Publication

Incidents of human-wildlife conflict can solidify participant perspectives and expectations, and reveal underlying social and institutional dynamics. We describe and analyze two incidents of conflict between hunters and grizzly bears in 2011 and 2012. Both incidents were associated with the controversial elk hunt in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. We gathered quotes from opinion-editorials and interviews, categorized quotes according to type, and used cluster analysis to identify discourses and associated coalitions of participants. We examined how participants defined problems, used evidence, and advocated solutions in relation to these incidents. Participant discourses addressed technical and procedural issues of regional wildlife management that extended beyond these incidents, revealing divergent expectations about wildlife management on public lands. Existing decision-making processes dominated by government agencies do not appear to be addressing these expectations. We recommend an integrative, outside appraisal of regional elk management to address conflict and support ecologically sound decision-making that serves common interests.