Exploring compensation programs and depredation reporting for wolf-livestock conflict across the North American West

2021 Fall.Includes bibliographical references.With the continuing reestablishment of wolves (Canis lupus) across the American West, livestock producers will be increasingly exposed to wolf-related conflict such as livestock depredation. The financial implications of wolf conflict can be significant depending on the context of an individual livestock operation. Compensation programs administered by government agencies and occasionally non-government organizations aim to ameliorate some of the financial risks associated with wolves and the loss of livestock; yet the effectiveness of these programs at fostering tolerance and adequately addressing losses is increasingly questioned. Reporting depredation is often required for compensation eligibility, and reports are the primary source of data used by wildlife agencies to address conflict and inform local management. Yet not all producers report depredation or utilize compensation, and we know very little about what factors motivate reporting and compensation use. Additionally, we know very little about producer perspectives on existing compensation programs or whether producers are interested in alternatives. I designed an exploratory survey based on an expanded version of the Theory of Planned Behavior to identify the social-psychological and demographic factors most strongly correlated with compensation use and wolf depredation reporting intentional outcomes. I also utilized a simplified Discrete Choice Question to gauge producer interest in alternatives to traditional compensation programs. My online survey was sent to livestock producers across Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Washington, Wyoming, and Alberta, Canada (n=165 responses). While 87% of respondents experiencing wolf depredation had reported a depredation in the past, only 69% had utilized compensation. Levels of satisfaction with existing compensation programs were mixed. The most common reasons stated for not applying for compensation included dissatisfaction with the depredation confirmation process (too much validation and/or paperwork), that the amount of compensation available is not enough or not worth the hassle of applying for compensation, and a lack of trust and satisfaction with state government employees and their wolf management decisions. Using Lasso regression, I found that descriptive norms (p<0.01), age (p<0.01), and past experience with depredation (p<0.05) were the strongest predictors of reporting intention. Trust (p<0.001), perceived risk (p<0.05), descriptive and personal norms (p≦0.05), attitudes (p