YOUNG PEOPLE’S ATTITUDES TOWARD WILDLIFE Thesis Ior II": Degree oI M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Gerri Ann Pomerantz I977 S/oQOSB ABSTRACT YOUNG PEOPLE'S ATTITUDES TOWARD WILDLIFE BY Gerri Ann Pomerantz A questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of seventh through twelfth graders in Michigan public schools to determine young people's attitudes toward wild- life. Completed questionnaires were returned by 2,362 young people, 49% of the original sample. I Young people were asked to indicate the reasons why wildlife is important to them, the kinds of wildlife- oriented activities in which they participate, and their desires for environmental education classes and outdoor recreation areas. Basic wildlife biology questions were included to estimate their knowledge of environmental science. Most young people said it was important to protect or control wildlife because it is part of nature (96%), because they wanted to learn about wildlife (92%), and because they enjoyed watching wildlife (90%). The majority of young people, including hunters, non—hunters, and Gerri Ann Pomerantz anti-hunters, valued the aesthetic qualities of wildlife more than the utilitarian ones. The activities most young people participated in were fishing (72%), watching wildlife (71%), and feeding wildlife (63%). Ninety-six percent of the respondents watched wildlife T.V. programs and television was indicated as the greatest influence on wildlife attitudes. There were a number of misconceptions about bio- logical processes. The questions most peOple answered incorrectly asked about the effect of forest fires on wildlife, forest succession, and wildlife as a renewable‘ resource. Desires regarding environmental education were greatest for wildlife classes, environmental classes, and boating instruction. More than 70% of the people said there should either be more guided nature walks, nature centers, or areas for watching Wildlife. Over 60% of the respondents wanted more city parks or recreation areas where motor vehicles are restricted or areas where hunting is prohibited. These results have strong management implications for the ways to best educate the public and the kinds of recreational areas in greatest demand. YOUNG PEOPLE'S ATTITUDES TOWARD WILDLIFE BY Gerri Ann Pomerantz 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 1977 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The funding for this study was made possible by. the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division as part of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration under Pittman—Robertson Project W-ll7-R. It has been a privilege to work with the members of my graduate committee at Michigan State University, Dr; Leslie Gysel, Dr. Ralph Levine, Mr. Glenn Dudderar and Mr. Carl Bennett, Jr. This study could not have been completed without the help of many people in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. A special thanks goes to Oz Warbach for his imaginative illustrations; to the people in the Office of Surveys and Statistical Services for their help in the sample design; toBarb Horn for her development of appropriate environmental science questions; to the dis- trict biologists, Rose Lake staff and many others who dis— tributed the questionnaires; to Phyllis Mellon for her help in the statistical analysis.and data procesSing; and to John Lerg, Michele Mitchell, Mary Bouchard and Lynn McCarthy for their personal support and hours of endless coding. ii A very Special thanks goes to Dave Langdon for his programming wizardry and the late hours he kept at the computer center. If not for the encouragement of Carl Bennett and his audacity to hire a woman I would not have been a part of this study. His professional guidance and personal con- cern have been invaluable to me. Edward Langenau, Jr. has been a motivating force throughout this project. It has been an education to work with someone as dedicated to and knowledgeable about wildlife and the people who appreciate it. Ed has my deep appreciation and warmest thanks for all the help he's given me in the many hours of probing, arguing and inter- preting the problems we faced. _ I especially thank my husband, Marty, not only for his love, but for his understanding and support. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . ._. . . . . LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . Background Information . . . . . . . Purpose . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Survey Instrument . . . . . . . The Sample Population . . . . . . . Administration of the Questionnaire Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sample Population . . . . . . . Attitude Groups: Anti-Hunters, Non-Hunters, and Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes . J . . . . . . . . . . . Influencing Factors . . . . . . . . Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . Desires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page vii viii me—I \OKOOJ‘JQ ll 11 15 20 22 23 24 31 4O 50 54 57 10. LIST OF TABLES Male and female respondents by area of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . Male and female respondents by grade . Reasons why people should protect or control wildlife . . . . . . . . . . Reasons to protect or control wildlife where there were significant differ- ences (p < .05) in the responses of males and females . . . . . . . . . Proportion of young people that cor— rectly answered environmental ' science questions . . . . . . . . . Knowledge scale scores of respondents by attitude group, grade, sex, and residence . . . . . . . . . . . Activities where there were significant differences (p < .05) in the number of male and female participants . Activities where there were significant differences (p < .05) in the number of participants in the seventh through twelfth grades . . . . . . . Activities where there were significant differences (p < .05) in the number of participants from urban and rural areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Activities where there were significant differences (p < .05) in the number of participants in hunter, non-hunter, and anti-hunter groups . . . . . . . Page 12 13 21 22 25 26 28 32 34 36 Table Page 11. Types of instruction desired by young people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 12. Things that young people want more of . . . . 38 13. Desires for recreational areas and environmental education where there were significant differences (p < .05) in the responses of males and females . . . . . . -.- . . . . . 38 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Five attitude groups . . . . . . . . 2. Distribution of males and females in the five attitude groups . . . . . 3. Distribution of anti-hunters, non- hunters and hunters by area of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Male dominated general recreational activities . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Male dominated wildlife-oriented activities . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Percentage of recreational partici- pants by grade . . . . . . . . . . 7. Percentage of participants in recre- ational and educational activities by area of residence . . . . . . . vii Page 16 18 19 29 30 33 35 Appendix I. II. III. IV. LIST OF APPENDICES Page Questionnaire responses of seventh through twelfth graders . . . . . . . . . 57 Letters of permission request for student sample sent to school district superintendents . . . . . . . . . 69 Letter describing sampling procedure . . . . 75 Letters that accompanied questionnaire . . . 77 viii INTRODUCTION The Problem The problems in managing our country's wildlife cannot be dealt with on a purely biological basis. No longer can the wildlife professional simply determine how many animals to harvest and the best ways to increase the number of game. The issues facing today's resource managers are much more complex involving economic, socio- logical and political problems as well as biological ones. Present day Americans do not place the same values on wildlife as people of the past. The utilitarian or meat and fur values of wildlife are secondary to the aesthetic and existence values (Shaw 1974a). More and more people are crowding into our National and State .parks and forests, wildlife refuges, game lands, and scenic areas to view the wildlife. There are numerous types of users on these lands including hikers, bird watchers, hunters, fishermen, bicyclists, snowmobilers, motorcyclists, horseback riders and mountain climbers. Increasing numbers of recreationists, whether they desire a new camp site equipped with full bath facilities or simply a wilderness trail, are demanding further development of our natural resources and it is up to the resource manager to effectively deal with this increased public demand (Hendee and Potter 1971; Lucas 1964; Shaw 1974b; Wagar 1966, 1974). However, it is by no means an easy task to accommodate the many demands of the wide range of recreationists and cope with the physical strain on the resources within the restrictions of present environmental legislation. In order to deal with this situation, a resource manager should not only be well trained in the basic sciences and knowledgeable about most game species of wildlife and their habitats. He or she must also be well versed in ecological interrelationships, economics, communicative skills, statistics, computer science, urban and non-game wildlife, law, the legislative process, sociology and planning (Zagata 1976). The fact that most students who prepared for careers in wildlife were not trained in all these areas has created trauma for present day wildlife professionals. The need to address these trauma inducing issues is apparent and at the thirty-eighth Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference an entire session was devoted to the problems of increased public demand, changing environmental legislation and the traumatized professional. It is not sufficient for the wildlife manager to react to situations as they arise. The problems relating to our natural resources need to be anticipated and managers must become planners. Background Information But what exactly is the purpose of land management? Some groups such as the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society argue that wilderness is a resource in its own right and not something to be developed for public utilization (Lucas 1964). However, Alan Wagar (1974) points out that, our most powerful argument for such values as wilder- ness, solitude, whooping cranes and redwoods is that many of us judge our lives to be enriched by their presence. We maintain diversity and uniqueness for the current and future benefits they provide for people, not to benefit the attractions themselves. It is therefore the land planner's responsibility to manage resources for the greatest public benefit (Hendee and Potter 1971; Lucas 1964; Shaw 1974b; Wagar 1966). The next logical question then, is what benefits are people seeking from wildlife and general outdoor recreational activities? There is no single answer to this question. First, the benefits a hunter reaps from his day in the woods may be different from those of the bird watcher, and a paddling canoeist may derive a dif- ferent kind of satisfaction than a motorboater. Further- more, the resource manager's perception of a wilderness area and the experiences associated with it differ from the public's perception (Lucas 1964). Consequently, a wildlife professional is hard pressed to come up with a plan that will satisfy the needs of such a diverse popu- lation. There are ways, though, to manage areas for multiple uses through such methods as zoning and use- 1imits and still maintain high quality recreation (Lucas 1964; Wagar 1974). But before appropriate management programs can be devised, the needs of the public must be identified. It is only through research into public attitudes and behaviors that the goal of resource manage- ment can be achieved (Hendee and Potter 1971; Shaw 1974b; Wagar 1974). A number of studies have researched the attitudes, behaviors and characteristics of hunters (Hendee and Potter, 1976, list 33 such studies). However, little research has been done on non-consumptive users and their attitudes toward wildlife (Shaw, 1976, lists 5 studies). Studies that have examined public attitudes showed that childhood experiences have a strong influence on adult recreational activities and attitudes toward wildlife. Shaw (1974b) found that a person's early social environ- ment is an important determinant of hunting attitudes and Kellert (1976) concluded that the childhood environment is most important in formation of attitudes towards animals. The selection of adult activities is strongly influenced by present and past availability of recreational opportunities (Bevins et a1. 1968; Burch and Wenger 1967; Hendee 1969; Sapora 1966). Research on hunter behavior supports this contention. Most adult hunters were introduced to the sport in their early teens and few people begin hunting in later life if not introduced to _ the sport by the age of twenty (Klessig 1970; Schole et a1. 1970). Purpose A11 evidence points to the fact that childhood environment has a very strong influence on adult attitudes and behavior patterns. If the attitudes and behaviors of today's young people can be identified, the resource manager will have a better understanding of future public attitudes and the ways to go-about influencing them. This knowledge will enable the manager to prepare better infor- mation and education programs and be more equipped to deal with future public demands by developing responsive management programs. No studyto date has dealt exclusively with the attitudes of young people toward wildlife or wildlife- oriented activities. It was therefore the intent of this study to provide information on the attitudes and behav- iors of today's young people and to relate them to various background factors. In addition, young people's knowledge of environmental science and their desires for outdoor recreation areas and environmental education classes are examined. METHODS The Surveinnstrument The survey instrument was a printed questionnaire. In responding to questionnaire items, people often express a high degree of verbal commitment but have lower levels of actual commitment and knowledge of the subject area» (Maloney and Ward 1973). Therefore, in developing the questionnaire used for Michigan's young people (Appendix I) a concentrated effort was made to distinguish between what a person feels, what he or she actually does in regard to those feelings, and how much objective information influ- ences his or her feelings and behavior patterns. A five part model was designed to accomplish this objective. All questionnaire items fell into one of the following cate-I gories: (1) attitudes, (2) knowledge, (3) behavior, (4) desires, or (5) background characteristics. Specific questions were written with the help of wildlife professionals, psychologists and environmental education specialists. After several revisions a pilot questionnaire was pretested on a sample of 200 seventh through twelfth graders. Appropriate scales were determined for some questionnaire items and the final questions were selected. The Sample Population A sample of 4,800 seventh through twelfth graders in Michigan public schools was desired. To attempt to obtain a state wide sample of this size it was necessary first to sample the school districts in the state. The Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide 1975-76 lists all Michigan public school districts indicating the student enrollment per district. One hundred and thirty- five school districts were selected using the United States census bureau sampling procedure (Kish 1965). This sampling method ensures a stratified random sample where highly populated areas are sampled more heavily than areas with small student populations. At the same time, a sample representative of all areas of the state is obtained. -The superintendents of the selected school dis- tricts were contacted and asked if they would permit students in their district to participate in the study. In 125 districts a sample of 30 students per district was requested. Due to the large number of students it was necessary in 5 districts to request a sample of 60 stu- dents, in 3 districts a sample of 90, and a sample of 420 seventh through twelfth graders was requested from the Detroit school district. If district superintendents were willing to partici- pate in the study there were a number of options they were given in order to minimize the time required of school personnel and to maintain the privacy of the students (Appendix II). Sample selection procedures were provided to those superintendents who desired to have district per- 'sonnel select the sample (Appendix III). Other superine tendents chose to have Department of Natural Resources (DNR) employees select the sample for their district. Administration of the Questionnaire In most cases the questionnaires were delivered to the school district office by DNR personnel and school district employees distributed the questionnaires to the students. Superintendents were given the choice of having students complete the questionnaires in the classroom or at home. All surveys were accompanied by an instruction sheet. DNR personnel collected the surveys one week from the day they were delivered to the school districts. In 17 districts, after the sample was selected a list of the students' names and addresses was provided by the superintendent. A questionnaire was mailed directly to the student's home in those districts. In addition to the student instructiOn sheet, a cover letter was included with the questionnaire (Appendix IV). If the student did not return his or her questionnaire within four weeks, a second copy was sent. A third mailing went out to remain- ing non-respondents four weeks from the date of the second mailing. Analysis of Data Questionnaires were scored by optical scanners and responses put onto computer tapes. The frequency of each response Was tabulated. Adjusted frequencies for question- naire responses are used in all tables. The adjusted fre- quency was calculated by (1) subtracting the number of missing cases for a particular questionnaire item from the total number of respondents and (2) using this new total as the divisor in determining the percentage of each response category. Contingency tables were established for the follow- ing categories: sex, grade, residence, and attitude group. Chi square was used to determine significant relationships between each category and questionnaire items. Definition of Terms In an attempt to get at some of the objections young people have about hunting, a distinction was made between hunting for food and hunting for fun (Appendix I, Question 5). Separating these two dimensions of hunting does not mean to imply that when a person hunts for food he or she does not also enjoy the sport of hunting the animal or have fun in the process. By the same token, 10 the person who hunts for sport may and probably will eat the meat of the animal he or she kills. The reasons for making this distinction are twofold: (1) There are some hunters whose primary reason for hunting is to obtain meat and object to hunting just for the fun of it; and (2) There are other people who do not hunt who, while they approve of hunting for food, object to hunting for pleasure (Shaw 1974b). Some criteria were needed to delineate the hunting attitudes of young people. The separation of food and sport hunting was a guide used to define the various atti- tude groups. The labels of meat hunter versus sport hunter or non-hunter versus non-hunter, anti-sport do not imply value judgements on the ethics of sport hunting. It is simply a method of classifying the responses of young people. It should be kept in mind that the dis- tinction made between food and sport hunting was an arti- fact of this study and it may not be a true indicator of young people's attitudes. RESULTS The Sample Population Completed questionnaires were returned by 2,362 seventh through twelfth graders, 49.2% of the original sample. The distribution of respondents per grade is listed in Appendix I, Question 34. At the time the ques- tionnaire was distributed many high school seniors had already graduated, which may account for the lower per- centage of twelfth grade respondents. People representing all resident categories from heavily populated urban centers to rural areas were sampled (Appendix I, Question 36). The greatest proportion of respondents came from small towns, suburbs, and small cities. A greater percentage of females than males returned completed questionnaires (Appendix I, Question 35). There was a significant difference (x2 = 15.04, df = 6, p < .05) in the ratio of male to female respondents across the urban-rural dimension. The largest discrepancy was in the large city where female respondents outnumbered males by more than two to one (Table 1). ll 12 Table l.--Male and female respondents by area of residence. Residence Percent Males Percent Females Large City 32.8 67.2 Medium City 42.5 57.5 Small City 48.2 . 51.8 Suburb 46.1 53.9 Small Town 50.3 49.7 Farm 45.5 ‘54.5 Other Rural Area 44.8 55.2 The ratio of male to female respondents was not constant across the different grades (x2 = 15.89, df = 5, p < .05). In the seventh and eighth grades males outnumbered females, but in grades 9 through 12 there was a greater proportion of females to males (Table 2). Most respondents lived in one family homes (88.4%). The majority lived with both their mother and father (82.9%) and had either a brother or sister (94.4%). A greater proportion of respondents from rural areas lived with both their mother and father than those from urban areas. Urban areas had a greater number of young people who lived only with their mother. Ninety-one percent of the respondents were white, 5.2% were black, and 3.8% represented other racial or 13 Table 2.—-Male and female respondents by grade. Grade Percent Males Percent Females 7 52.7 47.3 8 50.1 49.9 9 I 47.4 52.6 10 44.3 55.7 11 39.8 60.2 12 43.8 56.2 ethnic groups. The majority of black respondents (94.5%) were from urban and suburban areas. Comparison of the responding sample population with the 1970 United States census of twelve to eighteen year olds and the Michigan dropout statistics 1974-75 for ninth through twelfth graders showed the following dis- crepancies: (l) a greater proportion of rural residents (46%) was represented by the sample than was in the actual Michigan population (26%), whereas the proportion of large city residents represented was smaller than that in the population; (2) a greater proportion of urban females were represented than was in the 1970 population of twelve to eighteen year olds; and (3) the uneven distribution of male and female respondents across the six grades was not consistent with the fairly equal distribution of males and females in Michigan public schools in grades 9 through 12. 14 The percentage of male respondents per grade varied between 39.8% and 52.7%. Whereas, the percentage of males in the population of ninth through twelfth graders in Michigan public schools varied between 50% and 51%. The disproportionate representation of urban residents was due to the fact that many Detroit area schools were unable to participate in the study. I cannot determine the cause of the discrepancy in the distribution of males and females except to speculate that females may be more inclined to complete questionnaires than males. In analyzing the responses of urban and rural residents, the proportion of responses within a residence category, and not the absolute frequencies, were used for determining trends in attitudes and behaviors along the urban-rural dimension. Therefore, any conclusions com- paring urban and rural residents were not affected by the sample's discrepancy from the actual population of young people. In order to correct for the unequal distribution of males and females in the sample, all questionnaire responses were separated out according to sex. Contingency tables were computed for male respondents for three vari- ables, grade, residence, and attitude group, and separate contingency tables were computed for female respondents. Consequently, any conclusions about residence, grade or 15 attitude group trends were likewise unaffected by the sampling discrepancy. Attitude Groups: Anti-Hunters, Non-Hunters, and Hunters Two questions were designed to identify hunters, anti-hunters, and those people who do not hunt, but are not opposed to hunting, who will be called non—hunters. The first question expressed attitudes towards hunting (Appendix I, Question 5). A distinction was made between hunting for sport and hunting for food, and whether or not all hunting should be against the law. Three-fourths of the people were against hunting only for sport, but said that hunting for food was OK. About a quarter thought that all hunting should be against the law. The second item asked about a person's hunting behavior (Appendix I, Question 29). People who had hunted in the past were asked if they planned to continue hunting or had quit. People who had never hunted were asked whether or not they would like to hunt in the future. Answers to these two questions identified five attitude groups (Figure 1). People who said that all hunting should be against the law and never planned to hunt, were clas- sified anti-hunters (Group 1). Respondents who approved of hunting for food, but disapproved of hunting for sport and had never hunted themselves were called non-hunters, anti-sport (Group 2). Those people who had never hunted, l6 was... as... 8%.. 2.; mzwhz::-zoz 1“ ‘U‘N‘N‘ ‘N‘N‘d‘ N‘I‘I HmOQm-_hz< mmmpz::-zoz o O 0.0000000000000000000000 000000 00 ..... coo-loco. 00000000 o 0 00000000000 000000000000 0000.. o o. .00 00.0 0.0:00Clot.MOOOOOIbIDbb-IIPIODIo0.0:»...D-DODIDIDEIDOIIDI 0 0....0...00......00...0. ..... 0... 0... ........ .....00....... 0 . ..... 0......000.............0.....0.......0....0..0 0... ....... 0....0.....0..0...0...0.00 $3231-35» ....0...0......0....0........0.......... ..........0.....0..0............0... 0......... ..........00. .I... .0....0 ........... . 'DI D’T’FD ATTITUDE GROUPS 40 3‘5 30 5 0 2 2 I mkzmozoammm mo hzmummm 5 I0 5 Fig. l.-—Five attitude groups. 17 but were not opposed to hunting either for food or sport were simply called non-hunters (Group 3). People that had hunted, approved of hunting for fOOd, but were opposed to hunting for sport were classified as meat hunters (Group 4). Lastly, respondents that hunted before and were in favor .of both food and sport hunting were called sport hunters (Group 5). If the sample is divided into three major cate- gories of anti—hunters (Group 1), nothunters (Groups 2 and 3), and hunters (Groups 4 and 5), there appears to be a fairly even distribution of the three groups. However, examination Of the five attitude groups shows a definite anti-sport hunting trend.‘ Of the hunters, the majority were meat hunters, not sport hunters, and the non-hunters against sport hunting clearly outnumbered those for sport hunting. As might be expected, the hunter groups were pre— dominantly male, while anti-hunter groups consisted mostly of females (Figure 2). The female population was heavily skewed toward anti-hunting sentiment, whereas the male population was divided between hunters and non—hunters against sport hunting. Examination of the attitude groups across the seven resident categories shows an increasing number of hunters from the urban cities to rural areas, with a cor— responding decrease in anti-hunters (Figure 3). The number 18 50 40 ‘l mmmpzzr anm / \ l 322:: :32 ‘\FEMALES m / .A III! . M” Illl .V 1 3:31-202 \\ _ ‘\¥\\ \\ \. I anmlsa mmmpz::-zoz 1 23231124 0 0 O 3 2 I mhzmozonlmmm mo ._.zmummm ATTITUDE GROUPS 2.--Distribution of males and females in the five attitude groups. Fig. 19 so \ \‘ NON-HUNTERS ‘ oo'-‘------3-o”"\[ :2 4o "‘--§< ‘ z \ é \ H ‘ e \ / a \ c: 30 \ ‘5 HUNTERS ANTI-HUNTERS E 8 (I I / 0 I I I I I I I I >- E: >" z 3 ES 23 :3 ES I; géq :2 UJ 2 3 —’ _l 33' ad: 0 2 D -’ ._J 0:4 LL. E 8 w 2‘ < ‘55 -—l 2 U) 5 S RESIDENCE Fig. 3.--Distribution of anti-hunters, non-hunters, and hunters by area of residence. 20 of non-hunters remained constant across the urban—rural dimension. There was a similar trend across the urban-rural dimension of increasing numbers of young people's family members who hunt. More young hunters had family members that hunt than non-hunters, and there were more non-hunters than anti—hunters with members of their family that hunt. Attitudes Young people were asked a number of questions from both a personal and societal viewpoint to ascertain their opinions on the importance of wildlife (Appendix I, Questions 2, 3). Similar responses were obtained for both sets of questions regarding wildlife values. Most of the young people thought wildlife was important to protect because it is part of nature, because people want to learn about wildlife, and because they want to watch wildlife (Table 3). Of those people who agreed that wildlife should be protected or controlled because it provides food and because people want to hunt wildlife, hunters signifi— cantly outnumbered the other attitude groups (x2 = 199.27, df = 12, p < .05; x2 = 463.96, df = 12, p < .05) and males significantly outnumbered females (x2 = 47.09, df'= 4, p < .05; x2 = 207.41, df = 4, p < .05). Females outnumbered males in agreeing with the aesthetic or educational values of wildlife (Table 4). Five response categories ranging 21 Table 3.--Reasons why people should protect or control wildlife. Percent of young Reason people who said it was a good or very good reason Because wildlife is a part of nature. 96.4 Because people want to learn about . . 92.4 Wildlife. Because people want to watch wildlife 89.7 Because peOple want to know wildlife 71 4 is around. ° Because wildlife provides food. 50.8 Because wildlife can be dangerous to 35 9 other wildlife. - ' Because people want to hunt wildlife. 35.0 Because wildlife can be pests. 11.2 from "a very good reason" to "a very bad reason" were tested with chi square, but only two categories are reported in Table 4. There was not a definite distinction of aesthetic versus utilitarian values across the urban- rural dimension. Six questions were designed to measure the anthro- pomorphic feelings that young people have. Most respon- dents attributed the sensation of pain to animals and about half believed that animals think about their actions (Appendix I, Question 4). An anthropomorphic scale score was established for each respondent by giving one point 22 Table 4.--Reasons to protect or control wildlife where there were significant differences (p < .05) in the responses of males and females. Percent Percent 2 Good or very good reason Males Females x df Because Wildlife is part 85.3 97.4 25.07 3 of nature. Because people want to learn about wildlife. 89'2 95°2 45°13 3 Because people want to watch wildlife. 87’4 91'9 ' 27°44 3 Because Wildlife pro- 57.0 45.2 47.09 4 VldeS food. Because people want to 46.1 24.9 207.41 4 hunt wildlife. for each anthropomorphic statement agreed with, and then totaling the number of points. There were no significant differences in the scores of urban and rural residents (x2 = 13.09, df = 12, p > .05), nor were there differences between the six grades (x2 = 11.76, df = 10, p'> .05). However, more females than males had high anthropomorphic scale scores (x2 = 14.41, df = 2, p < .05) and of the five attitude groups, significantly more anti-hunters had high scale scores (x2 = 28.68, df = 8, p < .05). Influencing Factors Students were asked to choose, from a specified list, the factors which influenced their interest in wildlife (Appendix I, Question 9). Television was 23 indicated by the greatest number of people (87.1%) as having an effect on their interest in wildlife. A parent or a movie was indicated by 75% or more of the respondents as an influencing factor. There were more people in the lower grades, than in the higher ones, that said a television program or a movie or a book or a scout or club leader influenced their interest in wildlife. A significantly higher percentage of males said their interest in wildlife was influenced by a relative 2 (x 21.94, df 2, p < .05) and a scout or club leader 2 (x 10.41, df 2,,p < .05), whereas, more females were influenced by a teacher (x2 = 18.14, df = 2, p < .05) and a school class (x2 = 15.11, df = 2, p < .05). Significantly more rural than urban residents felt their interest in wildlife was influenced by a relative (x2 = 21.05, df = 12, p < .05). There were seven resident groupings and three response categories for influencing factors. Knowledge To determine if wildlife values were based on sound biological knowledge a number of questions were asked about environmental science. Most people correctly answered questions about the effect of air pollution on plants, the role of insects in an ecosystem, interspecific competition, wildlife habitats, and human effects on the 24 environment (Table 5). The questions which caused the greatest difficulty asked about the effect of forest fires on wildlife, forest succession and wildlife as a renewable resource. The number of correct answers was totaled for each person and a knowledge scale score was determined. The plotted distribution of scores formed a normal curve, and had a mean of 7 out of a possible 15 points. There were significant differences in the knowledge scale scores between the different grades, attitude groups, resident categories and sexes (Table 6). Each successive grade, between 7 and 12, had more students who had high knowledge scale scores (x2 = 52.08, df = 10, p < .05). A greater number of hunters than non-hunters had high knowledge scores, and more non-hunters had high scores than anti- hunters (x2 = 149.54, df = 8, p < .05). Significantly more males scored higher on the knowledge questions 2 (x = 64.40, df = 2, p < .05) and there were more rural residents with high scores (x2 = 30.41, df = 12, p < .05). Activities In addition to identifying what young people knew and how they felt about wildlife, we wanted to know just what they did for general recreational and wildlife- oriented activities. The most popular general recreational activities were bicycling and swimming (Appendix I, Question 7). Wildlife-related activities participated in 25 Table 5.--Proportion of young people that correctly answered environmental science questions. Environmental Science Category Percent of correct responses Air pollution‘s effect on plants Insect's role in ecosystem Interspecific competition Wildlife habitat Human effects on environment Conservation Food chains Carrying capacity Hunting as a tool of wildlife management Population dynamics Wildlife as a renewable resource Forest fires Energy transference Transpiration Forest succession 93.2 84.9 79.9 78.2 66.4 61.6 51.0 45.7 44.6 41.4 32.7 23.2 22.4 14.2 11.5 26 Table 6.--Knowledge scale scores of respondents by attitude group, grade, sex, and residence. Knowledge Scale Scores Percentage of respondents with scores between 0-6 7-8 9-14 Attitude Group Anti-hunters 50.0 30.7 19.3 Non-hunters, anti-sport 31.8 31.0 37.2 Non-hunters 29.2 ‘30.0 40.8 Meat hunters 18.4 33.6 47.9 Sport hunters 21.7 23.2 55.1 Grade 7 44.7 27.8 27.5 8 40.6 31.1 28.3 9 33.5 30.8 35.8 10 34.7 26.0 39.2 11 27.4 3224 40.2 12 27.0 28.4 44.7 Sex Males 28.3 27.8 43.9 Females 41.0 '30.3 28.7 Residence Large City 47.2 21.6 31.2 Medium City 44.9 23.5 31.6 Small City 35.7 31.4 32.9 Suburb 33.2 28.0 “38.9 Small Town 33.3 28.7 38.0 Farm 30.3 34.6 35.1 Other Rural Area 28.5 30.6 40.9 27 by 50% or more of the respondents included fishing, feed- ing wildlife, watching wildlife, driving and hiking to look for wildlife, visiting the zoo, watching wildlife movies and T.V. shows, and reading Wildlife books (Appendix I, Question 8). There were a number of activities where male participants significantly outnumbered females, whereas there were only two activities, horseback riding and visiting the zoo, where there were more female than male participants (Table 7).. Male dominated general activities included football, basketball, softball, snowmobiling, boating and camping (Figure 4). General recreational activities where there were no significant differences (p > .05) between males and females included swimming, hiking, cross-country skiing, tennis and bicycling. Wildlife—oriented activities where male partici- pants largely outnumbered females were hunting, fishing, and catching insects (Figure 5). Males also significantly outnumbered females in taking classes in hunting and fishing instruction, as well as in six other wildlife- oriented activities. Those wildlife-related activities where there were no significant differences (p > .05) between males and females were watching wildlife, keeping a wild animal for a pet, and watching a wildlife movie and T.V. show. 28 Table 7.--Activities where there were significant differ- ences (p < .05) in the number of male and female participants. Activity* Psgiznt ::;::2t x2 df Hunting 51.2 6.2 577.85 1 Football 46.1 10.7 460.26 2 Hunting Instruction 37.6 5.4 363.41 1 Fishing 86.0 59.6 194.41 1 Basketball 53.0 27.5 157.73 2 Caught Insects 54.9 34.0 101.11 1 Softball 54.3 35.9 79.58 2 Fishing Instruction 28.1 16.9 40.85 1 Read Wildlife Book 63.4 53.9 20.77 1 WTTETiEZ 100k for 60.0 51.6 16.03 1 SITEIif: 100k for 55.4 47.1 15.30 1 Snowmobiling 23.9 15.6 25.16 2 Boating 28.7 21.4 30.84 2 Camping 31.4 24.7 27.92 2 Boating Instruction 28-9 23.9 7.11 1 Fed Wildlife 65.8 61.2 4.96 1 Environmental Classes 27.8 23.3 5.79 1 Wildlife Classes 18.9 15.1 5.86 l Horseback Riding 5.6 14.3 66.52 2 Went to the Zoo 63.1 68.8 7.99 1 *Activities listed in order of decreasing differ- ences between the percentage of male and female partici- pants. 29 0000.. ...... 0 0.00.0 00000.0 000000 00. 0.0 ...... 0. ..... ...... ....... ..... 0 ..... 00 0.00.. 00. 0. ..... 0 000.000 0 00.0 0. 0000 000.00... 0.0 ...... 00... 000 .00. 0 00 ........ 0 00 ....... 00.000000 ......... 00.0 0.0 00 00000 00 .00. 0.0 00 0 0000 .0 ....... 0. ..... 00 00.0.0000 ...... 000 .0 ...... 0 ....... 0. .......... .0 ........ .0 0000000 . 0 000 00.00 00 ..... 000 00 0 ..... 0 0000000000 0000000000 .0 00 000. 00000 00 00 00000 0 .0 ........ 0. 000 ...... 000 .0 .......... 0000000000 0 00. 00000000 0 ........ 000 00000 ...... 0 ......... 0. 0.0000000 00 0.0 0000000 0 0 ........... 0. 0000.000 000000000000 00000000000 .0 00000 0. .0 00000000000 00000000 0 00 0000000000 0 00 000000000 0 00000000000 1‘ NS‘NJ‘I I 000000000 00000000000000.0000 0000. ..... 0 ...... 0 000000 0 0 000.00 0.000000 0000000000 0 00000000000000000000000 .000 0.0.. ........ 000.000.00.000. 00.00000000000000000 00000 00. 00.00.00 00000000000000000000 00. 00000.00. 0 00000000 000 ....... 00.00.00.00000000000. ......... .0...000.0000.0.00 0 00000000000000 0 00000000 0 0. 000000000000000000000000000 0000000 0.0000000000000.000 0000000000000 0000....0... 0 ........... 0.00.0000 ...... 000000 00000000....00000000 0000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 00. ‘1‘-.. 1‘ ““““““““““““““““““ 00000 0.000 0000000000 0 0 ...... 0 000 0000000 000.00.00.00000000000000000000.. 000000.000. ..... 000.000.... ........... 0 000.000.000.00 00000000000 000.00.00.00. 000000000000000000000000000000000000 0.. 000000000 0000000 0 ........... 00.00.0000 000. .0000... 00000000000 000000000000... 00.000000. ....... .00 000000000 0 ....... 0 000000000 0.00.I.0000000000000000000000. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000 000.000.00.00000000000 0 00000000000000000000 0 0.0 0000000000 00 ..................................... .0 0 00000000000000000 0 000000000000000000 00000000000000 00.0.0.0. 00.000.00.00... .0 0 0 000000000000000000 0. .00. 0.000 ..................................... 0. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 NJT‘1IN‘NJI 000000.... 000000 . 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 .0000. 00000 00.00.00.0000000.00 00000000000000000 0 00000 00 .......... 000.000.00.000000000000000000000000.00000000. 00000000000000.000 ............. 0.0000000... 0000000000 00. 0000000000000... 0000000 0 000000000 00.000000000000000000. 0.00. ......... 0000.00.00. 00000000000000000000000 0 000000 00000000000000.000 00000 0.000 00000000 0 00000 0000000000000 00000000000 0.0.....00000000000...00000000000000.0000... 00000 000000000000000 0.0000 00000 00 000000 00 ....... 0.0.0.. .00000.00.00000.000000000000000000.0000 00000000 00.000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 00.00.0000 000000 000.000.000000.0000000000000000.0000.0 0000000000 000000 00.000.000.0000000000000000... ..... 0.00 .00.000..00000.00.00000000.0000.0000000000000000 ....... 00000000000000.000000 000000 .000.000.000.000000.00.0000. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000.0000... 00.0.. 00000 000.0000. 00000 0.000000 00000 00,000.0000000000 ItIOIOIIDOEDIDID00pD0D0I10I00D00000.000001000000000.00000 __ __ . a w w_ ._.. . . $33.55 342$ 22 3% SEE 855:5 535a zozoamhmz_ ozzaom 025.25 ozfiqom ozm:mozzozw 44bb0’00’b 0.00.00.00.00...0.00.10llq0‘I0II0I‘0‘IIIq 00.0000000000000000l0000.000000000000000 2252153 n.u.”.n.n.u.n.n.n.u.uon.n.n.u.n.n...uAA.”.u.H.n.u.u.n.u.u.u.n.u.n.u5.??? o 2 _ i_. Z: I N‘ “““ I 00000000000000...000000000000000000.0000...00.00.00.000 000000000000000...000.00.000.00...000.000.000.000. 0.00 0 00000 0 000000 02:22: 00.000.00.0000.000000000000000000..00000.00000000000000 ttDDDI'F’DDE’I’IIDDDDP’UIP00II’DDDD'D'ED’bDDFDD’ L________ 0 O O 0 ACTIVITIES 5.--Male dominated wildlife-oriented activities. 50 4 3 2 I 325.255 355... 024 m._<2 zmuzhmm mozmmmta pzmommm 'Fig. 31 In most general recreational and wildlife-oriented activities there was an even distribution of participants across grades. However, there were seven activities where the lower grades had significantly more participants than the higher ones (Table 8, Figure 6). Differences in participation were apparent across the urban-rural dimension, with rural residents partici- pating more than urban residents in many wildlife-oriented activities (Table 9, Figure 7). In six wildlife activities hunters participated more than non-hunters, and non-hunters were more active than anti-hunters (Table 10). Other activities where hunters had more participants than the other attitude groups included basketball, camping, and keeping a wild animal for a pet. Desires- Finally, students were asked to describe the kinds of things they desired for the future. The types of instruction desired by more than 50% of the people included classes in wildlife, boating, environmental education, camping, plants and fishing (Table 11). It was assumed that people already participating in these classes did so by their own choosing and were therefore included in the percentage of people desiring instructional activities. The same ranking of desires for instructional activities applies if the number of active participants are 32 m ea.mm m.m m.m e.m m.» o.o o.e meanness chem m mm.ma N.aa N.aa m.eH m.m~ H.em ~.em nonnnao ocHQEno ca me.em ~.HN m.mm oqmm H.Hm e.mm m.Hm Hacoeoob m am.mm o.cm m.am m.ae H.He H.me a.mm whoonsH sconce OH om.ooa e.mm «.mm m.ae e.em o.Hm H.om Hanouwom m mm.oa m.mc o.oe e.oe a.me m.me m.oe ocasnab oH ae.maa N.Nm c.mo o.ae m.ee m.mm e.om oceaosoam NH AH ed a. m e mp x >ua>apofi m mpmuo . . . .mmpmum numawzu smsounu nucm>mm map CH mucmmH0fluumm mo Hones: one ca Ame. v my mmocmumwwwp WCmUHMchHm muwz mumnu mumsz meuH>Hpo,b”””’tEthE”hP”I’”’t’-’r’ 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 .......... .00 0000000 .00 00000 0. 000‘ 00000000 .0. 000000000 000.0 0.0 00000000 0.000.0000...0000 0.00000000000000000000000000000... 0.0. 00.0 00000000 0.00 0 0.....“000000000000.000.000.00000.000000000000000. 0000000 0000.00.00... 0000.000000.00.00.000000000000 .0. 00. 0 Pilgéll 13:16:13 m w m m 2 2 I 324E255 mo ._.zmomma 43.8. GRADES Fig. 6.--Percentage of recreational participants by grade. 34 o mm.ea e.m o.m m.m o.m m.m m.m N.m acacooos owes use: o om.mm e.m~ m.mm o.ea m.ea o.HH m.ea e.o nomnnao owaaoaas rooe NH om.oem m.mm N.Hm m.mm o.oH o.mH m.HH e.e ocaaaooszocm use: . . . . . . . . coflosnnmca o co mm r em m mm m em m be m me o as o e oneness xooe o Hm.mo H.mm e.mm m.mm o.om m.mm H.om m.o ceases: use: . . . . . . . . owaaoaas o Ho om m mm m as a mm m cm 6 me e me o oe sow sooa on scram . . . . . . . . cheeses: o co mm a so A Ho m mm m mm e an m me m we won sooH on e>owo s s 0.6““ s a... 6%. 636 who sums 6% we as a m s o as m as m. .c sua>ano< OUCOUHMOM MO MORAN .mmwum Hows“ can scan: Eoum mucmm IAUfluumm mo Hones: ecu CH Amo. v mv moocmquMHU DCMUHMchflm mums muonu muons moHuH>Huomll.m magma 35 250 O O O O 0 5 2 I 32316.55 mo pzmummm m>_.—<.52:o I50 ._._u ._.EZm CG 2282 >.:o moms RESIDENCE 7.--Percentage of participants in recreational and Fig. educational activities by area of residence. 36 m mm.mmH o.ma v.va n.mm mcflaflnoezocm v mm.mom .m.H H.h m.mw COADUSHumcH mcflwcdm . . . . owHHUHHB 6 cm me m es m es 5 me now rooa on ashram e mm.mma H.om m.ce o.mc. meodmsa moanoumo . . . . . mmeapaflz v Hm mmH m me m cm m on MOM xooH on mcfl>fluo v nm.moma m. a.m o.mm mcflucsm a mH.HaH m.em m.mo m.ma coaches up mx muoucsmIHDC¢ muoucsmucoz mumucsm >DH>HDU¢ .mmsonm HUUCSSIflucm one .kucsnucoc .Hmucss CH mucmmfiofluumm mo Hones: mnu CH Amo. v Q? mmocoHOMMHp ucmoflmacmflm mums wumnu meQB moHuH>Huo¢II.oa magma 37 Table ll.—-Types of instruction desired by young people. _ .._ __. -.. - __—._. . Percent of people who Instruction participate or would like to participate Wildlife classes V 71.1 Boating instruction 67.3' Environmental education 65.3 Camping classes 59.8 Plant classes 59.6 Fishing instruction 50.6 Hunting instruction 36.6 Bird watching group 31.2 eliminated, with the exception of hunting instruction which ranks below bird watching.4 At the top of the list of the kinds of things young people thought there should be more of were areas for watching wildlife, nature centers, and guided nature walks (Table 12). Of the eight items where young people expressed their desires for the future, males outnumbered females in only one category, desiring more areas for hunting. Females expressed a greater demand than males for various types of recreational areas and information centers (Table 13). Differences in desires between urban and rural residents were apparent in only two categories. More 38 Table 12.--Things that young people want more of. Percent who think DGSlre there should be more Areas for watching wildlife 77.8 Nature centers 73.2 Guided nature walks 70.7 City Parks _ 62.5 Recreational areas where motor 60.5 vehicles are prohibited Recreational areas where hunting 59.5 is prohibited Booklets about wildlife 52.8 Areas for hunting 15.2 Table l3.--Desires for recreational areas and environ- mental education where there were significant differences (p < .05) in the responses of males and females. P1212“ £2121? .2 .. éiigiiggr watChing 75.4 85.4 35.13 2 Nature centers 74.5 81.0 17.36 2 Guided nature walks 71.2 82.7‘ 41.08 2 City parks 59.5 69.5 24.14 2 Recreational areas where hunting is 48.9 72.3 148.25 2 prohibited Areas for hunting 26.6 5.6 256.90 2 39 rural residents wanted more hunting areas (x2 = 66.07,. df = 12, p < .05), while a greater proportion of urban residents wanted more city parks (x2 = 24.42, df = 12, p < .05). As would be expected, of those people desiring more hunting areas, hunters represented the greatest number (x2 = 820.94, df = 8, p < .05), and anti-hunters outnumbered the other attitude groups in desiring more areas where hunting is prohibited (x2 = 235.39, df = 8, p <--05). A greater number of anti-hunters and non-hunters against sport hunting wanted more guided nature walks (x2 = 46.00, df = 8, p < .05) and significantly more anti- hunters desired more booklets about wildlife (x2 = 13.22, df = 4, p < .05). Significant differences between the grades were apparent in one category. Each successive grade, between 7 and 12, had more students who thought there should be more recreational areas where motorized vehicles are pro- hibited (x2 = 48.84, df = 10, p < .05). DISCUSSION Do young people, whether they be anti—hunters or hunters, urban or rural residents, males or females, have a common set of attitudes and beliefs about wildlife? Does a person's background influence his or her behaviors and attitudes toward wildlife? Are the subjects being taught in public schools affecting the way young people think of wildlife? Do parents and the media influence young people's interest in wildlife? Do young people have similar desires for environmental education and recreation areas or do they differ with the different types of recreationists? These were some of the questions addressed in the study of Michigan's young people. To identify some of the answers to these questions, young people's attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, desires and background characteristics were examined. Distin- guishing between a person's stated attitudes and actual behavior patterns was not the sole purpose of having five separate categories of questionnaire items. A more important objective was to put the pieces together to be able to understand the position of today's youth regarding our country's wildlife. Certainly the limited number of 40 41 questions asked does not intend to cover the wide gamut of wildlife issues. However, the points touched upon have revealed some of the qualities young people value about wildlife. The responses of young people across the different grades, residence categories, sexes and attitude groups showed a number of areas of disagreement. Surprisingly though, there were many attitudes, activities and desires that were common to the various groups of young people. In discussing the results of this survey, the similarities in the population will be described first, followed by a discussion of the points of difference between the subsets of the sample of young people. All groups of young people felt it was important to protect or control wildlife because it is part of nature, because they enjoy watching wild animals, and because they want to learn about them (Table 3). A number of things can be seen from these reasons for protecting wildlife. First, young people are conscious that the animal they see in the woods is not divorced from its environment, but is an integral part of it. Further support for this assumption was indicated by young people's responses to the environmental science questions. The questions most people answered correctly dealt with the interdependence of the various components of an ecosystem (Table 5). It appears that young people are aware of some 42 of the possible effects a pollutant or disturbing influence has on an ecosystem. These responses may be an indication that the prominence of environmental issues in the news and/or the increase of environmental education classes in schools are having an impact on the attitudes of young people. - Secondly, all groups of young people thought wild? life was important for viewing purposes and a high per- centage of respondents (77.8%) indicated a desire for more recreational areas for watching wildlife. This is an aesthetic quality where an individual can derive pleasure merely by seeing an animal. The utilitarian qualities of wildlife, such as providing foOd or fur, are not valued by nearly as many people. Shaw (1974) says this shift from the utilitarian to the aesthetic values of wildlife may be a "process ofcultural evolution in response to the changes in the supply of the resource relative to human numbers." Whether this is indeed the reason for the shift in atti- tudes is debatable. Nevertheless, the fact remains that aesthetic qualities of wildlife are valued by the majority of all groups of young people. I All groups of young people also said they value wildlife because they want to learn about it. When asked about their desires for the future, all groups of young people indicated that they want more knowledge about wildlife. Over 70% of the respondents said there should 43 be more nature centers or guided nature walks (Table 12). The eagerness of young people for more types of environ- mental education can have wide ranging management impli— cations. Shaw (1974b) identified similar attitudes in the three adult groups he sampled. Members from the Michigan Supporters of Fund for Animals, Inc. (anti-hunters), the Michigan Audubon Society (non-hunters), and a sample of Michigan deer hunters "rated the aesthetic, existence and ecological values of wildlife as more important than its value in providing for hunting recreation." The most popular wildlife-related activity was fishing. The other wildlife-oriented pursuits that had large numbers of participants were all non-consumptive activities. Activities such as hunting and catching insects had few participants in comparison. Although both fishing and hunting are consumptive recreational activ- ities, more young people regarded fishing as an acceptable passtime. An Oregon wildlife preferences and activities survey (Aney and Cowan 1974) revealed similar findings in the adult population it sampled. Seventy-seven percent of the people sampled expressed some interest in fishing, whereas only 43% had some interest in hunting. Two questions, dealing with a young person's anthropomorphic feelings, were asked in an attempt to find out the reasoning behind this belief. When asked if 44 rabbits feel pain, 85% of the respondents agreed, whereas only 63% agreed that fish feel pain. More people attributed humanistic feelings to mammals than to fish. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that even people who are opposed to hunting, find fishing an acceptable sport and many partici- pate in it themselves. Those wildlife—oriented activities where there were small differences (less than 10%) or no significant differences between male and female participants were all non-consumptive activities. Conversely, many of the wildlife-oriented activities where there were differences in participation between males and females were consump- tive activities. Of the eleven male dominated wildlife activities, the five with the largest differences between male and female participants (12% - 45%) were activities involving hunting, fishing and catching insects. General recreational activities where there were no significant differences between male and female par- ticipants were individual as opposed to team activities. -Those activities where male participants largely out- numbered females (17% - 36%) were team sports and those ' with lesser differences (5% - 8%) were more individual leisure activities. Although there were several activities where there were more participants in the lower grades (Table 8), there were no significant differences in the number of 45 participants in grades seven through twelve for the majority of general recreational and wildlife—oriented activities. This is probably a good indication that the number of recreationists will remain fairly constant between the ages of twelve and eighteen; a point that should be kept in mind by resource managers when trying to predict the demands future recreationists will place on a resource. There were a number of differences in the back- ground characteristics, attitudes and behaviors between the respondents in the five attitude groups. However, in some areas the degree of similarity among the groups was noteworthy. To begin with, anti-hunters represented 27.9% of the sample, while non-hunters, anti—sport repre- sented 34.1%. Another 18.5% were meat hunters who were opposed to hunting for sport. All together, that accounts for 80.5% of the respondents who have committed themselves on their attitudes toward hunting. Although these three groups have a number of differences in their basic philos- ophies, the one thing all agreed upon is that hunting for fun is not acceptable. On the other hand, almost as many people, 76.2%, agreed that hunting for food was all right. The questionnaire instructions did not explain how a respondent was supposed to interpret the statements, "I approve of hunting for food," and "I approve of hunting for fun." Consequently, the reasoning behind this 46 overwhelming disapproval of hunting for fun is open to a number of interpretations. Hunting for food and for fun have the same end result, the death of an animal. One of the sources of objection to hunting for fun may be about an individual's motives before the hunt. Most of the respondents would probably approve if a person's primary motive was to kill an animal for food, but disapproveif‘ the primary motive was to kill an animal for personal pleasure. Another possibility, is that a reSpondent was referring to the methods an individual uses when hunting. A respondent may have thought that if a person hunts for fun, he or she just goes about shooting at any animal in sight just for the 'fun' of it. This conclusion would not gain much approval to say the least. Whether an individual interpreted these two state- ments from the standpoint of hunting motives or methods cannot be determined. Neither Can subtleties, such as food hunting for subsistence or food hunting for the pleasure of the sport be differentiated. There have been a few studies (Hendee and Potter, 1976, list 5) that have examined some of the reasons behind hunting opposition. Although the reasons for the anti-hunting sentiment expressed by young people cannot be determined from the scope of this study, resource managers should be aware of young people's attitudes, and determine the course of action needed to deal with them. 47 The greatest contrasts in attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, desires and background characteristics appeared when comparing the different groups of young people along the hunter-anti-hunter dimension. The respondents who comprised the hunter attitude groups had a number of things in common, as did those who were anti—hunters. The large majority of hunters were male (91.4%), and 59.9% came from rural areas. Hendee and Potter (1976) noted that six out of seven studies found that a majority of hunters spent part of their childhoods in rural areas. However, data from sixteen studies indicated that hunting is not limited to rural residents. Hunting has traditionally been a male dominated activity (Schole 1973) and this study did not indicate otherwise. Females (79.3%) and people from urban and suburban areas (68.9%) accounted for the greatest proportion of anti-hunters. Applegate (1973, 1975) found that hunting Opposition was associated with urban resi- dence in the New Jersey residents he sampled. Males, rural residents and hunters all had more participants (than other groups in their respective cate- gories) in consumptive wildlife activities. They also had a greater proportion of people who had high environ- mental knoWledge scale scores. A greater percentage of males and hunters expressed low degrees of anthropomor- phism and valued the utilitarian qualities of wildlife. 48 It makes sense that people who hunt would nOt be as anthropomorphic as people opposed to hunting, would participate more in other types of consumptive wildlife activities, be more knowledgeable about the animals they hunt and appreciate the utilitarian qualities of wildlife. The interesting thing however, is that even though these differences between males and females, hunters and anti- hunters, and urban and rural residents exist, when young people were asked about their desires for the future there was overwhelming agreement amongst all groups. The things most people wanted more of were recreational areas for watching wildlife, nature centers and guided nature Walks. These desires show that all groups of young people want more educational opportunities and more on-the-site educational facilities, as well as additional areas for the non-consumptive recreationist. The thing the smallest number of people desired was more areas for hunting. If resource managers are to alter some of the misconceptions people have about wildlife, they must first identify the problem areas and then determine the best ways to get a new message across. In this study, the .environmental science questions most frequently answered incorrectly dealt with the effect of fire on wildlife and the renewability of various natural resources (Table 5). These responses may be an indication that the Smokey the Bear concept has been oversold to the point of creating 49 false impressions in young people. It seems that the media, television in particular, has had a strong effect on young people's interest in wildlife as they themselves have indicated (Appendix I, Question 9). The Oregon wildlife preferences and activities survey (Aney and Cowan 1974) found that television was the most important source of information about wildlife for the adult popu- lation it sampled. Resource managers should be aware of the possible use of television as an instructional device and of the impact it has on wildlife attitudes. CONCLUSIONS The responses of young people in three categories: (1) attitudes toward wildlife, (2) knowledge of environ- mental science, and (3) desires for the future have expressed some common themes. Young people appreciate the aesthetic more than the utilitarian qualities of wildlife. They recognize the interdependence of wildlife with their environment, and they want to learn more about wild animals and the habitats in which they live. The largest group of respondents were non-hunters against sport hunting. Young people were active in general recre- ational and wildlife-oriented activities and wanted instruction in various types of outdoor recreational activities. It is apparent that young people are more than willing to learn about wildlife and the environment. They have indicated their areas of prime interest and schools and wildlife agencies should take advantage of this interest by implementing new educational programs and research. There are ways to inform the public to try and change some of the misconceptions still held by many people. In addition to classes offered through local 50 51 schools, young people can be taught by community groups and concerned individuals. Television was indicated as having the greatest influence on wildlife interests and could be put to use by organizations other than Disney productions. Instead of using Smokey the Bear solely to help prevent forest fires, he might also be used to explain _some of the positive effects of controlled fires for wildlife habitats. In addition, he or another symbolic character could be created to disseminate information- about wildlife and the environment. The high demand for nature centers and guided‘ nature walks indicates that on-the-site educational facilities would be well utilized. Guided tours on state land such as those offered in national parks, would be one way to make direct contact with the public. The peak season for several uses of public lands coincides with the summer vacations of college students. State agencies, in cooperation with colleges and universities, could reach large numbers of recreationists by employing college stu- dents as guides in state parks and forests. The state would be educating the public and not need to spend large sums of money if college credit were offered to the stu- dent guides in place of or in addition to a salary. The Youth Conservation Corps has provided a way for young people to have direct field experience in a learning situation. This program should be continued and 52 expanded and others like it should be instituted by private community groups to reach local populations of young people. The majority of young people, regardless of their background, participated in non—consumptive wildlife activities and in fishing. And though 30.8% were hunters, only 15.2% felt a need for more hunting areas. If the activity patterns of today's young people remain fairly constant over the next few years they can have strong management implications. The public the resource manager will be serving is going to be demanding more kinds of areas for the non—consumptive recreationist. Faced with the prospect of increasing public demand and decreasing natural resources the resource manager will have to set priorities to provide for the greatest public benefit. However, it is not solely up to the resource manager to provide facilities for non-consumptive users. The public must be willing to take a more active role in resource planning and be willing to financially support their demands. The organization and financial backing of sportsmen have traditionally determined the objectives of wildlife agencies and the needs of sportsmen should con- tinue to be met. The conflicts between the different types of recreationists can no longer be ignored. However, it should be recognized that despite differences, the various 53 types of recreationists have many common desires. The skills of the researcher and resource manager are needed respectively to identify these desires and to effect some of the necessary changes in management policy. The time is ripe for new management programs and young people are more than ready for them. LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CITED Aney, W. W., and C. D. Cowan. 1974. Oregon wildlife preferences and activities survey. Oregon Wild- life Commission. Corvallis. 23 pp. Applegate, J. E. 1973. Some factors associated with attitude toward deer hunting in New Jersey resi- dents. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 38:267—273. . 1975. Attitudes toward deer hunting in New Jersey: A second look. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 3(1): 3-6. Bevins, M. I., R. S. Bond, T. J. Corcoran, K. D. McIntosh, and R. J. McNeil. 1968. Characteristics of hunters and fishermen in six Northeastern states. Northeast Reg. Res. Publ., University of Vermont. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 656. Burch, W. R., Jr., and W. D. Wenger, Jr. 1967. The social characteristics of participants in three styles of family camping. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Res. Pap. PNW-48. Hendee, J. C. 1969. Rural-urban differences reflected in outdoor recreation participation. Jour. of Leisure Res. 1:333-341. Hendee, J. C., and D. R. Potter. 1971. Human behavior and wildlife management: Needed research. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 36:383-396. . 1976. Hunters and hunting: Management impli- cations of research. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-9:137-16l. Kellert, S. R. 1976. Perceptions of animals in American society. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 41: 533-546. ‘ Kish, L. 1965. Survey Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 643 pp. 54 55 Klessig, L. L. 1970. Hunting_in Wisconsin: Initiation, desertion, activity patterns, and attitudes as influenced by social class and residence. M.S. Thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 152 pp. Lucas, R. C. 1964. Wilderness perception and use: The example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Nat. Resour. Jour. 3(1):394-411. Maloney, M. P., and M. P. Ward. 1973. Ecology: Let's hear from the people. An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Amer. Psych. 28:583-586. Michigan Education Directory. 1975. Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide 1975-76. Michigan State Board of Education. 1977. Michigan Drop- out Statistics 1974—75. (Unpublished adjusted membership.) Sapora, A. V. 1966. Ascertaining interests for recre- ation program planning. Pages 94—105 in Recre- ation Research. Natl. Recreation and Park Assoc., New York. Schole, B. J. 1973. A literature review on character- istics of hunters. Col. Div. of Wildl. Spec. Rep. No. 33. 15 pp. Schole, B. J., F. Glover, D. Sjogren, and E. Decker. 1973. Colorado hunter behavior, attitudes and philosophies. Pages 42-50 in J. C. Hendee and C. Schoenfeld, eds., Human dimensions in wildlife programs. Wildl. Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C. Shaw, W. W. 1974a. Meanings of wildlife for Americans: Contemporary attitudes and social trends. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 39:151-155. . 1974b. Sociological and psychological deter- minants of attitudes toward hunting. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1976. The non-consumptive uses and values of wildlife at selected locations in Southern Arizona. Research proposal to the University of Arizona Agric. Exp. Stn. 13 pp. Wagar, J. A. 1966. Quality in outdoor recreation. Trends in Parks and Recreation 3(3):9-12. 56 Wagar, J. A. 1974. Recreational carrying capacity recon- sidered. Forestry 72(5):274-278. Zagata, M. D. 1976. The traumatized professional: Whose responsibility to reduce the trauma? Midwest Fish and Wildl. Conf. 38. 6 pp. Typescript. APPENDICES APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES OF SEVENTH THROUGH TWELFTH GRADERS .mumo mo mmeHmcd Hops: COHuowm mpocuoz ecu CH Umchmem mH mmHocwsqoum poumsflpm mo coHumusmeoo one .mmHuomOumo wmcommou HHm How poms mH wocosqouw poumsflpm ones owchHas soon: NH N w H m 0m 0 m mmH m we mMHH v Hv mum on news onoom omsmoom z w z w z w z w z w z mama COmmwu combos pom Bocx u.coo COmmou cemmou OCHmmHz own >Ho> U000 poom >Hm> "OMHHUHHB mCHHHouucoo Ho OGHuoououm How one mCOmmwu mmmnu xcHnu :0» Op ucmuuomEH 30: .m I I I I | U I I I I I I I ' I I l I I I l l | i l I! | I I I I I | I | U I I U I I l I I I I I I I l mmmoémw mBmHMZB ZODOMmB mBZm>mm ho mmmZOmmmm mmHGZZOHBWMDO H xHQmemfl vm N.OH Hmm_ m.mv mNOH m.vv mOOH musumc usonm E:emH :00 H om . . . panoum MH OMHHOHHB mm H oH 0mm m we HwOH H me who Bocx ou oxHH umzm H mwsmoom mHH 0.0m vowH m.mH NOm H.o mmH cam now was: :00 H 0m om v.bh mth H.hH mmm v.m mNH boom How was: cmo H Om me o.e ooH m.em momH m.mm omm owHHcHHs ocHsouns moHso H enamoom z w 2 w z w z numb qummHz COmmmu COmOOH COmmou ucmuuomEH m #02 ucmuuomEH Ce >HO> m «so» on ucmuuomEH mH OMHHUHH3 >53 mCOmmmu mum mmoau mo £0H£3 .m 00 dump mchmHz m. 0H mcoz m.Hm .mmn mHuuHH 4 m.bm mmmH uoH d rm 2 NOMHHOHHs CH o>mc so» op umwnoucH £058 30: .Hmumcmo CH .H hv h.HN mom N.m© NQVH N.mH Hmm mmocuOUHHB 0:» CH hHwCOH Hmmm mHmEHcm UHHZ 58 Om v.0m mmm ®.Nm mmm o.mv mHHH mcoHuom uHmnu anonm xcHnu mHmEHC¢ Hm H.NH vmm m.m no o.mm ommH CHmm Hmmm mannmm mH o.mv OHoH H.Nm mHm m.vm mHm m>oH CH HHMM mHMEHcm UHHB umoz z w z w z w z mumw @CHmmHE Bocx u.coo mmu@MmHo mmumd "OCH3OHHOH map nuHB wmuommflw no wmumm 50> HH xumsu mmmmHm .v . . . . . mummm wn mm 5 mm mmm H mm mmm 0 5H mom 5 m mom m m mm :mo mmHHwHHB mmsmumm wcsoum mH 5H o.m mv n.0H Hmm m.mH mum v.mm mmmH o.mH Hmv QHHHUHHB Bocx Op ucmz umsfl mHmomm mwsmumm . . . . . UOOH mmUH> mm N o mvH m 0N NNq o NN mNm H mm Now q NH NNN -oum mHHHwHHz mmsmomm mNHHnHHz umnuo mm m.© me v.mH vmv m.>m mmm m.mm nmo H.m MHN ou msouwmcmv m9 cmo mMHHUHHz mEom mmsmumm musumc mo puma NH H. N N. mH m.N No ¢.NN. Hmm N.NN VHNH mH mHHHcHHz mmsmomm . . . . . mmHHwHHz usonm cummH mH N v m H Hm H o NHH m Nv @00H m av ooHH 0» news mHmomm mmsmowm . . . . . mmHHoHHs pas: 0N H HN Nov m 0N «Ho 0 NH NHv H NN ovm m HH mNN ou “an: mHmomm mmsmowm Z w 2 w z w 2 w 2 w Z Gumfl Gommwh COmme Umm 3OC¥ U . COO Gommmh COmMQH @CHmmHz van >uw> 0000 @00m mum> UmscHucoo .m 59 HOH mumw ochmHz 0.05 OMNH OZ O.HN NOV mm» H z mamchUHz mo muumm :H .mxosn mm HHwB mm .mc3mm Ucm mwow mEOm poocm ou >HMmmmum: mH uH xaHnu 50> OO .ummu mmmHumHucm mcHucsn usonm coHcho Mao» mxHH UHSOB m3 .0 pass on mHmomm umnuo Mow MO m.pH xchu H MO mH COOM mH H.v mm A m.m NON m.OH 0mm m.O© mHvH m.mH mum How OCHUCSS MCHSU H . . . . . MO mH cam MH n mv vOOH m Hm mmn m m va v «H mmm m m mm Mom OCHucss xcHsu H 3mH mnu HH O.mH Nmm H.Om anH O.NH ham O.HH mum n.OH Nmm umCHmmm mn UHdonm mcHuasn HHm xcHnu H z w z w z w. 2 w 2 m. Z mama mmummmHO mmHOMmHO 3ocx u.c0O mmuO< mwumm mchmHS HHmcouum >Hmcouum .mHmeHcm OCHucsc usonm mem 50% 30; m5 HHmu mmmmHm .m mH «.HH noN N.mm wmmH «.oN NH» msoHoH> xooH mmHomm mN H.0N 0H0 o.HH .mmN m.No movH chm Hmmm smHm z N z m z w z { mumm OchmHz Bocx u.coo mmuwmmHO mmumm .UmscHucou .v 6O Om O.m mm O.mm Ohm m.m© thH mMHHUHH3 Umh mm m.Nm OVMH N.vH MVM m.>m Hvo _ OCHuC5C 0C0: mN N.NH moN m.vH mvm m.HN mNoH mcHanm new; mH 0.0m HNHH m.o NvH m.mv ONOH mmouw uo muommCH uCO5mu z w z w Z w 2 mum0 OCHmmHz on qu3 ou mxHH UH503 umm> uwmm 0C0 CH u.C0@ ~um>wz 550 .uw>0z mHCu 0Com m>mm mmhmH CH mmHUH>Huom mmwnu mo comm 06 50> UHU mmEHu >CmE 303 .m NN H.mm NmNH N.ON NHN N.oH mmN ocHnHu Humnmmuog ucmz mv m.m Hm N.NN mmm o.NN omoH mcHHoNoHn ucmz Hm N.om NON N.Nv mmm N.NN mmo HHmnuoom nmNmHm NN N.NN mHm N.Nm mNm N.NN Nmo . mchemo new: @N m.HN NHN H.mv NooH H.mN omm mcHumon new: mN N.NN mmo N.mv NmOH m.mN mom chcmu UmNmHN NN H.NH NmN m.mq HNHH m.mm «No HHmnumxmmn omNmHm om m.mm ONON N.N omH N.N mN ocHme Ngussoonmmouu puma mm N.Nm NON .N.Nv QNOH H.0N mow mcHng acmz NN 0.0m NoHH 0.0m NHN N.NH omv NCHHHnoezocm puma NN N.N mmH m.oq mmoH N.vv NNOH HHmnmmmn no HHmnumom wmmem m o.m NHH N.NN mmo N.Nm mmmH mcHastm new: 2 w z w z w z mumw OCHmmHz umm> ummm mcu CH uoz moEHumEOm uoH a .EmCu 0H0 50> Cmumo 30: UCM “00> ummm 0:» CH mmHuH>Huum mmmnu OCOO m>mn 50> HH m5 HHmu wmmmHm .h 61 BN m.NH HOm m.mm NNm ©.>v NHHH ECHOOHQ >6 d Om O.>m vow n.0m mNm m.MN mvm mmMHU HOOCUm d mN ¢.mN mmw m.Nv HOOH N.NN bvo umnummu d Nm m.HN HNOH v.MH NHm N.vH Nvm umwme 05H0 H0 u500m d mm O.®N vow n.5v OVOH m.mN Nmo UcmHHm < NH m.®m mmm ©.mw mNOH H.ON th mV>HumHmH d HH m.®H mwm >.mv VVHH m.vm mHm . . ucmumm a Z w 2 M Z w Z wumw OCHmmHz HHm um uoz mHuuHH m uoH C meHHUHHz CH ummumuCH u50> U00C05HHCH meomm 0C0 mOCHCu mmmsu m>mn 5058 30m .m IIIII'IIIIIII-[I'llIllll.I'llIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllilllillll NN H.> m®H h.©N VNO m.@© HmmH OON mnu Ou “C03 0MHHHVHHB NH O.N «OH m.Hv mmm N.Hm mONH 50m xooH ou mxHC m mom quz m m.N wNH m.mm NmNH N.NN mHm mNHHoHHz ammumouonm ou vaue mHHHuHHz Com xooH on vH O.N OOH m.Om Nmm O.mm mOMH x05uu Ho mac 0 CH m>HHU m HON quz mH O.MH ONm m.NN mmO m.mm OOMH wwHHUHH3 u5onm.x009 m Ummm ON m.H Hv O.H mv m.Om OmNN meHHVHH3 H.509“.v 30£m >9 m Umnoumz OH m.m va m.NN mNm N.OO NNOH 0H>08 mMHHUHH3 m 0a Usz MN m.Hv NNO N.mm mmm m.NN NNm uwm 0 How HMEHCm UHH3 m ummm HOCHCUuMSUHHQ "mHmmewv HH N.O NmH H.NN mHm N.HN mNOH mmHHUHHB Umnuumz Z w 2 w z w z mumn OCHmmHz ou Usz ou mxHH UH503 Hmm> ummm 0:» CH u.C0@ .Hm>mz 950 .um>mz mHnu 0:00 m>mm .Um5CHuCOU .m 62 OH MN VM v Z mumO OCHmmHz N.Nv OOHH m.mH MNm N.ON OmOH N.v Om O.vH Ovm N.Nv HHHH m.O OHN O z mmumu Cummw 30H 30Cx u.COO v.Hv HNm v.HH OON m>ms mmumu OCHOmwun COHC CUHz mmHummm . _ . mCOHumH5m0m N ON OmOH O m OMH HmEHCm uomwmm 50C mmov umanmc m0 mmOH . . Conmwuo5m umeOO CH Hmmmmm CUHCS m OH HON m HH OON mmmuu umuHm 0C» mum mwmuu UCmumHouCH N.mm mmHN O.N NO mquHm uommmm uOC mmOO C0Hu5HH0m HHC . . UCmEConH>Cm mzu C0 O OH va v OO mOmH uommwm Cm mm: mwow C0mumm m OCHCU>Hw>m OHMEHCM m.O NmH N.mv mOOH m0 quE5C CHmuuwo m uuomm5m 0p OCMH 050 m0 >uHHHnm OCH mH >uH0mmmo OCH>HHm0 was N.MN Ovm O.NO HOmH mOHHOHH3 mom can m>m3Hm mum meHm ummuom m z O z mmuvmmHo wwuo¢ .OH .OH .OH .MH .NH .HH .OH .muCOEmumum OCHBOHHOO mCu nuHB mmumamHO H0 mmuvm 50> OH m5 HHmu mmmmHm OH O.mN NmNH mm 0.0N OOO vm N.mm OMO NH H.HN mmv Z w z mumw OCHmmHE HHm um uoz «.NH OOV O.N ONH n5H0.¢ 0.0w NNOH m.vN NOm mCHNMOME no Hmmmmmsz d m.ov mmm v.MN mvm A Axoon m H.v¢ mmOH O.vm NHO mH>OE d M Z M Z OHUUHH d UOH < .UOSCHUCOU .m 63 HH0m 0C5 SOHO Hmumz CHmuno mquHm OH M.Om OOMH N.OH MMM m.ON HNO CUHCB >0 mmwooum 0:0 mH CoHumuHmmCmuB .ON MN 0.00 ONOH 0.0 NOH O.NN MNm Emum>m000 cm CO50u£u OmH0>00u 00 CO0 >Oumcm .MN OH O.NN mmO H.HN mOv O.Hm OOHH mquHm CmmuO nqu CHOmn mCHmsu OOOO HH< .NN . . . mmuw 08mm 035 CH mmHomam umsuo Co NH O MH OOM O ON MNOH H N OOH uommmm 0C mm: meowmm 0C0 m0 mmmmuoCH Cd .HN ON v.ON ONO 0.0v mOOH N.NM OON 00u50m0u mHQm3wC0u m mH OOHHOHHB .ON quEmOMCmE mmHHOHH3 NH N.NN OON N.NN mmm O.NN «NOH Ho puma m NHucmuuso mH mcHucs: cmsounu V mmHHoHHz mo msHmusm Hmzccm mg» mcHHHHx .NH HH 0.0 NOH O.vO OOOH N.O mOH mmomu5m 0C w>mc OCm mummm mum muommCH .OH Z mm Z N Z O Z mumO OCHmmHz 30Cx u.Coo mmuOmmHo mman OM mumu OCHmmHz O.M OO 30Cx u.C0© H o.HO NNHH NHmmHz mm: 09 O.¢M OOO 0>mw 09 N Z mcmme COHUQNKmeCOU UHO3 0E“ .05 09 .NH 64 m>HH 03 mums: OCOH OCm umum3 .HHm msu mH N.OM OHO H.OO OOO M.ON MOm u500m CummH 50> muwsz mommmHo HMUCmECouH>Cm A mHmEHCm OH 0.0N NNO N.Om HNNH 0.0H mOM OHH3 u500m CummH 50> mums3 mmmmMHo mHHHOHHz OH O.MO NOOH 0.0H ONM m.ON HOO C0H505uumCH OCHuC5m mUCmHm OHH3 MN 0.00 OOO N.OM OHO m.ON ONO OCM mmmnu u50£m CHmmH 50> 0Hm£3 mmmOMHo UCMHO ON 0.00 OmHH M.ON MOO M.NN MNm CoHu05uumCH OCHCmHm MN N.NM mON O.HO OmO M.ON OHO C0Hu05uuwCH OCHumom . .oum .mquu m5 ON N.OO HOO N.NM NOO N.NN OHm umm .mouHm mxme ou CummH 50> 0Hw£3 mmmmmHu OCHmEmU mH m.mo NHOH m.mN moo N.m NNH Csoum mcHnoumz cuHm Z w Z w Z w 2 mumv OCHmmHz UH CH mama 0n waH OH503 H 550 uH CH IHoHunwm u.COU H .mummHoHuumm u.C0O H mummHoHuumm H .>uHC5EEOU u50> CH mmHuH>Huom mmmnu m0 >Cm CH OmummHoHuumm m>mg 50> OH m5 HHmu mmmmHm .ON 65 mNHHuHHz usonm Hm N.O mHN O.H Om M.Om NOO O.Nm HMNH mmHUHUHm HO muonOOO NN O.M NO O.N . OO N.HM ONN O.NO OOOH mxumm >uHU Om N.O OOH N.H NN 0.0H NOO N.mN NONH uHmH> Ou muwucmo 0H5umz Hm m.O OOH O.H mO 0.0H OOO N.ON OOOH mxHOS ®H5umC UmUH5U OM O.m NO m.H mm 0.0H HOm O.NN OHOH OOHHUHH3.OCH£UUOB HOO Omaha Om O.M HO M.OM HNO 0.00 HNOH N.OH mmm OCHuC5£ How mmmufi mm O.N NO H.OH ONm m.mN OOm m.Om mOmH COBOHHO uOC mH OCHuC5£ ®Hw£3 mmmHm HMCOHUMQHUOM OOBOHHO uOC mum mmHHQOE . . . . I30Cm OCm mmH0>0H0uOE .mumo ON O O NHH O NH HON N NN OHO O OO OHOH mm n05m mmHoHnw> OwNHuouOE mumz3 mmmum HMCOHuwmuomm z w z w z w z w z mumv mumo mme wn CO50CO OHOE wn OCHmmHZ u.C0O H OH50Cm mumne mum mumne OH50£m muwne mmOCHnu mmmsu m0 Como u50£m xCHCu 50> 0O umgz .ON 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 66 Does a member of your family hunt? Yes No Missing data Have you ever shot a firearm? (rifle, pistol, etc.) Yes No Missing data Please tell us if you have hunted I haven't hunted, and I don't plan to I haven't hunted, but I plan to I have hunted, and I plan to hunt again I have hunted, but I quit Missing data Did you have a Michigan hunting license in 1975? Yes NO Missing data Did you have a hunting license from any other state in 1975? Yes No Missing data Did you actually hunt in Michigan in 1975? Yes NO Missing data N % 1777 78.4 490 21.6 95 1413 63.3 819 36.7 130 1302 56.3 267 11.5 617 _26.7 128 5.5 48 485 37.4 813 62.6 1064 37 3.0 1196 97.0 1129 588 46.4 680 53.6 1094 33. 34. 35. 36. 67 What is your age? 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Missing data What grade are you in? 7 8 9 10 ll 12 Missing data What is your sex? Male Female Missing data Which best describes the place you live now? Large city (more than 500,000) Medium City (100,000 to 500,000) Suburb of a medium or large city Small city (25,000 to 100,000) Small town or village Farm Rural area other than a farm Missing data N % 1 .1 118 5.1 379 16.3 414 17.9 469 20.2 452 19.5 328 14.1 152 .6.6 5 .2 44 371 16.0 399 17.2 439 18.9 472 20.3 358 15.4 282 12.1 41 1076 46.6 1234 53.4 52 125 5.7 234 10.6 440 19.9 401 18.1 582 26.3 188 8.5 242 10.9 150 37. 38. 39. 40. 68 Which best describes the building where you live? A one family house A two family house or duplex Row-house or townhouse A small apartment house A large apartment house Other Missing data With whom do you live? Mother Father Both mother and father Other Missing data (up to 8 families) (more than 8 families) Do you have any brothers and sisters? Yes No Missing data Number of people with brothers Number of people with sisters What is your race or ethnic group? (optional) Caucasian (white) Black American American Indian Chicano Other Missing data N % 1973 88.4 126 5.6 45 2.0 11 .5 13 .6 63 2.8 131 280 12.9 48 2.2 1806 82.9 44 2.0 184 2227 97.4 60 2.6 75 1855 1818 2050 91.1 117 5.2 36 1.6 24 1.1 23 1.0 112 APPENDIX II LETTERS OF PERMISSION REQUEST FOR STUDENT SAMPLE SENT TO SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS APPENDIX II LETTERS OF PERMISSION REQUEST FOR STUDENT SAMPLE SENT TO SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS State of Michigan William G. Milliken, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Howard A. Tanner, Director 1 am a graduate student at Michigan State Univer- sity and am beginning a survey that will be used as a thesis for a graduate degree. The survey will examine the participation of young people in various wildlife oriented activities, their attitudes toward hunting and non-hunting uses of wildlife, and the value of wildlife to them. Various factors such as family background, urban or rural residence, peer group affiliations, education, and outdoor experience will also be studied. These characteristics will then be correlated with an individual's behavior and his or her attitudes toward wildlife. The information gained from this study will enable prediction of the future needs and demands of today's youth. This knowledge will be invaluable to wildlife administrators in planning future management programs as well as to schools and communities in establishing environ— mental education classes. By using methods suggested by the U.S. Census Bureau, your school district was selected to represent one area of the state. The responses of a number of students in your school district On a questionnaire will be combined with those of students in other districts. It is very important that we be able to contact stu- dents from your district in grades seven through twelve 69 70 so that a truly representative sample for the state is obtained. The only information needed is the name, address, and grade level of the students. I realize this appears to be a large task, but to reduce the effort there are two ways the sample can be chosen and two ways for the ques- tionnaires to be distributed. Would you please select the procedure that you feel is most suitable. A Department of Natural Resources employee can come to your office to choose the sample or I can mail you the sampling procedure for your office to make the selection. The questionnaires can be delivered to you for your office to distribute (a DNR employee would personally bring the questionnaires and collect them after they have been completed), or I can distribute the questionnaires if a list of the students' names and addresses is pro- vided. All questionnaire responses will be held in con- fidence and only the overall survey results will be pub- lished. On the enclosed form please indicate the procedures you feel are workable for your school district. If you would like further information about this project I would be most happy to discuss it with you. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Gerri Pomerantz Graduate Student Assistant FOREST WILDLIFE RESEARCH 71 State of Michigan DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Lansing, Michigan 48902 Dear Educator: The Curriculum Division of the Michigan Department of Education has reviewed Ms. Pomerantz's questionnaire about the attitudes of young people toward wildlife and her proposed method of analysis. This research will be of great service to us in aiding the development of environmental education programs. At present, the Michigan Environmental Education Referent Committee (MEERC) is formulating curriculum objectives for environmental education classes in grades kindergarten through twelve. An indication of the wild- life interests and levels of understanding of Michigan students would be extremely useful to the MEERC. I would personally like to encourage you to support Ms. Pomerantz's efforts and to cooperate with her in any way you can. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Jack Kammeraad Science and Environmental Specialist 72 State of Michigan William G. Milliken, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Stevens T. Mason Building, Lansing, Michigan 48926 Howard A. Tanner, Director February 25, 1976 Dear Sir: The Office of Planning Services has reviewed Mrs. Pomerantz's proposed thesis "Wildlife and Michigan's Young People" and find it to be a promising study. The information gained will, no doubt, be most helpful to the Department of Natural Resources in its program and policy planning process. We support the efforts of Mrs. Pomerantz and her research advisor, Professor L. W. Gysel of Michigan State University. We encourage you to provide your vital help and cooperation toward the success of this study. The success of this effort depends on securing an unbiased sample of young people. Your assistance in helping obtain a representative selection of young people living in Michigan would be sincerely appreciated. Respectfully yours, John Kennedy, Head Planning & Technical Services Section Office of Planning Services 73 MICH IGAN STATE UNIVERS ITY Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Resources Building East Lansing, Michigan 48824 This study on the attitudes of young people toward wildlife has the support of the Fisheries and Wildlife Department at Michigan State University. In recent years several studies have been done on the public's concern for wildlife. However, no research has focused exclusively on the opinions of young people. As the chairman of Ms. Pomerantz's graduate com- mittee and coordinator of this study, I can personally assure you, as did Ms. Pomerantz, that the information obtained from these questionnaires will in no way be linked to students' names.' The assistance you could provide would be most valuable and greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Leslie W. Gysel Professor Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 74 Please check the appropriate boxes: Sample Selection [:1 Our school district [:] A DNR employee will Questionnaire Distribution [:] A DNR employee will our school district [:] Our school district names and addresses questionnaires. will choose the sample. choose the sample. deliver the questionnaires for to distribute. will provide a list of student so the DNR can distribute the F:] I am unwilling to participate in this project. Signature School District APPENDIX III LETTER DESCRIBING SAMPLING PROCEDURE APPENDIX III LETTER DESCRIBING SAMPLING PROCEDURE State of Michigan William G. Milliken, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ”Howard A. Tanner, Director Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study of young people's attitudes toward wildlife. Below I have outlined the procedure for selecting a sample of seventh through twelfth graders in your school district. This selection method can be used with any type of district roster, such as a master list of students 'in the district, a student listing by schools or a listing by grade level. The procedure I feel is easiest to follow and which will give me the random distribution of names that I need is as follows: First, gather together all rosters which include seventh through twelfth graders. Then, starting with the name, select every student on your list. This method will give a sample of approximately thirty students. Record the name, address and grade level (7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12) of each student chosen. A data form has been enclosed if you wish to use it. 75 76 Example of the sampling procedure: Starting with the 2nd name, choose every 3rd person on your list. School District Roster Grade Name Address Level Mary Fix 123 Parson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48823 7 start here+ Peter Smith 44 Lakeview Rd., Lansing, MI 48809 7 John Jones 587 Sunnyview, Lansing, MI 48912 8 --~-—.N-‘.. Sally JohnSon- 1586 E. Court St., E. Lansing, MI 48824 9 Marty Pomer 782 Vine St., Lansing, MI 48910 10 Jerry Gold 805 Fairfax, Lansing, MI 48907 11 @;~Ste;;ns 1850 Arbor Rd., Lansing, MI 48908 11 Linda Doring 369 Wing Ave., E. Lansing, MI 48823 12 Vivian Kevens 610 Gelding, Lansing, MI 48902 8