"There are approximately 2 million farmers and ranchers in the U.S. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992). Although they comprise less than 2% of the U.S. population (actually, less than 1%), agricultural producers are an important group because they control 45% of the land (Berg 1986).Their support is essential if wildlife conservation in the U.S. is going to occur on private land (Leopold 1933)…. They view wildlife in utilitarian terms and focus on how wildlife effects them economically."(351)

"Agricultural producers who are economically dependent on their land or who derive most of their income from farming are less tolerant of wildlife damage than part-time or "hobby" farmers (Tanner and Dimmick 1983; Campa et al. 1997)…. [Yet], half of the nation’s agricultural producers spend some of their time and money to enhance wildlife habitat on their property (Conover 1998)."(351)

"[Hunters’ and Trappers’] views, however, are similar to those of farmers and ranchers with regard to other environmental issues and in seeking to preserve the right to hunt and trap. Many hold a utilitarian or naturalistic attitude towards wildlife."(351)

"[Cultural Carrying Capacity] is defined as the maximum wildlife population which a society will accept within an area (Decker and Purdy 1988), or the number of animals that can compatibly coexist with the local human population (Minnis and Peyton 1995)."(358)

"One way to solve wildlife damage problems is to change the perceptions of people experiencing the damage so that they are more willing to tolerate it. This can be accomplished by enhancing their appreciation of both the tangible and nontangible (sic) benefits of wildlife."(365)

"Many landowners suffering from damage by game species tolerate the damage because they can generate money by leasing out the hunting rights to their land."(366)

"When perceptions of risk differ from reality, public education can be used to provide accurate information to stakeholders and reduce their unfounded fears and, thus, increase public tolerance for wildlife damage (Stout et al. 1993; Loker et al. 1999)."(366)

"Rural landowners are most likely to take actions that benefit wildlife if information is delivered through personal contacts rather than through distant communication (Kelly 1981; Warner 1983; Svoboda 1984; Feder and Slade 1985; Miller and Bromley 1989; Pease 1992)."(366)

"Despite immunity from lawsuits for wildlife damage, 19 U.S. states and 7 Canadian provinces financially compensated landowners for certain types of wildlife damage during 1994 (Wagner et al. 1997). During the same year, 34 states and 7 provinces provided landowners with damage abatement material."(367)

"Kellert (1979) found that only 7% of cattle ranchers, 11% of sheep ranchers, and 26% of the general public approved of using tax monies to compensate ranchers for livestock killed by coyotes."(368)