Public Benefits and Private Costs: Implications for Moose Management in the Adirondacks

Authors

• Heidi E. Kretser, Wildlife Conservation SocietyFollow
• Nancy A. Connelly, Cornell UniversityFollow
• T. Bruce Lauber, Cornell UniversityFollow
• Richard C. Stedman, Cornell UniversityFollow
• Jeremy Hurst, New York State Department of Environmental ConservationFollow
• David W. Kramer, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Roosevelt Wild Life StationFollow
• James H. Stickles, New York State Department of Environmental ConservationFollow

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Abstract

Private lands beyond protected area boundaries have long been recognized as important to sustaining wildlife as a public resource. However, private landowners may perceive disproportionate negative impacts from wildlife sustained by these lands, and these perceptions may impede effective management. We explore perceived issues related to managing moose (Alces alces), a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in New York State (NYS), USA, as a public benefit while simultaneously addressing private landowners’ concerns. We examined the public benefits of moose and attitudes toward potential management actions using surveys of NYS residents and Northern New York (NNY) residential landowners. We contrast this with concerns about moose raised in focus groups and interviews with large private forestland owners and managers in NNY. Two-thirds of NYS residents value knowing moose live in the state and would like people to have the opportunity to see them in the wild. Forestland managers identified moose damage to trees, particularly to regenerating forests, as a major concern of theirs in some localized “hot spots,” especially if the moose population increases. Few New Yorkers shared these concerns, with only 1 in 5 concerned about moose damage to forests and plants. Public support for population management options (i.e., establishing a moose hunting season or issuing cull permits for damage abatement) was mixed and especially low in the more populous regions of the state. Support for certain management options would likely increase if the moose population increased and if the public recognized the concerns landowners have about private costs of moose damage to forests and plants. To address the disproportionate impacts perceived by private landowners, our work suggests managers would need to develop strategic messaging around moose damage to gain support for lethal management options or explore alternative nonlethal management and mitigation strategies.

Recommended Citation

Kretser, Heidi E.; Connelly, Nancy A.; Lauber, T. Bruce; Stedman, Richard C.; Hurst, Jeremy; Kramer, David W.; and Stickles, James H. (2024) "Public Benefits and Private Costs: Implications for Moose Management in the Adirondacks," Human–Wildlife Interactions: Vol. 18: Iss. 3, Article 10.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26077/qe1v-c429
Available at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/hwi/vol18/iss3/10