WILDLIFE HABITUATION—ADVANCES IN UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS Annual Meeting of the Wildlife Society September 27, 2005 8:00-12:10 1) 8:00-8:40 – Habituation of wildlife to humans: research and recreation opportunity and common curse for wildlife and hapless humans

Habituation of wildlife is a double edged sword. It has been enormously useful in studying and filming free-living animals in their natural environment and providing a recreational opportunity. However, it is also a source of mortal danger to its practitioners, to habituated animals, as well as to hapless third parties. Attraction or positive habituation, in which wildlife seeks out the presence of humans in order to benefit from food, shelter and security, heightens the risk to both animals and humans. It also poses unique management and public relations problems for government agencies. Avoidance – or negative habituation in which human activities lead to a systematic aversion of humans by wildlife also has benefits and costs. It allows us to use natural sites freely for recreation purposes without danger from wildlife. However, this can result in physiologic costs, lost opportunities for foraging, and loss of important areas of habitat. Distinct from attraction or avoidance, habituation as we will use it in this symposium, is a waning response to a repeated neutral stimulus. Habituation allows recreationists and researchers to observe and record typical behaviors of wildlife in natural settings. It can be unsafe unless the practitioner has a fair understanding of the signals communicated by the habituated species. Further, habituation is not without subtle costs to animals, as indicated by elevated heart rates in behaviorally habituated mountain sheep. Moreover, misinterpretation of habituation has played a role in confrontations between large predators and humans, to the detriment of large predators, particularly in national parks and in rural areas. In the last century wildlife was restored continentally bringing large prey and predators to our places of residence and work. In order to coexist with large mammals, especially large predators, we must better understand the human and the wildlife role in habituation. 2) 8:40-9:00 – Physiological measures of wildlife habituation Joshua J. Millspaugh Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences University of Missouri 302 Natural Resources Columbia, MO 65211 (573)882-9423 [email protected] CONSIDERATION AND USE OF PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASURES TO ASSESS COSTS OF WILDLIFE HABITUATION Joshua J. Millspaugh, E. Frances Cassirer, Kerry Gunther, and Brian E. Washburn Abstract: In many national parks and protected areas, wildlife become habituated to high levels of human activity. On National Park lands, trumpeter swans and large mammals such as grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, bison, elk, pronghorn antelope, and bighorn sheep commonly habituate to people. In African parks, elephants and other wildlife tolerate people and vehicles at close distances. Although negative consequences of habituation are often described, there are some benefits to humans and wildlife. Habituation increases wildlife viewing opportunities for park visitors, which provides economic returns and in turn promotes conservation of species such as elephants. Habituation to human activity may also increase the amount of habitat available for wildlife that must share space with people and may allow protection from non-habituated predators. However, despite these tangible benefits, we should also consider less obvious but potentially important impacts to wildlife, such as physiological costs (e.g., stress). Physiological measures may forewarn of possible behavioral modification (e.g., reduced visibility) and therefore help us understand whether animals experience less visible impacts from habituation and human interaction. In this paper we discuss case studies from Yellowstone National Park and South African National Parks that highlight the benefits of habituation to humans and wildlife. We also describe the use of physiological measures, such as stress hormones in feces, when considering the impacts of habituation and discuss “stress” as related to wildlife. We conclude with a critical review of methods to evaluate physiological responses in wildlife with an emphasis on non-invasive procedures. We believe that physiological measures complement behavioral data by providing a means to evaluate subtle In many national parks and protected areas, wildlife become habituated to high levels of human activity. On National Park lands, trumpeter swans and large mammals such as grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, bison, elk, pronghorn antelope, and bighorn sheep commonly habituate to people. In African parks, elephants and other wildlife tolerate people and vehicles at close distances. Although negative consequences of habituation are often described, there are some benefits to humans and wildlife. Habituation increases wildlife viewing opportunities for park visitors, which provides economic returns and in turn promotes conservation of species such as elephants. Habituation to human activity may also increase the amount of habitat available for wildlife that must share space with people and may allow protection from non-habituated predators. However, despite these tangible benefits, we should also consider less obvious but potentially important impacts to wildlife, such as physiological costs (e.g., stress). Physiological measures may forewarn of possible behavioral modification (e.g., reduced visibility) and therefore help us understand whether animals experience less visible impacts from habituation and human interaction. In this paper we discuss case studies from Yellowstone National Park and South African National Parks that highlight the benefits of habituation to humans and wildlife. We also describe the use of physiological measures, such as stress hormones in feces, when considering the impacts of habituation and discuss “stress” as related to wildlife. We conclude with a critical review of methods to evaluate physiological responses in wildlife with an emphasis on non-invasive procedures. We believe that physiological measures complement behavioral data by providing a means to evaluate subtle costs associated with habituation. 3) 9:00-9:20 – The quandary of wildlife habituation in a national park setting Dave Graber Sr. Science Advisor Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks 47050 Generals Hwy Three Rivers, CA 93271 Tel: (559) 565-3173 Fax: (559) 565-3730 [email protected] THE QUANDRY OF WILDLIFE HABITUATION IN A NATIONAL PARK SETTING Dave Graber, Steve Gniadek, Deborah Jansen, and Les Chow (Coauthors still uncertain) Abstract: People visit national parks and similar preserves in very large part to view animals. Habituation makes that viewing easier and often more pleasurable, and increases the opportunity to observe natural wildlife behavior indifferent to viewer presence. There are in many cases, however, disadvantages to habituation, either to the animals in question or to people. For example, cougars (Puma concolor) have been observed to habituate in some parks, resulting in dangerous proximity to children, which are potential prey. Not infequently, the benefits and costs of habituation are confounded. This is notably the case with large cervids such as elk (Cervus elaphus) or moose (Alces alces), or large carnivores such as black and brown bears (Ursus americanus, U. arctos). These species all have the potential to become habituated to park visitors, providing for more viewing opportunities and reduced likelihood of accidental encounters leading to defensive aggression. On the other hand, by permitting frequent close proximity of humans to these large animals, naive actions by people often lead to injury to one species or the other. If such proximity occurs in developed areas, it can lead to increases in collisions with motor vehicles or inadvertent entry into structures. Moreover, habituation and resulting close proximity all too often lead in turn to anthropogenic food, whether intentionally provided or inadvertently so. Lastly, habituation may be considered to reduce “wildness,’ which many consider an important element of national parks. On the other hand, where avoidance of humans is the result of human predation, habituation in a park setting might be construed as a more desirable inter-specific relationship. Such a view, however, will unavoidably result in rare encounters between humans and wildlife that are serious and sometimes fatal. People visit national parks and similar preserves in very large part to view animals. Habituation makes that viewing easier and often more pleasurable, and increases the opportunity to observe natural wildlife behavior indifferent to viewer presence. There are in many cases, however, disadvantages to habituation, either to the animals in question or to people. For example, cougars (Puma concolor) have been observed to habituate in some parks, resulting in dangerous proximity to children, which are potential prey. Not infequently, the benefits and costs of habituation are confounded. This is notably the case with large cervids such as elk (Cervus elaphus) or moose (Alces alces), or large carnivores such as black and brown bears (Ursus americanus, U. arctos). These species all have the potential to become habituated to park visitors, providing for more viewing opportunities and reduced likelihood of accidental encounters leading to defensive aggression. On the other hand, by permitting frequent close proximity of humans to these large animals, naive actions by people often lead to injury to one species or the other. If such proximity occurs in developed areas, it can lead to increases in collisions with motor vehicles or inadvertent entry into structures. Moreover, habituation and resulting close proximity all too often lead in turn to anthropogenic food, whether intentionally provided or inadvertently so. Lastly, habituation may be considered to reduce “wildness,’ which many consider an important element of national parks. On the other hand, where avoidance of humans is the result of human predation, habituation in a park setting might be construed as a more desirable inter-specific relationship. Such a view, however, will unavoidably result in rare encounters between humans and wildlife that are serious and sometimes fatal. 4) 9:20-9:40 – Psychological bases for human behavior leading to wildlife habituation Cynthia A. Jacobson, Ph.D. Wildlife Planner III Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518 Tel: (907) 267-2301 [email protected] PSYCHOLOGICAL BASES FOR HUMAN BEHAVIOR LEADING TO WILDLIFE HABITUATION Tommy L. Brown, Sandra A. Jonker, Cynthia A. Jacobson, and Daniel J. Decker Abstract: The “causes” of habituation typically are tied directly or indirectly to interactions of wildlife with humans or human environments. Most discussions of wildlife habituation are concerned in part about human activities that lead to habituation; i.e., human behavior that leads to changes or responses in wildlife behavior. Thus, a comprehensive treatment of the topic of wildlife habituation includes understanding human behavior with respect to wildlife and related facets of the natural environment. This specialized area of inquiry is encompassed within the human dimensions of natural resources management. Over the last 30 years, social scientists have learned much about the social psychology of humans and their interactions with wildlife, in habitats that often are shared with wildlife. Studies of values, beliefs, attitudes, and norms have revealed insight regarding how people think about and care to interact with wildlife. This paper will review these concepts, and apply them to address two questions: Which human beliefs, attitudes and behaviors may contribute to wildlife habituation (and which do not)? How might social norms promote or hinder human behavior that leads to habituation? Exploring these questions may reveal insights about how policy and management could affect the human bases for wildlife habituation. The “causes” of habituation typically are tied directly or indirectly to interactions of wildlife with humans or human environments. Most discussions of wildlife habituation are concerned in part about human activities that lead to habituation; i.e., human behavior that leads to changes or responses in wildlife behavior. Thus, a comprehensive treatment of the topic of wildlife habituation includes understanding human behavior with respect to wildlife and related facets of the natural environment. This specialized area of inquiry is encompassed within the human dimensions of natural resources management. Over the last 30 years, social scientists have learned much about the social psychology of humans and their interactions with wildlife, in habitats that often are shared with wildlife. Studies of values, beliefs, attitudes, and norms have revealed insight regarding how people think about and care to interact with wildlife. This paper will review these concepts, and apply them to address two questions: Which human beliefs, attitudes and behaviors may contribute to wildlife habituation (and which do not)? How might social norms promote or hinder human behavior that leads to habituation? Exploring these questions may reveal insights about how policy and management could affect the human bases for wildlife habituation. 5) 9:40-10:00 – Habituation of humans to wildlife—A different perspective Harry C. Zinn Penn State University Recreation, Park & Tourism Management 201 Mateer Building University Park, PA 16802 Tel: (814) 863-7849 Fax: (814) 863-4257 [email protected] HABITUATION OF HUMANS TO WILDLIFE—A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE Harry C. Zinn, Michael J. Manfredo, and Daniel J. Decker Abstract: The focus of inquiry about wildlife habituation has been on the physiology and behavior of wildlife with respect to interactions with humans and human-dominated environments. However, if policy and management concerns are paramount, it may be important to take a broader view of habituation. We believe that a human-centric rather than wildlifecentric perspective leads to a question, do people habituate to wildlife? Furthermore, can wildlife habituate to humans without human habituation to wildlife? No study we are aware of has addressed this topic directly, so we approach it by assuming that humans can habituate to wildlife and then seeking evidence for the phenomenon. A simple stimulus-response framework can explain wildlife habituation to humans, but human learning is far more complex. Therefore, we look for ways that different human learning processes and opportunities might influence values, risk perception, wildlife acceptance capacity, and habituation to wildlife. For example, to what extent can different learning processes and opportunities explain why some people interpret a human-wildlife interaction positively while others interpret the same interaction negatively? Similarly, to what extent can different learning processes and opportunities explain why people sometimes form strikingly disparate perceptions of risk from human-wildlife interactions? And, how might individual differences in the interpretation of interactions and perception of risk reflect habituation to wildlife? Finally, and of particular importance to wildlife managers, does The focus of inquiry about wildlife habituation has been on the physiology and behavior of wildlife with respect to interactions with humans and human-dominated environments. However, if policy and management concerns are paramount, it may be important to take a broader view of habituation. We believe that a human-centric rather than wildlifecentric perspective leads to a question, do people habituate to wildlife? Furthermore, can wildlife habituate to humans without human habituation to wildlife? No study we are aware of has addressed this topic directly, so we approach it by assuming that humans can habituate to wildlife and then seeking evidence for the phenomenon. A simple stimulus-response framework can explain wildlife habituation to humans, but human learning is far more complex. Therefore, we look for ways that different human learning processes and opportunities might influence values, risk perception, wildlife acceptance capacity, and habituation to wildlife. For example, to what extent can different learning processes and opportunities explain why some people interpret a human-wildlife interaction positively while others interpret the same interaction negatively? Similarly, to what extent can different learning processes and opportunities explain why people sometimes form strikingly disparate perceptions of risk from human-wildlife interactions? And, how might individual differences in the interpretation of interactions and perception of risk reflect habituation to wildlife? Finally, and of particular importance to wildlife managers, does human habituation to wildlife result in higher objective risk of negative impact to or from wildlife? We do not have definitive answers to these questions. Our intent is to stimulate thinking about wildlife habituation from an unconventional perspective, one that we hope will augment the wildlife-centric perspective that has traditionally been brought to bear on habituation issues.