Geology topics

Jeremy T. Bruskotter

Publications and source records attributed to Jeremy T. Bruskotter.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Public support for puma reintroduction in the eastern United States

Pumas ( Puma concolor ) are among the species identified as having the potential to enhance ecosystem function. Previous research highlights sufficient ecological habitat to support pumas in the eastern United States; however, their reintroduction requires social and institutional support as well. To this end, we conducted research to assess attitudes about puma reintroduction among key constituencies like hunters, rural residents, and young people. We sampled 2756 respondents across seven states (Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia). Ratios of strong support (for puma reintroduction) to strong opposition across states ranged from 4:1 to 13:1, and support outweighed opposition in every state. Our results contrasted with common assumptions that hunters, rural residents, and people who identify as politically conservative oppose carnivore conservation and reintroduction. We found marginal differences among categories of people, but overall little variation in support exhibited by different groups. People who identified very strongly as hunters were more supportive of reintroduction than those who did not identify as hunters at all. Taken together, the presence of quality habitat and support for puma restoration warrant further exploration. However, federal funding for state-based restoration efforts likely requires the inclusion of pumas in State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs), which are currently under a 10-year revision due to be published this year (2025).

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pen↗

USGS2025

Bridging social and ecological science to create spatially-explicit models of human-caused mortality of carnivores

Research indicates that human-caused mortality (HCM) is a key factor limiting numerous large carnivore populations. However, efforts to represent HCM in spatially explicit models have generally been limited in scope—often relying on proxies, such as road or human density. Yet such efforts fail to distinguish different sources of HCM, which can arise from different antecedent processes. We offer a systems-based conceptual framework for understanding the antecedents of HCMs that is grounded in theory from the social and behavioral sciences. Specifically, we first explain how HCMs are usefully distinguished into four types (e.g., accidental, harvest, illicit, control actions), then discuss how these different types tend to be driven by different sets of psychological and sociopolitical processes. We contend that improvements in understanding the spatial variation in HCMs would rise from more explicit attention to the various antecedent processes that precede each mortality type.

Ambio↗

USGS2018

How Minnesota wolf hunter and trapper attitudes and risk- and benefit-based beliefs predict wolf management preferences

In 2012, Minnesota’s first-ever regulated wolf hunting and trapping season occurred. Research has suggested that beliefs about risks and benefits associated with carnivores affect their acceptance. Using results from a 2013 mail survey of hunters and trappers who participated in the season, we employed mediation analysis to examine how risk- and benefit-based beliefs influenced the relationship between attitudes about wolves and management preferences and behavioral intentions. Analyses differentiated hunters and trappers. Beliefs about risks and benefits partially explained the relationship between attitudes and wolf management preferences among hunters, while risk-based beliefs fully accounted for management preferences in the trapper sample. Beliefs about risks associated with wolves were most strongly related to management preferences among both hunters and trappers. Beliefs about the risks wolves present to desired game species may be symbolic among hunters and trappers, therefore, managers may be challenged to gain support for recovering wolf populations among these stakeholders.

Minnesota↗

USGS2017

Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation

The hope for creating widespread change in social values has endured among conservation professionals since early calls by Aldo Leopold for a “land ethic.” However, there has been little serious attention in conservation to the fields of investigation that address values, how they are formed, and how they change. We introduce a social–ecological systems conceptual approach in which values are seen not only as motivational goals people hold but also as ideas that are deeply embedded in society's material culture, collective behaviors, traditions, and institutions. Values define and bind groups, organizations, and societies; serve an adaptive role; and are typically stable across generations. When abrupt value changes occur, they are in response to substantial alterations in the social–ecological context. Such changes build on prior value structures and do not result in complete replacement. Given this understanding of values, we conclude that deliberate efforts to orchestrate value shifts for conservation are unlikely to be effective. Instead, there is an urgent need for research on values with a multilevel and dynamic view that can inform innovative conservation strategies for working within existing value structures. New directions facilitated by a systems approach will enhance understanding of the role values play in shaping conservation challenges and improve management of the human component of conservation.

Conservation Biology↗

USGS2015

Assessing tolerance for wildlife: Clarifying relations between concepts and measures

Two parallel lines of inquiry, tolerance for and acceptance of wildlife populations, have arisen in the applied literature on wildlife conservation to assess probability of successfully establishing or increasing populations of controversial species. Neither of these lines is well grounded in social science theory, and diverse measures have been employed to assess tolerance, which inhibits comparability across studies. We empirically tested behavioral measures of tolerance against self-reports of previous policy-relevant behavior and behavioral intentions. Both composite behavioral measures were strongly correlated ( r > .70) with two attitudinal measures of tolerance commonly employed in the literature. The strong correlation between attitudinal and behavioral measures suggests existing attitudinal measures represent valid, parsimonious measures of tolerance that may be useful when behavioral measures are too cumbersome or misreporting of behavior is anticipated. Our results demonstrate how behavioral measures of tolerance provide additional, useful information beyond general attitudinal measures.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Jou↗

USGS2012

Will hunters steward wolves? A comment on Treves and Martin

As wolf conservation transitions away from federally sponsored protection and recovery toward sustainable management under state fish and game agencies, researchers and policymakers are interested to know what role hunters will play. Based upon hunters' responses to three recent surveys in Wisconsin and the northern Rockies, Treves and Martin question the assumption that hunters will steward wolves, noting that the majority of hunters that responded were unsupportive of wolf conservation. However, this conclusion largely depends upon what is meant by stewardship and what actions are required for wolves to be conserved. This article discusses the meaning of three concepts either explicitly or implicitly discussed by Treves and Martin—tolerance, acceptance, and stewardship—and offers a conceptual model of wildlife conservation behavior that clarifies the relationship among these concepts.

Society & Natural Resources: An International Jour↗