Understanding diverse perspectives on grizzly–livestock conflict and conflict-reduction tools across southwest Montana ranching communities

Abstract

As the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population rebounds in the western United States, conflicts with humans, including livestock depredation, have also increased. What grizzly bear conflict means, for whom, and what it implies for the viability of conflict-reduction tools on the ground can vary widely. Multiple perspectives on the causes of—and solutions to—grizzly bear conflict present serious challenges for conservation practice. To better understand perceptions of human conflict with grizzly bears, we used a combination of in-depth interviews (n = 29) followed by a Q-sort activity with key stakeholders (n = 21; i.e., ranchers, ranch managers, conservation organization members, agency scientists) in ranching communities in southwest Montana, USA, situated between the 2 largest grizzly bear recovery zones. Stakeholders interpreted conflict with grizzly bears as directly and indirectly connected to broader social changes on the landscape, and these changes influence how they make sense of and act on conflict reduction. Specifically, 3 distinct (but not mutually exclusive) perspectives on grizzly–livestock conflict and conflict-reduction tools emerged: 1) that grizzly–livestock conflict is a symptom of the social divide within ranching communities, 2) that conflict can be attributed to governance structures that currently limit the use of potentially effective tools (e.g., hunting, lethal removal), and 3) there are multiple paths for reducing conflict and holistic, ecosystem-based management is needed. We provide managers with new insights on grizzly–livestock conflict and conflict reduction, and hope this work helps increase collaboration among ranchers, managers, and other stakeholders engaged in this complex social and ecological challenge.