Park users reveal 5 factors shaping acceptance of wildlife management

Park users reveal 5 factors shaping acceptance of wildlife management Sadie Harley Scientific Editor Andrew Zinin Chief Editor Should an area be fenced off, should animals be sterilized or relocated—or, as a last resort, selectively culled? As the long-running controversy over white-tailed deer in the Montreal suburb of Longueuil's Michel-Chartrand Park has shown, managing wildlife in peri-urban parks isn't just about the science. Emotions, trust and how decisions are communicated also play a role. That's the conclusion of a new study by Héléna Ladreyt, a veterinary epidemiologist and, at the time, a postdoctoral fellow in the laboratory of Cécile Aenishaenslin, a professor in Université de Montréal's Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. The study is published in the journal EcoHealth. The study was carried out in collaboration with UdeM experts in land-use planning, veterinary medicine, biology, public health and sociology. Working from a One Health perspective, the team explored the factors influencing the social acceptability of wildlife management interventions aimed at conserving biodiversity or protecting animal and human health. The study was part of the broader PARCS en santé research project, which aims to develop integrated and sustainable intervention strategies to combat biodiversity loss in peri-urban nature parks and prevent tick-borne diseases. Five factors at play To gauge public interest in the matter, the team organized seven focus groups involving 22 park users from the Montreal, Estrie and Montérégie regions. They discussed various possible measures to deal with wildlife: controlling the deer population, sterilization, relocation, fencing to keep animals out of certain areas and treatment of rodents with tick-killing products. The discussions identified five categories of factors influencing the acceptability of these interventions: emotional ties to the park and its wildlife; concern for animal welfare; an understanding of the links between biodiversity, health and human behavior; trust in science and the authorities; and transparent communication. Ladreyt cautioned, however, that the study is exploratory and doesn't provide a formula for effective communication. It isn't as simple as "Explain it better and the public will accept it," she said. "The participants were all park users," she pointed out. "So they are not representative of the population of Quebec. Furthermore, they were recruited at a time when the deer cull was already in the news, which may have influenced the discussions." That said, the study does provide a list of points that managers should keep in mind when considering an intervention. "Our main recommendation is that all five factors must be taken into account when contemplating and planning an intervention," Ladreyt said. Early intervention is key Ladreyt argued that this analysis raises an even more fundamental point: the best way to make an intervention acceptable may be to act before the situation becomes urgent. "The vast majority of problems related to animal populations do not arise overnight," she noted. "They are primarily linked to human-induced changes in the environment, such as habitat fragmentation, the isolation of natural spaces, the lack of ecological corridors and food availability." Waiting until problems such as overabundant species or new zoonotic diseases arise will limit wildlife managers' room to maneuver, Ladreyt continued. Solutions then become more difficult and potentially more controversial. "For wildlife management to be effective and publicly accepted, it is essential to raise awareness among the public and policymakers, and to build trust through proactive and transparent engagement," she concluded. Publication details Héléna Ladreyt et al., Acceptability of Wildlife Interventions to Protect Biodiversity and Human and Animal Health in Peri-Urban Nature Parks, EcoHealth (2026). DOI: 10.1007/s10393-026-01825-2 Journal information: EcoHealth Provided by University of Montreal