Analysis of wolf issue scoping

[johnhens]

A public scoping was done by the NPS between 2012 and 2014 on the decline in the wolf population and waht should be done. The NPS refused to release the results of the scoping. A FOIA request was made. Once the scopng info was received, an anlysis was done by Prof. Michael Nelson from Oregon State Univ and others. Here are the results of the analysis:

Executive Summary: We performed a formal content analysis on a sample of public
comments collected via email by Isle Royale National Park between September of 2012 and
April of 2014 regarding the precipitous decline in wolf abundance on the island; the
resulting threat to the wolf/moose, predator/prey system; and the possibility of
intervention. Public comments were obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act.
50% of the 930 open public comments were randomly sampled and analyzed to determine
what the interested public thought should be done, and also what ethical reasoning they
demonstrated in justifying their policy preference. Here we report on a few key findings:
1. Policy preferences of members of the interested public: 88% support or allow for
some form of intervention and 12% oppose any form of intervention.
2. The interested public’s concern for the health and naturalness of the biotic
community: 71% of those who supported some form of intervention expressed
concern for ecosystem or population health, and concern for naturalness was
expressed both by those who supported, and by those who opposed, intervention.
3. There is a paucity of explicit appeals to (a) follow scientists’ advice or (b) engage in
the least expensive alternative: 6% of the entire sample thought the park should
follow the advice of scientists and 3% thought the park should consider economic
expediency.
4. The idea that the value of the science of the Isle Royale Wolf/Moose Project is
affected by intervention: Of those whose policy preferences were motivated by a
concern for the Isle Royale Wolf/Moose Project (~14% of sample), 84% asserted
the need for intervention, and 16% asserted the need for non-intervention, to
secure the continuation of the research on the island.


Concluding Remark
A main purpose of this report is to give voice to the views of the interested public. Too
often, open public comments never see the light of day, reported out only through the
filtered interpretations of whichever authorities collected them (who often have their own
policy preferences). The original comments are not generally made available to the public,
which in turn precludes those who submitted comments from independently analyzing
them, or even evaluating the accuracy of the official interpretation. We were also motivated
in this effort by the profound concern for Isle Royale expressed by those who offered their
time and thoughts in these public comments. By and large our sample comes from a group
of caring people, who have deep concern for and long experience with Isle Royale. As such,
and as recognized in this report, this is not a representative sample of the American public
writ large, but comes from a group of motivated citizens. Neither we nor the Park are
capable of characterizing the will of the larger public given this source of public input.
As has been made abundantly clear, the power to decide the fate of both Isle Royale wolves
and Isle Royale itself rests with Park leaders, who admit no obligation to adhere to, or even
acknowledge, the will of either the motivated or the general public. Nonetheless, as a
matter of public lands management, both the motivated and the general publics have a
stake, and to some extent a say, in the future of Isle Royale, and for this reason it is
important that we recognize when Park decisions impacting Isle Royale either respond
to or disregard the will of either of those publics.

[Midwest Ed]

Kudos to "Prof. Michael Nelson from Oregon State Univ and others" and to whoever else assisted in obtaining the information.

[johnhens]

Link to the full report:
http://www.michaelpnelson.com/Publicati ... Report.pdf