General Lessons and Positive Trends in Large Carnivore Conservation

Lessons

The goal of this special section is to aid the long-term survival of wild, free-ranging carnivores in the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. This is a goal we share with many people in government, nongovern- mental organizations, universities, and business. We conclude that there is no assurance that conventional management will be successful. When considering this body of work and allied studies, it is apparent that many improvements in practice must be made to achieve wild carnivore conservation. On all the fronts analyzed in this special section, from problem-solving approaches to the legal system, current practices in large carnivore conser- vation in the Rocky Mountains need significant upgrad- ing to ensure the long-term viability of large carnivores and the wildland complexes that support them. This conclusion is not meant to detract from the substantial progress made in the last 30 years; it merely points to the considerable progress we must still make.

Evidence for our conclusion is diverse and compel- ling. First and perhaps most fundamentally, it appears that the way we are approaching the problem and for- mally organizing ourselves to solve it is often inade- quate. Many current efforts employ "problem-blind," fragmented, and biased conceptions derived from nar- row disciplinary, epistemological, or organizational foci (Sch6n 1983; Brunner & Ascher 1992; Sullivan 1995). Also, our efforts are generally incongruent with the scale and complexity of the conservation problem. Our job is difficult, to be sure, but there are interdisciplinary prece- dents for solving complex problems in other knowledge areas, and they have been introduced in this special sec- tion (Byerly & Pielke 1995). Practice-based improve- ments, which build on current best practices, offer a way to make conservation advances on the ground (Brunner & Clark 1996).

Second, our research has weaknesses. Traditionally, we have sought answers from ecological research, as though the problems were merely technical. But carni- vore conservation requires knowledge from many disci- plines. We are realizing slowly that other fields of knowl- edge must be drawn on, such as sociology, economics,

and ethics. This diverse knowledge must be integrated and synthesized to form the basis for effective conserva- tion action. Besides a paucity of multidisciplinary re- search, a high degree of uncertainty in our ecological in- formation often exists because of limited knowledge of species, ecological interactions, and ecosystems and landscapes. We also have limited ability to model the key components of complex, multi-level systems over long time periods for predictive purposes (Doak 1995; Boyce 1995; Knight & Eberhardt 1985; Mattson et al., this issue). We must learn to acknowledge, accept, and manage for uncertainty. Furthermore, our research is fragmented across organizations and disciplines, so it is difficult to integrate the bits and pieces of empirical data into appropriately scaled analysis and management ef- forts. A lack of integration between theoreticians and on-the-ground practitioners also weakens the formula- tion, implementation, and evaluation of policy and man- agement. Interdisciplinary problem-solving concepts and skills and new organizational arrangements could serve to integrate and synthesize knowledge and action more successfully. Most learning takes place slowly and on an individual basis (Clark 1996; Primm & Clark, Mattson et al., this issue). Learning needs to be diffused widely and quickly adapted and institutionalized.

Third, the management and research arenas receive cues from a diverse m@16e of organized and unorganized interests, and the mixed signals that result make the con- servation task less than clear or easy. The context of car- nivore management is indeed complex, and it must be mapped comprehensively and realistically for effective conservation (Clark et al., this issue). Carnivores still carry a complex and sometimes negative image among large sectors of the public (Kellert et al., this issue). In certain communities, primarily rural ones, the wolf of Little Red Riding Hood remains the "master symbol" of a wild predator. Those in western states such as Wyoming and Idaho who favor decentralized and limited govern- ment authority often capitalize on the issue of wolf and grizzly bear recover 3 to catalyze antifederal sentiment (Keiter & Locke, this issue). In such contexts federal ef- t forts to recover and protect predators are often inter- preted as further evk lence of big government 's indiffer-

I 1055

Conservation Biology, Pages 1055-1058 Voltlme 10, No. 4, August 1996

1056 Lessons and Trends in Carnivore Consereation Clark et aL

ence to the litt le guy w h o is t rying to make an hones t living. This scenar io plays wel l in cur ren t at tacks on the Endangered Species Act and p rov ides ammuni t i on for calls to turn m a n a g e m e n t ove r to the states.

Given the diversi ty of pub l i c op in ion , it is not surpris- ing that carnivores , and the wi ld land p r o t e c t i o n that is essent ia l for the i r ex i s tence , con t inue to be v i e w e d by many as i m p e d i m e n t s to e c o n o m i c wel l -be ing (Rasker & Hackman, this issue). Even in c o m m u n i t i e s w h o s e econ- omies d e p e n d on tour ism, outfi t t ing, and o t h e r recre- at ional "wilderness" activities, t he re is significant oppo- si t ion to carn ivore conserva t ion (e.g., oppos i t i on to wo l f re in t roduc t ion ; Kei te r & Locke, Kellert et al., this issue). Negat ive images of carn ivores based on fears of compet i - t ion, loss of p r o p e r t y rights, and loss of e c o n o m i c op- por tun i t i es con t inue to carry an inord ina te we igh t in de- c is ion-making processes , t hough they are no longer he ld by a major i ty of Nor th Americans . All these con tex tua l forces and p roces ses mus t be be t t e r m a p p e d , t racked, and u n d e r s t o o d so they can be be t t e r hand led by all in- vo lved part ies . Carnivore conse rva t ion must be made con tex tua l ly re levant or it wil l r ema in unjust i f iable to many o p p o n e n t s . Divergent in teres ts and ob jec t ives mus t be cons ide red in more effect ive ways (Brunner & Clark 1996; Pr imm & Clark, Primm, this issue). If the p i t c h e d bat t le of special in teres ts cont inues , r e sources and t ime will be w a s t e d a long wi th i r rep laceab le biodi-

versity. Fourth , the legal sys tem that is somet imes cal led u p o n

to resolve pub l i c conf l ic t such as that su r round ing carni- vore conserva t ion is of ten misunder s tood . Law, like sci- ence, is no t an immutab le guide to dec is ion making. Both the legal and scientif ic en te rpr i ses manifes t m u c h ambigu i ty and uncer ta in ty , leaving cons ide rab le r o o m for in te rpre ta t ion . Reflect ing pub l i c values, law and sci- ence are s imply ins t ruments of po l i cy and thus are con- stantly changing (Lasswell & McD0ugal 1992). The cur- ren t array of laws and legal tools are helpful , but t hey offer no final an swer for conf l ic t reso lu t ion (Kei te r & Locke, this issue). The laws that are in p lace a round the Rocky Mounta in reg ion vary for p r e d a t o r spec ies and f rom state to state and p rov ince to province . This is bad news for large carn ivores that inhabi t ex tens ive areas and inevi tably w a n d e r across publ ic , state, and nat ional boundar ies . Cons ider ing w h a t conserva t ion b io logy tells us is necessa ry for long-term, viabil i ty (Noss et al., Weave r et al., this issue), w e wil l only accompl i sh this goal if w e adapt our legal f r a m e w o r k to p r o t e c t g roups of interrelated species and the habitats they d e p e n d upon at a scale c o m m e n s u r a t e wi th ecologica l p roces ses such as wide- ranging wildl ife movemen t s . I m p r o v e m e n t s on the legal f ront are poss ib le and need more at tent ion.

Fifth, these legal, cultural , managemen t , and po l i cy chal lenges to carn ivore conserva t ion are no t l imi ted to Nor th America . All over the g lobe p e o p l e are seeking ways for humans and carn ivores to coex i s t ( W e b e r &

Rabinowitz , this issue). Current t rends of habi ta t use and r e source c o n s u m p t i o n by h u m a n s may make this a quix- otic goal, bu t the odds will be i m p r o v e d if w e encou rage innovat ion across the boa rd and look to o the r cu l tu res and regions for any lessons that might be app l i cab le to our conservation efforts (Weber & Rabinowitz, this issue).

Wi th the goal of this specia l sec t ion in mind, w e n e e d to th ink hard about the carn ivore conse rva t ion chal- lenge, the way w e organize ourselves, and the w a y w e unde r s t a nd and pa r t i c ipa te in scientific, managemen t , and pub l i c processes . To make fur ther p rogress w e need to bu i ld on exis t ing posi t ive t r ends and c rea te n e w op-

por tuni t ies .

W h e r e Next?

Several pos i t ive t r ends for carn ivore conse rva t ion and oppo r tun i t i e s for i m p r o v e m e n t exis t that should be cap- i tal ized for even grea te r gains. W e need to con t inue to mon i to r p rogress by c o n d u c t i n g sys temat ic appraisa ls of the conse rva t ion cha l lenge and our ongo ing responses . The bes t appraisa ls are c on t i nuous and i n d e p e n d e n t of the organiza t ion(s) r e spons ib le for po l i cy formula t ion and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n (Lasswell & McDougal 1992). The group exercise in this special sect ion is a modes t a t tempt to appra i se cu r r en t p r inc ip le s and p rac t i ces of carn ivore conservat ion . It is i n c o m p l e t e in many ways; m u c h more t h o r o u g h and soph i s t i ca t ed analyses are needed . The bes t s tandards of p rac t i ce mus t be clar if ied th rough in- d e p t h appraisals and t hen mus t be a d a p t e d to a var ie ty of s i tuat ions (Brunner & Clark 1996). W e wil l need to be self-reflective and wil l ing to a ba ndon conven t iona l prac- t ices that are no t w o r k i n g (Sch6n 1983).

As w e clarify s tandards w e will ge t be t t e r at identify- ing cond i t ions that p r o m i s e i m p r o v e d managemen t , re- search, and dec i s ion making. Already, w e can ident i fy at least th ree posi t ive t r ends that can be t rans la ted into p r o f o u n d i m p r o v e m e n t s for carnivores .

Positive Trends

First, the re has b e e n a dramat ic change in pub l i c atti- tudes t o w a r d carn ivores in just a f ew decades (Kel ler t et al., this issue). Al though signif icant o p p o s i t i o n t o w a r d p reda to r s still exists in some g roups of pe op l e , the over- all s i tuat ion is m u c h m o r e suppor t ive than in p rev ious genera t ions . W h e n v i e w e d across mul t ip le decades , the s i tuat ion has c lear ly c ha nge d great ly in the d i rec t ion of suppo r t for carn ivore conserva t ion . As one indicator , the re are n o w many advocacy g roups wi th large mem- be r sh ips w h o s e main rallying cry is the defense of wi ld predators (Kellert et al., W e b e r & Rabinowitz, this issue).

Second, n e w pa r tne r sh ips among diverse in teres ts are be ing ff)rmed to conse rve wi ld lands and large carni-

Conservation Biology Volume 10, No. 4, August 1996

Clark et al. Lessons and Trends in Carnivore Conservation 1057

vores, wh ich suggests that some former o p p o n e n t s can

be appeased and even conver ted into p r o p o n e n t s (Kei- ter & Locke, Rasker & Hackman, this issue). In the Rocky Mountains, regional economic t rends away from extractive land uses should set the stage for more con- structive par tnerships as traditionally opposed parties recognize c o m m o n interests. We can also learn from co- operat ive efforts overseas (Weber & Rabinowitz, this is- sue). Par tnerships and learning should be guided by sys- tematic, explici t unders t and ing of what is at stake and wha t is to be accomplished.

A third t rend impor tan t to carnivore conservat ion is occur r ing th roughou t the world: There is increasing rec-

ogni t ion that interdiscipl inary methods are needed to in- tegrate cultural and biophysical approaches in conserva- tion. Meffe and Viederman (1995:327) recent ly reflected that "conservat ion biology began wi th a major emphasis on genetics, biogeography, and other ecological and evolut ionary issues, but the field is n o w matur ing to en- compass o ther conce rns beyond ecology, inc luding eco- nomic , legal, and political issues." This can only pro- mote large carnivore conservat ion.

Creating New Opportunities

Besides bui ld ing on posit ive trends, we need to identify and p romo te innova t ion (Brunner & Clark 1996) - - tha t is, br inging n e w practices to the fore. The rigorous ap- praisals we are calling for can identify useful innovat ion. It does no t necessari ly need to be large-scale to be effec- tive; it may even be more likely at small scales (Lasswell & McDougal 1992). Once innova t ion occurs it must be diffused widely. Through diffusion potent ia l users can adapt pract ices to their o w n part icular contexts . Some innovat ions may be site-specific; others may be diffused and adapted widely. For the process of innovat ion, diffu- sion, and adaptat ion to proceed, we need a system that is flexible and explicit ly capable of learning (Clark 1996). Unlike conven t iona l p o w e r players, innovators will be those who work to find improved ways to solve real problems, of ten quietly and effectively.

Prototyping is one powerfu l means of innovat ion (Clark et al. 1995; Primm, Pr imm & Clark, this issue). It provides a low-risk strategy for achieving improvemen t s (Brunner & Clark 1996). The risks are low because un- successful projects will no t incur major costs related to the typically small scale of such efforts. For the same rea- son they can avoid becoming major political targets. Suc- cessful innovat ions deve loped through pro to typing can be transferred and adapted to o ther c i rcumstances . Tan- gible results are more likely to change op in ion than pro- posals or promises alone (Lasswell & Kaplan 1950; Brun- ner & Clark 1996), so real successes will be pursued more readily than pu rpo r t ed successes. Prototyping

might genera te improved ways to deal wi th technical p rob lems or administrat ive and legal issues, and it can

provide guidance for conce rns such as h o w to reduce and avoid m a n a g e m e n t paralysis result ing from scientific uncer ta inty .

So we need to appraise our cur ren t practices, clarify standards for peak conservat ion performance, build on posit ive t rends and condi t ions, and encourage innova- tion, diffusion, and adaptation. We believe this is a prac- tical way to p roceed toward our goa l - - t he preservat ion of wild carnivores and wildlands.

Closing Comments

This group effort is only a first step in br inging about im- p rovemen t s in m a n a g e m e n t and on-the-ground conser- vation. We hope this special sect ion moves us closer to the goal of conserv ing viable popula t ions of free-ranging carnivores by offering a practical approach that recog- nizes the mult iple d imens ions of the large carnivore con- servation p rob lem and provides methods to unders tand and address these d imens ions successfully. Our hope is that many other people will go far beyond our effort and will under take a fully interdisciplinary, problem-based appraisal of carnivore conservat ion. As a final caveat, we do not mean to suggest that there is only one substan- tive way to achieve successful conservat ion. This simply looks the most promising. We hope a myriad of innova- tive, practical act ions for carnivore and wildland conser- vat ion will emerge.

Literature Cited

Boyce, M. S. 1995. Population viability for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis): a critical review. A report to the Inter'agency Grizzly Bear Committee. University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point.

Brunner, R. D., and W. Ascher. 1992. Science and social responsibility. Policy Sciences 25:295-331

Brunner, R. D., and T. W. Clark. 1996. A practice-based approach to ecosystem management. Conservation Biology (In press).

Byerly, R., Jr., and R. A. Pielke, Jr. 1995. The changing ecology of United States science. Science 269:1531-1532.

(;lark, T. W. 1996. Learning as a strategy for improving endangered species conservation. Endangered Species Update 13(1&2):5-6, 22-24.

(;lark, T. W., G. N. Backhouse, and R. P. Reading. 1995. Prototyping in endangered species recovery programmes: the eastern barred bandicoot experience. Pages 50-62 in A. Bennett, G. N. Back- house, and T. W. Clark, editors. People and nature conservation: perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Chipping Norton, Australia.

Doak, D. F. 1995. Source-sink models and the problem of habitat deg- radation: general mode B and applications to the Yellowstone griz- zly. Conservation Biology 9:13'70-1379.

Knight, R. R., and L. L. Eberhardt. 1985. Population dynamics of Yel- lowstone grizzly bears, lEcology 66:323-334

Lasswell, H. D., and A. Kaplan. 1950. Power and society: a framework J

Conservation Biok)gy Volume 10, No. 4, August 1996

1058 Lessons and Trends in Carnivore Conservation Clark et al.

for social and political inquiry. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Lasswell, H. D., and M. S. McDougal. 1992. Jurisprudence for a free so- ciety: studies in law, science, and policy. New Haven Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Meffe, G. K., and S. Viederman. 1995. Combining science and policy in conservation biology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:327-332.

Sch6n, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York.

Sullivan, W. M. 1995. Work and integrity: the crisis and promise of pro- fessionalism. Harper Business, New York.

Tim W. Clark*t Paul C. Paquet~ A. Peyton Curlee*

*Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY 83001, U.S.A., email pcurlee@wyoming.com tYale University, School of Forestt 3, and Environmental Studies, 301 Pros- pect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, U.S.A. :~Department of Biology and Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 Canada

Conservation Biology Volume 10, No. 4, August 1996