l

il'll‘lIlH

Hill

I
I

III

121
261.
_THS

 

CERTAIN FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES

IN EAST CENTRAL MICHIGAN

Thesis Ior LIN; Daqme of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Jon Merle Parker

1975

{/T/T/y/

/

A
.
.59"
.4.
f

IQQWW ”I“:

us
g:-
.m

 

 

 

CERTAIN FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF
WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN EAST CENTRAL MICHIGAN

By

Jon Merle Parker

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

197 5

ABSTRACT

CERTAIN FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF
WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN EAST CENTRAL MICHIGAN

By

Jon Merle Parker

Several factors affecting the potential for the economic develop-
ment of wildlife resources through fee hunting were evaluated. The
factors studied were ownership and use of land, hunting activity
and history, attitudes of landowners toward hunting and fee hunting,
and legal considerations. The study area and its agricultural land
use and ownership patterns were briefly described. Hunting activity
was described using kill and hunter-days by major game species
from 1956 to 1970. Responding to a multiple-choice questionnaire,
295 landowners described themselves socio—economically; and reported
their attitudes toward hunters, hunting access, and fee hunting.
Preferences for fee hunting programs and motivations for participa—
tion in managed hunting plans and wildlife were stated.

Variables significantly associated with fee hunting attitude
were age of owner, participation in hunting, interest in hunting
management, hunting access policy, and potential for hunting on the
property. Landowners favored fee hunting programs providing control
of hunter behavior and numbers with minimum government involvement.

Median income desired was between $3.01 and $5.00 per acre per year.

Jon Merle Parker

One to four hunting parties per week were usually preferred.
Important considerations for managed hunting participation were
trespass control, game law enforcement, and reduction of farmer—
hunter problems. Important considerations for wildlife management
were seeing more wildlife, better hunting, expense of management,
and soil conservation benefits. A majority of landowners interested
in fee hunting stated willingness to practice wildlife management.
Competition of fee hunting with free hunting; laws affecting fee
hunting; fee hunting education potential; and research, management,

and institutional needs are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the members of my graduate advisory committee,

Dr. Harold H. Prince, Mr. Glenn R. Dudderar, and Dr. M. Rupert Cutler
for their advice and assistance throughout this project. Thanks also
go to the Thumb Area Research Project group: Dr. Raymond D. Vlasin,
Director, and Frederick C. Sauer, Alan Kirt, and James M. Houck,
research interns.

Mr. Louis J. Hawn provided access to the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources hunter survey data. Mr. Timothy J. Krawczel
initiated the project and gathered much preliminary data. Fellow
graduate students, Bruce D. J. Batt, Albert F. Bourgeois,

Dale D. Humburg, and Richard M. Kaminski assisted in questionnaire
distribution. Their help is deeply appreciated.

Many people in the Thumb Area gave valuable assistance including
county directors of the Agricultural Extension Service, and
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and members
of county boards of commissioners. I especially appreciate the
direction and financial support of The Thumb Area Human Development
Commission of Caro, Michigan, and its director, Mrs. Sally Atchinson.

Finally, thanks to Kathy, my wife, who kept me going and helped

with the typing.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . .

Location, Population, and Land Use
Hunting Activity and Game Species

METHODS . . . . . . . . . .
Questionnaire
Sampling Procedure . . . .
Data Processing and Analysis . . . . . . .
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .
Questionnaire Returns . . . . . . .
General Characteristics of Respondents
Attitudes of Respondents . . . . . . . .

Non-respondents . . . . .
Hunters and hunting .
Fee hunting . . .

Fee Hunting Programs

Important considerations
Desired attributes

DISCUSSION

Potential Fee Hunting Cooperators
Attitudes Toward Hunters .
Fee Hunting Concerns and Expectations
Competition with Free Hunting

Fee Hunting and the Law . .
Potential Fee Hunting Education
Research and Management Needs
Institutional Needs

CONCLUSION

iii

11

ll
l2
l2

12
1h
1h

18

18
21

27

27
28
28
31
31
32
33
3h

35

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

APPENDICES

Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.

LITERATURE CITED

Hunting Attitude Questionnaire.
Questionnaire Cover Letter . . . .
Reminder Postcard for Questionnaire

iv

36
an
AS

A6

Number

l

10

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of mean game kill and hunter—days for
the years 1956-1960 and 1966-1970 in Huron,
Sanilac, and Tuscola counties, Michigan.

Distribution of landholdings, 50 acres and larger,
in Huron, Sanilac, and Tuscola counties, Michigan.

General characteristics and attitudes of respondents
to the landowner attitude questionnaire.

Association of fee hunting attitudes with other
characteristics of landowners.

Important considerations of landowners in deciding
on participation in managed hunting programs and
wildlife management.

Landowners' preferences for attributes of fee
hunting programs.

Fees desired by landowners for hunting on their
land.

Number of two to four persOn hunting parties desired
per week for a specified fee.

Association of yearly income desired, hunting
parties per week desired, and willingness to
manage wildlife.

Estimated daily fee per hunter at various income
and hunter participation levels.

l3

17

19

22

2A

2A

26

30

Number

LIST OF FIGURES

Location of the study area showing game areas
and townships closed to pheasant hunting.

Attitudes toward fee hunting categorized by
property size.

vi

15

INTRODUCTION

Land in the United States is subject to competing demands for
food production, urban development, and outdoor recreation. In
this environment the landowner must seek maximum economic return
from his property. Some of these competing demands are compatible,
and, if properly integrated, will act to increase the total economic
returns.

Eighty percent of the game harvested in this country is on
private land (Teague, l971). Under economic pressure landowners
often are choosing to neglect or deliberately reduce potential
wildlife resources, because they are viewed either as unprofitable
or as a liability. With intelligent planning and management,
wildlife on private property can be an aesthetic and economic
asset to both producer and consumer.

Fee hunting is payment of the landowner for hunting privileges
on his land. Such a system could affect the economic development
of wildlife on private land, ease economic pressures on farm land,
ease conflicts between sportsmen and landowners, and enhance the
level of tourist-related enterprise. Limited information is
available on landowner attitudes toward fee hunting_in other states
(Brown, 197h; Marshall, 1973, unpublished Master's thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg; and McIntosh,

1966, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison).

These and other investigators have studied the hunting access problem
in relation to posting of land and maintenance of free public hunting
(Barclay, 1966, unpublished Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park; Larson, 1958, unpublished Master's thesis,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst). These authors found that
attitudes and practices influencing hunting access were related to

the following socio-economic and personal characteristics: property
size, education, occupation, problems with hunters, hunting cooperative
membership, hunting participation, total income, and income from the
land.

This is a study of various factors affecting the potential for
economic development of wildlife resources in Huron, Sanilac, and
Tuscola counties -- Michigan's Thumb Area. General land use patterns,
current status of wildlife populations and hunting activity, and the
related legal aspects are surveyed; but the major area of study is
the potential supply of land for fee hunting as revealed by attitudes,
characteristics, znui concerns of landowners. I attempt to identify
the most desirable features of fee hunting programs and investigated
the characteristics and motivations of potential cooperators to aid

anyone interested in the development of a fee hunting program.

STUDY AREA

Location, Population, and Land Use

The Michigan counties of Huron, Sanilac, and Tuscola (Figure l)
comprised the study area. Ninety percent of the area's 120,000
people live in rural areas (U. S. Bureau of Census, 1972). Metro-
politan areas border the three counties to the south and west.

The counties include 1.7 million acres of land, 80 percent of
which is classified as agricultural (U. S. Bureau of Census, 1972).
There are about 7500 farms averaging 166 acres in size (U. S. Bureau
of Census, 1972). In 1969 the farmland was utilized as follows:
harvested cropland, 62 percent; "other cropland" (i.e., soil
improvement crops, cultivated summer fallow, crop failure, and idle
cropland), 1% percent; pasture, 8 percent; woodlots, 8 percent; and
"other farmland" (i.e., rangeland, ponds, roads, lots, barns, and
houses), 8 percent. Important crops by acreage were dry beans, corn
(grain and silage), wheat, hay, and small grains (U. 8. Bureau of

Census, 1972).
Hunting Activity and Game Species

Data on hunting in the three counties were tabulated from
Michigan Department of Natural Resources hunter survey results. The

survey is mailed annually to a random sample of hunting license holders

   
     

 

I 0
NORTH

 

T U S C O L A

% SANILAC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f

, , Townships Closed to
Michigan, SENES Pheasant Hunting

Lower Peninsula
W State Game Areas

W

20 miles

 

Figure 1. Location of the study area showing game areas and townships
closed to pheasant hunting.

who are asked to report days hunted, numbers and species of game
killed by county. I

Waterfowl (Anatidae), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus cchhicus),
cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), squirrel (Sciurus spp.), ruffed grouse
(Bonasa umbeZZus), and woodcock (Philohela minor) provide most of the
hunting recreation in the Thumb Area (Table 1). Between the periods
1956-1969 and 1966—1970 total hunter effort was essentially unchanged
while total game harvest declined by 37 percent. Pheasant and
rabbit harvests dropped by 83 percent and 51 percent, respectively,
between the periods. Hunter effort for the two species also declined
but not in proportion to the harvest (pheasant 61 percent, rabbit
31 percent). Deer, waterfowl, grouse, and woodcock harvest and
hunter-days increased markedly between the periods. Although squirrel
harvest increased, hunter—days remained about constant.

The decline of the pheasant is the most striking change between
the 1956—1960 and 1966—1970 periods. The harvest decreased from over
55 percent of the Thumb Area total game harvest to about 16 percent.
Hunter effort for pheasants declined from 55 Percent of the total
to 23 percent.

Four townships in Huron county have been closed to pheasant
hunting since 1971 (Figure l). The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources is attempting to introduce the Korean strain ring-necked
pheasant which wildlife biologists believe will be less dependent
on agriculture and more cold hardy. The final release of Koreans
was in 1973. Although final evaluation of the project has not been
made, no dramatic increase in pheasant numbers has been observed

(Zorb, 1972).

Table 1. Comparison of mean game kill and hunter—days for the years
1956-1960 and 1966-1970 in Huron, Sanilac, and Tuscola
counties, Michigan (from Michigan Department of Natural
Resources).

 

 

 

 

Kill (x 1000) Hunter-days (x 1000)

Game Percent Percent
Species 1956-60 1966-70 change 1956—60 1966—70 change
Pheasant 115 20 -83 211 83' -61
Rabbit hi 20 —51 89 61 -31
DuCkS and 31 61 97 38 110 189
Geese
Squirrel 13 16 23 27 28 h
Grouse and
Woodcock 7 12 71 13 3h 162
Deera b -- -- -- 9 A3 378
Totals 207 129 -37 387 359 -7

 

aComplete data available for 1958-60 and 1966-68 only.

bAverage deer kill: 1956-60, 73; 1966-70, 537. Percent change: 636.

There are 39,000 acres of state—owned land, mostly State Game
Areas, open to hunting in the area. Palmer (1967) estimated that
30 percent of hunter activity on state and private land in southern
Michigan took place in the Thumb Area. He also reported a tendency

of Detroit area hunters to utilize the Thumb counties more than

other areas.

METHODS

Questionnaire

A seven—page, multiple-choice questionnaire was used in the
landowner survey (Appendix A). Portions of the questionnaire were
modifications of similar instruments by Barclay (1966, unpublished
Master's thesis) and Marshall (1973, unpublished Master's thesis).
Accompanying the questionnaire were a cover letter (Appendix B) and
a postpaid, addressed return envelope. A postcard reminder (Appendix

C) was sent to non-respondents two weeks after the initial mailing.

Sampling Procedure

Subjects were chosen from farm card files at Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (USDA) county offices.
Owners of 50 acres or more were chosen systematically from the
card files. I assumed that 50 acres was the absolute minimum size
which could sustain an economic level of hunting pressure. The
total sample represented numbers of property owners and property
size classes in proportion to their occurrence in the three county
mea(Tmfle2).

A pilot survey was done prior to the three county survey to
refine the questionnaire and estimate the proportion and quality

of responses. The pilot study was sent to 77 PrOperty owners in

Table 2. Distribution of landholdings, 50 acres and larger, in
Huron, Sanilac, and Tuscola counties, Michigan.

 

Percent of

 

Land Size (acres) Number Acres (1000) _Total Acres
50 - I39 29h2 275 23
IMO - 260 2277 MES 35
261 — h99 1073 368 30
500 and over 210 1A2 12

Total 6502 1213 100

 

10

Ingham county, located in south central Michigan in September, 1973.
Two forms of the questionnaire, differing only in arrangement of
questions, were used in the study.

The questionnaire was revised, and a single form was sent to
912 subjects in the Thumb Area in February, 197A. Distribution of
the survey by county was: Huron - 256; Sanilac - 353; Tuscola - 303.
The distribution was proportional to the number of farms in each
county.

In April, 197A, with survey returns essentially complete, 35
randomly selected non-respondents were interviewed by telephone.
Subjects were asked selected questions from the original questionnaire
to test for bias. Telephone survey questions are identified by

asterisks in Appendix A.
Data Processing and Analysis

Responses to the questionnaire were transferred to computer
cards which were verified against the original responses. Analyses
were performed using programs DATASET, PFCOUNT, ACT, and NUCROS from
the Computer Institute for Social Science Research at Michigan State
University. Frequency and percent of response were tabulated for
each question. Responses to attitude question were sorted and
tabulated by response to demographic, experiential, and land manage-
ment variables. Association between variables was tested using the

Chi-square tests for independence.

RESULTS

Questionnaire Returns

In the pilot study 35 usable questionnaires (MS percent) were
returned. The three county study produced 295 usable returns (32
percent) which was a lower rate than the pilot study (X2 = 5.h9,

l d.f.). Nineteen unusable returns from the final survey were
classified as follows: questionnaires blank, written comments
unfavorable to hunting, l2; questionnaires blank, no comment about
hunting, h; questionnaires completed, property size less than 50
acres, 3. Over 95 Percent of total returns in both studies were
received within 35 days of the first mailing. Returns by county

in the Thumb Area study were: Huron, 86 (28 percent); Sanilac, 118
(33 percent); Tuscola, 91 (36 percent). There was no difference in
return rate by county (X2 = 3.56, 2 d.f.). Returns by property size
class were: 1) 50 - 139 acres, 10h (25 percent); 2) 1h0 - 259 acres,
90 (28 percent); 3) 260 - M99 acres, 72 (A8 percent); A) 500 acres
and larger, 18 (60 percent). Eleven questionnaires were unclassified
by property size. Responses were progressively higher than calculated
expected values for the last three size classes and lower than

expected for the 50 - 139 acre size class (X2 = 39.00, 3 d.f.).

ll

12

General Characteristics of Respondents

Most of the respondents did some farming on their land with
cash field crops being the most important product (Table 3). Ninety
percent lived on their farm property. Sixty percent of the respon-
dents earned at least half of their income from their land. Median
income fell in the $10,000 - $lh,999 category. Unemployed and retired
persons made up 21 percent of the sample; 79 percent were employed
at least part-time. Median age fell in the 51 - 60 year group.

Mean education was 11.3 years (calculated from the complete distribu-
tion). A majority of the respondents participated in hunting and
fishing, but very few belonged to Sportsman's clubs. Three-fourths
of all respondents watched television shows related to hunting,
fishing, or outdoors activities.

Data for several variables probably should be interpreted
carefully because of errors in typing and imprecise wording of the
questionnaire. For example, the income question does not include
choices for $2h,001 to $2h,999, and some respondents may have reported
income as gross farm sales. Also, some respondents may have equated

"employment" with non-farm employment, and the "education" question

did not offer a "zero" choice.
Attitudes of Respondents

Non-respondents.-—Chi-square tests for independence between
respondent and non-respondent answers indicated no difference between
the groups. Fee hunting attitudes and hunting access attitudes did
not differ significantly between the groups (X2 = 0.73, 2 d.f.; and

0.h5, l d.f., respectively). Trends in responses were similar.

13

 

 

 

 

 

m m Umhoamaoca
PH w: hm>o one ma s ma maHpnpaam
00 Ned Nana ma N: cmpflpwm
mm :6 and me mad meapnaasa
Anamohv cowpwosom pamfihoamem
mm ::H puma om m: am>o was ooo.mm
so mpmfixm Haflpempom mefipesm ma A; ooo.:mnooo.mH
a l a
Pm mm oopwmfloflpamm no omaoofimGOU WM MW mmmmmmmowmomw
I Ewhmoam om coo mad as I
H p .p m ma mm mam.mnooo.m
: OH m6>flpmfims one meemflha m ma mam.m-o
e ma meoHpOAapmmh oz flames Ame mamaaoev esooaH
AH mm weflpese oz
mm mm mmEHmeOm ofiansm w mm was: QSOD<
m mm mass swap who:
am mma saaasm: afiansm
OH Fm mcoz
hoflaom mmmoow mcfipszm
mm m» was: swnp mmmq
ma mm psao m.eAEmphomm A: mHH Ada
w: HJH mmcflmwwwa puma 80pm mEoosH
a E 22.: a. magmfimm a a 62...:
m s me» am am am Moopmm>flfi can mmopo
m m H .p m we OMH macho eamfia £660
m» Hmm mzozm
mpozooam Show
:msooopso: cofimfi>mamp nopwz
mmwpfi>flpom :ofipwopomm om Ham hpaoQOHm so mcflmmm
Hm om ho>o was Ho 2 ma wmpcma pang .cwshm% whom
Hm mm omlam m :H A.opm .mhdmmwam
Pm me omIH: quomamm .mcflmmlpomv amzpo
NH a: oqlam om mm whonpo Op ompcmm
: ma omnma a» mom thSO he cashew
. Amhwmhv mw¢ mm: vcmq
psooamm popasz mapmfiss> pcmoamm nmpEdz manmflaw>
monogamooo mocmaa5000
.mafimssofipmmsw 065pfippm amcsoocma one op mpsmosommmp mo woodpflppw one mofipmAATPUHAdno Hwaocmo .m manna

1h

Hunters and hunting.-—Respondents answered the question "What
is your attitude toward hunters?" as follows: generally favorable,
198 (71 percent); generally unfavorable, 59 (21 percent); no opinion,
22 (8 percent). Most landowners allow some public hunting on their
property, usually only if permission is asked first (Table 3). Only
11 percent of respondents allowed no hunting on their property.
Thirty-seven percent of the respondents have either considered or
participated in a program to control hunters on their land.
"Experiences with hunters" reported were: trespassing, 152 (52
percent); courtesy, 136 (A6 percent); discourtesy, 83 (28 percent);
property damage, 79 (26 percent); firearm carelessness, A7 (16 per-
cent); invited landowner to hunt, A7 (16 percent); "none", 27 (9
percent); shared game, 17 (6 percent); hunter assisted landowner,

13 (h percent).

Fee hunting.—-Responses to the fee attitude question were grouped
into four composite response groups. The groups and percent response
were: 1) "Opposed to fee hunting" (38 percent); 2) "Believe fee
hunting not worthwhile" (2h percent); 3) "Interested in the potential
of fee hunting" (19 percent); A) "Interested in fee hunting at
present" (19 percent). Category one includes those who "would never
allow hunting on their land" or thought "fee hunting is wrong".
Number two includes only those who stated that fee hunting was not
worth the trouble. Group three expressed some interest in fee
hunting, but did not think "fee hunting would be worth the trouble".
Group four expressed interest in fee hunting without qualifications.

Interest in fee hunting increased with property size while

opposition decreased (Figure 2). Owners of 260 acres and over had

% OF TOTAL

 

ATTITUDE

 

FEE HUNTING

18)

V

rs
I‘
O\ \
A
II m
C:

V _

O\
H
+3
(8
"CI
0)
+30
(04—)
(DC.
Ha)
(DU)
43(1)
GM
lfi Q

15

O\ .3 CO
H (\J m

G)
c: H
OH .H

,2
rd- 13 OJ
(DH .2 c:
+><d 4-) - "-4
(0-H 5-4 rd r-1
cup 0 a)
5.4:: m 0)
0 m o >
p-p +3 Q. o
£3 04 .0
H94 0 <1:

\

"Interested"

Below line

 

 

LIA

(17

3h)

18)

 

as? a

\ {30\ I

"Not Interested"

 

f 3 i
C) Ln c> In
E: b— ux cu

INEIDHEId HAIIV'I “WHO

0)
D

H
04
O
0
Ln

260-h99

1hO-259

PROPERTY SIZE (ACRES)

Figure 2. Attitudes toward fee hunting categorized by property size.

16

the greatest proportional interest in fee hunting. The largest
property owners (500 acres and over) were more interested in "the
potential of fee hunting" than "interested in fee hunting at
present". The proportion of respondents who believed that "fee
hunting is not worthwhile" was constant over property size classes.

Other variables that were significantly related to fee hunting
attitudes were age, personal participation in hunting, an interest
in controlling hunting on their land, willingness to let others
hunt on their property, and belief in the hunting potential of
their land (Table A). Sixty-five percent of all respondents were
hunters. Forty-two percent of those were interested in fee hunting
compared to only 28 percent of non-hunters. Thirty-seven percent
of the respondents reported participation in or consideration of
activities to gain income from hunting or to formally control
hunting on their land. Two-thirds of this group were interested
in fee hunting.

Landowners were asked to state their policy for determining
hunting access to their property. A significant association was
found between attitudes toward allowing people to hunt on their
property and attitudes toward fee hunting. Respondents allowing
no hunting were not included since they all opposed fee hunting.
Eighty-five percent of respondents allow at least some public
hunting by permission, and seven percent allow unrestricted hunting
(Table 3). Only 12 percent of the landowners in groups most and
least restrictive of access were interested in fee hunting. Forty-
seven percent of respondents who allow some public access by

permission expressed interest in fee hunting.

17

Table A. Association of fee hunting attitudes with other

characteristics of landowners.

 

Characteristics Tested
for Association with

Results of Test

 

 

Fee Hunting Attitude Na X2 d.f.b
Property size 261 29.58 9 **
Age 259 5.8M _ 1 *
Participation in hunting 268 A.9l 1 *
Interest in controlling hunting 268 58.55 3 **
Willingness to allow hunting 219 11.6A 3 **
Land with hunting potential 26A Al.88 3 **
Residence on the land 21A 0.25 1
Land use 268 6.2A 6
Farm products 2A5 3.71 6
Proportion of income from land 253 6.2A 6
Employment 2A5 A.02 6
Education 257 A.62 6
Income 228 17.05 12

 

a .
Numbers vary because of non-response to one or both var1ables.

b O C 0
Some categor1es were combined for analys1s.

**Statistically significant (P < 0.01)
* Statistically significant (P < 0.05)

l8

Fifty-five percent of respondents stated that a potential for
hunting exists on their land. Fifty—four percent of those respon—
dents were interested in fee hunting compared to 17 percent of those
who felt that there was no potential on their land.

Property owners with hunting potential on their land were
asked to list potential game species. Species reported with the
percentage of landowners reporting were pheasant (83 percent),
rabbit (76 percent), deer (63 percent), squirrel (A9 percent), and
waterfowl (17 percent).

Characteristics found unrelated to fee—hunting attitudes were
residence on the land, land use, farm products, proportion of

income from land, employment, education, and income (Table A).
Fee Hunting Programs

Important considerations.——Respondents were asked to indicate
which potential results of fee hunting would influence their
decision to participate in hunting programs or in wildlife manage-
ment (Table 5). Responses were analyzed for all respondents except
those who were opposed to all hunting on their land. Enforcement
of trespass and game laws, possible property damage, and reduction
of farmer-hunter problems were most frequently reported as important.
Effects on the community such as increased business opportunity,
jobs for youth, influx of people into the county, and demands on
local services seemed to be less important. Income from hunters
and inconvenience caused by hunters asking for permission were

cited by A6 percent of the respondents.

19

Table 5. Important considerations of landowners in deciding on
participation in managed hunting programs and wildlife

management.

 

Favorable Responses

 

 

 

 

Important Consideration Number Percenta
Managed Hunting Program
Trespass control 198 93
Property damage 17A 86
Game law enforcement 170 86
Reduction of hunter problems 1A3 78
Business opportunitiesb * 117 67
Inconvenience: more peopleb * 120 63
Jobs for youth 10A 59
Demands on local services 102 56
Inconvenience: more huntersb ** 92 A9
Income from hunters *** 83 A6
Wildlife Management
Seeing more wildlife 189 91
Better hunting 163 82
Expense 1A8 82
Soil conservation 1A5 80
More hunters 108 61
Income from huntersb * 83 A6
Lower crop production *** 83 A5

 

aBased on total number of responses to each question.

bSignificantly associated with fee hunting attitude.
*9!-

* 96*
P < 0.05 P < 0.01

ae
P < 0.005

20

The considerations above were analyzed in relation to fee
hunting attitude categories. Significant associations were found
between fee hunting attitudes and the following variables: personal
inconvenience caused by more people in the county (X2 = 7.6A, 2 d.f.),
and by more hunters (X2 = 10.28, 2 d.f.) was related to a negative
fee hunting attitude; while increased business opportunity (X2 = 6.62,
2 d.f.), and income from hunters (X2 = 6A.O2, 2 d.f.) were related
to a positive attitude.

Income was a more important consideration to respondents
interested in fee hunting (76 percent) than to those not interested
(19 percent). A similar, but less marked, trend was observed for
expectations of business opportunities. Respondents who were
interested in fee hunting without qualifications were less concerned
with personal inconvenience (36 percent) than those expressing
qualified interest in fee hunting (63 percent). Respondents not
interested in fee hunting cited personal inconvenience 58 percent
of the time.

The prospect of seeing more wildlife on the land was the most
frequently cited reason for considering wildlife management (91
percent). Better hunting, time and money spent, and soil conserva—
tion benefits were also important considerations.

Potential income from hunters and lower crop production were
the least cited considerations, but both were significantly associated

with fee hunting attitude (X2 = 6.79, 2 d.f., and X2

= 61.39, 2 d.f.,
respectively). Crop production losses were most important to

respondents who were interested in the potential of fee hunting

(59 percent) and least important to those opposed to fee hunting

21

(33 percent). Forty—four percent of respondents who were presently
interested in fee hunting were concerned about lowered crop
production.

Desired attributes.--The attributes of fee hunting programs

 

were evaluated by analyzing the responses of those not opposed to
fee hunting (Table 6). Answers to individual statements were
tabulated separately, so percentages pertain only to those who
answered each question. Respondents heavily favored any means of
controlling hunter access. Conspicuous hunter identification
devices, specific parking areas, limitation of hunter numbers, and
the exclusion of misbehaving hunters were approved by an average

9A percent. Reservations for hunters, increased numbers of
conservation officers, and the prohibition of racial discrimination
averaged 78 percent approval.

Property owners generally favored setting hunting fees them—
selves. Sixty—seven percent of respondents approved of each land-
owner setting his own fees. Eighty-three percent approved of maximum
and minimum fees set by cooperating landowners. Only 17 percent
of respondents approved of government-set maximum and minimum fees.

Most respondents (73 percent) favored collecting their own fees.
Thirty-seven percent approved of government leasing of public
hunting rights from landowners. Thirty-six percent approved of
landowners leasing hunting rights to sportsmen directly. Twenty—
three percent approved of government collection and distribution of
hunting fees. Twenty percent approved of using a cooperative agent

to collect and distribute fees.

22

Table 6. Landowners' preferences for attributes of fee hunting

programs.

 

Favorable Responses

 

Program Attribute Number Percenta
Undesirables excluded 139 98
Hunter numbers limited 1A1 98
Controlled parking 127 93
Hunter identification 12A 89
Owner cooperative sets fees 109 83
More conservation officers 110 80
No racial discrimination 108 78
Reservations required 102 77
Operation by landowner 102 77
Owner collects fees 93 73
Each owner sets fees 8A 67
Government leases hunting A7 37
Owner leases to sportsmen A6 36
Operation by government 31 2A
Government collects fees 30 23
Owners' agent collects fees 25 20
Government sets fees 21 17

 

aBased on total responses to each question.

23

Liability for hunters' injuries was an important consideration
for 93 percent of respondents. The most popular alternatives for
liability relief were a state law waiving landowner liability for
hunters (78 percent approval) or a hunter waiver of liability (58
percent approval). Hunter payment for insurance and owner financed
insurance received only 10 and 7 percent approval, respectively.

Respondents were asked to indicate yearly income desired per
acre for fee hunting. Median income desired was in the 3.01 — 5.00
dollar range (Table 7). Forty-four percent of respondents desired
three dollars or less per acre per year. Fee desired was found to
be independent of fee hunting attitude (X2 = A.51, A d.f.).
Thirteen percent of those stating opposition to fee hunting
indicated a desired income, usually in the $0.10 to $1.00 range.

Sixty—three percent of the respondents wanted only one to
four hunting parties per week with two to four hunters in each
party (Table 8). Most of the remaining respondents would accept
five to ten hunting parties per week, given the desired fee. Number
of hunters desired was found to be independent of fee hunting

attitude (X2

= 2.00, A d.f.).

Two-thirds of responding landowners (n = 136) indicated that
they would ". . . be willing to spend some time each year to provide
food and cover for wildlife . . .", given their desired income.
Responses to this question were found to be associated with fee
hunting attitudes (X2 = 20.55, 2 d.f.). Eight of ten respondents
expressing some interest in fee hunting stated willingness to manage

wildlife, while only 38 percent of those who believed fee hunting

was not worthwhile stated such willingness.

2A

Table 7. Fees desired by landowners for hunting
on their land.

 

Yearly Income

 

(dollars per acre) Number Percent
0.10 - 1.00 29 2A
1.01 - 3.00 25 20
3.01 - 5.00 33 27
5.01 - 7.00 11 9
7.01 - 9.00 5 A
Over 9.00 20 16

 

Table 8. Number of two to four person hunting
parties desired per week for a specified
fee.

 

Hunting Parties

 

Per Week Number Percent
1 - A 82 63

5 — 10 3A 26
11-15 5 u
16 - 20 3 2

Any number 6 5

 

25

Total income desired by landowners for fee hunting was estimated
by multiplication of median fee desired per acre by median property
size in each category. The resultant estimates were categorized as
"Low" (less than $500 per year), "Medium" ($500 to $2000 per year)
and "High" (over $2000 per year) (Table 9).

In a three-way contingency—table analysis, a significant
association was found among estimated total income, number of
hunting parties, and willingness to manage wildlife (Table 9,

X2 = 17.1A, 2 d.f.). Willingness to manage for wildlife and number

of hunting parties desired generally increased with income desired.

Total income desired was independent of fee hunting attitude (X2 =

3.A7, 2 d.f.).

26

Table 9. Association of yearly income desired, hunting parties
per week desired, and willingness to manage wildlife.

 

Management No Management

Hunting Parties Per Week

 

 

Income Desired l-A 5 or more l-A 5 or more
Low 21 5 1A 7
Medium 20 20 10 1

High 8 l2 3 2

 

DISCUSSION

Answers to a questionnaire give only an indication of concerns
of respondents on an abstract or intellectual level; the results do
not allow prediction of actual economic decisions. However, such
information may provide a baseline for approaching a relatively
unexplored problem. Further, initial reactions of respondents and
differences among respondent groups may be useful in designing
initial attempts at educational or organizational efforts in the

behalf of fee hunting programs.
Potential Fee Hunting Cooperators

Several characteristics were identified from questionnaire
responses which tend to be associated with interest in fee hunting.
Potential fee hunting cooperators are most likely to be less than
50 years old and to own over 260 acres of land which they believe
has hunting potential. This group tends to be more interested in
hunting than the general population of Thumb Area landowners. Owners
interested in fee hunting are more likely to be hunters themselves
and to allow strangers to hunt when permission is asked. They
probably also have considered or participated in specific hunting
control activities. It does not appear that interested landowners
differ significantly from non-interested landowners in other general

characteristics measured.

27

28
Attitudes Toward Hunters

Hunters as a group appear to enjoy a good reputation among
Thumb Area property owners. General attitude toward hunters was
favorable, and a sizeable percentage of landowners allow strangers
to hunt on their land provided they request permission. This
outlook is surprising when coupled with widespread reporting of
trespassing, property damage, and discourtesy. Access to private
land seems to be less a problem in this area than is reported in

others (e.g., Brown, 197A).
Fee Hunting Concerns and Expectations

Control of hunter behavior and numbers seemed to be the fore—
most expectation of a fee hunting program. Individual or cooperative
fee hunting program management was preferred by a majority of
potential cooperators. However, a significant minority approved
of some government involvement.

Direct, personal consequences of fee hunting programs such as
trespass control and potential property damage concerned owners more
than community benefits such as jobs for youth and demands on local
services. As one might expect, those who were most interested in
fee hunting were more interested in business opportunities and
potential income and less concerned with personal inconvenience
than were the less interested landowners.

An increase in small game populations is vital to the success
of fee hunting in the Thumb Area (Table 2). The apparent willingness

of landowners to manage for wildlife is therefore a most favorable

29

indication for the future. The fact that potential cooperators
felt that there was hunting potential, especially for pheasants,
on their land also enhances fee hunting opportunities.

Personal considerations, including economic ones, were shown
to be most important in wildlife management decisions. Expense of
management and prospects of seeing more wildlife were the most
frequently reported concerns. Income was more important to landowners
most interested in fee hunting. Fear of lost crop production was
the least stated concern. However, property owners most interested
in fee hunting were also most concerned about potential crop losses.
This may reflect both the preponderance of larger, more intensive
farming operations in this group and a realistic cost analysis of
fee hunting.

An estimate of necessary daily hunter fees based on responses
to questions on income and number of hunters desired was made (Table
10). Estimated mean yearly income was derived from estimated total
yearly income shown in Table 7. The potential daily fees range
from just over one dollar to sixty-five dollars. Data are needed to'
relate hunter expectations of daily fees in order to evaluate the
potential market. The effective four-week hunting season allows for
a three-week pheasant season plus one-week's additional hunting
during seasons for other small game and deer. Increased income
expectations with increasing costs in wildlife management and numbers
of hunters accommodated (Table 9) may indicate that landowners are

indeed capable of placing wildlife in an economic perspective.

30

Table 10. Estimated daily fee per hunter at various
income and hunter participation levels.a

 

Estimated Mean Number of Hunting Part1es Per Week

 

Yearly Incomeb A 10 15

Low ($230) $ A.80 $ 1.92 $ 1.28.
Medium ($872) $18.16 $ 7.27 $ A.85 \
High ($3133) $65.00 $26.11 $17.50

 

8-Based on four weeks of hunting per year and three
hunters per party.

bRespondents were grouped after multiplying (income
expected per acre per year) X (acres owned).

31
Competition From Free Hunting

Eighty-five percent of respondents reportedly allow at least
limited public hunting, and 7A percent of those respondents usually
or always allow strangers to hunt. Although analysis of fee hunting
attitudes in relation to hunting access attitudes revealed that 5A
percent of those not interested in fee hunting allowed some public
access, significantly more owners interested in fee hunting reported
hunting potential on their land than did owners not interested in
fee hunting. Willingness to manage for wildlife and desire to
control hunter numbers should enhance the quality of the hunting

experiences on fee hunting cooperators' properties.
Fee Hunting and the Law

Several state and local laws may hinder the development of
fee hunting. First, game animals are considered property of the

". . unlawful for any person, directly or

state, and it is
indirectly, to buy, sell, expose, or offer for sale any game animal
or game bird . . ." (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1972:
1A2). Care should be excercised in the organization of fee hunting
to avoid conflict with this law.

Under present law a hunter participating in fee hunting would
become a legal invitee of the property owner. The owner owes an
invitee the highest legal degree of "ordinary and reasonable care"
to protect harm from befalling him, including regular repairs and

inspections of the premises (Michigan Natural Resources Council, 197A).

The degree of potential liability mandates insurance protection or

32

some form of relief for fee hunting cooperators. Respondents
naturally preferred "painless" legislative relief from liability.
Respondents also favored a hunter waiver of liability, but this
action does not always guarantee protection (Michigan Natural
Resources Council, l97A).

The laws most detrimental to fee hunting in the study area are
the Thumb Area counties' Sunday hunting bans (Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, l972:278,28A,285). The Huron and Sanilac
county laws prohibit all Sunday hunting. Tuscola county prohibits

Sunday hunting . on lands or premises of another . . ." thus

3

allowing hunting on one's own land or on state-owned land.
Potential Fee Hunting Education

The respondents' awareness about fee hunting appeared to be
low. This was indicated by the small percentage who reported that
they had participated or considered specific hunting access control
practices (Table 3). Only 11 percent of respondents said they had
ever considered charging individuals to hunt. The most commonly
considered or practiced activity was membership in a landowner coop-
erative to control hunter access. Six percent had participated in
such a cooperative, and 15 percent had considered it. To implement
a fee hunting program it would be necessary, therefore, to raise
awareness of fee hunting and then to interest them in the concept.

Responses to the questionnaire indicate that property owners
may be successfully introduced to the idea of fee hunting through
television outdoor recreation programs. Control of hunters and

non-monetary benefits should be stressed, but potential income

33

should definitely be mentioned. Further, in-depth, information
could be made available through educational programs sponsored by

the Cooperative Extension Service and through magazine articles.

Research and Management Needs

The potential sportsman demand for fee hunting should be
examined. How much, if anything, will the average hunter pay for
hunter privileges. The question of "quality" of the hunting
experience desired in terms of optimum hunter density and availa-
bility of game should also be addressed. Possibly the ease of
access to fee hunting properties, in itself, would be a major
incentive to sportsmen.

The only real test of the feasibility of fee hunting would be
in its actual implementation, perhaps on a limited, demonstration
basis. From the skepticism expressed in this questionnaire, wide
acceptance of fee hunting by landowners would only follow proof of
the practicality and economic viability of the concept. In conjunc-
tion with a demonstration of fee hunting, there is a need for the
development of game management plans for cooperators. The goal
of the management plans should be to maintain or increase total
farm income through crop production benefits of certain management
practices and through the economic utilization of wildlife resources.
Respondents to the questionnaire have demonstrated that they can

view wildlife in economic as well as aesthetic terms.

3A

Institutional Needs

Cooperation of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) should be sought. The MDNR has discouraged fees for hunting
in their Williamston Plan for cooperative hunting access control
(Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1969). Under Williamston
Plan agreements, the MDNR provides assistance (management plans, signs
for posting land, and cooperation in law enforcement) to cooperatives
meeting specific organizational criteria. Perhaps this plan could
be re-evaluated for the inclusion of the fee hunting concept.

Sunday hunting bans in the Thumb Area should be re-evaluated
for the poSsible exception of fee hunting cooperators from the law's
provisions. This would further enhance the competitive position
of fee hunting enterprises relative to "free" hunting properties.
Also, if fee hunting gains wide acceptance, area citizens might
consider advocacy of the institution of a hunting season for
mourning doves (Zenaidura macroura) in Michigan. This highly
popular game bird would effectively extend the hunting season
and increase the economic feasibility of fee hunting in the Thumb

Area.

CONCLUSION

This survey reveals a potential for a fee hunting system in
the Thumb Area. The opportunities and problems revealed present a
challenge for interested groups or individual citizens. Cooperation
among landowners' and sportsmen's organizations, state and local
governmental units, state and federal agricultural and natural
resources agencies, and local, state, and federal economic develop-
ment groups would facilitate orderly development of fee hunting.
This multi—institutional approach would be most effective in
resolving conflicts among various interest groups and in implementing
a fee hunting program across political jurisdictions.

I must stress that an interested, energetic group must actively
pursue the potential presented here. The problems presented are
not insurmountable, and the benefits could enhance the economic

situation and the aesthetic quality of life in the Thumb Area.

35

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Hunting Attitude Questionnaire

APPENDIX A

HUNTING ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

SECTION I

This section will describe some of your interests and experiences
which may relate to your attitudes toward hunting on your property.
(Please check the appropriate answer or answers for each of the
following questions).

 

1. What experiences have you had with hunters on your land?
a. None g. Invited you to hunt
b. Assisted you in some way "1th hlm
. h. Carelessness with
Trespa551ng -—-—- .
f1rearms
d' _____Courteous to you i. Damage to your property
e. Discourteous to you or livestock
Shared his game with you j. Other (Please describe
briefly)
* 2. What is your attitude toward hunters?
a. Generally Favorable b. No Opinion c. Generally Unfavorable

3. Have you ever participated in or seriously considered any of the
following activities? Participated Considered

a. Renting or leasing your land
for hunting

b. Charging individuals to hunt
on your land

c. Enrolling any of your land in the
Cropland Adjustment Program (CAP)
with agreement for public hunting

d. Forming a landowners' cooperative
hunting organization (to control
hunter access)

* A. Please indicate which of the following activities you participate in.
* a. ____Hunting * b. ____Fishing c. ____Sportsmen's club
* d. ____Reading hunting and fishing magazines
* e. ____Watching television programs devoted to hunting, fishing,

and other outdoor activities

36

37

f. Other outdoor recreation (hiking, camping, etc.) (Please
describe briefly)

 

SECTION II

In this section, you have the opportunity to express some of your
views about hunting on your property. In question 5, check the
appropriate answers.

* 5. Do you believe that there is a potential for hunting on your
land?

* a. Yes b. No

 

c. If Yes, for which kinds of game animals? Rabbits
Pheasants Squirrels Waterfowl - Deer
Other (Please Specify)

 

In questions 6, 7, and 8, read each statement and circle either "A"
(Agree) if you generally agree with the statement or "D" (Disagree)
if you generally disagree with the statement.
Agree Disagree
* 6. I am strongly against hunting in general;
I will never allow hunting on my land. A D

(If you agree with this statement, do not complete the rest of this
section. Please go to Section V and continue from there).

* 7. Some landowners have made the following statements about hunting
on their land. How do you feel about the statements?

Agree Dis ree

I do not allow hunting on my land. A D

I only allow my relatives and close

friends to hunt on my land, A D
c. I sometimes allow strangers to hunt on my

land, if they ask my permission first. A D
d. I usually allow strangers to hunt on my

land, if they ask my permission first. A D
e. Anyone may hunt on my land, with or

without my permission. A D

* 8. Below are some landowners' statements about fee hunting. Fee

Hunting is a system which would enable you to earn additional
income by charging hunters to hunt on your land. How do you
fee about the following statements? .
Agree Disagree

a. I think it is wrong to earn income from

fees for hunting on my land. (If you A D

agree, do not complete this section, as

the questions immediately following do not

apply to you. Please go directly to Section

IV and continue).

38

Agree Disagree

b. I don't think the income from fee
hunting would be worth the trouble
involved. A D

c. If I were convinced that fee hunting
would be profitable and convenient, I
would consider trying it on my land. A D

d. I would try any fee hunting plan that
seemed reasonable. It is about time
that I received a fair income from
hunters using my land. A D

SECTION III

The following questions will give you an opportunity to indicate some
of the features you think should be included in a fee hunting program
for your county. (Please continue with the same answering procedure
used in SECTION II).

 

9. The following are features of fee hunting programs that have been
proposed or instituted in other states. These features concern
the control of hunters in the fee hunting area. Do you feel
these features would be desirable in a fee hunting program?

Agree Disagree

a. All hunters with permission to use your
land must wear a highly visible, standard
identification device. A D

b. Specific areas are provided for hunter
parking. A D

c. An agency of the local, state, or
federal government handles all contact
with hunters and assigns them to hunting
areas. ‘ A D

d. Landowners handle all contact with
hunters. A D

e. Landowners are encouraged to exclude
those hunters who fail to act
courteously and responsibly. A D

f. Discrimination against hunters on the
basis of race, religion, or national
origin is strictly prohibited. A D

g. Reservations for hunting on your land
are required in advance. A D

h. The number of hunters on your land at
a given time is limited. A D

1. Additional law enforcement officers are
added during hunting seasons. A D

10.

11.

12.

13.

39

How much income per year would be a reasonable return for fee
hunting on your land? (Please check only one answer)

a. ____50¢ - $1.00 per acre b. ____$l.01 - $3.00 per acre
c. ____$3.01 - $5.00 per acre d. ____$5.01 — $7.00 per acre
e. ____$7.01 - $9.00 per acre f. ____Over $9.00 per acre
(Please specify) per acre

Would you be willing to spend some time each year to provide
wildlife food and cover for the level of income checked in
question 10?

a. Yes b. No

 

 

What is the maximum number of hunting partier per week that you
feel you could accommodate at the income level checked in question
10? Assume two to four hunters per party.

a. l to A per week b. 5 to 10 per week
c. 11 to 15 per week d. 16 to 20 per week
e. Makes no difference how many

The following methods of setting and collecting fees from hunters
have been proposed or instituted in other states. Assuming your
income to be the level checked in question 10, indicate your
feelings regarding each method as you did in question 9.

Agree Disagree

 

a. You, the landowner, set fees for hunting
on your land. A D

b. Standard maximum and minimum fees are agreed

on by you and other participating landowners. A D

c. Standard maximum and minimum fees are set by
an agency of the local, state, or federal
government. A

d. Each landowner collects his own fees. A

e. An agency of the local, state, or federal
government collects the fees then distri-
butes them to the landowner according to
the number of hunters using his land. A D

f. An agency of the local, state, or federal
government pays landowner, before the hunt-
ing season, for their participation in the
fee hunting program. The agency collects
fees from the hunters. A D

g. Landowners in a local area appoint or hire
an agent to collect fees from hunters and
distribute them among cooperating landowners. A D

 

A0

h. Hunting privileges on your land or on a
group of properties including your land
are leased or rented to groups of hunters
for an extended period. A D

1A. Is possible liability for hunters' injuries on your land an
important consideration? (Please check one answer)

a. Yes b. No

 

If you answered Yes, which of the following methods of liability
protection would you prefer? (Check more than one only if you
find two methods equally acceptable).

a. Purchase liability insurance yourself.
b. Incorporate your land.

State law relieving you of liability for hunters.

d. Make hunters pay you for liability insurance.
e. Make hunters sign an agreement relieving you of liability.
SECTION IV

The following question concerns the possible effects of a standardized
program for promotion and management of hunting on private land in
your county. Such a program would provide much better control over
hunters than in the past, but it would probably attract many more
hunters to the area. This type of program may or may not involve
income to the landowners. (Please circle "A" (Agree) or "D" (Disagree)
as before.

15. Below is a list of the possible effects of a standardized program
to promote and manage hunting in your county. Which of these
effects would be important to you in deciding whether or not to
participate in such a program?'

Agree Disagree
a. More effective enforcement of trespass laws. A D

Personal inconvenience caused by increased
numbers of people coming into your county. A

More effective enforcement of game laws.

d. Personal inconvenience caused by hunters

asking to use your land. A
e. Additional income for you from hunters. A
f. More business opportunities for local

residents. ‘
g. Possible damage to local property. A

h. More jobs for local young people from
increased business. A D

Al

Agree Disagree

i. Demands on local services such as road
repair and police caused by the numbers of
people coming into the area. A D

3. Reduction of problems between landowners

and hunters. A D
16. Certain land management practices are used to benefit wildlife on
private land, such as planting cover strips, preserving fencerows,
and the like. Below is a list of possible effects of good game
management in conjunction with a program to promote and manage
hunting in your county. Which of these effects would be important
to you in deciding whether or not to do something to increase
wildlife on your property. Assume that professional advice would
be available to you, free of charge. .
Agree D1sagree
a. Seeing more wildlife on your land. A
b. Time and money spent on wildlife management. A D
c. Better hunting for yourself and your friends. A D
d. Slightly lower total crop production. A D
e. More hunters wanting to use your land. A D
Beneficial effects of wildlife management
practices on soil conservation. A D
g. Increased income for you from wildlife from
fee hunting. A D
SECTION V

Your answers in this section will be very important to the effectiveness
of this study. Of course, these answers as well as the rest of your
answers will be held strictly confidential. (Please check the
appropriate answers). '

* 17.

* 18.

How much land do you own in Huron, Sanilac, or Tuscola counties?

a. 50 to 139 acres b. 1A0 to 259 acres
c. 260 to A99 acres d. 500 or more acres
e. Do you reside on this land? Yes No

How do you use your land?

a. _____ Farming by yourself.
b. _____ Farming by yourself and your relatives owning land nearby.
Rent or lease it to others for farming.

d. ______Government set-aside or land-retirement program.

e. Other use (timber, personal pleasure, etc.) (Please
describe briefly)

 

 

* 19.

20.

25.

A2

If your land is farmed, what is the main product?

 

 

a. Dairy products b. Cash field crops

c. Livestock d. A mixture of products with no
single main product. (Please describe the
products)

e. Other products. (Please describe)

 

Besides the land you own, do you farm land which you rent or
lease from others?

Yes If yes, how many acres

No

 

 

Are you presently
a. Employed full-time b. Employed part-time
c. Unemployed d. Retired

Approximately what proportion of your income do you earn from
your land?

a. All b. None c. About half

d. More than half e. Less than half

What was your age as of your last birthday:

a. 18 to 30 b. 31 to A0 c. Al to 50
d. 51 to 60 e. 61 or older

How many years of school have you successfully completed? (Please

circle the highest year which you have completed in each category
attended).

 

School Years Completed
Elementary l 2 3 A 5 6 7 8
High School 1 2 3 A

Vocational Training 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8
College 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8

Please check the space indicating your approximate income.

a. _____ less than $3,000
b. ______$3,000 to $5,999
c. ______$6,000 to $9,999
d. ______$10,000 to $1A,999
e. l_____ $15,000 to $2A,000
f. ______more than $25,000

A3

* 26. Would you like a summary of the results of this survey when it
is completed?

a. Yes b. No

 

 

If yes, please complete your mailing address in the space provided

at the bottom of the page. The address will be used only to
mail the results.

Thank you for your patience and cooperation.

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire Cover Letter

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER

Dear Landowner:

Just as your land produces income for you, it and the other private
land in Michigan produce wildlife which provides pleasure, recreation,
and economic benefits to hundreds of thousands of Michigan residents.
Unfortunately, public demands for wildlife such as hunting, bird-
watching, and nature hiking, sometime conflict with your rightful
uses of the land. As a student in the Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife at Michigan State University, I am concerned that Michigan's
wildlife resources be managed to the benefit of landowners and the
public alike. Without your cooperation and satisfaction, any attempt
to solve this problem will be fruitless. I am doing research in your
area to find out how you feel about the situation so that your

opinions can be a positive influence on those who are seeking the
answers.

The enclosed questionnaire concerns your attitudes about hunting on
your land. I am asking for the assistance of only a small group out
of the thousands of landowners in this area, so your answers are
essential to insure that the results are accurate. I trust that you
will see the importance of this research and will thoughtfully com—
plete and return the questionnaire at your earliest convenience.

Feel free to include any comments about the research or about hunting
on your land by using the backs of the questionnaire pages.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Jon Parker
Graduate Research Assistant

AA

APPENDIX C

Reminder Postcard for Questionnaire

APPENDIX C

REMINDER POSTCARD FOR QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Landowner:

Several weeks ago, you received a questionnaire

from Michigan State University concerning hunting on
your land. Although I have heard from about one—
third of the landowners contacted, I need your
response in order to make accurate conclusions.
If you have not responded, would you take a few
moments to fill out as much of the questionnaire
as you see fit and return it as soon as you can.
Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jon Parker
Graduate Research Assistant

A5

LITERATURE CITED

Brown, T. L. 197A. New York landowners' attitudes toward recreation
activities. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 39: 173-179.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1969. Hunting cooperative
plan for farmlands "The Williamston Plan". R 2202-1. Wildlife
Division, Lansing. 9 PP.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1972. Natural resources
laws. Legislative Service Bureau. A76 pp.

Michigan Natural Resources Council. l97A. Land use committee annual
report: the trespass question. Mimeo. 15 pp.

Palmer, W. L. 1967. An analysis of the public use of southern
Michigan game and recreation areas. Research and Development
report No. 102. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

88 pp.

Teague, R. D. 1971. Wildlife enterprises on private land. pp.
1A0—1A3. IE; R. D. Teague (ed.). A Manual of Wildlife
Conservation. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D. C. 206 pp.

U. S. Bureau of Census. 1972. United States census of agriculture,
1969. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
5 Vol.

Zorb, G. L. 1972. Job progress report: Korean pheasant, farm game
research. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Project
No. W—ll8—R—5, Job No. 121.1. Mimeo. 7 PP.

A6

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

HI
3

1293102

 

III III III! II
16

1365