{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03236797274275979, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004258943781942078, 'mean_word_length': 5.527777777777778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Social and Cognitive Correlates of Utah Residents' Acceptance of the Lethal Control of Wolves

The objectives of this study were to: (a) determine the acceptability of several methods of lethal and non-lethal wolf control, (b) identify factors that explain acceptability of lethal control, and (c) test a model for predicting acceptability of lethal control. Data were obtained from a mail survey of Utah residents (n = 709). Non-lethal forms of control were more acceptable than lethal forms control. Acceptability of lethal controls varied among stakeholder groups. No such variation existed for non-lethal methods, suggesting these methods are less controversial. Stakeholder group identification (i.e., agricultural, environmental, hunting, wildlife advocacy) impacted acceptability of lethal control. These effects, however, were reduced when beliefs about wolf impacts and attitude toward wolves were controlled. These two factors explained 42% of the variance in the acceptability of lethal wolf control. Path analysis supported the proposed model, suggesting effects of stakeholder identification on acceptability of lethal control are mediated by cognitive factors.