.3 I. - ~g ~ P ‘2'; .‘ ‘ P! .‘ . L' a. U v ‘ " r. ' '. 3"5— ’.. .' -. 3. ." t v. . -1" .gm. . P .. Q ,3 a“ ‘1’. -. A f 4. -o \ A. ‘5 4'4 .31! v - : V A ‘ r. -- .‘: ' ' .:.~ I . ‘ \ .. c _‘ -‘n . a U1 - . N! a 7;: v'. ‘ , . . .x ” '1‘ u , “ 'd ‘ ‘ \ ‘ o u ‘7 u E .:.-‘§p"3~ . * r "2‘ : r \ .\ z 3 :3. x .1 «bu - .4 . - - :2 rs ' ‘K '4'“- : " ., . »-. = 2 ’.\ g. 3 g“ .“_4..-:...v.‘6 a. u - '3‘ -. 4.1'1‘. a an ‘ ' 1 it =4 \ ' " U V {nth- «I J- -' d ._,.:‘ . - - . a .7 '3 I. .2" O .t - :v ‘ 3-. - ‘ ‘ n .n 9“. ‘- I 4‘30 «U ‘ ‘ ' . - H: r. ‘3‘ ‘ c ‘3 a ' x . \_ a} '.. - .41“‘d-§' . mots:- vi a ". .‘B‘. v." .9@ .. W 53 £99.; . 7p - '. ' Rabin"; N . " \i‘k-TUU \ ABSTRACT SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTITUDES .OF MICHIGAN DEER HUNTING VIOLATORS By James Alan Kesel In this study the opinions, attitudes, and charac- teristics of Michigan deer hunting violators were compared with legal deer hunting sportsmen. Data was gathered through the use of a questionnaire sent to a systematic sample of convicted deer hunting violators and legally licensed Michigan deer hunters. A return of 52 percent of the total delivered questionnaires was received. Violators responded differently for 21 of the 36 questions that comprised the questionnaire. Michigan deer hunting violators were characterized by being younger (20-29 years of age) and more likely to live in the northern lower or upper peninsula, to hold an unskilled job, and earn less annual income than the sports- men. The violator is also more likely than a sportsmen to spend more time deer hunting, be more in favor of antler- 1ess deer hunting, to own older models of automobiles, and less likely to own a snowmobile. He is more likely than sportsmen to know the name of his local conservation ffV James Alan Kesel 0450 Mb officer, not to like that officer, to feel there should be fewer officers in the field, to be contacted much more often by conservation officers, and to feel he is contacted because of violator activity or because someone had informed on him. Violators as opposed to sportsmen also feel that game laws are well enforced, that there are too many game laws, no Opposition towards those who break game laws, that they wbuld not report an observed violation, that poaching is not detrimental to the deer herd, that only a small amOunt of deer violating is taking place near where they live or hunt, and that the cause of most violations comes [from the want or need for meat. Sportsmen and violators both exhibited some interest- ing similarities in attitudes and characteristics. For example, violators and sportsmen expressed many of the same. types of feelings towards the operational characteristics of violators. Both groups felt female deer are more often to become the targets of violator's shots than males. All respondents agreed that the highest level of violation activity took place at night during the first 15 days of November, just before the opening of the firearm deer season. Respondents feel that a deer rifle is the most common weapon used in violations. Three-fourths of all respondents felt DNR personnel were doing a good job and earning their pay, but 75 percent of all violators and sportsmen were against the DNR policy of antlerless deer hunting. Both violators and sportsmen felt that seven violators out of every one James Alan Kesel hundred are caught and prosecuted by DNR law enforcement officers. Results of this violator and sportsmen survey suggest several hypotheses. If tested further, they may yield useful distinctions between violators and non- violators of deer hunting laws and give some interesting answers to the question: The violator, who is he, why is he? These hypotheses are: 1. The highest number of illegal deer kills “‘5 take place during the fifteen days preced- ing the opening of the Michigan firearm deer season; The probability of being a deer hunting violator is correlated with the region of the state in which an individual lives; The probability of being contacted by a A conservation officer is much greater for violators than it is for legally hunting sportsmen; ' ‘The probability that the target of violators is eight times more likely to be a female deer than a male; The probability that most violators and sportsmen feel that the sport of deer hunting is over-regulated by too many of what they feel are unimportant laws. SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTITUDES OF MICHIGAN DEER HUNTING VIOLATORS BY James Alan Kesel 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 1974 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Leslie Gysel for the aid and guidance he have me during this study and during my stay at Michigan State University. I wish to thank Dr. Rollin Baker and Dr. Lewis Moncrief for their help, suggestions, and for editing the manuscript. I wish also to thank Dr. Nemah.Hussain and Greg Stoll of the Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Division for their timely assistance and without whose effort this study would not have been possible. Lastly, my heartdwarmed thanks go to my wife and friend, Janice, whose support and encouragement helped me through the rough times. A grant from the Federal Wildlife Law Enforcement Research program, Michigan Project W - 121 - R - 2, funded a major part of this research effort. Without this support the research would not have been possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLE mEMENTS . O I O 0 O O O O 0 LI ST OF TABwS C O O O O O O I O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . “THODS O O I O O O I I O O O 0 RES ULTS O O I O O O O O O O O . O 0 Personal and Family Characteristics General Recreational Characteristics Attitudes Towards the Department of _Natural Resources and Its Policies Attitudes Towards Game Laws . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . LITERATURE CITED . .1 . . . . . . . Appendix A. Questionnaire Used in Survey . B. Introductory Cover and Reminder iii Letters Page ii iv vi 15 18 23 32 35 37 41 Table 1. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Occupations of all Respondents . . . . The Distribution of Respondents Among Income Classes in 1974 . . . . . . Marital Status of all Respondents . . . Age Distribution of all Respondents . . Length of State Residency . . . . . . The Geographical Distribution of all Respondents . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents as to Urban- Rural Location 0 O O O O O O O O The Number of Days Spent Deer Hunting by .Violators and Sportsmen . . . . . . Attitudes Towards Antlerless Deer Hunting Respondents Knowledge of Their Local Conservation Officer's Name . . . . Attitude Towards What Type of Person the Conservation Officer Is . . . . . . How well is Conservation Officer Liked in COMUIIitY? o o ‘ O O O O O O o o Attitude Toward the Number of Conservation Officers . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the Difference in the Average Number of Conservation Officer Contacts Experienced by Respondents . . . . . iv Page 10 12 . 13 14 14 15 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 Table Page 15. Perceived Reasons for Being Checked by Conservation Officers by all,Respondents . . 23' 16. Respondents Opinion as to How well Game Laws are Enforced . . . . . . . . . . 24 17. Attitudes Towards the Number of Game Laws, . . 25 18. Attitude Towards Those that Break Game Laws . . 25 19. Attitudes Towards a Stranger Illegally Killing a Deer or Bear . . . . . . . . 26 20. Attitude Towards the Effect of Violating ' on the Deer Herd . . . . . . . . . . 27 21. Amount of Violating Respondents Felt Occurred in the Area Where They Hunt or Live . . . . 28 22. Month in Which Respondents Felt that Violating was the Highest . . . . . . . 28 23. Respondents Choice of Time When Most Violations Occur . . . . . . . . . . 29 24. Weapon Respondents Felt was Most Likely Used by Violators . . . . .. . . . . . 31 25. Respondents Opinion of the Cause of Game Law Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Illllllllllllll‘ulr’l‘lll {I \l JIIIIII|I [Ill II x a \ 15f II LIST OF FIGURES Figure ’ Page 1. Educational (highest) attainment of respondents in 1974 . . . . . . . . . ll 2. The most preferred outdoor activity of the respondents . . . . . . . . . . 16 INTRODUCTION One of the goals of Michigan's deer program is to maintain high animal pOpulation levels which will provide the maximum recreation for the general public. Only through a program of sound wildlife management will these goals be achieved. Laws that regulate the annual deer harvest are an important part of any management program. Because deer law violators are a serious problem, there is a real need to understand the differences between legal and illegal deer hunters. Attitudes and characteristics of the people involved in the taking of an illegal deer must first be determined before adequate programs are designed to reduce the number of deer violations. Cain (1960) has recognized the need for research. into the user-orientated studies. In successful business ventures, marketing study is as important as product research and development. Could this also be the case in various non-business fields? In wildlife management--in fact, in the entire field of public natural-resource management--it is in my opinion that more attention devoted to the customer would ease many a difficult situation and speed the application of science in practice. Man is more complex than a fish or deer. It is more difficult to make the human behavioral sciences scientific and the results more predic- ‘table than it is to examine the ethology of non-' humans, but a strong effort in that direction should help wildlife managers and others to diagnose their problems and approach their solutions. W. Winston Mair (1960), in his critique of the 25th North American Wildlife Conference, had this to say:’ I am disturbed too at the apparent complete lack of research into the social and cultural aspects of the wildlife conservation field. we are spending significant sums of money on wildlife now and plan to spend much more in the future, particularly with respect to the allied field of recreation. But there has been at this conference no mention of research into the mores of our pe0ple, their notivation and their real needs. As wildlife managers have become more aware of the importance of the user, many new studies have been conducted. Sportsmen have been surveyed many times attesting to the widespread interest in their attitudes and characteristics (Peterle, 1967; Palmer, 1967; Bevins, 1968; and U.S., 1972). The technique of questionnaire surveying has also proved useful in determining the characteristics and atti- tudes of natural resource law breakers. In New York a survey was conducted in order to compare the characteristics of violators and non-violators of deer hunting laws (Shafer gt_§l., 1968). Although some significant differences were noted no general differences were found and researchers have concluded that additional research.was needed. Vilkitis (1968) surveyed big game violators and sportsmen in Idaho as to their personal character and attitudes towards that state's laws and law breakers. It was concluded that in general there were few or no significant differences between groups. In both studies researchers felt that knowing the characteristics and attitudes of these resource users could lead to the development and implementation of an effective program of information and education that would be designed to reduce the number of big game violations. In Michigan, as of yet, no similar studies have been conducted. The violators and sportsmen of this state may in fact be different in character and attitude than those of New York.and Idaho. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain and compare some of the attitudes and charac- teristics of Michigan's deer hunting sportsmen with those of illegal deer hunting violators. METHODS »Questionnaires were mailed to 500 convicted deer hunting violators and to an equal number of legal firearm deer hunters. Violators were individuals that had been convicted of either illegally pOssessing a deer or of attempting to shine and shoot a deer after sunset. Names and addresses of violators were selected according to violation type from 1971 and 1972 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prosecution reports. It is assumed that this sample correctly represents a fair cross section of Michigan's deer hunting violators. No distinction was made between individuals that were arrested during the deer. season and those apprehended during the non-season. Names of legal hunters (sportsmen) selected from 1973 firearm deer hunting license files were drawn systematically with every 100th name selected. It was assumed that there were no‘yéconvicted violators among the sportsmen sampled. Several steps were involved in the preparation of the final questionnaire. A literature review was conducted and upon completion a list of possible questions was compiled. Questionnaire rough.drafts were submitted to graduate thesis committee members, DNR statistics and survey sectiOn, and to the research section of the DNR law enforcement division for review. . A pre-test of the questionnaire was conducted using‘ 100 sportsmen license holders who had previously answered a DNR fishing survey. The objectives of the pre-test were: (1) to determine if individual question formats were clear and easy to understand; (2) to test the ease in answering questions; (3) to determine if the proposed cover letter was an acceptable explanation of the questionnaire's pure pose. Ninety—one percent of the pre-test questionnaires were returned. After analysis, changes were made to meet pre-test and questionnaire objectives. Whenever possible respondents were simply asked to check appropriate boxes. However, several questions could best be answered if respondents were not influenced by several predetermined alternatives. These were designed as open-ended questions. Cover letters and questionnaires were similar for both sportsmen and violators; green questionnaires were sent to convicted violators while white ones were sent to sportsmen. The questions and their order of presentation were identical for both groups (Appendix A). The questionnaire was divided into four sections with section one dealing with general recreational charac— teristics and attitudes. The second and third sections were concerned with the attitudes towards the Department of 6 Natural Resources and its policies on wildlife law enforce- ment in an effort to gather additional information on the characteristics of violators and illegal hunting activi- ties. Section four contained personal and general back- ground questions to obtain a profile of the respondents' characteristics. A cover letter was used to introduce the question- naire. It was printed on Michigan State University stationery in an effort to give the survey addedprestige and thereby elicit a higher level of response. An attempt . to impress upon the respondent the importance of his opinion and of returning the completed questionnaire (Appendix B). was made. RESULTS One thousand questionnaires were mailed to violators and sportsmen on May 1, 1974. One hundred fifty nine ques- tionnaires (136 violators and 23 sportsmen) were returned as undeliverable because of incomplete addresses. A follow- up letter, reminding respondents to fill out and return the questionnaire, was mailed to non-respondents two weeks after the original mailing on May 13, 1974. or the 831 violators and sportsmen who received questionnaires, 435 (52%) responded, 178 (20.2%) were violators and 257 (31.8%) were sportsmen. Shafergt;213(l972) in a similar study received a 59 percent return. Vilkitis (1968) received a 51.5 percent return in a study on violators in Idaho. The 52 percent total return in this violator-non-violator study seems to be comparable to that of similar studies and should be considered when interpreting the data as to similarities and differences. I Questionnaire responses were coded and then trans— ferred to computer keypunch cards (Appendix C). The data was analyzed by the University of Michigan MIDAS system of pre-designed computer programs. A Chi—Square analysis was used to determine whether response patterns of sportsmen and violators were significantly different for categorical questions. Students T-test was used on questions which had continually distributed answer data to determine if there are any significant differences in Open-end response patterns between violators and sportsmen. All tests for Chi-Square and students T-test were made at the 95 percent level (alpha = 0.05). Personal and Family Characteristics The following are the results of responses from the fourth section of the questionnaire which was designed to gather information about violators and sportsmens' charac— teristics. Occupation Questionnaire responses indicate that-there are significant differences in the occupations held by sports— men and violators. Sportsmen (17.1%) hold more professional and management positions than violators (4.3%). Conversely, violators (21.9%) appear to hold more jobs in labor and transportation than do sportsmen (10.6%). Unemployment was about the same for all respondents, averaging about 7.2 percent (Table l). TABLE l.--Occupations of all Respondents. Occupation Violators (%) Sportsmen (%) Professional or technical 3.6 ~ 11.5 Managers or administrators .7 5.8 Sales 7.3 6.7 Clerical 1.5 1.9 Craftsmen or foremen 20.4 20.2 'Manufacturing 14.6 16.3 Transportation 9.5 .5.8 Labor 12.4 4.8 Farmer 5.8 5.3 Services 13.1 11.1 Construction 4.4 2.9 Unemployed, students or other 6.6 7.7 90 respondents did not answer. , Chi-Square = 20.682, D.F. = 11, P > .0368 Family Income Three hundred ninety eight of the 435 question- naire respondents answered the question concerning family income. Sportsmen earned considerably more money than did violators. Seventy-nine percent of all respondents had incomes of $8,000.00 or more. In contrast, only 65 percent of the violators earned above this amount while 88.3 percent of the sportsmen were earning at or above $8,000.00 (Table 2). 10 TABLE 2. --The Distribution of Respondents Among Income Classes in 1974. Income Class Violators (%) Sportsmen (%) Under $3,000 4.2 .9 $3,000-$5,999 15.5 4.8 $6,000-$7,999 13.7 a 6.1 $8,000-$9,999 9.5 16.51 $10,000-$14,999 36.3 37.0 $15,000-$24,999 15.5 28.3 $25,000 and over 5.4 6.5 Tbtal V ' 100.0 100.0 37 respondents did not answer Chi-Square = 33.321, D.F. = 6, P > .0001 Education Respondents were asked to check the highest grade of education they had completed. Questionnaire data indicates that there is no significant difference in the -level of education achieved between sportsmen and violators. Seventy-two percent of all respondents completed high school, with 11 percent having four years or more of college (Figure 1). Marital Status and Number of Dependents Four hundred and thirty of the 435 respondents indicated their present marital status. No significant differences were noted between violators and sportsmen, 11 :0 II. shaman .H ca nusocsomnou mo Dameswmuum Aumonmws. Hm Humosom H. _ .vhm . 00 um mouse e O . ‘ HooEom Ema: H e o OHHO _ . k . meow . .Umuu meow omuw .omnw osom > m > E «w? - .3. > 404 w m m S” m I am Mm rL we an...» I :1 1 mod MNH «ma $1.“ nuoumaow> n > suanunomm u m «dd wme 12 with 77.2 percent of all respondents being married. Only 3.3 percent of all respondents indicated that they were either separated Or divorced (Table 3). The average number of dependents for all respondents appears to be 3.34. No significant difference was noted between violators with 3.33 dependents and sportsmen with 3.35. TABLE 3.--Marital Status of all Respondents. Marital Status _ Violators (%) Sportsmen (%) Single 17.5 . 20.9 Married 80.2 75.1 Separated ' 1.7 1.2 Divorced .6 2.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Age The average age for all respondents was 31.68 years. Violators were considerably younger than the average sportsmen, with 65 percent being between the ages of 20 and 35 years of age. In contrast sportsmen were more evenly distributed in age with a larger portion of Older indi- viduals (Table 4). State Residency The average time of residency for all respondents is 30.75 years, which, when compared with the average age 13 TABLE 4.-—Age distribution of all Respondents. Age Class (years) Violators.(%)h. ... Sportsmen.(%) 14-19 3.9 . 8.6 20-24 ' 27.0 15.3 25-29 21.9 14.5 30-34 ' 15.7 - ‘ 12.5 35-39 8.4 11.0 40—44 A 7.9 ‘ 12.5 45-49 3.9 9.4 50-54 1.7 7.5. 55-59 ' 6.2 5.9 60-64 .6 2.4 65 + 2.8 ‘ .4 Total 100.0 . . 100.0 2 respondents failed to answer Chi-Square = 35.216, D.F. - 10, P > .0001 of all respondents (31.68 years) indicates that a majority of both violators and sportsmen have been residents of Michigan most of their life (Table 5). Place of Residency Questionnaire data indicate that 59 percent Of all ‘ respondents live in the southern half of Michigan's lower peninsula. Significantly more responding violators live in the upper and northern lower peninsula (Table 6). 14 TABLE 5.--Length of State Residency. Statistic Violator Sportsmen Total Mean ‘ 23.039 32.642 30.759 ‘Variance 163.68 190.14 --- N (size) 178 257 Student T-test = 3.5248, D.F. a 433, P > .0005 Thirty—one percent of all respondents reside in urban areas with pOpulations greater than 5,000 people. No significant differences were noted between violators and sportsmen as to residency in urban or rural locations; however, slightly more violators live in rural areas and slightly more . sportsmen live in cities with population levels of 5,000 or less (Table 7). TABLE 6.--The Geographical Distribution of all Respondents. Violators Sportsmen Total Location (%) (%) (%) Upper Peninsula 20.2 12.2 15.2 Northern Lower Peninsula 32.0 20.5 25.2' Southern Lower Peninsula 47.8 67.3 59.3 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 sportsmen did not reply Chi Square = 16.638, D.F. = 2, P > .0002 15 TABLE 7. --Distribution of Respondents as to Urban-Rural Location. Location I Violators (%) . Sportsmen (%) Rural 62.5 52.8- City (5000 or less) 8.5 15.0 City (5000 or less) 29.0 32.3 General Recreational Characteristigs The first portion of the questionnaire was designed to sOlicit information from the respondents about their general recreational attitudes and characteristics. Preferred Outdoor Activity Respondents were asked to indicate their most pre- ferred activity Of hunting, fishing, hiking, camping or other. Fifty eight percent of all respondents indicated hunting. No significant differences were noted between violators and sportsmen, although slightly more violators than sportsmen preferred to hunt. Also slight more sportsmen (15%) than violators (11%) preferred camping (Figure 2). Violators averaged significantly more time deer hunting than sportsmen. A11 respondents averaged 7.7 days of hunting, with sportsmen averaging 7.08 days and violators 8.6 days (Table 3). 60 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 (%) 20 15 10 16 63% i. §_§ S a sportsmen " V = violators x 26% 4).. ""‘ 22% m qb 16% . ... *r 11% F_. 4.- Th. ' 2% 2% 3% v s v s [a v s m E] Hunting Fishing Hiking Camping Other Figure 2.--The most preferred outdoor activity of the respondents. 17 TABLE 8.--The Number of Days Spent Deer Hunting by Violators and Sportsmen. ' ‘ Statistic Violators’ Sportsmen 7 Total Meanv 8.6067 . 7.0856 7.7080 Variance 42.884 21.891 --- N (size) 178 257 435 Student T = 2.8258, D. F. = 433, P > .0049 Except for snowmobiles there appears to be no significant difference between the type and number of cars, trucks and recreational vehicles owned by violators and sportsmen. The data indicates that sportsmen own newer and a greater number of snowmobiles than violators. Sportsmen also own newer models of automobiles. Antlerless Deer Hunting Analysis showed a significant difference in atti- tudes towards antlerless deer hunting by sportsmen and violators. Seventy percent of the violators and 79 percent of the sportsmen were against antlerless hunting (Table 9). The controversy over this policy has raged on for many years in Michigan. 18 TABLE 9.--Attitudes Towards Antlerless Deer Hunting. Respondents Favored (%) Not, Favored (%) Total Violators 30.2 ' 69.8 ' 172 Sportsmen 20.6 79.4 252 11 respondents did not answer the question. Chi-Square = 5.0867, D.F. = 1, P > .05 - Attitudes Towards the Department of Natural Resources and Its Policies The second portion of the questionnaire was designed in a way so as to ascertain attitudes towards the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and its policies. DNR Employees The data received showed no significant differences between sportsmen and violators in their attitudes towards how well Department of Natural Resources employees are doing their job. Seventy-five percent of all respondents felt that employees (foresters, biologists, and conservation Officers) are earning their pay. Attitudes Towards Conservation Officers Respondent data indicates that violators (69.6%) were more inclined to know the name of their local conser— vation officer than were sportsmen (40.9%). The fact that violators were probably apprehended by their local conser- vation officer would account for this difference. 19 Sportsmen checked by C. O.'s are not as likely to remember the officer's name if they are contacted less often and have not received a citation (Table 10). TABLE lO.--Respondents Knowledge of Their Local Conservation Officer's Name. _ Did Not Respondent Knew Name (%) Know Name (%) Total Violator . 69.6 30.4 . 100% 171 Sportsmen 40.9 59.1 100% 254 10 respondents did not answer the question. Chi-Square = 33.627, D.F. = l, P.> .001 How the public perceives a conservation officer may relate to attitudes and actions that may be directed towards all Officers. Violators were significantly more different than sportsmen in their attitudes as to the character of their local conservation officer (Table 11). Twenty-seven percent of all respondents had no Opinion. Good community relations are required if any acceptable level of law enforcement is to be obtained. A strong rapport with local people allows an officer to _obtain information on illegal activities and maintains respect for himself and what he represents. Violators (58%) were significantly more different than sportsmen (76%) in their attitudes as to how well their Conservation 20 Officer was liked in the community where.he worked and resided (Table 12). TABLE ll.--Attitude Towards What Type of Person the. ~ Conservation Officer Is. Attitudes _ Violators (%) Sportsmen (%) Likes people and job 41.5 52.2 Just a person with a jOb 29.2 18.9 Hates people 5.1 .4 ‘Don't know ' 25.1 . . 29.5 15 respondents did not answer Chi-Square = 14.814, D.F. = 3, P > .002 TABLE 12.--How well is Conservation Officer Liked in Community? Response ” ’ f Violators (%) Sportsmen (%) Liked ‘ 57.7 75.7 Disliked 42.2 . _ . . ..24-3 99 respondents did not answer Chi-Square = 12.063, D.F. = 1, P > .0005 'Conservation Officers like all police officers have) certain inherent dangers that people in other occupations do not have. The attitudes of people vary in respect to the amount of perceived danger and accordingly they may acknowledge a certain amount of respect and admiration in proportion to that level of hazard or danger. Sportsmen 21 and violators are similar in their attitudes with 71 percent of all respondents feeing that the job of Conser— vation Officer is hazardous or dangerous to some degree. The number of Conservation Officers on duty in the state is directly related to the amount of enforcement available for the protection of Michigan's natural resources. ~Questionnaire data show a significant difference in the. attitude sportsmen and violators have towards the desired nUmber of officers. Only a few violators (2.9%) and none of the sportsmen felt that there should be no Conservation Officers. Sixty-five percent of the responding sportsmen and 54.4 percent of the violators felt there should be more officers. More violators than sportsmen felt there should be fewer officers than there are now (Table 13). TABLE 13.-*Attitude Toward the Number of Conservation Officers. Number Violators (%)....Sportsmen (%) None 2.9 0.0 Same number 32.2 32.2 Less officers 10.5 ' 3.2 More officers 54.4 64.8 Total 100-0.... ...... 100-0 14 respondents did not answer Chi-Square = 17.954, D.F. = 3, P > .0004 22 Respondents Contact with Conservation Officers .Respondents were asked to list the number of times they were contacted by a Michigan Conservation Officer in the last three years. Questionnaire data indicates that all respondents were contacted an average of two times. Violators averaged significantly more contacts (2.65) than sportsmen (1.7). Four respondents reported that they had not been contacted including three violators who had been apprehended during the past three years (Table 14). TABLE l4.--Ana1ysis of the Difference in the Average Number of Conservation Officer Contacts Experienced by Respondents. Statistic Violators Sportsmen Total Mean 2.6517 1.7082 2.0943 Variance 2.4656 1.1450 --- N (size) 178 257 435 Student T = 7.4543, D.F. = 433, P > .0001 When respondents were asked what they felt was the reason for the contact, most sportsmen (84%) felt it was routine or through a regular check. Most violators felt that it was a combination of two reasons, with 36 percent believing it was suspicion of violator activity and 34 per— cent believing it was just routine. None of the sportsmen and 6 percent of the violators felt that someone had’ informed on.them (Table 15). TABLE 15.--Perceived Reasons for Being Checked by Conservation Officers by all Respondents. Violators (%) Regular check 33.6 53.0 Just conversation 15.7 31.3 Someone reported you 5.7 _ . 0 Suspicion of violator activity 36.4 8.7 To get information 5.7 4.3 Don't know 2.9. .. . . . .42-6 Sportsmen (%) 38 violators and 115 sportsmen did not answer the question. Chi Square = 39.515, D.F. = 5, P > .0001 Attitudes Towards‘Game'Laws In section three an attempt is made to ascertain the attitudes sportsmen and violators have in relation to- game laws and their administration. This section also questioned respondents as to violators'operational charac- teristics. Game Laws Most respondents (81%) felt that present game laws were beneficial. Only 23 percent of the violators and 16 percent of the sportsmen felt that game laws had no bene— fit. Violators may have some animosity towards the law as a result of conviction but the sportsmen should have have these feelings and should have generally answered this question in the affirmative. 24 Significantly more violators (46%) than sportsmen (32%) felt that present game laws were well enforced by law enforcement personnel. More sportsmen (41.7%) than violators (37%) felt that laws were poorly enforced. Twenty three percent of all respondents replied that they did not know how well laws were enforced (Table 16). TABLE l6.--Re3pondents Opinion as to How well Game Laws are Enforced. Opinion Violators (%) Sportsmen (%) well enforced ' 46.0 i 31.7 Poorly enforced 36.8 ' 41.7 Don't_know 17.2 1 26.6 Total . 100.0 . 100-0 9 respondents failed to appear Chi-Square = 10.118, D.F. = 2, P > .007 When asked about the number of game laws, most sportsmen (94%) felt there were enough, with 6 percent in the opinion that there were too many laws. Significantly more violators (26%) felt that there were too many game and wildlife laws; also, fewer violators than sportsmen felt that there were not enough.laws on the books (Table 17). Attitudes Towards Those Who Break Game Laws Vilkitis (1968) stated that most residents of Idaho condoned illegal big game hunting. Questionnaire data 25 TABLE 17.--Attitudes Towards the Number of Game Laws.‘ Attitude Violators (%) Sportsmen (%) Too numerous 26.0 - 6.0 Enough 62.7 78.9 Not enough 11.2 15.1 Total . 100.0 100-0 15 respondents did not answer Chi-Square = 33.705, D.F. = 2, P > .0001 indicates this is not the case in Michigan.' Ninety percent Of all respondents either Opposed or strongly opposed persons breaking present hunting laws. Violators' attitudes differed significantly from that of sportsmen as to the degree of opposition. Only 2 percent of the sportsmen as opposed to 18 percent of the violators did not oppose those who broke game laws (Table 18). TABLE 18.--Attitude Towards Those that Break.Game Laws. Attitude Violator (%). .. .Sportsmen.(%) Strongly Oppose 28.2 58.9 Oppose 54.1 37.9 Don't oppose 17.6..1 _. ............3-2... 17 respondents did not answer Chi-Square = 49.430, D.F. = 2, P > .0001 26 Many violators go unpunished because sportsmen refuse to be involved and report individuals involved. Significantly more sportsmen (73.0%) than violators (57%) would report a stranger that they had witnessed killing an illegal animal. Eighteen percent of the violators and 9 percent of the sportsmen would not report the incident, while 21 percent of all respondents would approach the individual involved and discuss the violation (Table 19). TABLE 19.--Attitudes Towards a stranger Illegally Killing a Deer or Bear. Attitude ' Violator (%) . . .Sportsmen (%) Report him 56.6 73.0 Not report him 17.9 9.3 Discuss it with him 25.4 17.7 Total 100.0 100.0 14 respondents did not answer Chi-Square = 12.926, D.F. = 2, P > .002 If a friend or neighbor is cheerved killing a deer illegally both violators and sportsmen (74%) would either not report the incident or discuss it with the individual involved. Only 26 percent of all respondents would report the incident to a Conservation Officer. When asked if violating hurts the deer herd, 30 percent of the violators and 11 percent of the sportsmen answered no. Significantly more sportsmen (89%) than 27 violators (70%) felt that illegal deer hunting did hurt the‘ deer herd. It is interesting to note the high number of violators that admit to damaging Michigan's deer herd by ‘ their activities (Table 20). TABLE 20.--Attitude Towards the Effect of Violating onthe Deer Herd. ' Attitude ‘ Violator (%) ‘ .. .Sportsmen (%) .Hurts deer herd . 70.3 89.2 Does not hurt herd 29.7 10.8 Total 100-0. . _ ._ 100-0 14 respondents did not answer Chi-Square = 23.839, D.F. a 1, P > .0001 Violator Operational Characteristigs When respondents were asked how much illegal deer hunting was going on in the area they hunted, 31 percent of the violators and 29 percent of the sportsmen replied that they felt that there was a high level of violating. Only 5 percent of all respondents felt that there were no incidents of illegal hunting where they lived or hunted (Table 21). Time of Highest Violation Activity When respondents were asked in what month do most big game violations occur, violators (36%) and sportsmen (34%) felt that November was the most active. October was 28 the second choice with 27 percent of all respondents choosing it (Table 22). TABLE 21.--Amount of Violating Respondents Felt Occurred in the Area Where They Hunt or Live. Amount Violator (%) ..Sportsmen (%) High 30.9 . 28.7 Some I 32.0 46.7 Little 30.9 ' 21.3 None 6.3 .. .. ...,3.3 16 respondents did not answer Chi-Square = 11.308, D.F. = 3, P > .0102 TABLE 22.--Month in Which Respondents Felt that Violating Was the Highest. ' Month Violator (%) .. ...SpOrtsmen (%) September 7.5 7.1 October 30.1 25.1 November 35.8 34.1 December 6.9 7.5 January 2.3 2.7 February ' 1.7 1.6 March 0.0 2.0 April .6 2.7 Other or Don't Know 15.0 17.3 Total ..100-0....... ... . ...100-0 29 Both violators (46%) and sportsmen (45%) concurred that during the closed season the most active time for violations was at night. A total of 67 percent of all respondents felt that most violations occurred after dark (Table 23). TABLE 23.--Respondents Choice of Time When Most Violations Occur. Time Violator (%) Sportsmen (%) Night Closed season 45.6 44.8 Open season 18.1 23.8 Day Closed season 6.4 9.9 Open season 29.8 21.4 Total 100.0. . . .,. ...100-0M Sex of Illegally Killed Deer Eighty-two percent of all respondents (83% of the violators and 82% of all sportsmen) felt that female deer were most often taken by violators. Number of Cripples Most of the illegal deer hunting in Michigan takes place at night or during the day under less than ideal conditions. Consequently a large portion of the deer that are hit by Violators' shots are lost as cripples. When 30 questionnaire respondents were asked to estimate this loss, both violators and sportsmen felt that for every 100 animals hit an average of 29 were lost as cripples. Number of Arrests When asked how many violators were apprehended for every 100 illegally killed deer, respondents indicated an average of 7.69. No significant difference was noted between violators (8.87%) and sportsmen 6.78%) as to the number of violators arrested. Department of Natural Resources law enforcement figures indicate a 2.4 percent detection and arrest rate (Hussain, 1974), which is con- siderably lower than estimates made by respondents. Hunting Weapon There appears to be no significant difference in the opinion of violators and sportsmen as to what illegal deer hunting weapon is most preferred. All respondents agreed that deer rifles (41%) were used most, followed by .22 caliber rifles (31%) andihéétéghg:u23%). Only 2 percent felt hand guns were used.most and 3 percent indicated bow and arrow (Table 24). Reason for Breaking Big Game'Laws Sportsmen and violators apparently have different views as to why people break game laws. A majority of the violators (67%) felt that the need for meat was the primary 31 TABLE 24.--Weapon Respondents Felt was Most Likely Used by Violators. ‘WeapOn Violator (%) Sportsmen (%) Deer rifle 35.7 45.1 .22 Caliber rifle 34.5 29.3 Shotgun 26.3 19.9 Handgun 1.2 2.8 Bow and arrow 22.3 2.8 Total 100.0 ..100-0 motivation for illegal hunting, while sportsmen felt it was a combination of the need for meat (44%), for kicks or thrill (18%), for dislike of the Department of Natural Resources (18%), and because of bad judgment (11%), Table 25). TABLE 25.--Respondents Opinion of the Cause of Game Law Violations. Cause Violator (%) Sportsmen (%) Profit 1.6 6.0 Meat 67.4 44.0 Kicks 13.4 17.9 Poor judgment 5.8 10.7 Dislike for Department of Natural Resources 5.8 17.5 Disrespect for law and order 3.5 2.4 Influence of alcohol 2.9 1.6 Total .100-0 ..100.0 11 respondents did not answer Chi-Square = 32.563, D.F. = 6, p > .0001 DISCUSSION ‘ It was suggested at the beginning of this study by a few conservation officers and biologists that perhaps 9 the only difference between violators and sportsmen is that violators are the ones that get caught. Considering the fact that response analysis shows so many significant differences, raises some doubts as to the validity of this statement. This is especially evident in the attitudes of violators towards hunting regulations. ‘Violator responr dents felt that their actions of illegal deer hunting had no harmful effect on the deer herd. ‘Violators also appear to take many more female deer than males, yet they are against antlerless deer hunting. Also they probably would not report an observed_game law violation. All these examples lead me to conclude that violators in general have a lack of understanding of the purpose of game laws and the fundamentals of game management. Moncrief (1970) found that the general distrust of state government by upper and northern lower peninsula hunters was directly associated with the lack of support for Michigan's antler- less deer management policies. Questionnaire data indicates 32 33 that most violators reside in the upper and northern lower peninsula. The distrust for government described by MOncrief-may also be associated with the lack of confidence in the purpose of game laws and the cause of deer hunting violations. This situation can be changed, however, with laws that are sound and accompanied bngood programs of required hunter education. Perhaps an expansion of the present hunter safety program might fill this role. Research is needed to develop and administer future educational pro- grams that would explain and educate people about the basis- and purpose of wildlife management programs and their resultant regulations. In the future these programs cOuld reduce the number of Michigan deer hunting violations. As with any study of this type there are certain inherent weaknesses. There are many reasons why using an artificial testing device failed to measure the true char- acteristics and attitudes of violators and sportsmen. Some of these limitations are discussed. The sample containing sportsmen who had supposedly not been convicted of law violations obviously contained some violators who had never been apprehended. Their inclusion in this group may have significantly influenced some of the similarities between the responses of the two’ groups. 34 With little more than half of the total sampling frame available, one needs to interpret cautiously any reported differences or similarities between the two groups. In future surveys, a further stratification by violator type seems necessary. Unknowingly any one segment of violators could be over-represented in the results. The sample should be broken down into four basic types as to time of Operation: diurnal; nocturnal; closed-season; and Open-season. I The fact that some violators have been apprehended may be cause for a significant difference in attitude towards many of the questionnaires t0pics. This could mean there are significant differences between convicted violators and non-convicted violators. Reliability of responses is not known; however, three violators that had been apprehended in 1972 or 1971 replied that they had not been contacted by a conservation officer in the last three years. This represents less than two percent of all the violators who responded. Personal interviews, telephone interviews, i m ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Do you think DNR employees. that is Biologists. Conservation Officers. and Foresters are earning their pay? I] Yes D No 2. Do you know the name of your local Conservation Officer? D Yes E] No 3. What type of person do you think the Conservation Officer is? CHEC ONLY ONE K [I Likes people and his job D Hates people CI Just a person with a job [:I Don't know 4. To your knowledge. is the Conservation Officer D liked or D disliked in your community? 5. Do you think that a Conservation Officer‘s job is hazardous or dangerous? D Yes CI No 6. Do you feel that there should be: D No Conservation Officers D Less Conservation Officers D The same number of Officers [:I More Conservation Officers 7. 38 How many times have you been contacted by a Conservation Officer in the last three years while hunting? [3 None I] Two E] Four D One D Three C] More than four (No.___) If you were contacted. what was the purpose of the last contact? D Regular check D Suspicion of violator activity D Just friendly conversation D To get information D Someone reported you [I Don't know Ill. ATTITUDES TOWARD HUNTING AND FISHING LAWS CHECK ONLY ONE CHECK ONLY ONE 00 you feel that present game laws are beneficial? D Yes D No From your experience would you say that game laws are: [3 Well enforced D Poorly enforced D Don't know Do you, feel that the number of game laws are: D Too numerous D Enough D Not enough How do you feel towards those who break game laws? D Strongly oppose D Oppose D Don't oppose ln your opinion do you feel that violating hurts the deer herd? D Yes D No From conversations with friends and local people living near where you hunt. how much deer violating is going on? D A lot [:1 Some [3 Little D None For every 100 animals shot by violators. how many do you think get away as cripples? In what month do you feel most big game violations occur? I] September I] December D March E] October [:1 January D April C] November E] February D Don't know When do you feel most violations occur? [:1 During hunting (firearm) season during daytime D During hunting (firearm) season at nighttime D During closed season during daytime D During closed season at nighttime 10. If you saw a stranger illegally kill a deer or bear would you: D Report him D Not report him D Discuss it with him 11. 12. 13. CHECK ONLY ONE 14. CHECK ONLY ONE 39 If you saw a friend or neighbor illegally kill a deer or bear would you: D Report him D Not report him D Discuss it with him From conversations with local residents and friends in the area where you deer hunt. which do you feel is most often taken by violators? ”B Male 2)D Female Which do you feel is most often used by a violator in taking deer illegally? D Deer rifle D Handgun D 22 caliber rifle D Bow and arrow B Shotgun Why do you think people break game laws? D For profit D Dislike for DNR D For meat U Disrespect for law and order D For kicks D Because of the influence of alcohol D Poor judgement IV. GENERAL INFORMATION 1 . What is your main occupation? What is your family's total income? D Under $3.000 D $8.000 - $9.999 E] 325000 and over [:1 53.000 . $5.999 CI 510.000 - 914999 [I $6.000 - 97.999 [3 915.000 - 524.999 What year did you complete in school? B 6 years or less D Finished high school D Some graduate work D 7th-9th grades D Some college D Finished graduate degree D Some high school B Finished college Where do you presently live? [J Rural or country U City (population under 5.000) D City (population over 5,000) How many dependents do you have? D None D Two D Four C] One D Three B More than four At the present time are you: D Single D Married D Separated D Divorced How long have you lived in Michigan? Years 40 8. What age class do you fall under? D 14 years - 19 years D 45 years - 49 years D 20 years - 24 years [3 50 years - 54 years D 25 years - 29 years E] 55 years - 59 years- D 30 years - 34 years D 60 years - 64 years D 35 years - 39 years D 65 and older D 40 years - 44 years 9. Where do you live? ' D Upper Peninsula D N. Lower Peninsula D 8. Lower Peninsula 10. For every 100 deer killed illegally. how many violators do you feel are arrested? Use the space below for comments you may have. APPENDIX B INTRODUCTORY COVER AND REMINDER LETTERS 41 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE . EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ' 48824 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING Dear Sportsman: Michigan is blessed with an abundance of woods, clean waters, and beautiful wildlife. As a result of more leisure time and higher incomes more people are using these natural resources. Everyone is becoming mere aware and interested in the wise uses of these irreplaceable resources. Researchers at Michigan State University are conducting a survey of the uses to which our natural resources are being put. We are interested in the people who are making regular use of the State's resources. Attitudes and ideas these peOple have are important in formulating resource management programs. Your name was chosen from a list of people who have_purchased a hunting or fishing license in the past ten years. If everyone selected takes the time to thoughtfully answer this questionnaire, the University will have a valid, meaningful sample. If you find any questions that you do not care to answer, please leave them blank. Naturally, all information will be held in strict confidence. In taking a few moments to answer this questionnaire and to return it, you will be helping Michigan State University design a plan for the future uses of our natural resources. Sincerely, /(O%L James A. Kesel Graduate Researcher 42 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY am unsure . met-now 49923 DIPARTHINT OP "SHIRIBS AND WILDLIFE - NATURAL RISOURCRS DUILDINO Dear Sportsman: About two weeks ago, a Sportsman's questionnaire was mailed to you.- Per- haps you have already completed and returned it? If not, will you please fill it out and mail it back today? I realize that it will take some time and effort, but it is important that we have your reply. Returning this questionnaire will be an important step in helping to formulate a plan for the future use of Michigan's natural re- sources. - Thank you, Wfl/ James A. Kesel Graduate Researcher "Iilliiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii“