The discourses of incidents: cougars on Mt. Elden and in Sabino Canyon, Arizona
Incidents are relatively short periods of intensified discourse that arise from public responses to symbolically important actions by public officials, and an important part of the conflict that increasingly surrounds state wildlife management in the West. In an effort to better understand incidents as a facet of this conflict, we analyzed the discourses of two incidents in Arizona that were precipitated by the intended removal of cougars by managers in response to public safety concerns. We used newspaper content, 1999–2007, to elucidate seminal patterns of public discourses and discourse coalitions as well as differences in discursive focus between incident periods and background periods. Cougars were mentioned in newspaper articles 13–33 times more often during incidents compared with background periods. State wildlife agency commissioners and hunters were part of a discourse coalition that advocated killing cougars to solve problems, blamed cougars and those who promoted the animals’ intrinsic value and sought to retain power to define and solve cougar-related problems. Personnel from affected state and federal agencies expressed a similar discourse. Environmentalists, animal protection activists, and some elected officials were of a coalition that defined “the problem” primarily in terms of people’s behaviors, including behaviors associated with current institutional arrangements. This discourse advocated decentralizing power over cougar management. The discourses reflected different preferences for the allocations of power and use of lethal versus non-lethal methods, which aligned with apparent core beliefs and participants’ enfranchisement or disenfranchisement by current state-level management power arrangements. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. (outside the USA) 2012
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 45 (2012)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Web page: http://policysciences.org/index.html
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/political+science/journal/11077/PS2|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mark McBeth & Elizabeth Shanahan & Paul Hathaway & Linda Tigert & Lynette Sampson, 2010. "Buffalo tales: interest group policy stories in Greater Yellowstone," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 43(4), pages 391-409, December.
- Dave Howland & Mimi Becker & Lawrence Prelli, 2006. "Merging content analysis and the policy sciences: A system to discern policy-specific trends from news media reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 205-231, September.
- Charles Davis, 2006. "Western Wildfires: A Policy Change Perspective," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 23(1), pages 115-127, 01.
- David Mattson & Nina Chambers, 2009. "Human-provided waters for desert wildlife: what is the problem?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(2), pages 113-135, May.
- Michael J. Manfredo & Tara L. Teel & Kimberly L. Henry, 2009. "Linking Society and Environment: A Multilevel Model of Shifting Wildlife Value Orientations in the Western United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(2), pages 407-427.
- Elizabeth Shanahan & Mark McBeth & Paul Hathaway & Ruth Arnell, 2008. "Conduit or contributor? The role of media in policy change theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(2), pages 115-138, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:45:y:2012:i:4:p:315-343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.