Abstract Decision-making about large carnivores is complex and controversial, and processes vary from deliberation and expert analysis to ballot boxes and courtrooms. Decision-makers range from neighboring landowners to the United Nations. Efficacy, longevity and legitimacy of policies may often depend as much on process as the policy itself. Overcoming controversy requires greater understanding of preferences for decision-makers and processes as well as deeper beliefs about human-carnivore interactions. Although academic debates are rich with recommendations for governance, practitioners' perceptions regarding decision-making processes have been rarely examined. Doing so can facilitate constructive discourses on managing and conserving carnivores across highly-variable social-ecological landscapes. To gain insight into different viewpoints on governance regarding large carnivore conservation, we asked a global community of conservation professionals (n = 505) about their preferences for governance alternatives for carnivore conservation through an online survey. Respondents agreed that government biologists should make decisions while legislators and commissions received low agreement and less consensus. Findings also indicated a general rejection of turning decision processes completely over to the general public, to courts, or to politicians who are perceived as lacking both technical knowledge and local insights. We found evidence for consensus on best management processes using a combination of science, local knowledge and participatory decision-making. According to our sample, sustainable coexistence strategies may require significant shifts in processes that remove mistrusted political influences vis-a-vis ballot boxes, courtrooms, commissions and legislative chambers. Our sample believed governance structures that combine technical expertise with local perspectives in a co-management framework may best withstand tests of time and controversy.

中文翻译：

---

保育专业人士对与大型食肉动物共存的治理看法

摘要 大型食肉动物的决策过程复杂且充满争议，过程从审议和专家分析到投票箱和法庭各不相同。决策者的范围从邻近的土地所有者到联合国。政策的有效性、持久性和合法性通常取决于政策本身的过程。克服争议需要更深入地了解决策者和过程的偏好，以及对人类与食肉动物相互作用的更深层次的信念。尽管学术辩论中充满了对治理的建议，但很少研究从业者对决策过程的看法。这样做可以促进在高度可变的社会生态景观中管理和保护食肉动物的建设性讨论。为了深入了解有关大型食肉动物保护治理的不同观点，我们通过在线调查向全球保护专业人员社区（n = 505）询问了他们对食肉动物保护治理替代方案的偏好。受访者同意政府生物学家应该做出决定，而立法者和委员会的认同度较低，共识也较少。调查结果还表明，普遍拒绝将决策过程完全交给公众、法院或被认为缺乏技术知识和当地见解的政治家。我们结合科学、当地知识和参与式决策，找到了就最佳管理流程达成共识的证据。根据我们的样本，可持续的共存战略可能需要对程序进行重大转变，以消除不受信任的政治影响对投票箱、法庭、委员会和立法机构的影响。我们的样本认为，在共同管理框架中将技术专长与当地观点相结合的治理结构最能经受住时间和争议的考验。