The primary purpose of this study was to determine wildlife value orientations among those in the western U.S. and to identify causal factors. Additional objectives were to determine public attitudes toward population-level management techniques, alternative funding and programming approaches, public involvement efforts, trust in government, and characteristics of species that should receive conservation funding support.

Wildlife value orientations in the western U.S. can be characterized along several distinct dimensions, including mutualism-utilitarian and attraction-concern for safety. Of these, the mutualism-utilitarian dimension has a dominating effect on thought about wildlife because it forms the basis for evaluating actions or issues that involve treatment of wildlife. Utah’s wildlife value orientation profile is: utilitarian (48%), mutualist (20%), pluralist (21%), and distanced (11%).

This study examined whether or not shifts in wildlife values are associated with broader societal value shifts. Broad societal shift has been described empirically as shifting from Materialist values (focused on safety and economic well-being) to Post-Materialist values (focused on belonging-ness, self-actualization, environmentalism, and distrust of government). Utah has slightly over 70% of its sample identifiable as Materialists and less than a fourth (~23%) identifiable as Post-Materialists.

Demographically, Utah is in the middle range of the 19 western states regarding both income and education. It is also one of the least urbanized states in the region.

This study explored public attitudes regarding deer and bear population-level management techniques in two situations of human-wildlife conflict: the animals are a “nuisance” and the animals are a “safety threat.” Among the three control strategies presented, a majority of the public found “doing nothing” to be unacceptable in both situations for both species. Hunts conducted by agency staff or by recreational hunters were favored techniques for both deer situations.

For bear situations, agency hunts were far more favorable than recreational hunts. Utah scored fourth lowest (7%) among all states in the proportion that found the action “do nothing to control bear populations” acceptable when human deaths have occurred from bear attacks. Utah was the 10th highest state finding the conduct of controlled hunts using trained agency staff acceptable when bears get into trash and food containers. Utah was 8th highest in its acceptance of providing more recreational opportunities to hunt bears when humans have died from attacking bears.

With respect to public preference for funding the conservation of species in Utah, species origin and species use were the most important factors. Species status was the least important factor.

Additional detail on public attitudes toward wildlife and hunting can be found in the original report.