CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME MICHIGAN SHOOTING PRESERVEUSERS Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY IEFFREY CROSBY GREENE 1970 THES'S LIBRAIS’W‘I A 7‘ amo‘ma av 7‘ ”WAG 8 WHY ":25 was" 152- ABSTRACT CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME MICHIGAN SHOOTING PRESERVE USERS By Jeffrey Crosby Greene In this study the amount, quality, and satisfaction of hunting plus certain demographic characteristics of Michigan shooting preserve users were measured. These hunters were then compared to other hunters. Data was gathered through the use of a questionnaire sent to a systematic sample of preserve users. In the sur- vey 10 percent of the population was sampled and the total return of questionnaires was 71 percent. Michigan preserve users were characterized by averaging 45 years of age and having 26 years of hunting experience. They earned upper-middle and upper class incomes. Educational attainment was high, with the mean level of education over 18 years of college. The occupation classes listed most often were professional/proprietor and manager/ executive. Hunters hunted on all days of the week fairly equally with the average hunt being three to four hours in length. Two—thirds of the respondents were from metro- politan areas. Public shooting preserves and strictly private preserves were more popular than the membership type. Jeffrey Crosby Greene Most preserve hunters were well satisfied with the quality of hunting at their preserves. Over half of the preserve hunters did not use preserve owned hunting dogs. Lack of birds during the open season was the reason most hunters visited preserves. These hunters preferred to hunt game birds such as pheasant, grouse, and woodcock over other game during the open season. About half of them were introduced to hunting by their parents befOre they were 14 years old. Two—thirds of the hunters did not do all the hunting they would like to do, mostly because of time limitations. When compared to other hunters (non—preserve) sampled in southern Michigan, Ohio, and the Northeastern states, many significant differences became apparent. Preserve hunters were generally older with more hunting experience. They tended to have higher incomes and had achieved higher educational levels. They took children hunting more often and were more apt to live in urban areas. Preserve hunters seemed more satisfied with their hunting experiences than those hunters who hunted on southern Michigan game and recreation areas. CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME MICHIGAN SHOOTING PRESERVE USERS By Jeffrey Crosby Greene A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1970 L/é //50 34/39’70 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The culmination of this thesis is due to a coopera— tive effort between the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan State University. I would like to thank two people in particular from the Department of Natural Resources--Mr. Charles Shick and Mr. Edward Tucker. Mr. Shick is in charge of shooting preserves for the Game Division and was helpful in many ways. I would like to thank Mr. Tucker for both advice and materials. The assistance of the Rose Lake biologists for their comments is also appreciated. Dr. Leslie Gysel, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Dr. Robert George, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Dr. Michael Chubb, Department of Parks and Recreation Resources, guided my thesis research. Their assistance was invaluable. Dr. Eugene Roelofs, acting head of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife was very generous in helping me with the printing and other material problems. Dr. Leroy Olson and the scoring office of Evaluation Ser- vices provided timely assistance in coding my questionnaires. I would like to thank the staff of the Computer Institute for Social Science Research for their help with ii my computer programming. Dr. Robert George, through the extension Conservation Education program, provided computer time for my survey. ' Lastly, my wife deserves recognition. Mary helped me code responses and struggled with typing and re-typing of the manuscript in addition to being a constant source of encouragement. iii Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . METHODS Study area . . . . Sampling procedure The questionnaire Response . . . . . RESULTS A. Personal and Family Characteristics . . . Age....-.... Sex and marital status Occupation ... . . . . Education 0 o o e e 0 Income 0 e o o o o e 0 Residence . . . . . . B. Shooting Preserve Data . Nun‘ber Of trips 0 o 0 Number of preserves . Preserve experience . Day and length of hunt Money spent a a o o 0 Traveling time . . Hunting party . . . . Types of preserves . . Preserve services . . Quality of hunting . . Dogs . . . . . . . . . iv 0 I O O O O O O O I O 10 12 14 Chapter III. IV. VI. C. General Hunting Data Species hunted . . Hunting experience Introduction to hunting Amount of hunting Taking children hunting Hunting outside Michigan DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . A. Personal and Family Characteristics Age Occupation . Education . Income . . . Residence . B. General Hunting Data Species hunted . . Hunting experience. Introduction to hunting Amount of hunting Taking children hunting C. Shooting Preserve Data . Hunter opinions of SURVEY LIMITATIONS . . . . Questionnaire Respondents . . . . . . SMARY O O O D O O O O 0 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . places to hunt 54 54 55 56 59 61 Table l. 7. 8. 9. 10. LIST OF TABLES Age class distribution of Michigan shooting preserve users reported by questionnaire respondents in 1968 . . . The distribution of respondents among occupational classes in 1968-69 . . . . The distribution of respondents among educational attainment classes in 1968-69 0 O O O O O l O O O O O O O O O The distribution of respondents among income classes in 1968-69 . . . . .0. .. The distribution of experience of respondents in 1968-69 . . . . . . . . Money spent per shooting preserve visit by respondents in 1968—69 . . . . Distribution of respondents according to time spent traveling to and from Michigan shooting preserves during the 1968-69 season . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of reasons given by respondents when asked why they hunted at a shooting preserve in 1968-69 . . . . . Frequency of most needed improvements at Michigan shooting preserves by respondents during 1968-69 . . . . . . Percentages of respondents who hunted various species during the open season of 1968—69 . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 15 17 19 20 23 25 26 32 33 36 Table 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Distribution of respondents' years of hunting experience reported in 1968-69 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O Percentages of respondents indicating who introduced them to hunting . . . Stratification of respondents according to when they started hunting . . . . Age distribution of hunters from several surveys . . . . . . . . . . . Occupational distribution of hunters from two surveys . . . . . . . . . . Educational attainment of hunters from several surveys . . . . . . . . Family income classes of hunters from several surveys . . . . . . . . Introduction to hunting as indicated by hunters in two surveys . . . . . . vii Page 37 38 39 42 43 45 46 50 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Map of Michigan showing approximate locations of the 70 licensed shooting preserves in 1968-69 . . . . . 9 2. Educational attainment of respondents in 1968-69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3. Percentages of five responses regarding hunter Opinions when asked if their visits to Michigan shooting preserves were enjoyable andworthWhiIEoooeoooooeoo 30 4. Percentages of five responses regarding hunter opinions of shooting preserves In Michigan as a place to hunt . . . . 30 5. Respondents rating of preserve-owned hunting dogs during the 1968-69 season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. Percentages of respondents indicating whether or not they took any children under 16 on hunting trips in 1968-69. . 40 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION We have more time and money with which to enjoy our national outdoor heritage than ever before-~but places to enjoy the outdoors are becoming harder to find. This problem is especially true with the small—game hunter. As more and more private land is posted and the remaining public land over-hunted, he must seek his sport elsewhere. The shooting preserve is a natural and functional outgrowth of this problem. Shooting preserves are one of the modern game management tools that can be used to great advantage in solving the problem of hunting opportunities around centers of high human population. The number of shooting preserves in Michigan will probably increase at an accel— erated rate in the next few years (Shick, in conversation). The ORRRC Report published in 1962 recommended the states to encourage public shooting preserves. In order to effectively plan and regulate shooting preserves state administrators and shooting preserve opera- tors should have a knowledge of preserve problems and the people who use them. Records kept by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources along with reports by (Kozicky, 1966a) (Snyder, 1963) (Burger, 1962) (Frey, et al., 1960) (Dickey, 1957) provide a basis for satisfying the former. The characteristics of the users of these preserves, however, are virtually unknown. Much of the past research in the wildlife field has been largely devoted to the biological aspects of wild- life species. This necessary research should be coupled with economic and recreational studies to present an overall picture of any problem. For example, following the recent decline in ringneck pheasant (Phasianus colchius) popula- tions in Michigan several studies have been undertaken to determine the causes and the cure for the problem. To my knowledge, no studies concerning the effect of this decline on the attitudes and behavior of the sportsmen have been proposed. Are we not striving to maximize our pheasant population in order to provide as much recreation as possible to the sportsmen! Certainly esthetic and bio- logical values are among our reasons for wanting more pheasants, but they are not the main objective. If we agree that the users of our natural resources, i.e. the users of our shooting preserves, are important, a twofold approach to the problem is necessary. First, we must determine what type of information about these people would be most useful. Secondly, we need to obtain this information. It is not enough to know the numbers of persons presently engaged in small-game and preserve hunting. Fundamental aspects of hunters, such as (1) how far have they traveled, (2) what age class distribution is repre— sented, (3) with what frequency do they utilize these resources, and (4) how have these characteristics changed with time, are not known. Information of a second type is more difficult to obtain. When we start seeking "whys", bias creeps into our findings. For example, what are the maximum distances and minimum facilities that would make an experience satis- factory? Could conditions be changed to optimize the hunter's pleasure in hunting either on the preserve or some- where else? Is shooting preserve hunting engaged in as a second choice because of the inadequacy of Opportunities for a preferred activity? These questions are important to state administrators as well as the preserve operator. Cain (1960) has recognized this need for research into user-oriented studies. In successful business ventures, market study is as“' important as product research and development. Could this also be the case in various non-business fields? In wildlife management--in fact, in the entire field of public natural-resource management--it is my Opinion that more attention devoted to the customer would ease many a difficult situation and speed the appli— cation Of science in practice. Man is more complex than fish or deer. It is more difficult to make the human behavioral sciences scien- tific and the results predictable than it is to examine the ethology of non-humans, but a strong effort in that direction should help wildlife managers and others to diagnose their problems and approach their solutions. W. Winston Mair (1960), in his critique of the 25th North American Wildlife Conference, had this to say: I am disturbed too at the apparent complete lack of research into the social and cultural aspects of the wildlife conservation field. We are spending significant sums of money on wildlife now and plan to spend much more in the future, particularly with respect to the allied field of recreation. But there has been at this Conference no mention of research into the mores of our people, their motivation and their real needs. As wildlife managers have become increasingly aware of the importance of the user, four main studies into the characteristics of these users have evolved. The Third National Survey of Fishing and Hunting was designed to collect information about expenditures, numbers of trips, and days spent fishing and hunting during 1965. Persons responding to the National Survey of Fishing and Hunting were actually a sub—sample of persons previously selected from the Current Population Survey (CPS) of the labor force conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census. This provides an accurate cross section of the population. The survey was similar to earlier ones conducted in 1955 and 1960 and used a personal interview as the measuring instrument. In 1966 the Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of Vermont mailed questionnaires to 10,000 licensed hunters and fishermen in six Northeastern states. The states cooperating in this study represented a wide range of social and economic conditions. It was the objective of this study to measure and analyze various characteristics and attitudes of some of the several million hunters and fishermen of the region. Peterle (1960) conducted a study with the Ohio Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit to measure attitudes and characteristics of Ohio hunting license buyers. Replies to a questionnaire formed the basis for his analysis. Palmer (1967) analyzed some characteristics of the users of game and recreation areas in southern Michigan. Questionnaires were sent to individuals who had hunted in a game or recreation area in 1961-62. The results are presented in a descriptive sense with hunters being described in many demographic ways. In summarizing his results, Palmer stated: “I believe we now have a good picture of what the southern Michigan state—land hunter is like--how many there are, where they live, how often they hunt, where they hunt and others." In all the above studies no effort was made to include hunters who paid a fee to shoot, i.e. shooting preserve users. We have a mosiac description of the average small-game hunter who hunted on public or private lands. Is the shooting preserve user different from these hunters? The general objective of this study as Cain (1960) suggests is to find the solutions to some of our management problems by learning about the users of the resources we are attempting to manage. The specific objectives were to: Determine the demographic characteristics of Michigan shooting preserve users. Determine the amount, expense, and quality of their hunting. Ascertain the satisfaction of sportsmen with their preserve experiences and their public hunting experiences. Compare the "average" shooting preserve user with other hunters. Definition of terms 1. Shooting preserve - privately owned and operated area where pen-raised game is released for hunting, usually upon payment of a fee by the shooter. The term shooting preserve implies in most instances, that there is an extended season, no bag limit on released game, and that areas are licensed or sanctioned by state game commissions (Dickey, 1957). Commercial preserve - preserve operated for financial profit. Commercial Operations can be broken down into two distinctly different types: (1) open to general public for a fee, or (2) subscribing members only-—open to those who pay a prescribed membership fee. Private shooting preserve - non-commercial operation, not open to general public, but operated for members and guests only. Hunter-trip - each visit to a shooting preserve by each individual hunter. User - an individual who pays to shoot or is a guest on a licensed preserve. Pen-raised game - includes all animals raised and released for the purpose of closely regulated harvest by users. CHAPTER II METHODS Study area The total number of licensed Michigan shooting preserves during the 1968-69 season totaled 70.1 Michigan shooting preserves, as described in the introduction, fall into three types. No distinction was made between users of commercial and non-commercial enterprises. Both the upper and lower peninsulas were included in the sample. (Figure l) The universe was composed of all persons who shot at a Michigan shooting preserve in 1968—69. Non-residents as well as residents were sampled. During this period approximately 3,500 hunter-trips were made to preserves. Each time a hunter visits a preserve he is required by law to register his name, address and hunting license number. Sampling procedure During the early stages of the survey the researcher decided to sample 10 percent of the universe. The 350 shooting preserve users were selected from the Department 1Snyder (1963) wrote a history of shooting preserves in Michigan indicating their growth and distribution. 8 Circles have 30 mile radius .| Dairo’d’ s> AHh Arbor Figure 1. Map of Michigan showing approximate locations of the 70 licensed shooting preserves in 1968-69. 10 of Natural Resources records. This number was reached after considering two factors: (1) it was felt that 10 percent was a large enough sample from which to obtain valid results: and (2) the number was acceptable in view of time and financial limitations. In drawing the sample, monthly lists of registered hunters from each shooting preserve were used. These records are sent in monthly by the operators and kept up to date by the Game Division.- Names were selected systemp atically with every Kth name utilized.2 If that name had been previously drawn, the name immediately following was selected. The questionnaire As no directly comparable research data could be located in the review of literature, considerable effort was devoted to the preparation of a measuring instrument. Several steps were involved in the preparation of the final questionnaire used. From a list of possible questions, desirable and pertinent ones were selected. .Rough drafts were presented to the researcher's thesis committee. A suitable questionnaire was pre-tested in August, 1969 by 2Due to a miscalculation of the total available names the researcher shifted the interval from every tenth name to every twentieth name about two—thirds of the way through the selection process. 11 biologists, graduate students, the graduate thesis committee and hunters. With minor revisions the questionnaire was then printed. Whenever possible respondents were simply asked to check appropriate boxes. Several questions, however, could be best answered if respondents were not influenced by several alternate choices and were designed as open-ended questions. The questionnaire itself was printed on an 8 by 11 inch sheet of blue kraft paper.3 Folded lengthwise, a four—page booklet containing thirty questions was presented to the users. The entire mailing package consisted of a questionnaire, an introductory letter, and a pre-addressed, stamped envelope mailed in a 78 by 108 inch envelope. The cover letter and subsequent reminder letter were printed on Michigan State University letterhead stationery.4 The researcher felt that if Fisheries and Wildlife Departmental stationery through Michigan State University was used, rather than Michigan Department of Natural Resources (the regulating agency) stationery, it would result in a better response. 3Crapo (1969) found this paper color and texture to elicit the maximum response. 4Both letters and the questionnaire are illustrated in Appendix A.and B. 12 The questionnaire used in this investigation was divided into three sections: (1) the first section dealt with questions referring to trips and experiences at shooting preserves: (2) the second section dealt with hunting in general: and (3) the third section contained questions relating to personal and family characteristics. Res nse The 350 questionnaire packages were mailed October 14, 1969. A follow-up letter, reminding the respondents to fill out and mail the questionnaire, was mailed to non— respondents two weeks later on October 28, 1969. A return of 199 completed questionnaires before the reminder was sent, coupled with 42 received after the reminder, yielded a total of 241. Three questionnaires were returned with insufficient or ridiculous answers. Undeliverable inquiries totaled nine. This provided a total return of 71 percent. Bevins, et a1. (1968) in a similar questionnaire type of mailed inquiry received a 69 percent return. Palmer (1967) received an 84 percent return from southern Michigan public land hunters. Peterle (1967) mailed questionnaires to Ohio hunters and received a 70 percent return. The 71 percent total return in this shooting preserve survey seems to be comparable to that of similar studies. 13 Responses were coded and the data was transferred by hand to IBM machine scored sheets. This machine was then used to punch the data on computer cards. Data was analyzed with the CISSR 6500 computer at Michigan State University. A relatively simple routine program, PERCOUNT,5 was selected. After only minor adjust- ments, the results were printed and ready for use. 5PERCOUNT is one of several prearranged computer programs available to MSU students. CHAPTER III RESULTS Personal and Family Characteristics The following discussion is based upon the 238 questionnaires returned by Michigan shooting preserve users. The first portion of the questionnaire was devised to solicit information about personal and family characteristics. Age The average shooting preserve user is about 45 years old. Only 39 percent reported their ages as younger than 42 years. Generally those responding were predominantly in the middle and older middle age classes. A total of 46 percent fell between 33 and 54 years of age. Table l portrays the range of age classes of the respondents.~ The data tend to indicate that few adults in their early years patronize shooting preserves. The general trend shows that use increases gradually with age, reaches a high point in the upper middle age classes then gradually decreases as the retirement years approach. 14 15 Table 1. Age class distribution of Michigan shooting preserve users reported by questionnaire respondents in 1969. Age class Number of Percent of (years) respondents total 19 or under 6 2.56 20 to 24 10 4.27 25 to 34 38 16.23 35 to 44 48 20.51 45 to 54 68 29.05 55 to 64 45 19.23 65 or over 19 8.11 Total 234a 100 aDoes not total 238 as four respondents failed to indicate their age in the questionnaire. Sex and marital status A total of 230 respondents gave their sex as male, while only five were female (three failed to list sex). Thus a ratio of 97 percent male and 2 percent female is indicated. A total of 212 persons or 90 percent indicated they were married. Occupation The occupational classes most frequently cited by respondents were those of professional-proprietor 16 (34 percent) and manageruexecutive (18 percent). These were followed by sales (14 percent) and semi-skilled labor (13 percent). Not a single farmer was among the respondents. Table 2 presents a tabular summary of the distribution of shooting preserve users among occupa- tional classes. Education Hunters were asked to check the highest grade of education they completed. To reduce cheating they were asked to list the last school they had attended. Education including and beyond a master's degree was given a value of 17. A high school education represented 12, a four year college education 16, etc. The mean level completed was 13.7 years. Sixty percent Of the respondents had more than a high school education with 42 percent having four years or more of college (Figure 2). Generally, shooting preserve users were extremely well educated, which is reflected as well in their income grouping (Table 4). The educational attainment classes and the distribution of respondents among them are presented in Table 3. Income Among those respondents who completed and returned the preserve user questionnaire, response to 17 Table 2. The distribution of respondents among occupational classes in 1969. Occupational Number of Percent of class respondents total Professional or business proprietor 80 34.48 Skilled labor 15 6.46 Semi-skilled labor 30 12.93 Sales 33 14.22 Farmer 0 0 Manager, clerical, or executive 42 18.10 Service worker 14 6.03 Retired 2 0.86 Student, unemployed or other 16 6.89 Total 232a 100 aDoes not total 238 as six respondents did not give their occupation in the questionnaire. 18 26% 23% 19% 8 l % r______I 10% 3% post - grad. some rad. some rad. grad. Grade school High school College Figure 2. Educational attainment of respondents in 1968-69. 19 Table 3. The distribution of respondents among educational attainment classes in 1968—69. Educational Number of Percent of class respondents total 1-7 years 1 0.42 8 years 6 2.56 9-11 years 23 9.82 12 years 62 26.49 13-15 years 43 18.37 16 years 44 18.80 17 or more years 55 23.50 Total 234a 100 ~v aDoes not total 238 as four respondents did not answer. 20 the question on current family income was excellent. A total of 227 (95 percent) divulged their family incomes. Eighty percent of the respondents had a family income of over $10,000. Surprisingly the percentage of users who fell into each group increased for each income level, so that more respondents had incomes of over $25,000 than any other group. The distribution of respondents among income classes is portrayed in Table 4. Table 4. The distribution of respondents among income classes in 1968—69. Income Number of Percent of class respondents total Under $3,000 if 4 1.76 $3,000 - 5,999 8 3.52 $6,000 - 7,999 10 4.40 $8,000 - 9,999 16 7.04 $10,000 - 14,999 51 22.46 $15,000 - 24,999 65 28.63 $25,000 and over 73 . 32.15 Total 227a 100 # fi—‘r—w* ffiv—r aDoes not total 238 as eleven respondents withheld data on family income. 21 Residence Shooting preserve owners have long realized that many of their clients are city residents. The develop— ment and increase in shooting preserves is correlated with centers of high population (Kozicky, 1966a). Dickey (1962) states: "Shooting preserves are mainly for the benefit of the city hunter and all of us are aware ofthe population movement to metrOpolitan areas." A total of 232 respondents indicated their place of residence. Sixteen percent indicated they lived in the country or on a farm, while 12 percent lived in a small town (under 5,000 population). Twenty- seven percent said they lived in a medium sized city (5,000-25,000 population), and 44 percent lived in a large city (more than 25,000 population). Thus city residents comprised over two-thirds of the clientele for Michigan shooting preserves. From the systematic sample of preserve hunters, only 4.9 percent reside outside Michigan. Shooting Preserve Data The second portion of the questionnaire was devised to solicit information from the users about their visits to shooting preserves and their ensuing experiences. 22 Number of trips If a hunter enjoyed his visit to a preserve, he would probably want to return. Thus if most hunters are satisfied with their hunting, we would expect an average number of hunts per year as more than one. The mean number of trips to preserves made by each respondent in 1968—69 was 7.7 trips. However, most hunters (53 percent) made only four trips or less, while only 6 percent made 20 visits or more. Many of the hunters that used preserves extensively were either preserve employees or dog breeders. Number of preserves Most hunters tended to shoot at one preserve. A total of 169 or 71 percent hunted at one preserve. Twenty-five percent visited two preserves, but only a very few (3 percent) tried more than two. Preserve experience Since Michigan has had an interrupted shooting preserve historyl (Snyder, 1963) we would expect to find few hunters that have been visiting them.more than 12 years. This was the case, as only 6 percent 1Shooting preserves were first licensed in Michigan in 1929, but from 1934 to 1958 they did not exist. In 1957 new legislation was passed to allow the rebirth of shooting preserves. 23 of the respondents indicated that they had been shooting at Michigan preserves more than 10 years. Table 5 portrays a stratification according to years of shooting preserve experience. Table 5. The distribution of experience of respondents in 1968—69. Number of years Number Percent visited Michigan of of preserves respondents total First year 61 25.84 2-3 years 68 28.81 4-5 years 56 23.72 6-10 years 36 15.25 over 10 years 15 6.35 Total 2368 100 3Does not total 238 as two respondents failed to respond. Day and length of hunts The particular days on which hunting was done was fairly equally distributed over the week. Users were asked to indicate if their preserve hunting was done on a weekday, Saturday, Sunday, or a combination of these. Thirty—two percent hunted on weekdays. Twenty-two percent hunted on Saturday and 21 percent 24 hunted on Sundayz. A combination of Saturday and Sunday was indicated by 16 percent of the respondents.' Since most hunters would have difficulty in remembering exactly how long their average hunt lasted, the researcher asked them to indicate a correct box. Possible responses included: (1) less than one hour, (2) one to two hours, (3) three to four hours, and (4) over four hours. Most of the hunters (60 percent) spent from three to four hours on their average hunt. Meney spent There are three basic ways of paying for the privilege to hunt at a shooting preserve. They are: 1. Pay a set fee for the entire season 2. Pay for birds released each trip 3. Pay for birds shot each trip The latter two involve an outlay of cash for each trip. Users were asked to indicate how much money they spent during an average trip. This amount is money spent just at the preserve itself. Fifty- three percent of the respondents spent over $21 each trip. Table 6 shows how much the average hunter spent. 2Sunday hunting in 1968-69 was allowed in all but 13 counties in Michigan (Laws Relating to Natural Resources, 1968). With the passage of recent legislation all Michigan shooting preserves can legally 'operateon Sunday. 25 Table 6. Money spent per shooting preserve visit by respondents in 1968-69. Amount Number of Percent of spent respondents total Guest—none 6 2.67 $5-10 26 11.60 $11-15 33 14.73 $16-20 40 17.85 $21-30 53 23.66 over $30 66 29.46 Total 2248 100 3Does not equal 238 because of failure to respond or annual membership fee paid Traveling time It is generally accepted that a successful shooting preserve must be located close to a metro- politan center. In Wisconsin, Burger (1962) pointed out that over 90 percent of its shooting preserves are located in the southeasterniquarter of the state. This southeastern quarter also contains half of Wisconsin's total population. A look at the distri- bution of Michigan shooting preserves in Figure 1 will illustrate the “clustering” effect around cities. 26 Kozicky (1966b) found that successful shooting preserves average only 28 miles from centers of population of 25,000 or more. In the accelerated pace of today's sportsman, distance is more often measured in driving time than in miles. Thirty-four percent of the respondents indicated they spent between one-half hour and one hour traveling to and from their favorite shooting preserve. Table 7 portrays the traveling time of respondents. Table 7. Distribution of respondents according to time spent traveling to and from Michigan shooting preserves during the 1968-69 season. Time spent Number of Percent of traveling respondents total Less than 8 hour 32 13.79 8 hour to 1 hour 79 34.05 1 hour to 18 hours 39 16.81 15 hours to 2 hours 45 19.39 2 hours to 3 hours 22 9.48 Over 3 hours 15 6.46 Total 2323 100 aDoes not total 238 as six respondents failed to answer the question. , 27 Hunting party Few users preferred to hunt alone (4 percent) but there seemed to be no preferred number of compan- ions up to four. Twenty—eight percent of all the respondents hunted with one other person, 29 percent hunted with two others, and 25 percent hunted with three others. Only 11 percent preferred to hunt in groups of five or more. Shooting preserve users, as ‘well as most sportsmen, seem to be gregarious to some extent, but also have a few preferred hunting partners. Too large a group would most likely tend to reduce the quality of the hunt. When asked about how they learned of their favorite shooting preserve, 75 percent replied "from a friend”. Other sources given were: newspapers (6.3 percent), personal contact with owner (5.9 percent), and Department of Natural Resources (2.5 percent). Very few hunters listed such means as magazines (0.8 percent), road signs (0.4 percent), TV—radio (0.4 percent) and sportsmfin's clubs (1.7 percent). Types Of preserves The three general types of shooting preserves defined earlier are all found in Michigan. Respondents indicated that they visited public preserves (40 percent) 28 and strictly private preserves3 (38 percent) about equally. Annual membership preserves were indicated only 12 percent of the time. Some hunters visited more than one type of preserve, but these were rela— tively few in number. Preserve services The main reason sportsmen go to a shooting preserve is to hunt game birds. Many preserves offer other diversifications besides bird shooting. Dickey (1962) points out that: There is a national trend for shooting pre- serves to become year-around recreational centers. Besides hunting, some also offer fishing, hiking, clay target shooting, riding, swimming, and other outdoor diversion. , Respondents were asked if their favorite shooting preserve offered any other services or recre— ational opportunities and to what extent they used these. Fifty-nine percent replied that no other services were offered. Among those who replied that their favorite preserve did offer other services, 8 percent did not use any, 13 percent shot skeet or trap, 4 per- cent fished, 3 percent ate a snack or meal, and 10 percent used more than one facility. 3This figure could be higher than it is in reality. Members of private clubs tend to hunt more times during a year, thus have more chances to be included in the sample population., 29 Qpality of hunting Kozicky (1966a) defines ”quality“ as the summation of all things, both tangible and intangible that make the hunt a happy memory. The researcher attempted to determine to what extent preserve users experienced quality hunting. It has been suggested by Cain (1960) that certain outdoor activities are ”indulged in as a second choice--sort of better than nothing-~because of the inadequacy of opportunity and facilities for a preferred activity.” Perhaps this is the case with shooting preserve users! Has the lack of game and crowded conditions on public land driven hunters to seek other means of satisfying this desire to hunt? Users were asked several questions concerning the quality of their hunting experiences. The answers to these questions coupled with the reasons given for supporting their answers should shed some light on the temperament and motivation of the user. Hunters were asked if they had found their visits to shooting preserves enjoyable and worthwhile. As would be expected, most of them (67 percent) answered ”always“. Figure 3 illustrates the response to the above question. Along the same line of thinking, hunters were asked what they thought of Michigan shooting preserves 30 as a place to hunt. Once again most respondents (84 percent) replied with "excellent“ or "good". Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of responses. 70L 67% 60~ 50. 40% 3o. 25% 20- 10~ 3% 0.42% 0.42% l—‘"-"l MM always most.y sometimes seldom neverf Figure 3. Percentages of five responses regarding hunter opinions when asked if their visits to Michigan shooting preserves were enjoyable and worthwhile. Percentage 0 50+ 47% 407 e 4., § 30- H . g 20 10% lOI 2% 0.84% 1_'_‘l’ r-—--r exc. goo. air poof very poor Figure 4. Percentages of five responses regarding hunter opinions of shooting preserves in Michigan as a place to hunt.a aAbout four percent of the hunters did not respond to the question. ‘ 31 The researcher attempted to learn why the hunter ranked the preserves as they did by following up the questions on their Opinions with an open-ended question. This question asked: "What reasons do you have for your answer?" The question was left completely open so as not to bias the thinking of the respondent in any way. By wording it thusly, both positive and negative answers were received. Although the question was often left unanswered (32 percent), the majority who answered listed compli- mentary responses about their experience. Only 14 percent indicated negative answers and most of these said that "it was not like natural hunting”. The single most important reason given for enjoying pre- serve shooting was "abundant game birds--assured of shooting". Another question asked the respondent directly why he hunted on shooting preserves. The most preva- lent response (45 percent) was "1ack of game birds I during open season“. Many hunters said they felt it just was not worthwhile to hunt pheasants on public land. Table 8 groups the responses of hunters into nine categories. Most hunters enjoyed their preserve experiences and rated them as good or excellent places to hunt. 32 Table 8. Frequency of reasons given by respondents when asked why they hunted at a shooting preserve in 1968-69. Reasons listed Percent of total Lack of birds during open season 44.5 Convenience 10.0 Longer season Offered 9.7 Opportunity to enjoy dog work 7.9 Relaxation, recreation, or exercise 6.7 No response 6.3 Invited guest 3.4 Entertaining clients or friends 2.5 Regular season closed in home state 0.8 Multiple response 7.9 Total 100 The researcher wanted to determine the aspect of preserve hunting in Michigan that needed improving the most. Users were asked what aspect they felt needed improving most at their favorite preserve. To eliminate bias one box indicating "none” and one open-ended box indicating “other“ were included. Responses were quite varied and indicated no particu- lar weakness. As 44 percent marked the ”none” column, 33 it would seem to indicate that users are pretty well satisfied with their preserves. Table 9 portrays the frequency of responses given concerning improvements. Table 9. Frequency of most needed improvements at Michigan shoOting preserves listed by respondents during 1968-69. Number of Percent of Answers respondents total None 105 44.1‘ Cover and/or shooting lanes 38 15.9 Game birds 30 12.6 No response 24 10.1 Dogs 10 4.2 Costs 7 2.9 Location and/or management 6 2.5 Method of bird release 4 1.7 Guides 3 1.3 Multiple response 11 4.6 Total 238 100 229E Hunting dogs are closely linked to any type of bird shooting. Most preserve Operators estimate that Percentage 34 only five percent of today's hunters own dogs (February, 1956, Modern Game Breeding). Users were asked to rate the preserve hunting dogs, if they hunted behind them. Surprisingly, 51 percent indicated they used their own dogs or dogs other than those belonging to the preserve. The respon- dents who indicated they used preserve dogs rated them as illustrated in Figure 5. 25- 24% 20- 15‘ 12% 10- 9% 5_ 2% 0.84% I I r——fi exc. good fair, poor very poor Figure 5. Respondents rating of preserve-owned hunting dogs during the 1968-69 season. As the pressure on public hunting grounds becomes more intense, many sportsmen will seek easier and more productive places to hunt. Most authorities feel that shooting preserves will increase at an accelerated rate during the next few years (Frey, et al., 1960) (Dickey, 1962) (Snyder, 1963) (Kozicky, 1966a) (Shick, in conversation). The researcher asked the users if they felt shooting would become more popular and why or why not. 35 Eighty-two percent replied that they thought the popularity of shooting preserves would increase. Reasons most often listed were: 1. Lack of suitable land and shortage of birds to hunt (46 percent). 2. Poor hunting on state lands (9 percent). 3. Poor game management by state (3 percent). 4. Longer season offered (3 percent). On the negative side, 12 percent replied that they did not think preserves would increase in popular- ity or were uncertain. "Too expensive" was the reason most often listed. General Hunting Data Most shooting preserve users at one time or another have hunted on public or farmland during the regular Open seasons. To get a complete picture of the preserve user, the remainder of his hunting activ- ities should be analyzed also. Species hunted Respondents were asked if they had hunted at places other than preserves in 1968—69. Eighty-six percent replied they had. If a "yes" answer was given, they were asked to place a check in front of the animals they hunted. The largest number of hunters 36 hunted pheasants (64 percent) and grouse/woodcock (61 percent).4 Table 10 portrays the species hunted and their corresponding frequencies. Table 10. Percentages of respondents who hunted various species during the open season of 1968—69. Number of Percent of Species respondents total Pheasant 152 64 Grouse and/or woodcock 146 61 Deer 121 51 Rabbit 100 42 Waterfowl 91 38 Forty-seven percent of the respondents indicated they hunted both big and small game, while 3 percent hunted only big game. fighting expepience As indicated earlier the average age of respon— dents was 45 years. It would seem logical that these hunters would have quite a bit of hunting experience. This, in fact, is the case as the respondents averaged 26 years of experience in hunting. A stratification of experience is presented in Table 11. 4Only common names of animals were listed. 37 Table 11. Distribution of respondents' years of hunting experience reported in 1968-69. Number of Percent of Years respondents total 10 years or less 34 14.65 11-20 years 44 18.96 More than 20 years 154 66.37 Total 2328 100 aDoes not equal 238 as six respondents failed to answer the question. Intpodugtion to hunting Both the time of life in which the respondents started hunting and who encouraged them to do so is important in forming a hunting philOSOphy. These factors are apt to.inf1uence both his enjoyment and satisfaction. Respondents were introduced to hunting primar- ily by their parents (45 percent). Many were introduced to hunting by friends (28 percent) which points out the social aspect of hunting especially in regard to preserve hunting. Table 12 portrays the frequencies of users who were introduced to hunting by various people. 38 Table 12. Percentage of respondents indicating who introduced them to hunting. Source of Number of Percent Of introduction respondents total Parent 106 45.2 Friend 67 28.6 Relative 29 12.3 No one 24 10.2 Spouse 1 _- Multiple response 7 2.9 Total 234a 100 3Does not total 238 as four respondents failed to answer question. Over one—half of the respondents took up hunting before they started high school. A further strati- fication is illustrated in Table 13. Ampppt Ogyhgpting In seeking information about the time spent hunting, the respondents were asked if they did all of the hunting they would like to do. Twenty-one percent answered "yes” meaning that they did all of the hunting they wanted to do. Sixty-four percent answered 'no” because of either time or monetary limitations, 39 or a combination of both. The single most prevalent answer (52 percent) was ”no, not enough time”. Table 13. Stratification of respondents according to when they started hunting. Number of Percent of Age class respondents total Grade school 70 29.7 (under 11 years) Junior high 60 25.5 (ll-13 years) High school 45 19.1 (14—17 years) After high school 32 13.6 (18-25 years) After 26 years of age 28 11.9 Total 2358 . 100 aDoes not equal 238 as three respondents failed to answer the question. Takipg children hunting To indicate possible trends in hunting patterns, shooters were asked if they took any children (under 16) on any hunting trips in 1968. About one-half of the respondents did take youngsters with them. To further clarify the question, if they answered yes, then they were asked to indicate whether they took 40 them to preserves, public or farmland, or both. Figure 6 illustrates the results. Yes , preserve hunting NO 48% 49% Figure 6. Percentage of respondents indicating whether or not they took any children under 16 on hunting trips in 1968—69. Hunting outside Michigan To determine how avid the respondents were toward their hunting, they were asked if they had ever hunted in other states. Sixty-eight percent indicated they had and one-third of these hunters (23 percent of the total) indicated they had visited shooting preserves outside Michigan. CHAPTER IV DI SCUSSION One Of the primary objectives of this report is to compare Michigan shooting preserve users with other types of hunters. Although intricate statistical tests are not possible many “eyeball” correlations can be made. Data concerning both groups of sportsmen will be presented and contrasts or comparisons between them will be pointed out. This type of treatment is necessary mainly because of two factors: (1) geographical, basic standard of living and other similar differences, and (2) time lag between the present and past studies. In the main, comparisons will be made to the characteristics of hunters in past studies. These studies were presented in the introduction. A. Personal and Family Characteristics A92 Four of the earlier mentioned studies plus a study by Folkman (1963) were analyzed in regard to mean age of hunters. These results were compared to Michigan shooting preserve users in Table 14. 41 42 Table 14. Age distribution of hunters from several surveys. Mean a e Percent Study ( earg) younger Y than 42 yrs. Michigan shooting 45 39 preserve users National Survey -_ __ (Anonymous, 1965) N. E. Survey 38 -- (Bevins, et a1. 1968) Southern Muchigan public land hunters 39 —- (Palmer, 1967) Ohio hunters 35 70 (Peterle, 1967) California hunters 37 -- (Folkman, 1963) O'From these comparisons it seems evident that shooting preserve patrons are older than the average hunter. The four states who sampled their hunters were very similar to each other in average age. Ohio had almost twice as many hunters under 42 years of age (70 percent) as Michigan preserve users (39 percent). Hunting on shooting preserves requires less effort and is generally more expensive than public hunting. A preponderance of older hunters illustrates that they perhaps have less ambition and more spending money 0 43 Occupation Occupational classes are difficult to measure because of the task of grouping jobs into similar categories. As each of the four comparable studies utilized a different occupation breakdown, the researcher was forced to make a choice. Since Palmer's (1967) survey was easiest to compare, his breakdown was used. Comparisons are portrayed in Table 15. Table 15. Occupational distribution of hunters from two surveys. Percentages Occupation class Mich. shooting S. Michigan preserve public land hunters hunters Professional or business proprietor 34.5 9.7 Skilled labor 6.5 37.2 Semi-skilled labor 12.9 35.6 Sales 14.2 4.3 Farmer 0 3.6 Manager, clerical, or executive 18.1 5.8 Service worker 6.0 3.8 Retired 0.9 ) ’10 0 Student, unemployed, ) ° or other 6.9 ) Total 100 100 44 Professional-proprietor occupations were much more common among the shooting preserve hunters. Labor, both skilled and semi-skilled, was the main occupation of public land hunters. There was also a much larger percentage of managers and executives among the preserve hunters. Convenience was probably a major reason for this difference. Professional peOple undoubtedly have less time to devote to hunting and the time—consuming functions that go with it such as keeping dogs, securing and scouting places to hunt, etc. The data tends to indicate that shooting preserve users are more affluent in general, which is illustrated again in income groups in Table 17. Education Shooting preserve hunters were, on the average, better educated than ”average" hunters. With a mean~ level of 13.7 years (almost two years of schooling past high school) preserve hunters were extremely well educated. Comparisons are illustrated in Table 16. Almost one-fourth (23 percent) of the preserve hunters had more than 17 years of education. This accounts for the high degree of professional peOple (Table 15) who responded. 45 Table 16. Educational attainment of hunters from several surveys. PERCENTAGES Survey Graduated Graduated Five or from high from more years school college of college Michigan shooting preserve users 86 42 23 National survey 72 9 —— (Anonymous, 1965) N. E. Survey 59 __ .__ (Bevins, et a1. 1968) Southern Michigan public land hunters 50 __ -_ (Palmer, 1967) Ohio hunters 85 6 6 (Peterle, 1967) Some discrepancy exists between the four comparative surveys in the percentage of high school graduates. While slight differences in methodology might have accounted for some differences, it seems apparent that preserve hunters are better educated than other hunters. Income Shooting preserve hunters had greater family incomes than did other hunters. Although this differ— ence is plainly evident it is difficult to illustrate 46 because Of unlike income classes. The researcher compared all groups according to the percentage of hunters who made under $3,000, over $10,000, and over $15,000. The results are illustrated in Table 17. Table 17. Family income classes of hunters from several surveys. Family Income Survey $3,000 $10,000 $15,000 or under and over and over Michigan shooting preserve users 1.7% 83.3% 60.8% National Survey 12.7% 20.7% 5.1% (Anonymous, 1965) N. E. Survey 11% -- 5% (Bevins, et a1. 1968) Southern Michigan public land hunters -- 5.1% -- (Palmer, 1967) Ohio hunters 22% __ __ (Peterle, 1967) It is obvious that the family income of the preserve user is completely different in all three categories from those of other hunters. Comparatively fewer preserve hunters make under $3,000 and many more make over $15,000. In fact, the income group the highest number of respondents checked (32 percent) was that of $25,000 or over. 47 When the data from the last three tables (income, education and occupation) is lumped together, the affluence of the preserve hunter becomes apparent. This affluence is further illustrated by the fact that 68 percent of the respondents have hunted outside Michigan. Palmer (1967) found that in most cases, the average southern Michigan citizen was not much different from the average southern Michigan public land hunter. Peterle (1967) found much the same results with Ohio hunters. In contrast to these findings, are the significant differences in the last three sections of this report between preserve hunters and other hunters. Residence Shooting preserve hunters had a greater ten- dency to live in metropolitan areas. Seventy-one percent of the respondents indicated they resided in a city of over 5,000. Palmer (1967) found that 60 percent of the hunters that utilized southern Michigan public lands were from urban areas.1 In the National Survey of Fishing and Hunting (1965), 45 percent of the hunters surveyed in the 1Hunters were classified as rural when they lived outside of a community. 48 United States lived in Standard MetroPolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA).2 Thus the classification of residents was not identical} but a comparison of data seemed justifiable. In a study on regulated shooting preserves in Pennsylvania, Frey, et a1. (1960) found that 88 percent of the users were city residents. This figure corree sponds well with the 71 percent of Michigan preserve users from metrOpolitan areas. Two probabL§ reasons for this difference are: (1) Pennsylvania has more people per square‘mile, and (2) slight differences in the definition of urban areas. In both cases, however, the majority of preserve hunters were urban residents. General Hunting Data Species hunted As evidenced by their patronage of shooting preserves, respondents would probably like to hunt game birds during the open season. This is the case as 64 and 61 percent preferred to hunt pheasant and grouse/woodcock respectively. Deer hunting was also participated in at a high level (51 percent). 2A SMSA is defined as including at least one city having 50,000 inhabitants or two cities with contiguous boundaries and a combined population of at least 50,000. 49 In a study of hunting conducted in the North- eastern states (Bevins, et a1. 1968) it was found that deer hunting was the most popular hunting activity. Seventy—eight percent of all hunters in the region hunted deer, while only 45 percent hunted game birds. This species preference is probably due in part to the greater abundance of avian game species in Michigan. Huntingiexpgrience Just as shooting preserve users were older than other hunters we would expect them to be more experienced. When compared with Northeastern hunters, this is the case. Bevins, et a1. (1968) found the mean years of hunting experience was 21 years, while Michigan shooting preserve hunters averaged 26 years. Michigan preserve hunters had over 66 percent with 20 years experience, while only 42 percent of the North— eastern hunters fell into this category. Introduction to hunting On the surface it would seem that preserve hunters would tend to start hunting later in life than other hunters. Preserve hunting requires neither the experience or the effort of Open season hunting. Perhaps less preserve hunters would be introduced to hunting by their parents than would be true in other hunters? Questionnaire results of the preserve survey 50 when compared with Northeastern hunters yields no significant difference, however. Table 18 portrays these results. Table 18. Introduction to hunting as indicated by hunters in two surveys. Introduced to hunting by Survey Parent Friend Michigan shooting 45% 29% preserve users Northeastern hunters 50% 29% (Bevins, et a1. 1968) Amount of hunting In attempting to measure the extent to which hunters utilized preserves as a "second choice” activity they were asked ”if they did all of the hunting they would like to do." Twenty-one percent answered ”yes“ to the question. Bevins, et a1. (1968) found that 21 percent of the Northeastern hunters sampled also answered ”yes”. This would seem to indicate that preserve hunters are not satiated any easier than other hunters. They evidently are not satisfied to make one or two hunting trips a year. In both surveys most of the reasons given for not hunting as much as they would like to were related to time. 51 Taking children hunting Forty-nine percent of Michigan shooting pre- serve hunters took children under 16 on hunting trips in 1968-69. For a complete breakdown see Figure 6. Bevins, et a1. (1968) found that only 27 percent of Northeastern hunters took children under 16 on hunting trips in 1965. While it is hard to draw any conclusions from this sort of data, it is evident that a high perCentage of preserve hunters want to instill in their children a fondness for hunting--both preserve and non-preserve. Shooting Preserve Data As no similar studies on shooting preserve users have been published, it is not possible to com- pare findings about preserve hunts with those of past studies. In analyzing responses to the questionnaire and grouping some of the data together, the researcher attempted to portray the average preserve user. This ”average" user was then compared to other hunters. Little mention was made, however, of the quality of the hunters' experiences at preserves. In order to experience any form of "quality" recreational experience, the sportsman must be willing to pay for it. This willingness to pay is more easily 52 measured at shooting preserves than in other activities because a direct outlay of cash is required. The hunter must bring gun, shells, and clothes, but these are items most hunters would normally possess. Varying amounts of money are spent per trip to Michigan shooting preserves. Fifty-three percent spent over $21 on each visit. The actual monetary value (dollars and cents), however, is not as important as what this sum represents to the spender. When asked what they thought of Michigan shooting preserves as a place to hunt, less than 2 percent of the respon- dents indicated they thought they were too expensive. Obviously most respondents did not feel the price they paid to hunt was too high. Hunter opinions of placeg to hunt Palmer (1967) asked the southern Michigan public land hunter what he thought of these areas as a place to hunt. He gave his respondents the same five choices that shooting preserve users were given--, excellent, good, fair, poor, and very poor. Shooting preserve users indicated “excellent“ about 47 percent of the time. Southern Michigan hunters, on the other hand, thought their places to hunt were excellent only about 9 percent of the time. Almost 40 percent of them thought of these game areas as only fair. 53 Most game and recreation areas in southern Michigan are heavily hunted, but are probably not as intensively used as the majority of shooting preserves. When Palmer (1967) asked hunters why they hunted on public land, one of their most frequent responses was ”areas Offered freedom, did not need permission to hunt." Over one—half of the total responses to his question were negative. In view of the foregoing data, the researcher feels that perhaps hunting on public lands in southern ,Michigan was engagedfin as more of a "second choice” type of activity than was hunting at shooting preserves. Obviously hunters would prefer to hunt uncrowded coverts teeming with a variety of game. This is not often possible, but it doesn't mean that all hunting is a second choice type of activity. However, the hunters surveyed seemed happier and more satisfied with shooting preserve experiences than with state land experiences. CHAPTER V SURVEY LIMITATIONS This section will be devoted to some of the limi- tations of this survey. It is hoped that similar future studies can thus be improved. Qgestionnaire Perhaps the single most important aspect in any type of questionnaire research is the information gathering device itself--the questionnaire. Much care and consid- eration must go into the formation of questions. A researcher should be constantly alert for any sort of bias directed at the respondent. Questions with structured responses (check one of the following) tend to channel the thinking of a respondent. While open-ended questions eliminate some of this bias, they are often difficult to interpret. It is, at best, difficult to determine the wording of questions and there are few guidelines. The researcher feels that judgment should be used when com, piling questions and that a blend of each type is desirable. Ease of coding should not be a consideration in determining the questions. 54 55 In some surveys, more than one follow—up letter is sent to non-respondents. The researcher did not feel it was necessary to send out more than one reminder for two reasons. First, the rate of return drops substantially for each successive reminder. Secondly, the return of over 70 percent was considered excellent. Respgndents In future surveys a further stratification by shooting preserve types seems necessary. Because members of a strictly private preserve have more chances to be included among the sample, they probably are over-represented in the results. The sample could be further subdivided into the three basic types of preserves. Information about the users of each of these preserve types would be more desirable. Although an even further breakdown could include only users of a single preserve, this does not seem justifiable or economical. Lastly, some check on the reliability of responses is needed. Telephone interviews, personal interviews or further mail inquiries could all yield some measure of reliability. A small percentage of interviewed respondents and non-respondents could reveal inconsistencies in the results. 2. 4. 5. 6. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY During the 1968—69 shooting preserve season approxi- mately 3,500 hunter-trips were made to licensed Michigan preserves Through a questionnaire survey, about 10 percent of these hunters provided answers to questions concerning demographic as well as quality-oriented inquiries. These hunters were characterized by being 97 percent males: averaging 45 years of age. About 90 percent were married and 50 percent took children on hunting trips. Most shooting preserve users earned upper middle class incomes. The professional and manager occupation classes were well represented. The average level of education was just over 18 years of college. Two—thirds of the preserve hunters lived in urban areas. Most hunters tended to shoot at one preserve. 56 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 57 The days of the week hunters tended to shoot at pre- serves were fairly equally distributed, with most hunts being from three to four hours in length. Few preserve hunters liked to hunt alone, but no particular number of hunters was preferred. Public shooting preserves and strictly private pre- serves were visited by about 40 percent of the hunters. Other than hunting, the favorite activity was clay target shooting. Most preserve hunters felt that Michigan shooting preserves were excellent or good places to hunt and always found their visits to these preserves enjoyable and worthwhile. Lack of birds during the Open season was the reason why most hunters visited preserves. Over half of the preserve hunters did not use preserve owned hunting dogs. Preserve hunters preferred to hunt game birds such as pheasant, grouse, and woodcock over other game during the Open season. 15. 16. 17. 58 Preserve hunters averaged 26 years of hunting expe— rience. About half of them were introduced to hunting by their parents before they were 14 years old. Two-thirds of the hunters did not do all the hunting they would like to do, mostly because of time limitations. When compared to average hunters (not preserve hunters) from Michigan and other states, preserve hunters were significantly different in that they: a. tended to be older with more hunting experience. b. tended to have higher incomes and had achieved higher educational levels. c. took children hunting more Often. LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CITED Anonymous 1956. Shooting preserves must provide dogs. Modern Game Breeding. Feb. 15—17. 300 Front St., Boiling Springs, Pa. Burger, George V. 1962. Licensed shooting preserves in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conservation Department, Madison, Tech. Bul. 24, 40 pp. Cain, Stanley A. 1960. Wildlife management and the customer. Trans. 25th. N. A. Wildl. Conf. 25: 472-481. Crapo, Douglas and Michael Chubb. 1969. Recreation area day use investigation techniques: a study of survey methodology. Tech. rep. 6, Dept. of Park and Rec. Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 124 pp. Dickey, C. 1957. Shooting preserves in the United States. Trans. N. A. Wildl. Conf., 22:396—404. Dickey, C. 1962. Shooting preserves in the west. Proc. 42nd An. Conf. W. Assoc. State Game & Fish Comms., 132-136. Folkman, W. S. 1963. Levels and sources of forest fire prevention knowledge of California hunters. U.S. Forest Serv. Research Paper PSW-ll. Berkeley, Calif. 22 pp. Frey, John: Robert Wingard: and Marvin Runner. 1960. The business side of regulated shooting preserves. Farm Economics, Pa. State Univ., Dec. 4 pp. Kozicky, Edward L. and John Madson. 1966(a). Shooting preserve management. Winchester Western Press, East Alton, Illinois. 311 pp. Kozicky, Edward L. 1966(b). Facing the facts for profits. Modern Game Breeding, 2(4): 23, 38-40. 59 60 Mair, W. Winston 1960. Critique of the 25th. N. A. Wildlife Conference. Trans. N. A. Wildl. Conf., 25:487-496. Michigan, State of. 1968. Laws relating to Natural Resources. Legislative Service Bureau, Lansing. 469 pp. Northeastern Regional Research Committee. 1968. Characteristics of hunters and fishermen in six northeastern states. Malcolm I. Bevins, Chairman. Burlington, Vermont. Ag. Exp. Stat. 76 pp. Palmer, Walter L. 1967. Analysis of the public use of southern Michigan game and recreation areas. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. R & D rep. 102, Lansing, 88 pp. Peterle, Tony J. 1967. Characteristics Of some Ohio hunters. J. of Wildl. Mgt. Vol. 31, No. 2, 375-389. Shick, Charles. 1969. Personal interview of August 1, 1969. Lansing, Michigan. Snyder, JOnas L. 1963. Shooting preserves in Michigan. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Michigan. Ann Arbor, 73 pp. U.S. Dept. Interior. 1965. National survey of fishing and hunting. Bur. Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Resource Pub. 27. Washington, D.C. 76 pp. APPENDIX A Introductory and Reminder Letters Sent to Selected Shooting Preserve Users MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN 48323 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE . NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING Dear shooting preserve user: Shooting preserves are relatively new to Michigan: consequently, little is known about the services they provide sportsmen of Michigan. For this reason, I am conducting a study at Michigan State University which is designed to evaluate Michigan shooting preserve operations. Since you have hunted on at least one shooting preserve, your cooperation in providing me with information will be appreciated. Please complete the attached questionnaire and return it to me by November 1, 1969. Your reply will be confidential and need not be signed. It will be used with similar replies to show a pattern of preserve Operations. The time it will take you to complete the questionnaire will be valuable in helping shooting preserve Operators provide you and other sportsmen with enjoyable hunting opportunities. It is hoped that the study will improve your shooting preserve hunting experiences by: 1. Providing the shooting preserve Operators with information on the needs and wants of their clientele. 2. .Providing factual data which can be useful to people who wish to get into the shooting preserve business. Simply place your completed questionnaire in the stamped, pro-addressed envelope. and return it to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much for your help. Best wishes for an enjoyable hunting season in 1969-70! Sincerel , &fi%*,. Jeff Greene 62 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN 48323 DEPARTMENT OI’ FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE . NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING Dear shooting preserve user: This letter is a reminder to complete and send back the questionnaire sent to you concerning Michigan shooting preserves. If you have already done so. please disregard this reminder. If you have misplaced the stamped. pre- addressed envelope. please mail the completed questionnaire to: Jeff Greene Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Michigan State University East Lansing. Michigan #8823 I would like to remind you that the information supplied by you and other sportsmen is extremely important in this study project. The time it will take you to complete the questionnaire will be valuable in helping shooting preserve operators provide you and other sportsmen with enjoyable hunting Opportunities. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Sincere Jeff Greene 63 APPENDIX B Questionnaire Used In Survey APPENDIX C Code Book Prepared For Responses 70 Code Book Prepared For Responses Column Question Punching Number Number Instructions 1-3 -- Questionnaires numbered serially in upper right corner. 4-5 1 Number of trips to Michigan shooting preserves reported. 6 2 Number of preserves: O— No response 1- One visit 2— Two visits 3- Three visits 4- Four visits 5— Five visits 7 3 Years of preserve experience: 0- NO response 1- First year 2- Two to three years 3- Four to five years 4— Six to ten years 5- Over ten years 8 4 Days hunted: O— No response 1- Weekdays only 2- Saturday only 3- Sunday only 4— weekdays and Saturdays 5- weekdays and Sundays 6- Saturday and Sunday 7— weekday plus Saturday & Sunday 9 5 Length of hunts: O— No response 1— Lesszthan one hour 2- One to two hours 3— Three to four hours 4— Over four hours 71 Column Question Punching Nggbg; Ngmbgg . Instructions 10 6 Money spent: 0— No response 1- None — guest 2- $5-10 3- $11—15 4- $16-20 5- $21—30 6- Over $30 7- Annual membership fee ll 7 Traveling time: 0— No response 1- One-half hour or less 2— One—half to 1 hour 3- Over 1 hour to 1% hours 4- Over 15 hours to 2 hours 5- Over 2 hours to 3 hours 6- Over 3 hours 12-13 7 Actual traveling time in decimal fractions of hours. l4 8 Number in party: 0- No response 1— Alone 2— Two peOple 3- Three people 4— Four peOple 5- Five or more peOple 15 9 Quality of dogs: 0- NO response/used own dog 1- Excellent 2- Good 3— Fair 4- Poor 5- Very poor 72 Column Question Punching Number Number Instructions 16 10 How they found out about favorite preserve: O- NO response 1- Newspaper 2- Magazine 3- Road sign 4- Friend 5- TV—radio 6— Sportsmen‘s club 7- Personal contact with owner 8- Depto of Natural Resources 9- Multiple response 17 ll Kinds of preserves visited: 0— NO response 1- Commercial-general public (A) 2— Commercial—members &guests (B) 3- Strictly private (C) 4- A + B 5- A + C 6- B + C 7— A + B + C 18 12 Services offered: 0- No response 1- Yes—no reason given/none used 2- No 3— Yes-skeet or trap 4— Yes-family type facilities 5- Yes—fishing 6- Yes—food 7- Yes-more than one activity 19 13 What needs improving: O- 1- 2- 3.. 4- 5.. 6- 7- a- 9- No response Cover or shooting lanes Dogs Guides Game birds Method of bird release Location and/or management of preserve Costs Multiple response None 73 Column Question Punching Number Number Iggtructions 20 14 Were hunts enjoyable: O— No response 1- Always 2— Mostly 3— Sometimes 4- Seldom 5- Never 6— Multiple response 21 15 Rating of Michigan shooting preserves: O— NO response 1- Excellent 2- Good 3— Fair 4— Poor 5- Very poor 6- Multiple response 22 15 O— No reason given 1- Long season 2— Abundant game birds 3- Opportunity to enjoy dog work 4- Much action in short time 5- Fewer hunters or safe hunting 6— Combination of above factors 7- Negative response: did not like it 8- Negative response: too expen. 9— Negative response: not like natural hunting 23 16 Why did you hunt at a preserve: 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 3- 9- NO response Recreational Opportunities for family and/or self Lack of birds during Open season Opportunity to enjoy dog work Entertaining business org‘fi‘iends Convenience Regular season closed in home state Invited guest Longer season Multiple response 74 Column Question Punching Number Number Instructions 24 17 O- No response 1- Yes-no reason given 2- Yes— lack of available hunting land and birds 3- Yes-poor hunting on pub. land 4- Yes—poor game management by state 5- Yes—longer season is offered 6- Yes—convenience involved 7- No-no reason given 8— No—too expensive 9- Uncertain 25 18 Open season data: 0— Yes 1- NO 26 18 0- Rabbit ~ 1- Does not hunt rabbit 27 18 O- Pheasant 1- Does not hunt pheasant 28 18 0— Deer 1- Does not hunt deer 29 18 O— woOdcock and/Or grouse 1- Does not hunt woodcock and/or grouse 30 18 O- Waterfowl 1- Does not hunt waterfowl 31 18 O- Squirrel 1- Does not hunt squirrel 32 18 0— Fox 1— Does not hunt fox 75 Column Question Punching Number Number Instructions 33 18 Open season data: 0- Small game only, more than one species 1— Both big and small game 3- None of the above 4- Big game only 34-35 19 Hunting experience: Actual years of hunting experience. 36 19 Hunting experience: 0- No response 1— Ten years or less 2- Eleven to 20 years 3— More than 20 years 37 20 Introduction to hunting: 0— No response 1— Parent 2— Spouse 3- Uncle or other relative 4- Friend 5— No one 6— Multiple response 38 21 Amount of hunting: 0- NO response 1- Yes 2- No—no reason given 3— No-too busy or not enough time 4- No-lack of game 5- No—access problem 6— NO-season too short 7— No-too expensive 8- NO—Multiple response (combination of reasons) 76 Column Question Punching Number Number Instructions 39 22 Children hunting: 0— No response 1- No 2- Yes-preserve 3- Yes-public or farmland 4- Yes-both 5- Yes, but does not say where 40 23 Out—of-state hunting: 0- No response 1— No 2- Yes-have hunted out-of-state preserves 3- Yes-but have not hunted out-of-state preserves 41 24 Family income: O_NO response 1- Under $3,000 2- $3,000 - 5,999 3- $6,000 - 7,999 4- $8,000 - 9,999 5_ $10,000 - 14,999 6- $15,000 - 24,999 7- Over $25,000 42 25 Marital status: 0- No response 1- Yes 2- No 43 26 Sex: 0- No response 1- Male 2- Female 44-45 26 Age: Actual years of age of hunter 9 77 Column Question Punching Number Number Instructions 46 26 Age: 0— No response 1- 19 or under 2- 20 to 24 3- 25 to 34 4- 35 to 44 5- 45 to 54 6- 55 to 64 7- 65 or over 47 27 Education: 0- No response 1- One to 7 years 2- 8 years 3- 9—11 years 4- 12 years 5- 13-15 years 6- 16 years 7- 17 or more years 48-49 27 Education: Actual years of formal education completed. 50 28 Started hunting: 0— No response 1- Grade school 2— Junior high 3- High schobl 4— After high school 5- After 26 years of age 51 29 Occupation: O— No response 1- Professional or proprietor 2- Skilled craftsman 3- Semi-skilled laborer 4— Farmer 5— Sales worker 6- Manager, clerical, executive 7- Service worker 8— Retired 9- Student, unemployed, other 78 Column . Question Punching Number Number Instructions 52 30 Residence: O- No response l~ Farm or country 2— Small city 3- Medium city 4- Large city 53 -— 0— Owner or part owner of preserve 1— Not an owner of preserve HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES lllll lllll lllllill ll Hill Illllll l 9 1 1 312 3 013 3454