LAUSR

Abstract Public attitudes are important in shaping wildlife management decisions. However, publics are not homogeneous, and conflicting perceptions and attitudes often create barriers to achieving conservation outcomes. Here we use a social identity approach to analyze public acceptance of different options for managing four animals in Australia (kangaroos, wild horses, dingoes, and red foxes). We conducted an online survey (N = 793) of adult residents of Australia. Analyses indicate 11.4% of respondents strongly identified as animal rights activists, 19.0% as wildlife conservationists, and 19.2% as farmers. Using the Potential for Conflict Index and permutational multivariate analysis of variance, we found that on average, all identity groups supported nonlethal management for all species and reintroduction or maintenance of dingoes to suppress kangaroos and red foxes. All identity groups except farmers were generally unsupportive of lethal control, but there was less consensus among responses within groups compared with support for nonlethal methods. Results suggest that policies which prioritize nonlethal management over lethal control (where effective) will be less controversial than those that use lethal management. Likewise, incorporating predator conservation into ecosystem restoration seems well supported across constituencies typically interested in wildlife conservation.