By Wild Origins Australia
In the vast and varied landscapes of Australia, where kangaroos leap across open plains and dingoes roam ancient territories, the question of how to manage wildlife—especially species considered pests—has long stirred public debate. But beneath the surface of policy and science lies a deeper force shaping these discussions: identity.
A groundbreaking study published in Biological Conservation by Dr. Lily van Eeden and her colleagues explores how social identity influences Australians’ attitudes toward wildlife management. By examining how different groups—farmers, animal rights activists, and wildlife conservationists—perceive and respond to management strategies for kangaroos, wild horses, dingoes, and red foxes, the researchers uncover a powerful framework for understanding both conflict and consensus in conservation.
To investigate these dynamics, the researchers conducted an online survey of 793 adult residents across Australia. Participants were asked about their views on managing four species commonly considered pests. These animals represent a mix of native, naturalized, and introduced species, each with complex ecological and cultural roles. The survey aimed to identify respondents’ social identities—whether they strongly identified as farmers, animal rights activists, or wildlife conservationists—and to measure their support for various management strategies, including lethal control, nonlethal methods, and predator reintroduction.
The team employed statistical tools to assess consensus and divergence within and between groups. Central to their approach was social identity theory, which draws from social psychology to explain how individuals affiliate with groups to bolster self-esteem and reduce uncertainty. These affiliations shape attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions of other groups. In conservation, identity can be a powerful driver of conflict. Farmers may view animal rights activists as naïve “city folk,” while activists might see farmers as indifferent to animal welfare. Such stereotypes reinforce in-group loyalty and out-group distrust, making compromise difficult.
The survey revealed several striking patterns. Among respondents, 11.4% strongly identified as animal rights activists, 19.0% as wildlife conservationists, and 19.2% as farmers. Interestingly, 81.6% had lived most of their lives in urban or suburban areas, suggesting that rural identity may be more symbolic than geographic.
Across all identity groups, there was strong support for nonlethal management strategies, including fertility control, relocation, and habitat modification. This consensus suggests that nonlethal methods are broadly acceptable and could serve as common ground in policy discussions. Most groups also supported the reintroduction or maintenance of dingoes as a natural predator to help control kangaroo and red fox populations, highlighting a growing recognition of the ecological role of predators in restoring balance.
However, acceptance of lethal control—such as culling or poisoning—was the most divisive issue. Farmers were significantly more supportive of lethal methods than other groups, reflecting a utilitarian perspective focused on reducing economic and ecological damage. In contrast, animal rights activists and conservationists were generally opposed, prioritizing ethical and ecological considerations. The PCI2 analysis showed that lethal control had the highest potential for conflict, both between and within groups. Even among farmers, there was variation in support, suggesting that identity alone doesn’t fully predict attitudes.
These findings carry important implications for wildlife management and conservation policy. Recognizing that identity shapes attitudes can help policymakers craft strategies that resonate across constituencies. Policies emphasizing nonlethal methods and predator conservation are likely to face less resistance and foster broader support. Understanding group identities also allows for more effective messaging. Outreach to farmers might focus on practical outcomes and economic benefits, while communication with activists could emphasize ethical considerations and animal welfare.
By identifying the sources of disagreement—such as lethal control—managers can anticipate opposition and seek compromise. Facilitated dialogues that acknowledge identity-based concerns may help bridge divides. The study suggests that despite differences, there is room for shared values around coexistence, ecological restoration, and humane treatment. Highlighting these commonalities can foster unity and reduce polarization.
While the study focuses on Australia, its insights are globally relevant. From wolf reintroduction in North America to elephant management in Africa, conservation conflicts often hinge on identity. Hunters, ranchers, scientists, and activists bring distinct worldviews shaped by culture, experience, and affiliation. By embracing social identity theory, conservationists can move beyond simplistic value-based models and engage with the deeper social dynamics at play. This approach doesn’t just explain conflict—it offers a path toward resolution.
In a world where wildlife management is increasingly shaped by public opinion, understanding the social identities behind those opinions is essential. This study offers a compelling roadmap for navigating the complex terrain of conservation conflict. By listening to diverse voices, acknowledging identity-based concerns, and seeking common ground, we can build policies that are not only scientifically sound but socially sustainable. In doing so, we honor both the wild creatures that roam our landscapes and the human communities that share them.
Including individuals who identify as hunters as one of the identity groups may have provided additional insights in the study. Additionally, comparing attitudes toward lethal management before and after learning how harvested animals were used (i.e., venison) could have offered further relevant information regarding people’s willingness to accept lethal management and avoid conflict over policy setting.
Australians who are interested in wildlife and habitat are encouraged to reflect on their values and consider which groups they identify with. It is important to understand how these affiliations may influence perspectives on wildlife management and sustainable use. Individuals are invited to learn more about hunters or hunting conservation organizations to gain insight into approaches to wildlife management, including respect for wildlife, venison preparation, and managing wildlife within ecosystems through a sustainable use model. Wild Origins Australia is available to provide information and support for those interested in understanding different aspects of the sustainable use of wildlife.
Reference:
van Eeden, M., Lily, et.al., J. (2019). Social identity shapes support for management of wildlifeand pests. Biological Conservation, 231, 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.12.021