Trust Brent A. Rudolph – Michigan DNR Shawn J. Riley – Michigan State University Factors Affecting Trust in Agencies & Cooperation with Deer Management Additional Funding: Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Rocky Mountain Goats Foundation Safari Club International – Michigan Involvement Committee

  3. Wildlife Management • North America: • late 19th century: public trust resources • state agencies regulate consumption

  4. Wildlife Management • North America: • late 19th century: public trust resources • state agencies regulate consumption • sustain the public trust, allow for “use and enjoyment”

  5. Michigan: Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) • only state with sustained deer infection • 1995 ≈ 5% prevalence • present ≈ 1% prevalence

  6. Michigan: Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) • only state with sustained deer infection • 1995 ≈ 5% prevalence • present ≈ 1% prevalence • regulation & economic impacts on livestock and dairy industries

  7. Hunter Cooperation • Deer population reduction efforts: • liberal antlerless hunting opportunity • 50-60% purchase antlerless licenses • deer numbers declined, then increased again Annual bTB Area Deer Population Estimate

  8. Conceptual Framework: Instrumental Instrumental model of behavior: “Rational calculation of utility.”

  9. Conceptual Framework: Normative Normative model of behavior: Social Norms Moral Norms

  10. Conceptual Framework: Normative “…the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct… his acts… are dictated by his conscience…” - Aldo Leopold (1949) Moral Norms

  11. Conceptual Framework: Authority Social Norms Moral Norms

  12. Conceptual Framework: Authority Procedural Justice

  13. Conceptual Framework: Authority Procedural Justice • Appropriate exercise of power • Internalized obligation to obey or otherwise support authorities

  14. Conceptual Framework: Authority Instrumental Judgments • Authorities are protecting individual’s personal interests • Provide personal gains

  15. Conceptual Framework: Trust Instrumental Normative Trust Instrumental Judgments Procedural Justice Input Neutrality Justification Goal Agreement Equity Performance

  16. Conceptual Framework: Trust Instrumental Normative “I trust the MDNR to establish appropriate deer hunting rules.” Trust Instrumental Judgments Procedural Justice Input Neutrality Justification Goal Agreement Equity Performance

  17. Conceptual Framework: Cooperation Instrumental Normative Cooperation Antlerless licenses: ≥3 of last 5 years Personal Gains Normative Gains Instrumental Judgments Procedural Justice Deer Hunting Moral Social Input Neutrality Justification Goal Agreement Equity Performance

  18. Research Conceptual Framework Expert Review Public Comments Semi-Structured Interviews

  19. Research Methods • Mail survey • Initial sample: 2,824 • Adjusted sample: 2,617 • 1,336 returned (51%) • IBM SPSS Statistics 19 • Data compilation & review • Factor analysis: structure detection, internal validity • Software R • Logistic regression (logit modeling) • Significance tests

  20. Results • Statistically significant • Good fit to data Trust Instrumental Judgments Procedural Justice

  21. Results 6 of 14 variables Instrumental Normative Trust Instrumental Judgments Procedural Justice Input Neutrality Justification Goal Agreement Equity Performance

  22. Results Cooperation Personal Gains Normative Gains Instrumental Judgments Procedural Justice Deer Hunting Moral Social • Statistically significant • Poor fit to data

  23. Results 1 of 23 variables Instrumental Normative Cooperation Personal Gains Normative Gains Deer Hunting Instrumental Judgments Procedural Justice Moral Social Input Neutrality Justification Goal Agreement Equity Performance

  24. Discussion: Normative Influence • Trust & Procedural Justice • Consistency, best science, explaining alternatives • Input: • may not be needed when otherwise just • may not help when not otherwise just • Cooperation & Procedural Justice • Justification: negative correlation to bTB eradication

  25. Discussion: Instrumental Influence • Trust & Instrumental Judgments • Producing valuable outcomes • Sharing goals • positive correlation: eradicating deer bTB • negative correlation: eradicating livestock bTB • Cooperation & instrumental overall • No significant variables

  26. Implications Trust may be intentionally influenced, but details matter! • Cooperation resists influence • trust does not directly translate • no apparent personal gains

  27. Questions or Future Contacts Brent Rudolph rudolphb@michigan.gov Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center 8562 E. Stoll Road East Lansing, MI 48823

More Related