{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024308466051969825, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003352891869237217, 'mean_word_length': 5.670391061452514, '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}}
Assessing Public Acceptance of Wildlife Management Trade-Offs: A Case Study of Elk and Vegetation Management in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

Balancing wildlife management trade-offs is likely to result in differential impacts and varying levels of support among stakeholders. Science should guide discourse regarding these trade-offs, and science can, in turn, quantify the discourse to inform management. This study developed a unique visual-based instrument to explain complex trade-offs to the public and quantify preferences for elk and vegetation management in Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), Colorado, USA. Results (n = 1,324) showed a preference for future conditions that are expected to result from elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) reductions and active vegetation protection on the elk's winter range, but revealed less agreement on appropriate actions to achieve these conditions. Management actions that actively restore wildlife habitat were evaluated favorably, and hazing techniques were consistently evaluated as unacceptable. Respondents were divided on the acceptability of elk reduction measures and various other actions to keep elk from browsing on vegetation.