i=1; 3:: _. .. 5,
y... . . than, L...
.133...‘

' "if-3}

1‘
,‘.

I:
30......
I911"...

umﬁvné
.. y.

tram. .1

3.33:4.“ f.

r5337 . ..

ft.
a“ 11:
I...) 5

:f‘ytl, :
.. i: :w 9:3.

.13

(AL. 5... ‘
31.17.,

drugs...

L. .. L t.
i. . to;

if:
M,

‘
a
'1

..

.:. HER . n

.3:

1.2. «.3:
1!“..23 .

v. I . .
L 15.3%; 3.7!”- . 5,

.v

1., . . . . , I: .. . I , .
um": .Xhﬁo. .51.: 5.1“.“ .rvn stung; it” 1a.»; ..... .3 . . ,, , . r .1
.. m ¢ 3% wgg ‘ wrﬁé

; i. 2 .
...HA.‘.:£¢. . V...» .
I: v . ‘a

, . A.

I A .
, . ....

 

STAT

                                   

::l

 

                                       

lllllllllllllllllll

301020 0776

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Assessing Stakeholder Preferences Regarding
Current and Future Bear Management Options

presented by

Lisa D. Grise

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Master of Science degree in Fish. & Wildl.

Writ/74c

Major profess/

Date October 24, 1994

O-7639

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

_ ._.____

 

l
l

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
Unlverslty

 

PLACE N RETURN BOXto romovothb checkoufrom your record.
to AVOID FINES Mum on or baton duo duo.

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

W " 1" 7,1"; ’1.
Q I Img’f"; ‘3

 

LSEP:0 3 2005

 

4.
‘~-'

 

 

sea
94199

 

 

 

 

 

M
.Aﬁ-ﬁ-l-émh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASSESSING STAKEHOIDER mas REGARDING CURRENT
AND FUTURE BEAR MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

by
IjsaDyameGlise

A THESIS
Subm'tted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the mqu'lemem
for the (kglee of

MAS'IEROFSCII‘NGE

Depalumnt of Fisheries and Wklife
1994

ABSTRACT

ASSESSING STAKEHOIDI‘R PREFERENCE REGARDING (IJRRENT
AND HJTURE BEAR MANAGEMENT OPHONS

by
IjsaD.Grise

Over the past decade, several states have experienced increased controversy regarding
black bear (1.1m W) management The decision in IVﬁchigan to limit hunter entry
and the resulting conﬂicts among bear opinion leaders over preferred methods of allocating
hmrtingpermitsmadeitnecessarytodeterminethepreferences ofbearhunters onastatewide
basis. Project objectives also included the evaluation of beer hunting behavior and bear hunter
attitudes and beliefs oomerning bear hunting regulations, bear management, and use of bait
and dogs.

Methods involved six focus groups held in three locations in Michigan followed by a
statewide rmil survey in 1993. The survey sample was randomly selected ﬁom the population
ofl992bearlmnterapplicants; a75%responseratewasobtained. Datafromthisstudy
showed that bear hunters specialize by hunting method (e.g., bait, dogs) and these specialist
groups differ in their hunting behavior, and attitudes toward bear hunting regulations, the
MDNR, andothermethodsofhmrtingbear.

ACKNOMEDGMFNIS

Indshtoexpressmyappreciationtoallthosewhohelpedintheplanningand
execution of this research Iam particularly grateful to my committee chairperson, Dr. R. Ben
Peyton, for his exceedingly generous contributions of time, patience, and wisdom Iarn
deeplyimiebtedtohimforthelmowledgeandinsightthathesowillinglyshared. Hehasbeen
atruernentor.

Imuldalsoliketothanktheothermembersofmyconmrittee,Dr.ShariDannand
Dr. Kirk Heinze, for providing rmny helpﬁrl comments throughout the course of this project.
Dr.ShmiDarmisespeciaHyappeciﬂedfmlwrwﬂﬁngresstobeamplacenentmnmﬁﬂee
rnemberatsuchalatepointinthisproject

SpecialthanksareduetoTunReisandBillMoritzoftheMchiganDepartmemof
Natural Resources for their active involvement in rmny aspects of this research

Fisheries and \Vrldlife undergrads, Jeﬁ‘ Rupert and Julie White, were exceptional
assistantsthrougmutthefocusgroupphaseofthisstudy.

IalsowanttothankDomaMmris,myoﬂicc—mateandﬁiendforﬂrelastthreeyears.
Herassistamemcmxhrﬁngfwusg'omasmllashasupponmﬁfeedbackwere
extrernelyvaluabletome.

Fimlly, I would like to thank Carl and my family for their support throughout this

chapter in my life.

iii

TABIE 0F oomrNIs

LIST OF TABLES ................................................ viii
INTRODUCTION ................................................. l
The History of Black Bear Management in Michigan
Hunting Regulations .................................... l
The Bear Population .................................... 1
Bear Hunters and Related Issues ............................ 2
Onrent Issues Surrounding Bear Marngement ........................ 5
Statement of the Research Problem ................................ 7
Research Questions ..................................... 9
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................ 10
Human Dimensions of Fisheries and Wildlife Management ............... 10
Marketing in Fisheries & Wildlife ................................ 11
An Overview of Marketing ................................ 11
The Role of Segmentation ................................ 13
Segmentation Analysis ................................... 15
Targeting Identiﬁed Segments .............................. 18
Problems in Social Marketing .............................. 20
Deﬁning and Providing a Product ........................... 21
Social Subworlds and Recreation Specialimtion ....................... 23
Issue Management ........................................... 26
Connmmieation ............................................. 28
METHODS ...................................................... 31
Phase I-Focus Groups ......................................... 31
Phase II-Nhil Survey ......................................... 35
Pilot Mail Sm'vey ...................................... 37
Sample Selection ....................................... 37
Mail Survey Implementation ............................... 38
Data Entry and Analysis .................................. 39
RESULTS ...................................................... 41
Nonresponse ............................................... 41
Survey Results .............................................. 42
Demographics ......................................... 42
Segmentation Criteria .................................... 42
Hunting Characteristics .................................. 45
Importance of Bear Hunting ............................... 52
loyalty to Hunt Methods ................................. 55
Reasons for Going Bear Hunting ............................ 55

iv

Bear Hunting Regulations ................................. 62

UseofDogsandBaittoI-IuntBear .......................... 71
WtionsforLimitingtheNumberofBearHarvested .............. 78
Harvest Tag Allocation .................................. 80
Bear Management ...................................... 83
The Bear Population .................................... 87
Sources of Information on Bear Hunting ...................... 90
Changes in Hunting Due to 1990 Regulations ................... 96
ComparisonofOpinionIeaderswiththeGeneralBear
Hunting Population ..................................... 99
Comparison of Dog-Leaders with Dog-Nonleaders .............. 110
DISCUSSION ................................................... 111
Overall Findings ............................................ 111
Segmentation of Respondents ............................. 111
Bear Hunting Characteristics and Behaviors of Respondents ........ 112
ImportanceofBearI—hmtingComparedtoOtherRecreation ........ 113
Reasons for Going Bear Hunting ........................... 114
Attitudes toward Regulation Trade-offs ...................... 115
Attitudes toward Waiting for a Harvest Tag ................... 116
Attitudes toward Season Length ........................... 117
Attitudes toward Hunter Success ........................... 117
Attitudes and Beliefs Conceming Use of Bait and Dogs .......... 118
Beliefs about the Bear Population .......................... 118
Preferences for Harvest Tag Allocation ...................... 119
Point Preference vs Random lottery ........................ 119
Attitudes and Beliefs Concerning the DNR .................... 120
Communieation for Bear and Bear Hunting Issues ............... 122
Proﬁle of Segments ......................................... 122
Him-method Segment Proﬁles: Dog Only .................... 122
Hunt-method Segment Proﬁles: Dog/Bait .................... 124
Him-method Segment Proﬁles: Bait Only .................... 126
Hunt-method Segment Proﬁles: Still Only .................... 128
Hunt-method Segment Proﬁles: Generalist .................... ' 130
Hunt-method Segment Proﬁles: Not Yet Hunted Bear in
Michigan ........................................... 132
Membership Segment Proﬁles: Bear Hrmting Organimtion
Member ............................................ 133
Membership Segment Proﬁles Bear Hunting Orgammtron
......................................... 135
Membership Segment Proﬁles: Other Hunting Organization
............................................ 137
Membership Segment Proﬁles Other Huntmg Organization
Nonmember ......................................... 138
Cohort Segment Proﬁles: Before Cohort ..................... 140
Cohort Segment Proﬁles: After Cohort ...................... 141

Trends in Bear Hunter Characteristics and Attitudes ................... 142

Changes in Hunter Characteristics Over Time .................. 142

Changes in Attitudes Toward the Status ofthe Bear Population
Over Time .......................................... 143
Changes in Attitudes Toward Use of Bait and Dogs Over Time ..... 144
Comparison of Leaders and Nonleaders ............................ 145
Differences in Hunting Characteristics, Behaviors, and Attitudes ..... 145
Diﬂerences Between Dog-leaders and Dog-nonleaders ............ 146
Implications for Wnagement ................................... 148
Recreation Specialization ................................ 148
Representativeness of Bear Opinion Leaders ................... 149
Bear Management Strategies .............................. 151
ProblemswiththeCmrentBearManagementProcess ............ 153
LITERATURE CITED ............................................. 154
APPENDD( 1: Approval letter from UCRIHS .......................... 159
APPENDD( II: Glossary of terns ................................... 161
APPENDD( m: Focus group screening survey .......................... 164
APPENDIX IV: Focus group discussion guide .......................... 167
APPENDD( V: Focus group summaries (six focus groups) ................. 174
APPENDDI VI: Pilot survey ....................................... 199
APPENDDI VII: Pilot survey results summary ........................... 213

APPENDIX VIII: Mailing contents for statewide bear hunter survey. questionnaire,

cover letters, and postcard reminder ...................... 217

Table 1A
Table 2A.
Table 3A
Table 4A.
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.

Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.

Table 14.
Table 15A

Table 15B.
Table 16.

Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.

Table 23.
Table 24.

HST OF TABIIS

Response to phone solicitation of focm group participants ............ 33
Number of bear focus group participants for each location ............ 34
Sampling frame for statewide mail survey ....................... 38
Mailing schedule for statewide mil survey ....................... 39
Response, nonresponse, and nondeliverables for statewide mail survey . . . . 41
Demographic characteristics of the weighted sample ................ 43
Main characteristics used to segment respondents .................. 44
Percent of each hunt-method group who were members of hunting
organimtions ............................................ 44
Percent of each hunt-method group in the before and after cohorts ...... 45
Hunting characteristics of weighted sample ....................... 47
Hunting characteristics analyzed by hunt-method group .............. 48
Hunting characteristics amlyzed by cohorts ...................... 49
Meanyearrespondents beganbearhuntingandmeannumberofdays

hunted in 1992 for bear .................................... 50
Bearsharvestedanalyzedbymembershipinbearhmrtingorganizations . . . 51

Bemsharvestedamlyzedbymembershipinoﬂrerhmtingorganimﬁons ..51
Importanceofbearhmrtingcomparedtootherrecreationalactivities ....53
Importanceofbearhmrtingarnlyzedbyresporxlentsinhmrt-meﬂrod

groupswhoownbeardogs .................................. 54
Importanceofbear hunting analyzed by number ofbear harvested ...... 55
Percentofhmrt-methodgroupswhointendtouseeachmeﬂrodtohmt
bearoverthenextSyears ................................... 56
Potentialclnngesinhmt—metlndgroupsoverthenextﬁveyears ....... 56
Meanraﬁngofhrponanceforwhyrespmdentsgobearhtmﬁngmralyzed
byhunt-methodgroup ..................................... 57
Muraﬁngofhnponanceforwhyrespondemsgobearhmrﬁnganalﬂed
bymembershipinhmrtingorganizations ......................... 59
Rwanraﬁngofimportanceforwhyresporxiemsgobearhmninganalyzed
bycohorts .............................................. 60
Mnraﬁngofimportameforwhyrespmdmtsgobearhmﬁnganalyzed
bybearlnrvested ......................................... 61
than importance of each of the following factors analyzed by hunt-
methodgroup ........................................... 63
Meanirnportanceofeach ofthefollowingfactorsanalyzed by membership
inbearhuntingorganimtions ................................ 64
Mimponanceofeachofﬂrefoﬂoudngfactorsanalyzedbymembership
inotherhmtingorganizaﬁom ................................ 64

murmmtanceofeachofﬂrefonowingfactorsanalyzedbycohorts ...65
Icngestresporxlentswouldwaitforaharvesttagandstillbesatisﬁed
withbearhunting ......................................... 67

vii

Table 25.
Table 26.
Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.

Table 30.
Table 31.

Table 32.

Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 35.
Table 36.

Table 37

Table 38A.
Table 38B.
Table 38C.
Table 39.
Table 40.
Table 41.
Table 42.

Table 43.
Table 44.

Table 45.
Table 46.

Table 47.
Table 48.

Table 49

Table 50.
Table 51.

longest respondents would wait for a harvest tag before they would quit

applying ............................................... 68
Mean season length that respondents would be satisﬁed with, given the

current overlapping seasons .................................. 69
Mean season length that respondents would be satisﬁed with, given split
seasons ................................................ 70
Ihmtersuccessrate(per10hmrters)neededtobesatisﬁedwithbear
hmrﬁngandperoentwhoreportedﬂratsuccessrateisnotimportant ...... 73
Opinions on hunting bear over bait analyzed by hunt-method group ..... 74
Opinions on hunting bear with dogs analyzed by hunt-method group ..... 75

Response to statements about hunting bear over bait analyzed by

respondents who indicated baiting "Should Continue", "Should not

Continue", or are "Not Sure" ................................. 76
Responsetostaternentsaboutlmntingbearwithdogs analyzedby

respondents who indicated dog hunting "Should Continue", "Should

not Continue", or are "Not Sme" .............................. 77
Approval of four rrrethods for limiting the number of bear harvested each

year in Michigan ......................................... 78
Approval offom'methodsfor limitingthenmnberofbearharvestedeach

year in Michigan analyzed by hunt-method group .................. 79
Choice of point preference or random lottery to allocate harvest tags, given

a short wait ............................................. 81
Choice of point prefereme or random lottery to allocate harvest tags, given

a long wait ............................................. 82
Satisfaction with current bear rmna ....................... 84
Agreement/disagreement to a statement about the DNR .............. 85
Agreement/disagreementtoastatementabouttheDNR .............. 86
Agreement/disagreementtoastatementabouttheDNR .............. 88

Whatishappeningtothebearpopulationintheareayouhmrtmostoﬁen .89
Percentandnumber ofrespondentswhouseinfonmtion sources

"frequently', "sometimes", "rarely", and "never" ................... 91
Mnﬁequencyofuseofinfomrationsomoesanalyzedby

hunt-method group ........................................ 92
Mean frequency of use of information sources amlyzed by membership

in hunting organimtions .................................... 93
Mean frequency of use of inforrmtion sources analyzed by cohorts ...... 94
Pemernofrespmrdernsunerestedinanendmgworkshopsand/orneeﬁngs

on bear hunting .......................................... 95
Percent ofrespondents who reported changing their hunting practices

became of the drawing to issue tags ........................... 97
Percent of each hunt-method group who reported changing their hunﬁng
practicesbeeauseofthedrawingtoissueharvesttags ............... 98
Representation ofhurrting organizations inthe leadergroup ........... 99
Bear hunting methods of "leader" and "nonleader" ................. 100
Hunting characteristics of "leader" and "nonleader" ................ 101
Importance rating of bear hunting compared to other recreational activities

for "leader" and "nonleader" ................................ 101
IntenttousebearhuntingnrthodsoverthenextS yearsfor"leader" and
"nonleader" ............................................ 102

viii

Table 52.
Table 53.
Table 54.
Table 55.
Table 56.
Table 57.
Table 58.
Table 59.

khanraﬁngofimportanceforreasonswhyrespondentsgobearhrmting

amlyzed by "leader" and "nonleader" .......................... 103
Agreement/disagreement to statements about the DNR analyzed by "leader"

and "nonleader" ......................................... 104
How much importance should the DNR assign to the following factors
analyzed by "leader" and "nonleader" .......................... 105
Opiniom on hunting bear over bait analyzed by "leader" and

"nonleader" ............................................ 106
Opinions on hunting bear with dogs analyzed by "leader" and

"nonleader" ............................................ 107
Approval of four methods for limiting the number of bear harvested each

year in Michigan analyzed by "leader" and "nonleader" ............. 108
longest would wait for a Inrvest tag and still be satisﬁed with
bear hunting and before they quit applying ...................... 109
Choice of point preference or random lottery to allocate harvest tags

analyzed by "leader" and "nonleader" .......................... 109

INTRODUCTION

The Iistory ofBlackBeaermagenmnt in Mchigan
H . B l .

Black bear (Umrs mm was an unprotected species in Michigan until 1925
Mrenlnmterswerelimitedtotaldngonlyonebearwiﬂradeerhcense dmingtheNovernber
deer hunting season (VVrldl. Div. 1988). In 1939, the Michigan legislature removed all
protection for bear, but gave authority to the Natural Resources Conrrnission (NRC) to
establishregulationsandseasonswhenneeded. Thisallovvedblackbeartobetakenatany
time, anywhere,andbyanymeans, unlessprotective actionswererequestedbyaBoardof
Supervisors for a particular county (erdl. Div. 1988). In 1952, the ﬁrst statewide regulation
made trapping illegal as a method for harvesting bear. In 1959, legislation was passed
requiringhmterstoobtainabearhmrtingstamp,withasmall gamelicense,oraﬁrearrnor
archerydeerlicensetohmrtbear. Abearhmrtinglicensereplacedthebearstampin 1965;
however, archery deer license holders could still take a bear. Black hear was removed ﬁom,
arxlplacedbackontheﬁrearmandarcherydeerlicenses severaltimesmrtil 1980. Currently,
beareanonlybetakeninMichiganwithaspecialbearhrmtinglicense; theuseofbothdogs
and bait is legal.

W
Thecontinuous shiﬁingofbearhmrtingregulationsoverthepastSOyearshasbeen
due in part to ambiguous biological data on black bear. Historical black bear population data
slowﬂratﬂreymepresemﬂrmugimmMiclﬁgandmingpresenlememnmes, butbythemid

1

2
1800's they had begun to disappear from the southem areas ofthe state (Baker 1983).

Earliest records indicate that hunting pressure was low throughout the early 1900's, but as
hmnan populations grew, bear habitat decreased, pushing bear to the northern parts ofthe state
(Wild. Div. 1988). Bear population estimates were mainly ﬁom harvest data, which the
Wildlife Division of the Department of Natinal Resources collected through various methods
beginning in 1936. Harvest data were not consistently obtained until 1972 when compulsory
bear registration was established (Harger 1979). There were few data available for
determiningbearpopulationsizearxlsmmrrestatewideimtilthe IWO'smnﬂchhigan
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) intensiﬁed its efforts to collect biological
information ﬁom harvested bear (Wlldl. Div. 1988). MDNR agency personnel were ﬁrst
asked to extract pie-molars when harvested bear, brought to check stations by hunters, were
examined Later, reproductive tracts from harvested females were obtained on a voluntary
basis (Boushelle et al. 1990).

Due to their bi-annual breeding habits and tendency to range over wide areas, black
bear have been a difficult species to study in the wild (Walker 1985). Live-trapping and
radio-collating bear, which had been experimented with since the 1950's, increased in the
1980's. The biomarker, tetracycline, was also used experimentally to better track populations;
however,bothoftlesemethodswerecostlyandtime—consmring, so,wereemployed
sparingly. Population data are still incomplete, but MDNR biologists estimate that the
population is stable or growing in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and northem lower Peninsula
(L.Visser, Mi. Dept Nat Res, pers. comm).

MW
Ihnﬁerdemandwasalsoparﬂymsponsibleforﬂreconstmnchangingofbear
regulations. Thenurrrber ofbearhuntersﬂuctuatedaromrd4,000 from 1959 (theﬁrstyear

3
data were available) until 1968, but jumped to 6,977 by 1969. Black bear had become a

valued game species with increasing demand from hunters and increasing conﬂict over
methods med to hunt them Sportsmen's licenses, ﬁrst sold in 1970, allowed hunters to
[Juichme one license for all types of hunting, including bear. Consequently, much inforrmtion
aboutbearhunteiswaslostforseveralyears,butbasedonharvestdatabearhmrtimgwason
the rise throughout the 1970's (Harger 1979, Boushelle et al. 1990). Dogs and bait had been
anacceptedmeansofharvestingbearformostofL/ﬁchigan'sbearhuntingpast, butasresource
demands increased, hunter segments became increasingly polarized over conﬂicts associated
with these techniques.

In response to diversifying viewpoints, several new bear hunting organimtions, United
Bear Hunters (UBHA), Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen (UPBHA), and Northeastern
Michigan Hourrdsrnen (NEMHA) Associations sprang up in the mid-80's, where previously
there had been only one, Michigan Bear Hunter's Association (MBHA) (B. Walker, MBHA
Pres, pers. com). The MBHA had been communicating with the MDNR since its inception
in 1946, but its role in decision making, and that of the newly formed bear organizations,
increased throughout the 1980's. During this time, bear managers also began to seek input
from these groups on proposed regulation changes (J. Stuht, M. Dept Nat Res, pers. comm).

Unfortunately, these four organizations did not mrirror the characteristics of the bear
hunting community. Even though baiters out-numbered houndsmen in Michigan, the majority
of the members of each of these groups were houndsmen (Peyton 1989b). Therefore, as issues
involving hunting mrethods erupted, baiters were left with little or no organized representation
As a result, in 1985, baiting as a mrethod for hunting bear was challenged. Some hunters
believed tint bear numbers were decreasing and that commercial baiting activities (placing
baits for hunters for a fee) were partly responsible. Efforts to have baiting eliminated were
msuccessfiiLbutasaresult, somebaitingrestiictionswereimposedbytheNRC.

4
Consequently,resermnembetweenthehomrdsmenandbaitersgrew.

Innergioupswmﬁmedmpirshfmumeasedpopiﬂaﬁmstidiesandsuiaerwnuols
on bear harvesting throughout the 1980's (Peyton 1989b, Wildl. Div. 1988). Anti-hunting
acﬁvitieswerealsoincreasingatﬂristimecreatingevenmxrreissres forresomce managers. A
petition drive was initiated by a disgruntled U.P. landowner to eliminate hunting bear with
dogs, a move also supported by some baiters and anti-hunters.

Differencesammghuntergroupsweieﬁrstquantiﬁedina 1985 statewide surveyof
bear hunters (Peyton 1989b). A questionnaire was mailed to 1,200 individuals who were
randomly selected ﬁorri 1983 bear hunter applicants. Results showed that only 20% of the
respondents were hmindsmen, while 50% exclusively sat over bait. These specialist hunters
meieputedasbeingveryloyaltoﬂieuclxrsenmethodsarxlhavingliule intentiomofusinga
diﬁ’erentmethodforfuturebearhunting Baitersanddoghunterswereshowntobeatodds
over the ethics, success rates, and interference involved with using these methods. Those who
usedmeitherdogsnorbait(l3%ofiespondents)werealso intolerantofmethods, otherthan
their own, for hunting bear.

Other issues that were causing conﬂict during the 1980's were hunter trespass, hunting
violations, nomesident hunters, hunting seasons, and nuisance bears (Wildl. Div. 1988). In
addition, the harvest of bear had been increasing steadily since 1984, and biologists felt that a
cmﬁmnﬁmofﬂrisuuﬂwmﬂdresultmmmmlmestmtesﬂnmxceededpiodmﬁm
(Boushelleetal.1990). ToaddresstleseissuesandfutureneedsﬂreMDNRWildlife
Division developed a Black Bear Mamgement Plan in 1988 (Wildl. Div. 1988).
RecommendaﬁomfmimmediatemrdMneacﬁmswemmndemﬂlatermvieuedbybear
hunting organimtion leaders (J. Stuht, Mi. Dept Nat. Res., pers. comm). Nonresident hunters
were limited and seasom were adjmted, but organization leaders continued to actively eall for
strictercontrolsonthebearharvest. In 1990,the1\/1D1\1Restablishedeigl'itbearmanagement

5

units. Mﬂrsepamtemﬁtsﬁheywmdsethxhpmdanbearhawenqmmsbasedmeachmeas
estimated population level. The quotas established for each unit were designed to limit bear
larvest by limiting the number of available harvest tags.

Conﬂict over the use of dogs and baiting still continued at a disruptive level, but in
1990 another critieal problem faced the MDNR: harvest tag alloeation. Since the zone and
quotasystembegan, therehavebeenmorethanhvobearapplicamts for everyavailable harvest
tag Arandomlotterywasusedin1990toissueapproximately4,200harvesttagsto9,600
applicants. In 1991 and 1992,thosewhohadnot yetbeendrawn foraharvest tagwere given
preference, including ﬁrst-time applicants. Problems in this system resulted in 300+ applieants
going three consecutive years without receiving a tag, while some other applicants received
tagszioeinthesamethreeyearperiodCT. Reis, Mi. Dept Nat Res., pers. comm). In 1993,
onlythosewhoappliedineachofthethreepreviousyearsandbadmotreceivedaharvesttag
were given preference; the remaining tags were issued randomly. Some bear hunters were
dissatisﬁed with this allocation system, claiming that dedicated hunters who wanted to hunt
oftenweretakingabackseattothosehavingaspurious interest. "lhisaddedmoredissention
to an already tenutms MDNR/hunter relationship.

GIMMSmrningBearMmagemert

Themethodusedinl994andbeyomd for allocating harvest tagsisacritical decision
for bear managers. Some bear hunter segments have communicated their opinions concerning
thisissuetotheMDNRmainlythroughaseriesofmreetingsbenweenagencypersomieland
selected bear opinion leaders. Most of the infonrration that follows was obtained from
attendingthreeoftlesemeetimgsfrom1992to 1993.

Thumopﬁonsﬂetbeeamemnstviableforaﬂoeaﬁmgbearharvesttagswereﬂie
randomlotteryandpoint preferencesystemsCT.Reis,M.DeptNat.Res.,pers.comrn). A

6

random lottery would give all applicants an equal chance ofbeing drawn in any given year.
Point preference gives applicants a point each year they apply for a harvest tag and fail to
receiveone;applicantswiththemostpointsobtainharvesttagsﬁist Overthelastdecade,
Wisconsin and Minnesota have adopted point preference systemrs to allocate bear harvest tags,
but with mixed results. Although applieant numbers have risen dramatically in both states and
extandedthelengthoftimehmtersmustwaitforalmrvesttag,bearmanageisconsiderthe
systemasuccess(D.Schad,l\/finn.VVidl.Div.,pers.comm). Mchigam proponents of the
rarxiomlotteryviewh'ﬁnnesotaandWisconsinasproofthatusingapointpieferencesystem
artiﬁcially inﬂates the number of bear hunter applicants by forcing those who do not intend to
huntinagivenyeartorenminintheapplicantpool. Applicantmnnbersarealsorisingin
Michigan with over 16,000 individuals applying for 5,000 harvest tags in 1993, but many
elements couldbecontributingtotheincreaseCT. Reis, Mi. Dept. Nat Res., pers. comrm).

Season lengths are also causing some debate and confusion among bear hunters.
Currently, hunt periods vary considerably with two, one-week hunt periods in the lower
Peninsulazone; thesecondweekisonlyforarcheryhunters. Dnrmrmndlslandhasaone-
weeklmntperiodinwhichanylegalmethodcanbeused. ThesixUpperPeninsulazones
have two, 42-day periodsthatbegin ﬁve daysapart Theﬁistﬁve days, dogsareanillegal
formofhmrﬁngsomostbaithmrtersapplyforthisﬁrsthuntperiod Morehunteisapplyfor
ﬂeﬁrstlnnupaioddmﬂresecmdmﬂeU.P.mnuﬂybecmsemomhmneismebaitbm
successratesarealsohighestimtheﬁrstdaysoftheseasona“.Reis,Mi.DeptNat.Res.,pers.
comm).

Somewouldliketoseehimtperiodsstructuredtocompletelyseparatedogarxibait
hunters. Othersargueformnreseparationofbowandgrmhmrters. Bearorganimtionleaders
feelﬂratseasonscouldbeerdendedtoprovidemehimtingdaysudﬂromaffectingthebear
pqmlaﬁmbceamelnrvestratesdeaeasesubsmiﬁaﬂyatﬂemdofhmnpaiods. Thelength

7
oftimeallowedforprehmrtdogtrainingandbaitingisalsoasourceofconﬂict. Hunterscan

traintheirdogsonbearallyearvviﬂrﬂieexceptionofapeiiodﬁomApriltoJulyaridtheﬁrst
ﬁvedaysofthebearhuntingseasonintheUpperPeninsula. Baitersmayonlybeginbaiting
onerrxrnthpriortothebearhrmtingseasoninthatarea.

Other issues of importance to hunters involve cost and availability of bear hunting
applieations and licemes. Hunting organization leaders have been debating the merits of
elevatingtheblack bear's biggamestatuswithahigher license fee. Concemwasexpressed
that increasing the license fee would put bear hunting out ofthe reach of lower income hunters
and would become over-commercialized. Organimtion leaders also expressed concern about
howextralicensedollarswouldbespentbytheMDNR.

hidividmlswhogoalongonahmmMﬂidogsudﬂiomeamyingaﬁreannmmst
purchaseaparticipationlicenseforthesarnepriceasthosewhoreceiveaharvesttag
However, those participating in baiting activities without a ﬁrearm need not obtain a license.
This situation has raised cries of ineqmlity among some bear hunters.

Oderfaamsﬂntemerunoharvestmgaﬂocaﬁonmwnfomdﬂeisswmeeqrﬁmbﬂity
to comprehensive lifetime license—holders, senior citizens, group or party hunters, and the
nglmsoflandomrersmprotectﬂiemselvesﬁompropenydmmgedietobears. Humtersare
jmtpartofthemiiverseofissues smrourrdingbearmmagemrerrtinMichiganbuttheconﬂict
over harvest tag allocation and other hunting regulations is consuming a disproportionate
amountoftimeandeﬁ‘ort. Itiscriticalthattleseproblermaredealtwithtorelievethe

tension in MDNR/hunter relations.

Strrtermrl of tin Research Problem
Asystemslmiﬂdbemplaceﬂntallowsresomcenemgemtoidmﬁfyusergrorms
associated with a particular resource. These stakeholders couldthen be monitored to identify

8
clenging stakeholder characteristics, achieve meaningful stakeholder involvement in
appropriate management processes, and provide for a rational exchange of ideas among
stakeholdergroups. Maregersshouldalsobepartofacontinuousprocesstoeducate
stakeholders regarding the social and ecological aspects of resource management. Such a
system would invoke a combination of processes ranging ﬁom nonformal, imstructured
communication between maregers and groups of stakeholders to repeated use of highly
structured, interactive meetings and quantitative data collection methods.

The complex anay of issues surrounding Mchigan bear management involves highly
specializedstakeholder groups. Muchis knownoftheattitudes ofasmallportionofthese
stakeholders, the opinion leaders; however, it is urrknowm whether their attitudes are reﬂected
in tie remainder of the bear hunting commmiity. To what extent can opinion leaders among
these hunter segments be relied onto represent the preferences, attitudes and behaviors oftleir
assmnedconstituents? Dotleyrepresentthosebearhunterswhoarenotmembeisofhimtimg
organizations? There are, indeed, signs that the adoption ofa lottery system has increased the
nmnberofﬁmtﬁmebearhmnemwlﬁledecreasmgﬂiemmrberofhmmmwhohavebwn
involved for rmny years. This raises the question ofwhetler the makeup ofthe bear hunting
community in Michigan has been substantially changed by the recruitment and dropout of
formerhumtertypes. Ifso,whataretleimplications fortrendsimbearhuntingmethodsand
ethics? Will preferences for management strategies be changed and how might this affect the
resource and/or other stakeholder groups (e.g., nonconsumptive users, landowners, etc)? To
exploretleseandotlersuchquestionsﬁiisstixiywasmdertaken Thestudygoalsweieto:

identify attitudes and characteristics of various bear hunter groups and changes
tletmayhaveoccinredinthesegroupsovertime; '

corm'astatﬁmdesandchamcteﬁsﬁcsofﬂeophﬁonleaderswithﬂroseofﬂe
hunter groups to identify the extent to which opinion leaders accurately
representtheviewsofbearhmrtersingeneial;

9

evaluate the irrrpacts of recent changes in bear hunting regulations on
cleracteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of bear hunters; and

recomrrnend cormnunication processes which will support and advance black
bear management in Michigan

W

What are current characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of bear hunters as they relate to their
involvement in bear hunting and have they changed over time?

What are current characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of bear hunters as they relate to the
methodsusedtohuntbearandhavetheychangedovertime?

What beliefs and values do bear hunters have toward himting bear with dogs and bait and have
they changed over time?

What factors are involved in creating a satisfying bear hunting experience?
Wtet are bear hunter beliefs pertaining to tie biological need for bear harvest restrictions?
What are bear hunter beliefs and attitudes conceming rew hunting regulations?

Wlet are bear himter beliefs and attitudes concerning the MDNR's management ofbear and
bear hunting?

Whattypesofcommninicationsomcesareusedamongbearhmrtersforimfomnatiomonbear
andbearhunting?

Dothepositionsofopinionleadersonbearandbearhmrtingissuesrepresentbearhmrtersin
general?

Weanbepredictedaboutﬁitmebearhmitertrends?

IITERATURE REVIEW

ﬁlm Dimmions of Fisheries and Wildife Managemerl

Tie earliest formrs of wildlife management involved "the art of making land produce
sustained annual crops of wild game for recreational use" (leopold 1986z3). Managers relied
primarily on tie use of biological techniques to manage wildlife on a level similar to
agriculture (Decker et al. 1992). Though this view continued unchallenged for several
decades, managersbegantorecognizetleneedtomderstandtlepublic's relationshiptothis
resource as well (Kellert and Brown 1985). However, it was not until tie late 1970's and early
80's that wildlife management texts began to recognize a new deﬁnition of wildlife
maragement that involved manipulating wildlife to meet societal goals (Decker et al. 1992).
Unforturately, in practice, many resource managers continued to emphasize tie biological
applications associated with measuring and cataloging wildlife populations, while avoiding tie
humandirrensiora. Tlusappearstobechamgingasanincreasingmmiberofwildlifemanagers
are studying people, as well as wildlife (Kellert and Brown 1985, Duda 1986, Decker et al.
1992). Kellert and Brown (1985) identify four areas of human dimensions that must be
considered further".

constituency identiﬁcation;

multiple satisfactions maragement;

social impact and tradeoff aralysis;

and public awareness and education.

Waginganatmalresomce suchasblackbearimthe 1990'srequirest1athuman
dimensions be balanced with biological data gathering As ore of the few large mammals

remaining tlat co-exists with humans, black bear present unique management problems.

10

11
Marageis must deal withproperty damage to landowners, loss ofrevenue to famers, fear and

intolerance of the public, over-harvest by hunters, targeted actions of animal rightists, and
politically motivated legislation. These sociological factors combire with a lack of detailed

biological data on black bear to create a sensitive management situation.

Marletug’ in ﬁsheries all Wildife
! C . [I I l .

Vlfrth such a wide anay of constituents comes a complex assortment of values and
beliefs tlat are inconsistently communicated to the resource manager on how the resource
should be maraged. This makes the equitable allocation of resources more difficult (Eberhardt
et al. 1990). Marketing strategies could be applied to assist tle marager in deciding how to
provideservicesﬂatbestmeettlereedsofmanydiffeientpubhcsmida 1990).

The term "marketing" has different meanings to different people. Ore way to look at
mmkeﬁnghasahmsacﬁmmexcMngebdueenMesﬂﬂbmﬂuallybaeﬁciaHEbeﬂardt
et al. 1990). According to lovelock and Weinberg (1978), modern marketing las two
different meanings to people. Ore connotation conjures up "immoral" elerrents of selling,
inﬂuencingandpersiading Theotlerassociationappearstobe less salientintlepublic's
mindandinvolvesservingandsatisfyinghumanreeds. The latteristlebasis fortle
existenceofgovemmrentorpublic service institutions suchastleDepartmemtofNatmal
Resources.

Public service institutions such as tie Michigan Department of Natural Resources have,
intl'epast, avoidedtleuseofrrarketingtechrriques. This isprimarilydietotlepeiception
tlat tie public service sector is markedly different from private business and, therefore, would
not be suitable for a marketing program (Kotler 1982). Unlike commercial businesses, public

servicehaﬁurﬁmearembjeamunensepubhcsmiﬁnyandamobﬁgedmprovideservices

12
tlatdonotresultinaproﬁt. I-Iowever,thisdoesnotmeantlatadifferentsetofmarketing

principles must be used wlen dealing with public or nonproﬁt organizations, ratler, tie
application of these principles must be adjusted to accommodate tle demands (Haley 1985).
Sravely (1991:313), stated that "all enterprises involved in regular exchanges with customers
presumably are able to use marketing techniques to increase the valie of their exchanges for
tlemselves and their customers." lovelock and Weinberg (1978) point out tlat marketing
toolsusedtoassistanagencyinachievingobjectivesareasappropriate for social servicetype
organimtions as for commercial organimtions.

Realimtionstl'atmarketingtools couldbe adapted foruse imgovemmentand social
institutions occurred in the late 1970's (Kotler 1982, Cromrpton and Lamb 1986). Kotler
(1982:490) deﬁned social marketing as "the use of marketing principles and techniques to
advanceasocial cause, idea,orbehavior." Thismindsetresultedﬁomshiﬁs inthe socialand
ﬁrancial enviromrents of these agencies. The "new" environments were characterized by
reduced funding, decreasing client satisfaction, voeal criticisms from constituents, and
legislators, and increased comrpetition from the public sector. Marketing became a means to
deal with these rewly acquired problems.

Unforturately, many organimtions may lose sight of this original mandate and become
self-serving. Cmmptonandlamb(l986)statetlattlemostdiﬂiculttaskinmarkeﬁngis
focusing the efforts of personnel on satisfying tie wants of clientele rather tlan on tleir own
immediatewell-being Marketingistlefurrctionofamiblic service institutiontlatcankeep
pamelmomatmnmmhwiﬂichanmedsarﬂaameﬂatpodwts/servicesmeetﬂese
reeds (lovelock and Weinberg 1978). Duda (1990) deﬁnes marketing within the context of
ﬁsleries and wildlife agencies as "tl'e deliberate and orderly process of understanding ﬁsh and
wildlife publics in order to provide tlem with qiality ﬁsh and wildlife experiences within the

constraints of resource protection, and to foster positive ﬁsh and wildlife attitudes and

13
belaviors toward tie resource."

Selling and inﬂuencing will be part of marketing, but selling follows ratier tlam
precedes tle creation of a product/service. Marketing aralyzes potential customers (their
reeds, preferences and otl’er characteristics), segrremts the population, and tailors the product
(its promotion, price and distribution) based on the results of tie market aralysis (Kotler 1982,
Cromptomandlamb 1986, Duda 1990, Eberlardtetal.l990).T1emostuseﬁil marketing
strategies tlat can be used in maraging natural resources may be segmentation and targeting.
Segmentation identiﬁes stakeholders (e.g., bear hunters, wildlife viewers, landowners),
wiereas, targeting can direct the product/service design, promotion and pricing, (e.g.,
hunting/viewing opportunities, damage control) to ﬁt the reeds of the previously identiﬁed

segments.

WW

Tlerole ofsegrrentationinmarketingisnotarewore. Wendell Smithhasbeen
credited forwblishingtleﬁrstarticle ontletopic in 1956, inwhichle describedtle
useﬁilnessofsegmemtingtlemarket intomarageable groupsandtlendevelopimgseparate
marketing strategies for each group (Pierce and Sorkin 1972, Arndt 1974, Haley 1985).

According to Haley (1985), segmentation will become an increasingly important aspect
ofmarketingasom'populationgrows. Themepeopletl'ereare,tle greatertlelikelihood
thatsegments largeenoughtobeworthwhilecanbefomrdarmmgtlepopulation Massmedia
options such as satellites and eable television also contribute to more efficient targeting of
smaller segments.

Identifying potential target markets is the ﬁrst step in planning an effective marketing
strategy (Crompton and Lamb, 1986). "Tie purpose of market segmentation" [as stated by
Pierce and Sorkin (1972:17)] "is to deﬁne the variables which uniqiely describe various

14
consumer groupsandtoclassifytlrerespondents intothese groups." Accordingto
Schlegelmilch and Tynan (1989), segmentation should identify and delineate homogereous
groups of individuals who tien fomn tie target audience. Duda et al. (1989) reported that the
ways people relate to wildlife vary depending on factors such as gender, age, race, income,
level of education, place of residence, knowledge of wildlife, etc. Kotler (1982) pointed out
tlat individuals may be segmented on the basis of demographics (e.g., age, sex, income),
geographical location (e.g., region, county, city), or behavior (e.g., knowledge, attitudes).
Mandese (1989), felt tlat a segmentation process should consider demographics and
geographics, as well as psychographics, economics, and lifestyle patterns.

Bothgeographicanddemographic infomationareusedtodaybutareconsidered, in
general, poor predictors of speciﬁc types of behavior (Haley 1985, Schlegelmilch and Tynan
1989, Rueff 1991). However, this does not mean tlat this infomration is not useful.
Demographicandgeographicdataareslewnasveryuseﬁil inseparatingusersofa
product/service from tie nonusers (Haley 1985). Also, Schlegelmilch and Tyran (1989)
coreider the combiration of geographic and demographic data useful in iderrtifyimg
coretituents who make up tie "heavy users" ofa product/service (based on Twedt's (1964)
tleorytlatimmanyareasofproduction, 50%oftleusersaccormt for 80%oftheuse).

The growth and diversiﬁcation of society brought rew studies aimed at identifying
prefeiereesandreedsthatgeograplﬁcanddemegrarﬂﬁcdatacouldmt Thisresultedin
"psyclegraphic" segmentation Psychographic segmentation is considered a more effective
means of identifying population attributes that are more closely associated with user belavior
(Ediis and Meidan 1990). Psychographic data attempt to determine user behavior by analyzing
individual persorality and attitudiral claracteristics. According to Rueff (1991), good
psychogiaphic data should give tie "hows" and "whys" of comsurner behavior by determining
how a target thinks, feels, believes and acts. Psychographic research las been popular since

15
the1960'smadverﬁsmgagemiesbmdidmtspreadmoﬂerbusmessesmiﬁlcompmemwiﬂi
large-scale data processing capabilities were widely available (Wells 1974). Computers
allowed easier manipulation of the large quantities of data generated in psychographic studies.

Although few individuals agree on the exact set of segrrerrtation variables to consider
in a marketing plan, most feel the need to include some demographic, geographic, and
attitudinal characteristics (Amrdt 1974, Kotler 1982, Haley 1985, Cromptom and Lamb 1986,
Riche 1989, Edris and Meidan 1990).

S . 5 l .

Inconductingasegmentationstudy, amarketermustdetermirewhichdemographic,
geographic, and psychogiaphic variables are needed, and which relationships between these
variables are important (Backstrom and Hush-Cesar 1981). Variables can be divided into
eitler dependent or independent variables (Hopkins et al. 1987, Bless and Achola 1988, Tull
and Hawkins 1993). The variable tlat is being manipulated, measured, or selected is the
independentvariable. Dependentvariablesarethosewhicharemeasuredandreﬂecttle
impact of tie independent variable. Dependent variables are tle object of a segrrerrtation
study. Researcl'ers hypothesize how dependent variables are "caused" or "forced" by the
independent variables (Hopkins et al. 1987).

Marketers must also be aware of whether variables are measuring attitudes, beliefs, or
belaviors. Research has indicated that these three components are separate entities which may
or may not be related (Oskamrp 1991). Oskarnp (1991:7) lists several deﬁnitions of "attitrrtle"
tlat lave been widely adopted, but concludes that attitudes are an individual's "predisposition
to respond in a particular way to the attitude object". Beliefs, on the other hand, are an
assessmentofwhatapersonthinks istrueorfalse (Dillrran 1978, Oskarnp 1991).

Once the study variables have been identiﬁed, they are aralyzed using both secondary

16
(literature review) and primary (questionraire, focus groups and interviews) data (Haley 1985).
Secondary research involves inventorying relevant information from various sources.
Professional, govemment and trade literature, publications, speeches and proceeding are some
of the possible sources of infomration According to Backstrom and Hursh-Cesar (198129), the
following questions should be answered with secondary research:

Does tie infonnatiom already exist?

Why do we need the information?

What population are we trying to describe?

What resources do we have?

Analysis of secondary data is followed by primary research Primary research data can
beobtainedinseveral ways. Decidingwhichresearchapproachtousedependsomwhetlerthe
type of infomration reeded is quantitative, qualitative or both. According to Goldman and
McDonald (1987), quantitative research concems itself with counting thing to anive at
statistically projectable data, while qualitative research addresses tie nature of attitudes and

Qantitative data can be obtained through mail, telephone or face-to-face sm'veys
(Dillmran 1978, Backstrom and Hush-Cesar 1981, Tull and Hawkins 1993). Regardless of
method, surveys gather generalized information concerning a segment ofa population and, in
some cases, tie entire known population (Backstrom and Hursh-Cesar 1981). Survey research
can be a ore-time attempt to describe behavior or a multiple-time measure tlat tracks changes
over time.

Qualitative research includes small-group studies or focus groups and individual, in-
depth interviews. Goldman and McDonald (1987) stated the underlying goal of this type of
research is to explore "the feeling and beliefs people hold, and to learn how these feeling
Slape overt belavior."

Thefocus groupinterviewisbasedomtleassmnpﬁonﬂatmdividialswhosharea

17
problemwillbemorewillingtotalkabout itamidthesecurityofotheis sharingtheproblem
Focus grouphﬁmviewsmnsistofS-lZpeoplemﬂepresemeofaUairedmoderatmwho
guides tie discussion in a preananged, loosely-structured fomnat (Goldman and McDonald
1987). The number of individuals is based on principles of small group dyranrics tlat assmne
mrore tlan 12 people inhibit the freedom of individual expression while under eight puts too
much pressure on individuals participating. Focus group sessions typically last one and a half
totwohours. Thisﬁmeﬁamegivesﬂemederatorsuﬁicientﬁmetodevelopagoodrappon
withresponderrtsarrdthus getcandidanswers. Rathertlanusingastructuicd, question-and-
answer methodology, the procedure is to encourage a group to discuss feeling, attitudes, and
perceptionsabouttletopicbeingdiscussed Thismethodhasgainedpopularitytothepoint
of being nearly as common as tle traditional survey (Wells 1974).

Themumberoffocus groupsusedinastudyvaries,butgererally,tletotal numberof
individuals involved falls short of what is needed to survey for statistically projectable results
(Goldman and McDonald 1987). Also, respondents in focus groups are seldom selected on a
completely random basis, as in survey research Tie utility of focus group data lies in
mderstandingthereasoningbeneathcertaimbehavior. Theopemandﬂexiblestnetmeoffocus
groupsgivesﬂemedemtmgeatahﬁuxiemﬂewayqiesﬁommeplmsedandgivesﬂe
participants the same degree ofﬂexibility in the way tley answer. In addition, the presence of
otlerparticipants mayencomagetlesharingofideasandthoughtstlatmaynotbebiought
out wing other methods.

Focusgioupresearchisusedinseveraldiﬁ’eiemtmys. Oreoftlemostimportant
uses is indevelopinghypotheses forquarrtitativetesting Anotleruse is intestingthe
suitability of a survey questiormaire and the methodology used to implement it. Steps
involved in implementing focus groups include: 1) identifying research objectives; 2)
identifying the target audience; 3) developing a discussion guide; 4) contacting participants;

18
5) arranging for facilities 6) conducting sessions; and 7) aralyzing results.

Theindividual interviewismiuchliketlefocus grouptechnique, butrequiresmore
time. Interviewers collect infomnation in a one-on-one session tl'at generally lasts about an
hour (Goldman and McDonald 1987). This type of data collection is mainly used when topics
are highly persoral. Both types of qualitative studies allow researchers to learn from facial
erqrressionsandtoreofvoiceaswell as ﬁomwhattheysayaanger 1991). Limitingfactors
for segmentation studies include time, money and expertise. Unforturately, public service
organimtiora are generally in short supply of all three. This resource deﬁciency forces social
marketastomkmmgamzaﬁomwlerenarkeﬁngacﬁviﬁesmepomlymderstmdand
weakly appreciated (lovelock and Weinberg 1978, Bloom and Novelli 1981).

I . Ii 'ﬁ 1 S
A successﬁil segmentation study allows a marketer to identify tie target audience for a
particular product/service. Tie size of tie target population is important; according to Rueff
(1991), manymarketeisusetoo largeasegmentastleirtarget Anadequatesegrrerit mright
onlymakeup 12-20°/ooftletotalpotentialusersofapoduct/service. Toobroadatarget
could lead to unclear positioning and a communication strategy that fails to hit the mark
Otleraspectsimportantinchoosingeﬁ‘ectivetarget segmentsaremeasmabilityand
accessibility(CromptonandLamb 1986). Theagencymustbeabletomeasmetletarget
groupstojmtifytledevelopmentofindividial campaigns for selected groups. This also
requires accessibility of target groups through communieation methods available to tie agency.
Selection of tie target audience is generally followed by development of tie
product/service, price, promotion, and distribution, or "marketing mix", to match tie interests
and characteristics oftargeted segrrents (Kotler 1982, Oompton and Lamb 1986, Duda 1990
Eberlardtetal. 1990). Tleprimereasonforanagerey'sexistenceistoprovidecertain

19
services and products to targeted individuals and groups (Cromptom and Lamb 1986).
Targetingcurrentﬁshandwildlifeuseistomeettleirdemandsforqualitywildlifeexperiences
makes sense, but should agencies also be involved in creating demand? Duda (1990) feels that
the beneﬁts of creating active users clearly outweigh any potential disadvantages.

Product/service is what the agency offers tle public, such as opportunities in hunting
arrdﬁshirigorwildlifeviewing Focus groupsareanexcellentmethodfordetemniningnew
products/services tlat an agency may be able to offer.

Pricing tie product requires calculating the buyer's perception of all costs associated
with tie product/service. This could include monetary expenditure (hunting licenses, travel,
propaty carnage, etc.) as well as time, effort and psychological cost. Although this is less
ﬂexible in a public agency, a misjudgrrent in pricing could result in lost revenue and
coretituents. Pricing ean be detemnined by researching successful pricing strategies for similar
programs in otler states or through research into a potential users "willingness to pay"
(Eberhardt et a1. 1990, Beech 1992).

Distribution involves making the product/service available and accessible to users
(Kotler 1982, Duda1990). This is a difficult task for wildlife managers because wfat may be
considered "not enough" by some users could be "too many" for otler coretituents. For
example, bear hunters may consider a certain population density of black bears too low, while
farmeisnaycoraidertlesamepowlationtoohigh. Marageis mustﬁndtlebalancethatwill
satisfy tie greatest number of users.

Promotion ofa product/service entails using communication strategies tlat make the
product/service familiar, acceptable and desirable to the target audience (Geller 1989). Wildlife
maragememt efforts could include informing the potential users of hunting/viewing
opportunities, and providing infomnatioral and educational materials to landowners, the prblic,
legislators, etc.

20
E l l . S . l I l l .

Selecting the marketing mix in a public organimtion like the Michigan Department of
NaunalResomceslasmanyhmitatiomscomparedtoaprivatecorporaﬁon Inthecaseof
black bear, values and beliefs among stakeholders differ concerning the importance of
preservation and conservation (Geller 1989). Many people do not realize the value of
preserving species diversity, while others feel it may not be worth the effort. Tle pricing and
pornotionofthistypeofpioductmayhavetobeaimedatmaximizingawarenessratlertlan
rraximizing proﬁts.

Other problems facing tle use of marketing strategies in public service agencies are
lack ofaccumulated data and difﬁculty in acquiring funds for social research (lovelock and
Weinberg 1978, Bloom and Novelli 1982). Social agencies typically have limited funds,
makimgit diﬁicrﬂttojusﬁfytodomrsmidaxpayersﬂerecessityofcosﬂyreseamhm
attitudes and behavior.

Social agencies may also experience difﬁculty using communication options tlat are
widely available to commercial marketers. Use of paid advertising, for instance, may invoke
criticisms of wasted taxpayer dollars (Kotler 1982). This limits advertising, in some cases, to
public service announcements, which transfers control oftime and fiequency of messages out
ofthe marketers lands. Also, some inﬂuential interest groups may not approve of seeing a
social issue like wildlife conservation advertised using "lard sell" or "fear appeal" campaign
(lovelock and Weinberg 1978).

Public service marketers must also deal with obtaining information for
products/servicestlataremmchmorecomplieatedtlamthose inthecommercial sector.
Behaviors regarding social issues tend to be extremely complex (Bloom and Novelli 1981).
Tierespondentmaynotbeaware oftlereasonsbehindhis/herownbehaviorormableto

articulatetl'iemtoaninterviewer. Also,questionsonvalrebasedtopicsaremoreapttoget

21
socially desirable answers tlan questions on commercial products. These types of questions
eanbeﬂueateningtoaresporxlentandmayreqrﬁreanopen—endedfomnat (cg, focus groups)
togetmoresigniﬁeantameuntsofinfomnation Thismethodislirnitedandcanbemore
costly and time consuming

Segmentation practices may also need restructuring to suit public service marketing.
lnsomecases,marketersareforcedtousetoolargeasegremttoavoidbeingconstnedas
discriminatory (Crornpton and Lamb 1986). This puts them in the position ofhaving to target
groups with strong regative dispositions toward their product/service (Bloom and Novelli
1981). Commercial marketers tend to avoid these types ofgroups and focus instead on easier-
to-persuade audiences who have eitler a positive or reutral attitude.

Inspite ofthese limitations, marketingeffortsintleDepartrrentofNannal Resources
can be successﬁrl. As stated by Schlegelmilch and Tynan (1989), "traditional marketing
principles are transferable to the marketing of organizations, people and ideas." They also felt
ﬂatﬂedeiceismtmwleﬂerornottoadorxmarkeﬁngsuateges—morMOmcan
avoidmarketing Ratier,thechoice lies inwletlertodoagoodjobatitorapoorone.

 

Avastanayofhmrﬁngandwﬂdlifeviewingoppommﬁesaiearmmgtleprodletsﬂat
amavﬂhblevdmwﬂdlifemmagmmﬁismecessﬁﬂ,hﬁwhﬁaspecmofﬂeseoppommnﬁes
arenastimportamtoﬂeresomcereeramdleweantleybestbemovided? Jacksom(l980)
huervieuedmaﬁeldmdetmwlatwashnponammhmmasmﬂmidmﬁfyﬂem
belaviors, experiences, values, and satisfactions with hunting His study involved waterfowl
anddeerlnmtersatvariouslevelsofhmmingexpenereeandinterests. Fromsurveydata,a
seriesofﬁve"phases"wasidentiﬁedtlathmrterspassedthroughﬁomﬁrstenteringtlesport
t0 veteran palﬁciimt: 1) shooter stage; 2) limiting)ut stage; 3) mphy stage; 4) rneﬂlod

22
stage;and5)8p0ﬂsrmnstage-

Using hunting equipment is the main objective of a hunter at tl'e shooter stage.
Hunteisarelessconcemedwithgettinggameatthispointandtendtobesatisﬁedwithtleir
huntingexperienceiftl'eyareabletosleotoﬁen Harvestinggamebecomesthefocusinthe
limiting-out stage, and hunters will measure their satisfaction in these temns. Fmplasis goes
ﬁommnnberofkillstoqralityorsizeofaparticularanimalinthetrophystcge. Humteisin
demethodstcgebecomeeaughtupinhowgameistakenandtendtohuntmereoftenfor
longerperiodsoftime. Harvestingananimalislowerinimportanceforthesehmrteisandnot
necessaryforasaﬁsfyinghmmbutstillpartoftheexperience. Thesportsmmstageistle
ﬁnalplaseofhmmingwienmnnemﬁrxisaﬁsfacﬁonmﬂetoalhmningexpeneme.
Companionship and appreciation of nature are recessary for hunting satisfaction in this stage.
Individralsinthiscategoryaregererallytleolderhmrterswhohavebeenhuntingforalarge
partoftleirlives.

Tleughrxrtaﬂlnmtersgoﬂnoughaﬂoftleplasesandﬂeymaymtstanatﬂe
shodananyhmﬁasrepmtedhawngsunﬂmemenmeesasdeygewmmhmming
(Jackson 1980). Somehunteisexperienced many of tleplasesoverthecourseof a single
mrmingseasmmﬂoﬂemmpmedmvaﬁngmearﬁerplaseswienﬂeyemmdadiﬁemm
type of hunting (Jackson 1980).

Decker andComelly (1989) also believedthat changes occur inhunters overtime but
focuscdonmeasmenentsofhimtingmetivationsrathertlanbelavior. Tleyeategorizedthe
majority of reasore for hunting as: 1) aﬂiliative; 2) achievement; and 3) appreciative.

A fﬁlidive-on'ented hunters are more interested in the companionship of otler hunters
orfamilyduringtlehumtingexperiemce. Hunterswhoaremorecoreenedwithcertain
stardmdsofpafmmreeﬂmugrreeofeqmprernmharvesﬁngparﬁaﬂarmumalsam
widevement-on‘ented. Firally, qrprecidive-oriented hunters are those who are more interested

23
in being in nature and enjoying the out-of-doors experience.

Implications for these tleories of hunter satisfaction are important for resource
managers to coreider in terms of wildlife biology and hunting regulations. Resomce managers
must be able to use a "mrultiple satisfaction" approach to manage recreational opportunities for
a variety of hunting experiences. It is not enough for managers to only consider amount of
allowable harvest per hunter. All aspects of regulation changes must consider not only tle
affects they will have on the population but motivational impacts on hunting recreation as
well. For example, seasons can be adjusted to not only protect wildlife, but to ensure an
optimum outdoor experience for hunters by taking into consideration factors such as weather,
crowding, and cornpetitiom with otler recreational opportunities.

Sociri Sibworltb and Recreation Specialization

Tletmdaeyofhmnasmspecializeatsomepohnmﬂemmmingemenereeisalso
an important characteristic for resource managers, especially bear managers, to understand.
Bearhumters, accordingtoPeyton (1989b), tendto specialize inoreparticularmethodwhetler
it is in dog, bait, or still hunting. Ditton et al. (1992) explores recreation specialimtion ﬁom
a "social worl " theory perspective. Urrruh (1979) deﬁnes socid woﬂdr as "an internally
recoglimble constellation of actors, organizations, events, and practices which lave coalesced
into a perceived sphere of interest and involvement for participants" (Ditton et al. 19925).
Social worlds are said to segment into more specialized "subworlds" based on "spatial
distinctions, objects, technology and skill, ideology, intersections, and recruitment".

Dittonetal. (l992)alsodescﬁbeasenesofplasest1atindividualspassﬂnoughimon
first entering a subworld to eventually becoming highly involved Aspects of these phases
include: 1) orientation; 2) experience; 3) relationships; and 4) commitment

Orientation indicates the level of familiarity and centrality a person has in the

24
subworld. Experience is a measure of length of involvement with a particular subworld The

third comporent, relationships, describes the linkage to other members of tie subworld.
Commitment is deﬁned as consistent or focused behavior involving some degee of monetary
andemotioral investmentandsomedegreeofattachmenttotlenilesandregulations
associated with that social world

Ditton et a1. (1992) list a series of propositions which link specialimtion with subvvorld
moor)”.

1) Persore participating in a given recreation activity are likely to become
more specialized in ﬂat activity over time;

2) As level of specialimtion in a given recreation activity increases, the value
of side bets will likely increase;

3) As level of specialimtiom in a given recreation activity increases, tie
centrality of that activity is a person's life will likely increase;

4) As level of specialization in a given recreation activity increases, acceptance
arrdsupponforﬂenﬂes,mmraarxlprocedmesassociatedwithﬂeacﬁvity
will likely increase.

5) As level of specialization in a given recreation activity increases, the

hmpmtareeaﬂacledtoeqrﬁpmerﬁandﬂeskiﬂﬁﬂsreofﬂatequipmerﬁwill
likelyincrease.

6) As level of specialization in a given recreation activity increases,
dependency on a speciﬁc resource will likely increase;

7) As level of specialimtion in a given recreation activity increases, level of
mediated interaction relative to tlat activity will likely increase.

8) As level of specialization in a given recreation activity increases, the

importance of activity-speciﬁc elements of tie experience will decrease relative

to noractivity-speciﬁc elements of tie experience.

The social world of bear hunting began to show sigls of subworld segmentation as
earlyastle1940'swlent1eﬁrstspecialpennitdoghuntwasapprovedbyt1eNatmal
ResourcesComlrnissionasadirectresult ofamorganizedeﬂ‘ortbydoghumters. Tleﬁrstbear

hmrtingorganimtionappearedatthistime,whichcateredtothespecialneedsofthedog

25
hunters. I—Iuntingequipmentusewaschangingastlesegrents ofbearhunters gew, and
specialist goups developed around different methods of using how and anow, bait, and dog.
Tie values associated with using dog, bait, and still hunting and associated equipment such as
trail timers, radio collars, and other electronic devices were creating even more segremtatiom
among establisled subworlds. In the 1980's rew bear hunting organizations formed to meet
thereedsofthesesubworlds, someofwhichhadonceslaredacomrmnmethodofhimting
bear, but were now divided on issues of ethics.

Tie Mchigan Bear Hunters Association (mainly dog hunters) pressed tie Natural
Resource Comrrrrission (NRC) and tie MDNR for stricter controls on bear hunting. MBHA
continues to be in the foreﬁomt ofbear hunting issues. In addition, this organimtion is
actively recruiting rew members and generating funds for various projects. Other hunt
segments do not display this same level of commitment. Even though bait hunters make up
tie vast majority of bear hunters (Peyton 1989b), there are no organizations in the bear
hunting social world tlat cater speciﬁcally to their specialized reeds.

Management implications for this theory suggest tlat recreation specialists have
difl‘ereritresomceieedsﬂatifigiored, couldcauseseriousprobleme. Thisdoesnotmean
tiatresourcemanageis shouldconsidertheinteiests ofspecialistsattheexpense ofthose
recreationalists who are not specialists. However, according to tie propositions established by
Ditton et al. (1992), specialists are more likely to be involved in organimtions tlat represent
thesocial world Therefore, caremustbetakentorealizetlattheseindividials mayomly
represent ore subworld (e.g., dog hunters) of tie many tlat may exist inside the social world
in question (e.g., bear hunting). By only communicating with some of the subvvorlds involved,
Inaragers are likely to make decisions M will negatively impact otler subworlds.

26
Issue Milagemem

An effective marketing plan will help managers lessen conﬂict between various
subworlds and stakeholder groups, but no marketing plan can completely eliminate conﬂict.
Actually, some degee of issue conﬂict reﬂects a healthy democratic system However, unless
managed, conﬂict can lead to severe confrontational problems for tie resource marager
(Peyton 1984, Peyton et al. 1990).

Issues having potential for conﬂict must ﬁrst be identiﬁed by resource managers.
According to Greiwe (1980), without an awareness of tie public issues, managers will be
reactingtopeople's desiresrathertlanrespomdingtothem Howthe manager decides toreact
to these issues may decide if management goals are achieved or fail. Peyton et al. (1990) list
three principles tlat maragers should consider when ﬁsheries and wildlife issues are being
disputed:

Issues and disputes are developmental. They evolve through social,

psychological and political processes. The earlier a resource marager

intervenes, the better.

Public beliefs, public values and priorities, and the adequacy of existing

science, allplayimportantroles increatingissuesandmustbedealtwith

diﬂ'erently by resource maragers.

Tlerearereinstiﬁrtionalquickﬁxeswhichmakeissremaragemerﬁand
persoral involvement of marageis unnecessary.

Because issues go through developmental stages, timing is an important factor to
successfulissremanagement. Managersmustrecognizeissuesatearlystagesandactontlem
before they develop into more comrplex problems (Peyton 1984, Heinz and Coates 1986,
Peyton et al. 1990). Greiwe (Peyton 1984) describes these stages as: 1) emerging; 2) existing;
and 3) disruptive. Emerging issues are those tlat are being discussed by stakeholders, but are
notyetbemgbrougnmﬂeanenﬁonofresomcemaragemmoﬂeramlemtyﬁgmes. Issues
comemingbearhuntimgimh/ﬁchiganwereatthis stageinthe late l970'sasbearhunterswere

27
beginning to quarrel among themselves about conﬂicting hunting methods (J. Stuht, Wildl.
Div., pers. com).

The next step in issue development is existing issues. At this point, stakeholders are
voicing demands, but the resource marager generally remains in control of the situation Bear
hunting moved into this issue level in the 1980's as new bear hunting organizations formed
and omcers in these organizations began to actively seek out the MDNR to solve their
problems (J. Stuht, M. Dept. Nat. Res., Pers. Comm).

The ﬁnal stage ofissue development takes control out ofthe hands ofthe resource
marager. Dimptive issues in Michigan may lead to NRC actions, court rulings, or
referendum. The MBHA, on some occasions, has managed to take issues from the emerging
stage ofdeveloprnent directly to the NRC and higher levels ofthe MDNR (T. Reis, Mi. Dept.
Nat. Res., pers. comm, J. Stuht, Mi. Dept Nat Res., pers. comm). Past association of
MBHA oﬁicers with NRC members has made this a successful route to regulation changes for
this orgamimtion.

Peyton (1984) recognized that resource issues have three major components:

1) science/technology, 2) public beliefs, and 3) public values. To determine the appropriate
acﬁmmededfmaparﬁcﬂmissranesomcemamgemmnatassessmwhmdegrceeachof
these factors is corm'ibun'ng. (Peyton 1984, Peyton et al. 1990). According to Peyton (1984),
the scierrce/teclmologicd cornponemt is the least difﬁcult to deal with Second is public
beliefs, and ﬁnally, the public vdues component is the most arduous of the three.
Unforturately, the bear hunting issue involves all three components: bear science/technology is
lesstlanadequatetoamswerallthequestionsposedbythestakeholders,andbearhm1tersamd
other stakeholder groups have enoneous beliefs and conﬂicting values conceming hunting
methods and regulations (Peyton 1989b).

V

fr

‘1"

W..-
.

has 53

UL ..E ‘
PAK‘ “ 1' KI“ luv ﬂ\ My
.lti .U. s . - e . a
L. , iii h s; Jam

28
Comn’calion

Acommnﬁeaﬁonplanisraededfmbearmamgemammidemifyissmamdissm
components and to involve the publics in decision-making Peyton et al. (1990) state that an
eﬁecﬁve communication plan can help managers to:

edueate the public

assure representative planning

develop a sense of ownership among stakeholders

cultivate political and ﬁnancial support

build credibility

gain public acceptance
According to Decker et al. (1985), there are three types ofpublic information needed for a
productive communication plan:

broad—for long-range planning;

comprehensive—for start-range plarmimg, commitment of resources, and

establishment of goals and objectives;

and focused—for action decisions and implementation of activities.

Assessing how stakeholders feel about the agency is another important part ofthe
communication process (Decker et al. 1985, Smolka and Decker 1985, Eberhardt et al. 1990).
Eberhardt et al. (1990) label this as agency "credibility" and identify two major aspects: 1)
competence, and 2) trmtxmrthimess. Smolka and Decker (1985) discuss agency "image" and
distinguishtlneecomponents: l)imageoftheagency'smanagementﬁnation, 2)imageofthe
agency's personnel, and 3) image of the agency's public communication behavior.

Agaayqedibihtyrmybeﬂresmglemnstmiporamfactmﬂatmnatbecomidaed
when rnakimg any decisions regarding regulations (Eberhardt et al.1990). When agency
credibilityishigh, decisioraaremarehkelytobeacceptedasnecessaryarxiﬂrebestpossible
choice, even when they differ from the persoral preferences of the stakeholder. Consequently,
itiscritiealtlatbearmaragersmxlerstandhowhmters feel abouttheagency's abilityto
effectively marage bear hmrtimg. Bear hunters may not trust the MDNR to make decisions

tlatareimthebestinterestofhmters. TheymayalsofeeltlattheMDNRisnotcompetemtto

29
makeaccmateesﬁmaﬁomofﬂebempoptdaﬁonudensetﬁmgharvestagqmaseachyear.

Although information about Michigan's bear population is increasing, the nature of black bear
will continue to make it diﬂicult for biologists to gain detailed data. With low agency
credibility, stakeholders will be less willing to accept this biological shortfall and will continue
to question the agencies' ability to rnarage effectively.

A comrmunication program must ensure that messages are received by targeted publics
and that the agency, in turn, receives feedback from those publics (Decker et al. 1985, Smolka
and Decker 1985). Various approaches can be used for this purpose including focus groups,
surveys, advisory committees, meetings, workshops, direct mailings, newsletters and personal
communication. The following are some examples of different commmicatiom approaches
taken by state agencies:

Idaho bear maragement utilized a citizen's advisory committee approach that
brought together a group of individuals which represented involved
stakeholders (Dept. of Resour. Recreation and Tourism 1992). They met at
scheduledtimestodiscussoptioms forbearmaragememttlatwereroutinely
passed on to wildlife managers for consideration. Even though beliefs and
values varied considerably on bear issues among group members, they were
able to achieve consensus on many critical issues including baiting, dogs, and
spring bear seasons.

Oregonusedinteractive workshopsimdealing with criticalissuessurromding
elk maragememtas partof their comrmmicatiom plam(Eberlardtetal. 1990).
Theirstrategy combined surveyandworkshop informationtocreate
maragementoptionstlatwerethenreviewedbytlepublicamdrevised.

New York State Departrrent of Environmental Conservation developed a deer
maragememt plan which obtained input from leaders of New York
orgarﬁmﬁonswlerepreserﬁedanamayofdeermaragementurterests(8meﬂca
and Decker 1985). Beliefs concemimg deer management and opinions about
the maragememt agency's credibility were gathered via mail questionnaire to
create a communication planning model. Objectives of this plan involved
segrremting the leaders based on their opinions and targeting different segrremts
Mﬂrmessagestlatweretailoredspeciﬁcallyforthatsegmemt Tleagency's
goalwiﬂrtlﬁsprogramwastoirereasepubﬁcsrqrpomfordeermamagemem
strategies.

Tie Montana Department ofFish, Wildlife and Parks developed a
communication strategy for increasing public involvement and reducing

30

conﬂict in decisions regarding sport ﬁshing regulations (McMullin and Nielsen
1991). The process involved a ﬁve-step plan which included: involving
concerned citizens in establishing goals, distributing a draﬂ management plan
by mail and placement at various locations, conducting a self-administered
questiomraire to obtain information for revising the plan, formally presenting
tle plan to the Commission and ﬁnally, informing concerned publics on the
results via mass media. This communication process allowed resource
maragers to diffuse most of the controversy at a local level associated with
wide-scale regulation changes.

Use of social marketing and issue management tools in Fisheries and Wildlife is
becoming more irmportarrt as hurran populations and resource demands increase. Black bear
maragenent, with its diverse anay of stakeholders en'atically communicating demands and
needstoresourcemanagers, isacaseinpoint Asuccessﬁrlbearmanagementplanmeedsto
incorporate and combine comprehensive biological data gathering, efficacious marketing,

proactive issre naragememt, and communication.

The 1993 study of Michigan bear hunters attitudes involved a two-phase process of: I) focus
groups; and 2) a statewide mail survey.

Plase I-Focm Gnome

Focus group objectives for this study included: verifying the importance of identiﬁed
issues with bear hunters; uncovering previously unidentiﬁed issues; and exploring language
tiatwouldbeappropriateforuseinaquestiomaire. Moredetailedinformationabom focus
group methodology is included in the Literature Review section of this thesis.

Itwasdeterminedtlatsixfocus groupswouldproducetlerecessarydatagiventle
timeandﬁmdsthatmreavailable. Thelocationswerechosembyobtainingalistof1992
bearhmrterapplicantsanddeterminingtotal numbers foreachcoumty. Threeareaswerethen
selededﬂatmddammpassﬂegreﬁeﬁnmnberofbearhmﬁemmﬂellpperPeﬁmma
mrthemlowerPeninsula, andsoutlermLowerPeninsula. Itwasassumedtlatfocus group
participants would be unwilling to drive more tlan one hour each way to attend, giving us a
circle with a radius of approximately 40-50 miles around each chosen site. Based on this
information, Escaraba, Mackinaw City, and Flint, Michigan were selected as focus group sites.
Bear hunter applieants living within these circles were then identiﬁed by zip codes.

Arandomsampleofapplieamts ﬁomeachfocus groupareawas selectedandtheir
plerenumberswereobtainedﬁom 1993 phomebooks. Thosehavimgumlistednumberswere
deleted ﬁom the list of potential participants. Telephone calls were made to 563 individrals,
and of those, 238 were reached (Table 1A). Potential participants were identiﬁed, informed of

31

32
tlepurposeofthecall,andaskediftleywereimterestedinhearingmoreabouttlestudy.
Tleywerealsotoldatthistimetlattlerewouldbeamonetaryincentiveof$40todeﬁay
travel expenses. Those individuals who expressed interest in participating were screened with
asquuesﬁmnaimabomeearhmﬁngimeresSanresﬁomedabomﬁmesﬂeymmd
beavailabletomeet(SeeAppemdixIIIforScreeningQrestiomaire). Alldatawererecorded
on ADVANCED REVELATIONS software. The goal was to identify approximately 150
applicants who were interested in participating in a focus group.

The target audience was bear hunters, with the exception of bear hunting organimtiom
leaders who were excluded because attitudes and opinions of these individuals have already
beenueﬂdommeruedﬂmoughremlettersarxlcomespordereeudﬂrﬂeMDNR Also,
professional guides were excluded from these focus groups due to differences in hunting
motives.

Using the information obtained through the screening process, potential focus group
parﬁcipmrmﬁomewhofﬂeﬂneeareaswmeplacedhmtwogroupsbasedmhmnmeﬂm
l) onlydogs,ordogsimadditiontoothermethods; 2) onlybait, onlystillhunting, orbaitin
additiontostillhrmting Adateandtimewereidentiﬁedforeachfocusgrormbasedonwlat
the majority of potential participants said was most convenient. Approximately 20 individuals
were selected for each group. Individuals were intentionally selected to ensme a range of
yearsofbearhmrtingexperiereeineachgroup. Theseimdividualswererecontactedbyphome
and participation for 60 individuals was conﬁrmed A total 52 individuals actually attended
tlefocre group sessions (Table 2A). FlimtamdMackinaw City eachhostedadoghunter
grommandabait/stillhmtergroup,butmotemoughdoghmrterscouldbecomtactedintle
Fseanabaareatomakeupafocusgroup;tlerefore,twobait/stillgroupswerecomductedatthis

loeatiom

33
Taﬂe 1A: Respome to ﬂame solicitation of focus gimp particirnrls

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of 238 Inividnls Corlacted
% (11) Yes °/o (11) No
Are you a bear license applicant? 98.3 (234) 1.7 (4)
Would you like more information about the 81.1 (193) 17.2 (41)
focus groups?
Are you willing to participate in one of the 69.3 (165) 26.1 (62)
focus groups?
Do you use dogs to hunt bear? 17.2 (41) 51.7 (123)
: Do you hunt bear over bait? 56.3 (134) 8.4 (20)
Have you ever provided services as a 2.9 (7) 65.9 (157)
guide?
[i Do you belong to a bear hunting 8.4 (20) 60.5 (144)
' organimtion or club?
Have you been an ofﬁcer in a bear hunting 1.7 (4) 5.5 (13)
organization in the last 5 yrs? ll

 

 

34

Tdie 2A: Nmier of bear focus group puticipuis for each location

 

 

 

# of # of Macldnaw # of Fscaraha
Grow Type Him Participmls Qty Participarls Particirants
Dog, Dog/Bait, Generalist 9 9 0
Bait, Neither Dogs/Bait 9 9 8, 8
Total 18 l8 l6

 

 

 

 

 

Focus groups were held in hotel conference rooms at each location Room setup

involved conference-style seating, voice recording setup, and on four occasions, video

recording setup. Moderators included 3 Fisheries and Wildlife graduate assistant who

corxhetedtwoofﬂegroupsandmyselﬂwlecondtetedtheremairﬁngfom. Moderator

training involved an intensive literature review on focus groups and moderating several focus

amps prior to this study-
Focus group facilitation followed a fully developed discussion guide with the

following topics (See Appendix IV for Complete Discussion Guide)

importance of bear hunting;

hunting methods;

hunter satisfaction;

allocation of bear harvest tags;

hunting seasons;

hunting application and license process;
attitudes toward the MDNR;

futme bear management reeds.

Voice recordings ﬁom each group were transcribed to written fomm by Ofﬁce Services at

Michigan State University and tie Research/Biometrics Section in the Wildlife Division of the

Departrremt of Natural Resources. Data ﬁ'om the discussions were not analyzed using

qramitativeprocedures,butinstead,wereusedasaguideimdevelopingtlecomtentand
wordingoftlemailquestiomaire—phaseIIoformstudy. Summariesoftledatagatheredin

35
tlefocusgroupsareinApperxlixV.

Plume lI-Nhil Survey

TTefocus groupprocessgereratedconceptsandhypotheses;however,the
representativeness and utility of the information were validated through a statewide survey of
bearhumters. Amail,ratherthanatelephore survey, wasusedforseveral reasons: 1) mailing
addresses existed for all bear hunter applicants, but not phone numbers; 2) high involvement
ofbearmnnashﬂieaedﬂatmadequmeresponsemtemmdmestlikelybeobtained; 3)
subject matter would involve lengthy questions, which would not be appropriate for a
telephore survey, and4)tlelongertimeperiodneededtocondretamail surveywasnota
problem (Dillman 1978).

Sm'vey questions were developed based on identiﬁed research needs and the additional
inforrration tlat was gathered in tle six focus groups. The focus groups provided valuable
insight for question wording and the prioritizing of topics.

Categories of questions included' 1) hunter involvement in bear hunting, 2) bear
hunting satisfaction; 3) opinions about bear hunting; 4) opinions about tle MDNR; 5) opinions
aboutbearlmntimgregulations; 6)opinionsaboutbearlarvesttagallocatiom; 7) sources of
bear hunting infomation used; and 8) demographic, and geographic characteristics ofbear
hunters.

Tomeasmeﬂe"er¢MmuumsitY'ofﬂeresporﬂam'sagreermmwithatﬁndesmd
belief statements a Likert-type scale was used (Oskamp 1991254). Hunting satisfaction was
measured by providing 12 possible reasons for going bear hunting and asking respondents to
rate each reason on a ﬁve-point scale from "most important" to "not important". Proposed
reasons were developed ﬁom focus group data and earlier surveys for hunter education

purposes to include achievement, afﬁliative, and appreciative motivations (Decker and

n

w
k

l

..M

L
F.

36
Corrrelly 1989).

Measuring attitudes toward the MDNR involved developing a set of statements
respondents could react to. A ﬁve-point scale was used ranging ﬁom "strongly agree" to
"strongly disagree"; a "not sure" response was provided as the middle choice. Staterrents were
developed based on focus group data which suggested strong credibility problems between the
MDNRandbearhunters. Bothcompetemceandtrustworthinessaspectsofcredibilitywere
coreidered in these statements.

Atﬁmdesmuardhmningudﬂrdogsamdbaitwerealsomeasmedudﬂraﬁve-ponu
Likert-type seale using "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" and "not sure". The statements
usedinthiseasewerebasedonsurveyquestionsﬁomtle1984bearhunteropinionsrn'vey
(Peyton 1989b). Some changes were made to reﬂect a balance of positive and negative
statementstoavoidtleappearanceofsurveybias. Thetenstatementswerewordedto
measure tle imterrsity of both the values and beliefs respondents held about hrmting with dogs
and bait.

Wlem developing regulations, tle MDNR must consider both hunter reeds and
protectionofthebearpopulation RespondentsweregivenalistoffactorstlattleMDNR
mayconsiderwlenmakimgchamgestobearhmrtingregulationsandwereaskedtoratethese
factorsinimportance. Tlelistwasdevelopedﬁomfocusgroupdataandinformationﬁom
MDNR persorrrel. A six-point Likert scale was used ranging from "most important" to "not
important" and "not sure" as the sixth response. (See Appendix VIII for Complete
Qﬁﬁomaim)

,,. 1;
LL

[3

‘3

f?

10

37
F] l l 'l S

Forpretesting, questionraires withacoverletterandretrnnenvelopewere sentto 36
individuals to test tle clarity and content of questions. According to Sudmam (1983), 20-40 is
an adequate sample size for a pilot survey. A 72% overall response rate was obtained. In
ordertogainirrputconcemingtlecontemtoftlequestiorrraire,120ftherespondentswere
selected ﬁorn opinion leaders who were actively involved in bear hunting issues. Tie
remaining 20 respondents were randomly selected from bear hunter focus group participants to
help evaluate irrstrurrerrt content and wording.

Resporxiemswereaskedtoﬁﬂornﬂeqresﬁomaireandretrnnitalongudﬂrany
additioral written comments they had. Feedback ﬁom tle pilot surveys resulted in several

changes intle questiomaire design

Samplﬁeleztim

Themailsrn'vey samplewasdrawn ﬁomalist of 1992 Michiganbearhumter
applicants. Atotalofll,641nameswereshatiﬁedbasedonﬂemetledtleyhﬁemdedtouse
to hunt bear in 1992, which was identiﬁed on tleir bear license application form Tle
applieation forms identiﬁed whetler applicants intended to use::1)bait-only; 2) dogs-only, 3)
dogs andbait; and4) neitler dogs or bait Unforturately, tle choice "dogs and bait" was
ambigmraandincludedhumtersfromtwodiﬂ‘erentsegmemts: thosewhoirrtemdedtousedogs
startedfrombait,andthosewhowouldhmrtpartoftletimewiﬂrdogsandpanoftletime
sittimgoverbait. Tlesedatatherefore,werenotusedastlebasisforsegmentation Instead,
mmelyiMfyﬂnschamaensﬁc,respmeemewmeaskedmﬂeqresﬁomaimabomﬂe
methodtheyusedtohuntbear.

Peyton (1988) showed tlat in 1985 tle bait-only group was substantially larger tlam
tleotlerhuntgroups. Becausewewereinterestedinaralyzingdiﬂ'erencesbemeenhmrt

38
methods, weusedstratiﬁedrandomsamplingtoensrnearepresentative samrple ﬁomeachhunt

group (weights were calculated to adjust these proportions accordingly wien comparisons were
made across tle sarrrple) (Table 3A). A sample size of 1,275 individuals was obtained, which
would result in a sampling error of plus or mrinus 3% at a 95% conﬁdence level.

Talia 3A: Saqiing frame for statewide mail survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# (%) of 1992

Ihivest Tag
Hill thhod Aniicarls # ("A9 in Sammie
Dogs Only 909 (7.8) 200 (15.7)
Dogs and Bait 1,297 (11.1) 275 (21.6)
Bait-only 8,554 (73.5) 600 (47.0)
Neitler Dogs or Bait 881 (7.6) 200 (15.7)
Total 11,641 (100) 1,275 (100)

l l '1 S I l .

Mailingprocedlnesfortlequestiornaire followedtheTotal DesignMethodas
recommended by Dillnan (1978). Tle Research/Biometrics Section in tle Wildlife Division
of tleDepartmentof NaturalResouroeswasresponsible forallmailings (Table 4A). Theﬁrst
rrailingwasto1,275indivich.alsamdirrcluded:acoverletter,a12—pagequestionraire,anda
starnpedretmnenvelope(AppendileI). Thesecondmailingwasapostcardreminder/tlank-
yonarrditwentouttoalll,275indivichrals. Beforetlethirdmailingwassentout,namesof
tlesewlehadretmredacompletedsrmveyweredeletedﬁomtlemailinglist Tlethirdand
fmnﬂinaﬂingwerearepeatofﬂeﬁrstwiﬂisﬁglnlydiﬁeranereners. Weobtaineda

resporaerateof75%. Arumespomsefollow—upuasmotperformeddretotlehighresponse

39
rateobtained.

Triﬂe 4A: Mailing sclerﬂe for stilewide mail survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W: Number in Mailing (%) Date of Mailing
1 1,247 (100) 7/26/93
2 1,247 (100) 8/11/93
3 755 (59.2) 8/19/93
4 468 (36.7) 9/2/93
mm

Data entry was performed by tle Research/Biometrics Section in tle Wildlife Division
of tie Department of Natural Resources using FoxPro (version 2.5b) software. TIe enor rate
for data entry was less tlan 1%. Data were subsequently converted to SPSS for WINDOWS
version 6.0.

Because bait hunters were under-sampled and dog and still hunters were over-sampled
to ensure adequate sample sizes that were cost effective, data were weighted to reﬂect tle
actralpoprlationofbearhumtersbasedonhuntmethod. Unweighteddatawasusedomly
wlen comparing responses between hunt-method groups.

Responsesﬁ'omindividialsreportingtlattleyhadbeemanoﬁicerinatleastoneof
tle hunting organimtiora indicated on tle survey were combined with pilot survey data ﬁorn
opinionleadersforquestionstlatwerethesameonboththepilotquestionraireandﬁnalnail
questionraire. This allowed for a larger sample size for comrparison of those respondents who
wereconsideredbearopinionleadersandthosevvhovveremot.

Tle purpose ofthis aralysis was to describe differences among various segrrents of

40
the bear hunting community. Analysis was done in SPSS using cross-tabs, and Pearson Chi-
sqiaretestsforpercemtdifferemces across segrrerrtsamdwithintheentiresample. Both
paramenicandmnpararncnicstaﬁsﬁcswereusedtotestequalityofmeans: t-testsandMamn-
Whitney U tests for variables having only two values and one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-
Wallis tests for variables having more tlan two values. There were no differences in reported
signiﬁcance (alpha=.05) between the pararretric and nonparametric tests of tle means, so, only
parametrictestresultsare givenintleresults.

Nonresponse

RESULTS

A total of 320 recipients (25%) of tle delivered questionnaires did not respond The

largest proportion (30%) of nonrespondents were those who chose "dog/bait" as their intended

methodforhumtimgbearinl992 (Table 1). Thosewhointendedtouse"dogsonly"hadtle

srrallest proportion of nomespondents (21%). Differences in response rates could have

nmodreedsomemrmmﬂetotalpacemofeachhmnmeﬂedreponedforﬂepoprﬂaﬁon

However, Dolsen and Machlis (1991) state tlat a substantive response bias can be ruled out

wlenatleasta65percentresponserateisobtaimed. Also,tleprimarygoalofthisstudywas

to aralyze differences among groups, which is not dependent on using population estimates.

Trafﬁc 1: Respome, nomespome, and mmeliveraﬂes for statewide mail survey

 

 

(Juices on NW('/«) of Number (°/a) of Number (%) of
Dogs Only 159 (79.5) 42 (20.5)

Dogs and Bait 188 (68.4) 82 (29.8)

Bait-only 447 (74.5) 143 (23.8)

Neitler Dogs or 145 (72.5) 53 (26.5)

Bait

Total 939 (74.6) 320 (25.4) 16 (13)

 

 

 

 

41

 

42
Silvey Resins
Whigs
Respondents in tle weighted sarrrple averaged 42 years of age, and 93% were males.
Only 10% had not comrpleted high school and 20% had acquired a college degree. Most
resided in the soutl'ern Lower Peninsula of Michigan (Table 2).

S . C' .
RespmxlerﬁueresengedbasedonttemeﬂedsﬂeyhaveusedsneeWSOtohmt

bear in Michigan (Table 3). A substantial proportion (16%) ofrespondents had not yet bear
humtedinlvﬁchigan, orhadgorealongonahurrt, butwithoutaharvesttag. Mostresponderrts
(60%) used only one method to hunt bear: many (44%) indicated tlat tley only hunt bear
over bait; 6% reported using dogs exclusively, an additional 5% use only dogs but sometimes
starttlemﬁombait piles (dog/bait); andS%donotusedogsorbait (still hunter). Those in
tlegereralistcategoryusedmoretlanorenethodtohumtbear.

Another basis for segrreration in this study was membership in hunting organizations.
Membership was identiﬁed for eight hunting organimtions; four "bear hunting organizations",
which were focused speciﬁcally on bear hunting (Michigan Bear Hunters, United Bear
Hunters, Northeastem Michigan Houndsmen, and UP. Bear Houndsmen Associations), and
four "otler hunting organimtions", which were not speciﬁc to bear hunting, but were involved
in bear and bear hunting issues (Michigan Hunting Dog Federation, Michigan Coon Hunters,
Michigan Bow Hunters, and Michigan United Conservation Clubs). Only 12% were current
nembersofabearhrmtingorganimtion,but31%werecumentmembersofatleastoneoftle
four otler hunting organimtiora (Table 3).

43
Triﬂe 2: We claracteristies of the weighed sanﬂe“

 

 

 

Age (meam=42yrs.)
14-19 25 2.7
20-24 52 5.5
I 25-29 96 10.5
30-34 147 16.0
35-39 128 13.8
40-44 128 13.9
45-49 111 12.0
50-54 73 7.9
55-59 52 5.8
60-64 40 4.2
65-69 35 3.7
70 and older 38 4.1
Sex
Male 853 93
Female 66 7
Education
Grade School 29 3.1
Some High School 61 6.7
Completed High School 281 30.8
Vocatioral Training 78 8.6
Some College 286 31.3
Conrpleted College 108 11.8
Grad. or Professional School 71 7.8
Residence (region I, II, III)
I-Upper Peninsula 190 20.7
II-Nortlem Lower Peninsula 241 26.2
III-Soutlem Lower Peninsula 464 50.5
Nonresident of Michigan 24 2.6

 

 

 

 

 

iWcights calculated to reﬂect representation in the population of Michigan Bear Hunters

44

Talie3: Wmclmacteristicsmedtosegnerlresponderls

 

 

 

 

 

Actual # (‘71) of Weighted # (°/.) of
Galacteristic Respomieils Resporrderls"
Hunt Method
Dog/Bait 88 (9.6) 46 (5.0)
Dog-only 110 (12.1) 56 (6.1)
Bait-only 298 (32.7) 404 (44.0)
Still-orily 58 (6.4) 42 (4.6)
Generalist 230 (25.2) 227 (24.7)
Not Hunted 128 (14.0) 143 (15.6)
Members
Bear Hunting Organ. 142 (18.0) 102 (12.0)
Otler Hunting Organ 269 (33.5) 260 (30.5)
Cohort
Before 537 (67.4) 499 (63.5)
After 260 (32.6) 288 (36.5)
mm

 

 

Tledogsegnemshadamrehluglerproporﬁonofcmemmembersinbearhmﬁng

organimtiora, but crnrent membership in otler hunting organimtions was not signiﬁcantly

different among tle hunt-method groups (T able 4).

Triﬂe 4: Peroerl of each Inn-method group who were members of lining organizatio-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mmieisll'p in lining Olgrn'nliom

Volvbmbars Von/Emile-

of Bear of (Her

tinting Statistic-l Tests Inn-ting Statistical Tests
[in W D D
Dog/Bait n=76 52.6 X51777, P<0.001 36.0 XZ=6.4, P=0.265
Dog-only n=96 52.1 df=5 43.2 df=5
Bait-only n=249 7.2 31.1
Still-only n=47 2.1 33.3
Gereralist n=193 11.9 35.9
Not Hunted n=105 6.7 28.4

 

 

45
RespmderﬁswerealsoseMedbasedonﬂelengthofﬁmeﬂatﬂeyhadbeen

involvedinbearhunting Thosewhobeganbearhmrtinginorafter 1990, wlenbearhunting

wenttoalimitedentrysystemforlarvesttags,wereplacedimtot1e"after"cohort,andthose

who started before 1990, the majority of respondents, were tle "before" cohort (Table 3).
Tie "after" cohort consisted mainly of bait-only respondents with a signiﬁcantly

snallerpercerrt ofresponderrts inthe dog groups (Table 5).

Taﬂe 5: Parcel! of each Int-method grolp in the 'before" and "after” cohorts
Cohort

“loofeachlin %ofeachlht
MW Win Win

 

      
   
  
   
 
 

 

 

Before (bhort .4erth
Gm” F485 r4284 Stilistied Tests
Dog/Bait 7.6 2.6 XZ=32.9, P<0.001, df=4
Dog-only 8.9 4.3
Bait-only 47.4 60.6
Still-only 4.9 6.1

   

NotHunted

 

 

Total

 

 

 

Nbstresporxlerﬁsodyhmﬁedbearwiﬂlagmbmmanyrepmtedusmgbothaglm
andbow(Table6). Thebait-only group showedtlehighestuseofabowcomparedtootler
hunt-method groups (Table 7). Tle "before" cohort had a larger percent of gun only
respondents tlandid tle "after" cohort (Table 8).

Alargemajorityofresponderrtsdidalltleirbearhmltinginonlyoneareaoftlestate;
mainly,tlewestemUpperPeninsula(Table6). Oftlehrmt-metledgroups,thoseimtlebait-
onlyandstill-onlygroupsweretl'eleastlikelytohmitinmoretlanorearea(Table7). All
hunt-method groupsshowedastrongtendencyfor one particularareawithtledog/bait, bait-

46
only, still-only, and gereralist groups using tle westemr U. P., and dog-only hunters tle eastem
UP. A larger proportion of the "after" cohort hunted in tle westemr U.P. tlam the "before"
cohort (Table 8).

Only9%oftl'ehumters saidtleypaidsomeoretoassisttheminsomeaspectofbear
hunting (Table 6). Respondents in the bait-only group had tle highest rate of payment for
hunting assistance (Table 7). Those in tle "after" cohort were more likely to pay for
assistance tlam respondents in tl'e "before" cohort (Table 8).

Respondents ﬁrstwentbearhurrtimgirr l984andspent 7.5 days aﬁeldin 1992, onthe
average (Table 9). The bait-only group began bear hunting more recently tlam tle otler hunt-
nethod groups. Members of bear hunting organizations generally began bear hunting before
mommernbers, but did not spend signiﬁcantly more days hunting in 1992 tlam did rromnembers.

Ofthosewhohadhurrtedwithalarvestperrnit, anaverageof1.6bearperhunterwas
harvestedinalifetimeofhmrting,but44%hadnotyettakenabear(Table6). Thedog/bait
group had the highest average number ofbears harvested and still-only hunters were least
likelytohave larvestedabear(Table 7). Aswouldbeexpected, alargerpercentof
respondents in tle "before" cohort had harvested a bear", however, over one-third of tle
respondents inthe "after" cohortreportedtlattleyhadharvestedat least onebear(Table 8).
Membersofbearhmﬁngmgammomladahigherrateofhawestﬂanmnmembers, but
there was no signiﬁcant difference between other hunting organimtion members and
nonrrembers (Tables 10 and 11).

Almost all respondents (97%) participated in some type of hmrting in addition to bear
hunting. The largest proportion of respondents hunted whitetail deer, and small game (Table
6). Dog-only respondents participated in otler types ofhunting less ﬁequently tlam otler
hunt-method groups with tle exception of small game hunting (Table 7).

Triﬂe 6: lining clamteristies of weighed samqle“

 

 

 

Murder of % of
(laracteristic Respomibrls Responibrls
Equipment Used to Hunt Bear
Gun 409 44.9
Bow 168 18.4
Both 335 36.7
Area Hunted Since 1980
WUP only 332 42.9
EUP only 188 24.3
LowP only 140 18.1
More tlam one 114 14.8
Bear Harvested in lifetime (mean=1.6)
0 Bear 348 44.3
1 Bear 204 26.0
2 Bear 99 12.6
3-5 Bear 92 11.7
6 or More 42 5.3
Paid for Hurm'mg Assistance
(at least once 1990-1992) 60 8.7
Number of Days Hunted in 1992
(mean=7.5)
1-3 days 66 21.9
4-6 days 102 33.7
7-9 days 58 19.2
10-12 days 38 12.4
12 or more days 43 12.8
Otler Types of Hunting Since 1990
Whitetail Deer 894 95.1
Otler Big Game 185 19.7
Small Game 830 88.3
Turkey 427 45.4
Upland Game Birds 673 71.6
327 34.7

 

 

 

 

Waterfowl
£Weiaﬁ m

 

 

 

 

 

 

_8.av._ ”mark some. sewn sea seem so: seam 369533 _
”Sena 921% 53 em: 0%.: $85 5.6 see «Em 8.8
_8.evn .2me can and. amen see so? as: can:
«8.an an "ax .52 see she so? 5.8 soda 85 :95
gene .2 Tx s3 5.: some $2 s3 .32 use we 650
.82 .Nsmutx see so? $4.; $23 s3» :3 one ﬁrst;
Fe U=< 82 8% mag: .25
are A§S§ 88 e8. 3
§dvn «are <2 :3 s3 ewe $3 $3 egg gas 5e 2e
2 2 2 M: 2
as? s2: s2 s3 .52 262 e o
$9: axes and $2; .53 5m cm
as: ea.» .3: sq: s3 66m N
are 5.3 $3 sea s3” seem
§dvn .Smudx <2 5.3. 5.8 see. $4.3 sea Em c
2:85 .5 Beta: 3m
ans :3 sea seem can as 68 A
as: so: some $3 sea e8 .33
2% sea swam see so? .52 b8 .Sm
_8.evn were“ <2 so: seem seen .52 5.8 as .53
8.: 8% BEE §<
an: :3. sea swam s2. s3 58
are as”: 5.: as.» :53 o... 3. 38
28.9.2 aneﬁ «an. some seen 53 show ea: 96
8m an: 8 Ba: daem—
aﬁw 18.3 an: anal. emu: Run: 2 Ta 8....
3.5.2 3.5.5 E8 €31: ions: .338 35.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

agﬁegaeﬂgi

”be:

Table 8: Eating claracten’stim aralyzed by cohorts

 

 

  
 
 
   
   
 
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
   

Waterfowl

 

 

 

 

Before After
Cohort Cohort
m=499 n=288 Simistical Tests
57.1% 47.7% X7=6.3, P=0.043 ll
Bow 13.0% 14.8% df—-2
Both 30.0% 37.5%
Area Hunted Since 1980
' WUP only 40.7% 46.6% X2=77.3, P<0.001
EUP only 23.1% 26.6% df=3
LowP only 13.1% 25.9%
> one area 23.0% 0.9%
i Bear Harvested in Lifetime
0 Bear 33.7% 62.2% X2=128.9, P<0.001
1 Bear 22.7% 32.1% df=4
2 Bear 17.4% 4.5%
3-5 Bear 18.2% 0.7%
6 or More 8.1% 0.5%
mean 2.2 0.5
Paid for Hunting Assistance
. (at least once 1990-1992) 7.7% 10.2% )G=1.3, P=0.249
df=1
Other Types of Hunting (All Below) dﬁl
Whitetail Deer 95.2% 97.9% X2=3.8, P=0.052
Other Big Game 20.5% 17.0% X2=1.4, P=0.229
Small Game 90.5% 87.7% X’=1.6, P=0.207
Turkey 46.9% 47.3% X’=0.01, P=0.910
Game Birds 72.9% 73.9% X’=0.1, P=0.751
34.4% 36.0% Xz=O.2, P=0.644

 

 

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F }
sane 23.8 S Sane 23.8 No 65.
5312 east 28.8 2 28.3 .2?“ $4.8 a eeom
e28
mane $4.8 E Ere 23.9 a 25582
”Rene it see no @821 .26 :98 a 2:62 9&5 mean: 650
cane ans 5 Ere see a 3:382
R21 .31 an: 3 28.912 .21 awe 8 Ben: name mag: he
manages:
28.8 E 858 a macaw
5.: 8 a3 a. esteem
$9 3 $9 8 Exam
are 8.: as are E: on €an
Snore serous n 9.: we 899nm $2"er a $2.: a. cannon
995 8.22.32
see 3 Gas 4» goons”. =<
an... 33% ewe :2 an... .83 £9 .a II
§_B_aﬂ its: canteen—IO —
some: §>Ee
ii Ln

 

safe 82 53:... geotggagggs $3.23»; a 23.

51

Table 10: Bears Invested analyzed by membership in bear hunting organizatiDI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bear Hlmiting Organ.
%of %of
meirers Nonmembers
Oaracteristic n=102 m=748 Statistical Tests
Bear Harvested
in Lifetime
0 Bear 28.3 46.8 X2=27.4, P<0.001, df=4
1 Bear 24.0 27.2
2 Bear 13.9 12.1
3-5 Bear 21.4 10.2
6 or More 12.3 3.8
# of Bears 2.6 1.3 t=3.15, P=0.002,
Harvested (mean) (S.F.=0.39) (S-E=0.10) df=102.93

 

 

Triﬂe 11: Bears harvested aralyzed by membersh'p in otler hurting organizatioI

 

 

 

 

 

 

m
(liter Hlmlting Organ
%of %of
mebers Nonmemibers
ﬂ Onacteristic m=260 m=593 Stmistical Tests
Bear Harvested
in Lifetime
0 Bear n=286 42.2 44.2 X2=8.9, P=0.064, df=4
1 Bear n=180 24.1 29.0
2 Bear n=78 11.8 12.5
3-5 Bear n=79 16.8 9.2
6 or More n=35 5.1 5.1
# of Bears 1.6 1.4 t=—1.36, P=0.174, df=708
Harvested (mean) (s.E.=o.18) (S.E=O.11)

 

 

 

52
Importamecfﬁatlzlunting

Bearhmrtingwasratedastleirmostimportantrecreationalactivityby12%ofthe
respordmtsmﬂasomofﬂeDnemnnporammcreaﬁomalacﬁviﬁesbyanaddiﬁonal52%
(Table 12). He level of imrportance differed among hunt-method groups, with the dog groups
ratingithiglerandtlestill—onlygroupratingitlowerinirnportamcetlandidtheotlerhmrt-
methodgroups. Respondentsintledoggroupswhoownedtleirownbeardogsreportedan
evenhigler level ofimportancetlanthosewhodidm't own dogs (Table 13). Membersofbear
hmﬁingmgarﬁzaﬁmerepoﬂedﬂatbearhmﬁingwasmemhmpoﬂmﬁﬂamdidmrembem
(Table 12). Respondents inthe "before" cohort indicatedthat bearhumtingwas more
irnportanttlandidtleseintle"after" cohort (Table 12). Also,thosewhohadnotyet
harvestedabearconsideredbearhmrting less importanttlanthose wholad(Table 14).

53

 

 

 

B 2 Be 3% 8. can: 65.

ed 3 ”.8 ”an q: oer: poem
are 48.2 .momnee
:38

no E EN Em m: emu: 3:282 are and"; 6qu

E 3 93 En is an": 2862 Sac mega: sec

3 4.» 2e 3% no as": $2 are .28.: «area

2 S. E new man ST: 2862 one scene use
nag

am <2 as :4. 3m Era 3:5 82

2 E EN 3a 2: ”an: unease

2. EN 2m 3e. 2 an: 38.5%

2 E an new as am": €23

2. e... we 3:. EN 8T: season

2 ...m n: E4 «.8 an: amnion
ante .892 genes
96.6 3%.;
Crew 48.: agree
2 o.» <8 2.8 we can: nosing =<

6.382%. 83* 9.8. oz.\. 8:: as. 3.23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8% 1553.8. age 8 369:8 wil—.33 we ERE— uﬁ 011,—.

54

Taﬂe 13: Importance ofbearlulinganalyzedby rospomderls inlut-methodgroqe who
owmbeardogs"

 

 

 

%One of
%Mrst the More
Ell-Med GIN!) Own Bear Dogs Important Immortal! Stmistical Tests
Dog/Bait Yes n=55 54.5 38.2 Xl=26.6, P<0.001
No n=30 3.3 63.3 df=4
Dog-only Yes n=61 45.9 49.2 X2=37.0, P<0.001
No n=46 4.3 47.8 df=3
Generalist Yes n=29 17.2 69.0 X2=9.0, P=0.061
No m=196 9.2 53.6 df=4

 

 

 

 

 

: WWW
hmoMHmhmommﬂdlhmm

Taﬂe l4: Immortamce ofbearhng analyzedby nmierofbearlarvssted"

 

 

Importance
BearHarvasted (mean) SE Statistical Tests
0 Bear n=338 2.5 0.05 F ratio=13.2,
1 Bear m=211 2.3 0.06 P<0.001, df=4
2 Bear n=97 2.1 0.08
3-5 Bear n=94 2.0 0.08
6 or More Bear n=49 1.8 0.11

 

 

 

 

 

 

iElenit-typerrntrngstrait: imammmoranrmemm
mmmmﬁmmmmatdlmm

55

WW
We questioned respondents about their intentions to use each hunting method over the

nextﬁveyearsﬂable 15A). onaltytohtmtingmethodswasvery highamongthe groups
wlnusedonlyonemetlndtohmtbear,withtheexceptionofstill—onlyrespondents. Most
resporﬂemsmﬂndogmﬂbaitMygroupsmponedﬂmﬂwyhuendedmmCOMymose
methodstol'nmtbearintheneidﬁveyears. Onlyabomhalfofthestill-onlygmupplannedto
cominuewiththeirmethod;manyintendedtouseonlybaitornnrethanonemethodtohmt
bear. Alnnstnoneofthestillonlygrowplamedonusingdogs. 'Ihisgmupalsohadthe
higlnestproportionofresporxientswhointendedtodropomofbearhmtingoverthenemﬁve
years. The percent of individuals in each hunt-method group over the next ﬁve years will
changesomewlmtbasedontheintentions ofrespondents (Table 15B). Moreofthose who
lavenotyethuntedplantouseonlybaitandfewerintendtouseonlydogsthanthose

respmdentswholndbeenbearhmting.

B E G' E l .
Respondentsmpmtedﬂntﬂiemstnnponamreamfmgomgbearhmﬁngwem"to
beinthewoods,""tohavetheopportmitytoseeabearinitsnatmalhabitat,"and"touse
lunﬁngsldlls"(Table l6). Doglnniteisimicatedthatthennstimpm‘tantreasonforgoing
hmtingwastoseeandhearbeardogsmrk. Doghmteisalsothoughtbeingwithﬁiendswas
more important tlnn did other him-method gnoups, but being with family ranked fairly low
with all hunt-method groups. "To have the opportunityto get a shot at abear" and "to harvest
abear"wereratedasmoreimportantbythebait—only,genealists,andnothmtedgroupsthan

bythedoggroups.

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2m 3 3m 2“ 2 gene BE 82
in 2 3m 3 3 man: E3589
3 Em ca 3 ed ”mu: 3535
4.2 S a; no 3 can: Evﬁm
2 ed 2 3.» 3 8T: eion
3 ed .3 «.2 Xe an: enema
3.3; 25:5 €33 €38 .333 9.20 33...}:
35 A
28> m .52 .35 9.5 33...:
was.» 96 as: «5.56 are.» 3595*:— E nun—Eu 138.5 "mm— «Ian.
2 «a n: S: we we": BE 82
S we. 3:. SN 5: can: 253
we 2» 3m 2 5 “an: 25 am
3 4.” ma em 3 ”an: 3:0 mam
Z 2 3 SA. to SE. .25 mom
2 em 3 4.8 new as: summon
g g z a h0>¢ «3 Es mega—IE
S a: .8 8.x. ..8 aaamuez$ Ham 3.x. 35m .8 a8: :3 35m $23..

 

 

 

 

 

§>m5zs5323§§§

 

 

it

asmmgsueegﬁzeggoasgazgcgizega 230.3

 

57

.53....

 

 

6%. .8 ...v. .6. 66.8.... 8

 

 

6686.4 6.86.6 6.86.6 9.8.4 668 6.4 66.86.. 6686.. 82.68.86.288.
61.3%.: T686688
66.8 6.. 66.8 6.. 66.8 4.. 6.8 6.. 66.84.. 2.86.. 6.8.... .8668... 5:88.69...
6%. .89.. T446858
66.82 6.86.6 8.8.... 6.8 6.4 6686.6 2.8 6.4 6.86.6 8.3.... 6...... 8.68.6.8...
6%. .89.. T686688 ..a...
66.8 6.6 6.8 6.6 8.8 6.6 26.8 6.6 66.8 6.6 6.8 4.6 6.86.6 826.66.86.28 668686.63...
..8. av... 68......
6686.6 6.86.6 6.86.6 2686.... 66.8 6.6 6.86.6 6.86.6 68.6.8.9...
66.866 6.8 6.6 6.86.6 6.86.6 6.84.6 6.86.6 6.86.6 6% .89.. 6.66868... 32.8....
66.8 4.. 66.8 4.. 66.8 4.. S8 6.. 66.8 4.. .88 6.. 66.8 6.. 6% .6648". .M6%.ouo.§8 .683 65.. B
...vm .6. W888
668 4.6 6.8 4.6 66.8 6.6 6.8.... 66.8 .6 6.86.6 .468 6.4 86.8.9386 6.. .63...
66.866 6.8.... 6686.6 86.8 ..6 66.866 6.86.6 6.8 6.6 6%. .89.. T668688 3.866....
66.8.... 8.8... 66.86.. 6.86.. 668... 6.86.6 6.86.6 6%..8.6v.....6uo....8 6686.25.68
6% ..6..66u...~.u66..8 5....
66.8 66 6.8 6.6 66.8 6.6 66.8 4.6 66.8 6.6 6.8 6.6 6.8 4.6 3 6.. .8... .6 .85. 6.2. a... 8... .66
..8.6v.. .66."...
66.8 66 6.8 6.6 8.8 6.6 66.8 6.6 66.8 6.6 8.8 6.. 8.8 6.. .65.... $5.32.... a...
68.16”... 66s... .83.. 66.5.. 66.!- 68!. 6.3... 66.35.86.663...

is

 

 

 

3633;683:535,

8.6%331:§IB6§8§§§8§§.%6.E§2 .6. 2......

 

58

Spadhgﬁmeudﬂibearhmﬁngﬁiendswasmtedhighermhnponmwebymembem
oftnmtingorganizationsthanbynonmembers (Table 17). Incontxast, harvestingabearand
haﬁngbearnmtwembomlatedlowmmpmtmmmmbemwmparedtomnmmbem
of hunting orgnizations. Members of bear hunting organizations rated getting shots at bears
aslomrhimpoﬂmmﬂmdidmmnmbem;however,ﬂ1emwasmdiﬁ‘mnoebetmen
members and nonmembers of other hunting organizations on this reason for beer hunting

Harvestingabearandgettingashotatabearweremoreimportanttothe"aﬁer"
cohort tlnn the "before" cohort as reasons for going bear hunting (Table 18). Those
mpmﬂemswhohadbwrhmnedbmhadmtyethaweﬂedabwrmtedmesetwofaaomas
meimpmtantthanﬂiosewhohadharvestedoneormorebearsﬂable 19).

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

663% 666.6". 6..". 66.8 ..4 ...8 6.6 6.6..% ..8..v.. .66". 6.8 6.«
H.3
68% «64.6". .66". .468 6.. 66.8 4.. ..6..% .666". .3”. 66.8 E 6.8 6.. . 8. 9 6.5.58. u... 62..
86......
6.6% .6.«.6u.. .«T. 66.8 6.« 66.8 ...« 66:“... 68.6». .66.". 66.8 6.. 6.8 «.6 6.6.... .56.... u... 8....
. . . .88.... 8&5 a
6.6% 44«.6n.. «...n. 66.8 6.« .88 6.« 6.6% ..6«.6n.. «...u. 668 6.« 6.8 ...« 6.6.5.. .6 88......v u... 8I.
86% «88".. ...«u. 668 an 8.8 6.6 «8% .668". .4..u. 66.8 «6 6.8 6.6 .2... a... a... 6.....
6.6% ..8.6n.. .66". 668 6.. .88 3 6.6% ..8..v.. .66". 66.8 6.. 6.8 6.6 .8. . .82...
6.6% .688". ...«u. 668 6.. .468 4.. 86% 6.6.6". .66". 66.8 4.. 66.8 6.. .68.. o... .. B
.86 a a .6...
4«6% .468". .4...u. 66.8 6.« .88 6.« 68."... ..8..v.. 6.6a. 6.8 6.« 6.8 2 . .66 9 8.5.68. 2.. 6.....
«8% ..8..v.. .66.". 66.8 6,. .88 «.6 86% ..8..v.. .66.". 66.8 a. 6.8 4.6 .8. .86 2....
8."... .868"... .66". .468 a. 66.8 6.. 68% 6.6.6". .68.". .468 .3 ...8 a. 2.6.. 6...... 6..
.36.. 8 .65. 6856 ..o
86% .48.: .88". 66.8 «.« 66.8 «.« 86% .868". .48". 66.8 6.. 6.8 «.« .8... ...9. 89.. 6.3. E

A .68.

6.66% 68...». ..«n. 66.8 6« .88 4.« 6.63% ..8..v.. .«61 66.8 6.« 6. .8 6.« 6.6.... .8. 5.3 a... 66%

386.8336 68...... 68!.- 365 685.. 685..
Lian-Oz g LEA-Z g E g
on 615.3 .5.» .33 .582
323.305.38.33 56.836215365652332 «again—59...;

3.3.5.6.. 6...... .. 66.23.... 6... .361... 6......3. .6 i338... 8...... 3...... .. 6...... Is. "6. 2......

 

60

Taﬂe 18: m wing ofinqaomme forwhy responded: go bearlniing

 

 

malyzed by oohmts*
I-hw inpom is dis as a reason why you would Before Coholt After Cohmt
go bear Inning? F499 n=288

mean (SE) man (SE)

spend time with beer hunting friends 2.6 (0.07) 2.7 (0.09)
(1:436, P<0.001, df=779)
get away from work, school, or stress and to relax 2.2 (0.06) 2.2 (0.08)
(t=0.2, P=0.825, df=739)
use hunting skills (t=0.62, P=0.539,df=759) 1.8 (0.05) 1.8 (0.06)
have bear meat (t=0.7, P=0.476, df=641.36) 3.0 (0.07) 2.9 (0.08)
have the ommtnn’ty to get a shot at a bear 2.5 (0.07) 2.2 (0.07)
(t=2.8, P=0.005, df=657.6)
be in the woods (t=0.5, P=0.586, df=765) 1.5 (0.04) 1.4 (0.05)
Invest a bear (t=4.2, P<0.001, dl'=649.7) 2.8 (0.07) 2.4 (0.08)
spend time with family 3.3 (0.07) 3.1 (0.09)
(t=0.9 ,P=0.322, df=734)
have the challenge of hunting a dangerous aninnl 2.7 (0.07) 2.6 (0.08)
(t=1.4, P=0.167, df=655)
enjoy the prehunt baiting activities 2.7 (0.07) 2.7 (0.08)
(t=0.1, P=0.908, df=644.2)
lave the opportunity to see a bear 1.4 (0.04) 1.5 (0.05)
(t=—1.l, P=0.262, df=756)
see all] Ivar hear dog work 3.7 (0.08) 4.4 (0.08)

   

   

 

(t=-5.7, P<0.

‘1”,

001, df=674)

U.

  

 

  

 

 

 

..sv ~ {Ii-a i4

61

 

 

-.1.... .8.v.. 8135..--

 

 

.8... 8. .8... ...n .8... an .8... an 8.... 5. ...5. 8.... .8. .8. ..5. 8.

.1... .288». 881...... ..

.2... m... .2... n. .8... .... .8... m. .8... e. 8.5... .58 a. 5 .8. a 8. o. 85.5.8 2.. 0a...

.1... .82.". .12.... ...

.8... 8.. .2... 8.. .2... 8.. .. .8. ...m .8... mm 88.88 8...... 55.2.. 2.. 8.8

.1... 88...". ...onoﬁ. ..

.8... ...m .2... 8.. .2... ...N .. .8. ...N .8... Z .55 828...... a 8.5. .0 88...... 2.. 05a.

.8... ..m .2... ..m .2... mm .2... mm .8... ..m 18.88.88. .2128. 8 ...5. 8.3 25. .8...m

...a... man .2... m... .2... .3 .8... ...m .8... 3 .1... ..8.v.. €8.15: 8. 8.. a .85.

.2... 8.. .8... n. .8... 8.. .8... .... .8... m. .1... .811“. 8.1.82 n.. 5.8; 2.. 5 B

9... 31...! m.

.5... an .2... an 6.... E ...... 2 .8... ...N 8.. a a. .5... a .8. a $55.... 2.. 95.

.8... 8.. .2... N... .2... 8.. .2... ..m .8... ..m .1... 8... ..n. a. 128. ... .85 .8. oz...

.3... 8.. .. ..... .... .2... 8.. .8... 8.. .8... 8.. .1... 88...». 888...... .. 8.... 85.5. 8..

.1... 88...". «.128. ...

.8... a. .2... n. .2... 8 .8... a. .8... ..N 8.2 o. ..5. .8... 8 .88. ...83 52. 8% 8..

.1... a2....8. ...nuoi. ....

..N... n. .2... ...N 6.... ...N 8.... 3 .8... 3 ...8... “55. .5. a... a... .8...
a. 5.2. «Wm. .32. a. g a. 5.8. «Hm. g

81.. 8.. an: 81. «.8: menu: .8558.

2.2.3.. 5mm-n hum" cuggschEBgaIn-uaggia

 

 

 

 

hum.

 

ham:

 

 

 

5r

58583388158538.8588. 8.35.. 355.885; 8.81...

62
E H . B l .

On the average, respondents rated "pmtection of the bear population," "number of
yemshmteuswaitforabemharvestpennit,"and"freedomtochoosewhataleaofMichigan
tobwhuntin"asﬂnermstimpoﬂantfactoxsﬂleDNRslmﬂdoonsiderwhendetennining
regulations (Table 20). Less imponant, but still moderately important, were "ﬁeedomto
choosewlmtohmﬁ"and"imerfereme annugbwrhmtersinthewoods". 'Ihe"length of
bearlnmtingmson"and"chancesofharvestingabw"mretheleastimponantfactorsand
meratedmodelatetolow.

Themmberofywrsﬂaathmﬁemwaitfmaharvestmgwaslwshnpommﬂnsem
thedog gmupscomparedtootherhmt—method groups (Table 20). Rmpondentsinthedog
gromsalsompmtedﬂntﬂnlmgﬂlofﬂnbmrseasonwasmmmmmmﬂmdidoﬂm
lnmt-methodgmlms.

Membersofbearhmﬁngorgammﬁonsmtedchamofharvmﬁngabwraslws
inlpmtarnmﬂprotecﬁmofﬂebwrpoplﬂaﬁonasmmknpommﬂmmmnenbemdid;
Mlmgﬂmfﬂebwsmsmwasmmhnponmmmbemﬂmnmmmbasaable
21). Membasmﬂmmmbetsofoﬂmmmﬁngmgarﬁzaﬁmsdidmtdiﬂerinimponmwe
ratingsfortlmefactomwiththeexocptionofnmnberofywswaitforatag;nonmembers
ratedtlﬁsmeirnpmtantthanmembemdidCl‘ableZZ).

Tlnseanereinﬂlekﬁeﬂoohonmtedharvmtmteasmmhnpomﬂmﬂme
"before"oolutbmﬂleysﬁﬂrateditlwshnpmmﬂlanaﬂoﬂxerfactomaableB).
Wmamnghmtmsmﬂwmodswasalsomehnpmtmmmpmﬂmnsmﬂe'hﬁer"
cohort.

63

  

 

 

1.. .3 .-: r.
. . v _.

 

6% $8.on .3: we

         
  

      

. lo
'-

Lb.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A38 3 3.3 3 898 3 3.8 3 see 3 3.8 3 3.8 3 Ea 2 =23 885 s 8803
ﬁne «Scum ,mduoue a

95.8 3 3.8 3 £98 3 3.8 3 998 3 9.8 3 3.8 3 Be .35 0820 9 583
an... 38.2 31.5 a

3.8 3 3.8 3 age 3 5.8 an Ex: 3 3.9 3 3.3 3 as a 3:822 e 88.5
an... 38.2 £215.: 6

A58 3 5...: 3 $3 3 3.3 3 Gas 3 3.8 3 3.3 3 mate is a»... .352
an... 38.2 6.1.3. 8

A39 3 5.8 3 $3: 3 5.8 3 $2: 3 3.8 3 3.8 3 8:3 uni-.5: 2:. ans:

awe $21 3%? a

A88 3 9:8 3 6:8 3 5.8 3 6:: 3 $3 3 6.9 3 8%; BB 05 .8 8889:
an... 38.2 .313. a

G3: 3 3.9 3 see 3 3.8 3 63: 3 3.8 3 3.3 3 5.... 2.8: 08232

«HE i av g 9% Sun: ﬁg 3 9% 2 av 53 «HE g 283%

.155 3.5 5.288 2.33 £33. £35 .338 i
ez

 

3133.333?! 283 €333.82: 5353 an 0.3

64

Taﬂe 21: m invariance of each of the following factors analyzed by menirerslip in bear

 

 

 

 

 

Inning orgainliom"

BearHIﬂing 012m
Factors Mailers Nommhe- Staﬁstieal Tests

m (SE) mm (SE)

Interference among hunters 2.8 (0.15) 2.5 (0.05) t=-2.5, P=0.014, df=776
Protection of the bear population 1.3 (0.06) 1.6 (0.03) t=4.l, P<0.001, df=159.3
Bear hunting season length 2.6 (0.14) 2.8 (0.05) t=2.1, P=0.039, df=812
Nrnnber of yrs. wait for a tag 2.1 (0.13) 1.9 (0.04) t=1.3, P=0.212, df=115.9
Clances of harvesting a bear 3.5 (0.14) 3.0 (0.05) 1:32, P=0.002, df—-121.7
Freedom to choose hunt area 1.7 (0.11) 1.9 (0.04) F13, P=0.183, df=824
Freedom to choose when to hunt 2.3 (0.14) 2.5 (0.05) F16, P=0.117, df=815

 

 

Warsaw-re: 1=Mrsthrpor1lIFacbrb5=Notlnmm

TaHe 22: Nban inmortmee of each of the following factors analyzed by meninrslip in other

 

 

 

 

 

Inning armistiorv

Oﬂmr Billing Organ ﬂ
Facmrs mil) Wis Staﬁsﬁed Tests
Interference among hunters 2.5 (0.03) 2.5 (0.06) r=o.2, P=0.880, df=780
Protection ofthe bear population 1.5 (0.05) 1.6 (0.04) t=1.8, P=0.077, df=541.2
Bear hunting season length 2.9 (0.08) 2.7 (0.05) t=1.2, P=0.229, df=815
Number of yrs. wait for a tag 2.1 (0.07) 1.8 (0.04) t=-2.9, P=0.004, df=412.3 "
Chances of harvesting a bear 3.1 (0.08) 3.0 (0.05) t=0.8, P=0.430, df=820
Freedom to choose hunt area 1.9 (0.07) 1.9 (0.05) 1:03, P=0.73l, df=824
Freedom to choose when to hunt 2.5 (0.08) 2.5 (0.06) 1:0.01, P=0.990, df=817 II

 

 

 

i[Tram-typeRulingSornle: 1=mmmmms=Notrnpom

65
Taﬂe 23: m invariance ofeach ofﬂm following factors aralyzed by oohorts“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before Cohort Aﬁer Cohort

Factors (SE) man (SE)

Interference amng liners 2.6 (0.07) 2.4 (0.08)

(t=2.5, P=0.013, df=594.5)

Protection of the bear population 1.6 (0.04) 1.5 (0.05)

(t=0.2, P=0.840, df=751)

Length of the bear hunting season 2.8 (0.06) 2.8 (0.07)

(t=-0.3, P=0.805, df=743)

Number of yrs. wait for a tag 1.9 (0.05) 2.0 (0.06)

(t=1.57, P=0.116, df=750)

Ounces of harvesting a bear 3.2 (0.06) 2.9 (0.07)

(t=2.7, P=0.007, df=747)

Freedom to choose hunt area 1.8 (0.05) 1.9 (0.07)

(t=1.0, P=0.325, df=752)

Freedom to choose when to hunt 2.4 (0.06) 2.5 (0.08)
L(t=-l .2, P=0.224, df=744)

 

 

”Magnum: l=NbstlnpoMFachrb5=Nothrpom

66
ResporMsrepmtedthattheywouldwaitanaverageoftwotoﬂneeyearsfora

harvest tag and still rennin satisﬁed with bear hunting (Table 24). They reported they would
quit applying for a harvest tag aﬁer an average waiting time of fan years (Table 25). The not
hunted and dog groups were willing to wait the longest. There was no signiﬁcant difference
between members of hunting organimtions for number of years they were willing to wait to
remain satisﬁed with bear hunting. Members of bear hunting organizations, however, would
wait longer than nonmembers before quitting the application process.

On the average, respondents indicated that they would be satisﬁed with a htmting
seasonof18 days, giventhecmrentsystemwheredogandbaithmrters are, forthemostpart,
in the woods together (Table 26). Ifthe bear hunting season were split to completely separate
doghrmtersﬁombaitandstill hmrters,theseasonlengththatresporxlentsneededinorderto
be satisﬁed averaged four to ﬁve days less than with the uncut system (Table 27). To be
satisﬁed with bear hunting, the dog hunter groups required a considerably longer season tl'nn
the other hunt-method groups. Members of bear hunting organizations neemd a considerably
longer season than nonmembers; however, members of other hunting organizations were not
signiﬁcantly different ﬁom nonmembers. Respondents in the "after" cohort were, on the
average, satisﬁed with a shorter hunting season than was the "before" cohort.

Taﬂe24:1mrgestrmporxbrﬁwoddwm’tforaharvesttagmdstill besdisﬁedwithhear

 

# onrs.

 

 

 

Segmerl mean (SE) Statistical Tests I
All Respondents 2.3 (0.03) I
Hunt Method l
Dog/Bait 2.6 (0.15) F ratio=11.4, P<0.001
Dog-only 2.5 (0.13) df=5
Bait-only 2.2 (0.04)
Still-only 2.2 (0.13)
Generalist 2.2 (0.05) t
Not Hunted 2.8 (0.10) '
Membership :
Bear Hunting Organ Member 2.4 (0.11) t=l.4, P=0.172 {
Nomnember 2.3 (0.03) df=816
Other Hunting Organ Member 2.4 (0.06) r——1.1, P=0.262 E
Nonmember 2.3 (0.04) df=817
Cohort
Before 2.2 (0.04) t=0.4, P=0.723
After 2.2 (0.05) df=750

 

 

__________‘___J

Taﬂe 25: longest rasponderls world wait for a harvest tag before they world qu't undying

 

 

 

 

 

# of Yrs.
Segmert mean (8.11) Statistical Tests
All Respondents 4.1 (0.07)
Hunt Method
Dog/Bait 5.1 (0.25) F ratio=9.9, P<0.001
Dog-only 4.6 (0.23) d%5
Bait-only 3.9 (0.12)
Still-only 3.8 (0.27)
Generalist 3.6 (0.13)
Not Hunted 4.6 (0.17)
Membership
Bear Hunting Organ Member 4.9 (0.22) t=-3.9, P<0.001
Nonmember 4.0 (0.08) df=106.3
Other Hunting Organ. Member 4.2 (0.13) t=-1.4, P=0.170
Nonmember 4.0 (0.09) df=692
Cohort
Before 4.0 (0.10) t=1.5, P=0.130
After 3.8 (0.12) df=523.3

 

 

69

Talie 26: Mseasonlengthﬂratraspomiemswoddbesatisﬁedwiﬂr, giventhecurrert

 

 

overlanmg' sensors
F==
# of Days with
Ovedam'ns
Segrmrt SSE-E) Statistical Tests
All Respondents 17.9 (0.38)
Hunt Method
Dog/Bait 26.8 (1.44) F ratio=29.6 P<0.001
Dog-only 25.2 (1.29) df=5
Bait-only 15.4 (0.56)
Still-only 14.6 (1.19)
Generalist 17.1 (0.68)
Not Hunted 14.6 (0.80)
Membership
Bear Hunting Organ Member 22.0 (1.34) F46, P<0.001 df=112
Nonmember 15.7 (0.35)
Other Hunting Organ Member 16.2 (10.1) t=0.4, P=0.728
Nonmember 16.5 (10.0) df=794
Cohort
Before 17.6 (0.51) F221, P=0.028
After 15.9 (0.57) df=637.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

7O

Talle 27: Mseasonlengthdutresponderls worldbesatisﬁedwith, givensrlitseaso-

 

 

 

 

 

# of Days with
Split Seaso- - -
Segrmrl m (SE) Statistical Tests
All Respondents 13.1
Hunt Method
Dog/Bait 21.6 (1.28) F ratio=34.1, P<0.001
Dog-only 20.4 (0.99) df=5
Bait-only 12.3 (0.40)
Still-only 11.9 (0.76)
Generalist 13.4 (0.49)
Not Hunted 11.7 (0.54)
Membership
Bear Hunting Organ. Member 17.1 (1.10) t=—4.0, P<0.001
Nonmember 12.6 (0.25) df=88.8
Other Huntlng Organ Member 12.5 (0.45) t=1.3, P=0.181
Nonmember 13.2 (0.30) df=759
Cohort
Before 14.2 (0.39) t=3.5, P<0.001
After 12.3 (0.36) df=678.1

 

71
limermncessratewasmportedasmumpomby42%ofdmrespondems(Table
28). Ofﬂlemnnimngrespondmus,33%mponedﬂatammcessratevmereomortwoomof
ten hrmters are harvesting a bear would be satisfactory.I The mean satisfactory success rate
washigl'lestforthedog/baitgroup. Thoserespondentsinthe"atter"cohortreportedtheneed
forahighersuccessrate. Therewasrrotasigrriﬁcarrtdiﬂerencefordesiredmccessrate

between members and nomnembers of hunting organizations.

W

Respondents using one hunt method exclusively, whether dogs, bait sitting, or still
huntingtendedtobecritical ofothermethodsofhuntingbear. Onlyabouthalfofthedog—
only and still-only hunters indicated that baiting for bear should continue in Michigan (Table
29). A similar proportion of the bait-only group thought hound hunting should continue, but
less than a third of the still-only hunters indicated tint dog hunting should continue (Table 30).

We also looked at respondents' values and beliefs about hunting bear with dogs and
baitmbenermﬂasmmﬂwreamnsrespordenmhadfmwmmngbaiﬁngarﬂdoghmﬁngto
be discontinued in Michigan (Tables 29 and 30). Orly about halfof the dog-only group
reported that baiting for bear is ethical, and conversely, about lulf of the bait-only group
considered dog hunting ethical. Most of the still-only group did not feel that dog hunting was
ethical, and though more of this segment considered baiting ethical, it was not highly
supported

Nbstofthedog—onlyandalmosthalfofthestill—only groupindicatedbaithlmterstake
nnrethantheirshareofbear. Nearlyhalfofthestill-only groupalso agreedthatdoghunters
takemorethantheirshare, as did about one-third ofthebait-onlyrespondents.

 

1The state's bear harvest in 1992 averaged approximately three out of ten hunters.

72

The majority of respondents in the bait-only and still-only group thought dog hunting
interfered with other methods of hunting bear, but only about one-third of dog-only indicated
that baiting interfered with other methods.

Ofﬂmserespondentswlmﬂlouglnbaiﬁngslwuldmtcominuetobeallowedin
Michigan, a high proportion reported that baiting is not ethical and that baiters take nrorc than
their slmre of the bear (Table 31). Fewer of these respondents, but still the rmjority, thought
thatbaitinginterferes withothermetlwdsofhuntingbearorthatbaiters havea greaterchance
of harvesting a bear.

Ofthoserespondentswhothoughthmtingbearwithdogs slmuldnotcontimle, almost
all feltthatdoghuntingwasnot ethicalandthat it interferes withothermethodsofhlmting
bear (Table 32). Many of these respondents also felt that dog hunters have a greater chance of
harvestingabearthanbaitersandfewer, butstill amajorityreportedthatdoghunters take
more than their share of the bear.

73

Talle 28: I-Imtersnccassrate(per10 liners)neerbdmhesatisﬁedwithhearlulingarﬂ
pereentwhoreportedﬂntsuccassrateisnotinportam

 

 

 

 

 

Hider "Success
Success Rate rate is not
Seglmlﬁ (man per 10 input"
Inn.)
All Respondents n=924 2.2 42.0%
Hunt Method
(F ratio=2.9, P=0.014, df=5)
Dog/Bait n=85 2.7 (0.18) 60.0%
Dog-only n=107 2.0 (0.16) 55.1%
Bait-only n=292 2.3 (0.09) 40.1%
Still-only n=58 2.0 (0.19) 56.9%
Gereralist n=227 2.1 (0.09) 38.8%
Not Hunted n=126 2.3 (0.13) 39.7%
Membership
Bear Hunting Organ. Member n=100 2.4 (0.11) 54.6%
(t=-1.4, P=0.172, df=816) Nonmember n=738 2.3 (0.03) 40.2%
Other Hunting Organ Member n=257 2.4 (0.06) 46.3%
(t=1.1, P=0.262, df=817) Nonmember n=584 2.3 (0.04) 40.6%
Cohort (t=3.8, P<0.001, df=396)
Before n=486 2.0 44.4%
After n==287 2.4 39.0%

 

 

 

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 3 33 8 33 3.2 95m oz are 38.2 3.835
3 3 3.3 8 3m 33 omaﬁ .333 a Base
3” 3» Re :3 3m «.8 one. B a 8:38 397. on as, one 335
33 «.2 3m 3; 3.2 3.2 new oz 63% 38.2 $qu
men 3o 3.... 3e 3: 3: 8&3 as ea. 23 noes: 55 so a
33 SN 83 2 3e 3e 89.. neonate o 85% soon a one none com
”.9 on 33 3 3; «.2 saw oz sin .38.: 6.3.3
3e 3e 3e 3.8 3.9. n2 8&3 one weaseo
3 3 SM 3 Gm we on... ease so as, 233 833.. moose
EN 33 3m 2: 33 33 25 oz are 38.2 3.33
is So :3 3e 9: 33 385 one
o: o3 3m 3 «.8 3e 83. oso 8% use one 29: see 5.2 com
3 3 3 3 2: 2: 25 oz are 38.2 .933
E 3 new 8 3m 3.: Sosa on so one mega
3a 3» .3 3e 3m .3 one. soon saga o 3.35 338 a as:
an... as... a... cat. are 8.... 338..
3...: oz 31.86 2:23 ii! £38 in}: in .85 an: 392 g
956 3:25.! 58 ox.

 

 

 

 

95333333383338; sue-3

75

9.3

 

v.9
3:

NS
ER

QC
tam o o

as

     
   
 

1 iliwazfna
3202 a 830% ,

       

 

 

33 3 3 in 33 So So 3 a nouns coca. a8 a? 83 3.5.: ,
8m «.2 3m 3m 3 3 2% oz 83o 48.ch 3.3%
as v.8 3.2 3N v.3 3w 83.5 3% E 55 :2 a Quota
a? 3*. 3V is no 3 8.3 o 08% ooh.» a 2,2 SEE men
3.2 3z 3z 3.: 3 3.2 pom oz A23 48.: .88"de
3m 3m «2 EN 35 5.8 83.5 .32 3.25: .o $33
33 mom NS 23 at 3 8.3 2o 5? 85E: as a? mg
3m 3m 3m Sm 3 3 2am oz szno 48.2 agroc
as :o :N 3m n8 3w ”0an .33 «so 2%
SN SN 3*. 2m 3 3 8.? Hoe ES 23 3.5 $8 a: 23 83
2: an n: 3 3 2 2.5 oz sic 48.2 .33an
Ex SN 33 52 2 3 “Bug as a? =2 322
$3 33 mm 33 :5 3m 8.? 5% SE o .838: $38 a an:
an. ..8... 8.... Run: 2.... 8K. .833.
35: oz 51.88 31.5 ici— § .138 muon— 55 an: 392 g

 

 

gaging-cox.

 

 

 

 

iﬁgﬁabgaegggsgg ”8oz;

 

 

 

S: a: we 2% sz Ala 48.: d: TB
SN 2: go 02mg .&8
3m as as 8.3 a: 23 ES: .5 as a @335 % 0820 38% a 92 8% ﬁm
”.2 a: 2: ea 62
RN SN «:2 8mg Ala 48.: fauna
3m 3o 2 8.3 .32 was: we gas .26 as, 85E 3% “am
can ”.2 SN 2am 82
Mm 2: 3w «.3. 835 Ala 48.2 .mSNumc
2m 8» we 83 .32 92o 2% £5 85 use 93 .3 us a £3 825
5:. v N 3 95m 82
SN ma 3 8mg Ala 48.2 4856
SM m: 18 8.3 as .26 a2 wag 5% ﬁg 8 33.2: 958 a 95.:
ms": «on: Em: «8&3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..§3.2a.3 92-5—8
.8339 ...aaiaezﬁm. 3323333338. 3%.}.usgiggsg an is

 

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sm 8.2 o. 2 2am 82
8.2 3 w. 8 8835 €qu 48.: 83.1.3
0% «R o. a 8.3 .98 .2 :2. a2 a £82 8 8:2 0:828 92 35: won
SN 3 N. 3 28 82
S. 3 Sn 8885 Ale 8.: a. RTE
8.8 8.8 8.8 83. 5.2 magic 83% 26 as» 8538 as as, 88.5
«.8 n8 ”.8 2am 82
v.2 S was 889.5 sly 28. avg m. 8J5
«.8 n8 3 2.3 .32 2% 2% 25 as 29: 25 as a: 23 5.5
8.8 3. 3. 95m “oz
:8 as 2 88.85 $2 48.2 8.3qu
8.8 S. 8.8 8.3 .88 a? a2 888 88 885 8 8835 358 2 3:
Eu: can: awn: «8&8:
.8 was“... 32......
3&8 5.332 was! 2883.8 _

 

 

 

:28 .81.. 925:8 .8 38....
92:8832981538333358233335829323333; "82.3.

 

Fowopﬁommmﬂcﬁbedfmﬁnﬁﬁngﬂrenmnberofbearharvestedeachyearmd

respondents were asked if they approved or disapproved of each (Table 33). The highest

approval was for a method that would "limit the number ofbear hmters by using some form

of drawing." About one-third approved of "not limiting the number of hunters, but setting a

very short season." Only 29% approved of "not limiting the number of hunters, but closing

theseasoneachyearaﬁerasetquotaofbearharvestswasreached" 'Ihelowestapprovalwas

for "not limiting the number of hunters, but restricting methods used to hunt bear."

ResporﬂemsmﬂwsﬁHoMyg‘oupwereﬂiebiggeasupponemofresmcﬁngnethods
(Table 34). Thedog groups showed lesssupportfor settingavery short seasonthanthosein

otherhunt groups.

Triﬂe 33: Amovd of four metlmh for liniling the nmnber of bear Inwested each year in

Mch'gm"
m

 

Amove Dismve

 

  

Not Sure

  

 

 

 

 

Restrict the methods used to harvest bear. 17.5 (158) 70.6 (637)

   

W %(n) % (n) %(n)
Limit the number of bear hmrters by using 52.4 (474) 32.6 (296) 15.0 (136)
some form of drawing.

Close the season each year aﬁer a set 29.1 (262) 54.7 (493) 16.3 (147)
quota of bear have been harvested

Set a very short season to limit the 34.0 (308) 51.8 (469) 14.3 (129)
number of bear harvested

   
 
  

 

  

   

11.9 (107)

79

 

 

aw

e582

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 ed as em 3 _
«S 2K in Se ﬁg ”.8 03885 8;. e32 .239
he a: 4.8 q: «.2 9m 9% .32 $32 3 Ba. @935 05 6.53m .
em as n: 92 E E new 82 sane 48.2 .Smneo _
3m ”.2. N5. Sm em own 2&5 SEE 38.8 _
4.3 2... 24 SM me e: 32.5 BE: 3 as: a 889 85. E, a em _
as as SN ”.2 4.: as new 52 §% £8de .315 M
3% E 2m 2m qs n8 gamma egg 83 2,2 52%
3a no.“ we 2m 98 2N 9% saw .3 a be“ as. 58 § us 820
as 5; SN ”.3 oi 2: pew 82 §% .§.¢& $.73 _
can Em 9% men 2:. mm 9989.5 333 .e Ea 29. M
3m 24 :3 :m as... 9% 33% was 3 e395 82% Baa 9: as:
3.... can: at. can: 27.. 8... ﬂan: 6354
all £1.88 28.—.3 i3! £38 in):
32
H “E

 

 

 

gain—5...... Eggaﬁzigeaguﬁg sum—:55 £53582 E "3. 2.3

80
Hammer:

Two possible ways for issuing harvest tags when supply is less than denund are
random lottery and point preference systems. Descriptions of these two allocation methods
weredescribedinthethemailquestiomraire(SeeAppendixVI]I). Dataﬁ'omthefocusgroups
suggested that preference for one of these systems over the other depended on perceived wait
time involved Therefore, in the mail survey we provided two scenarios: the ﬁrst approxirmtes
ﬂwcmemwaitﬁneofﬂneeyeam,mﬂﬂresecorﬂwasanesﬁnuteofvmatﬂmwaitﬁne
oouldeventuallybecomeifthenmnberofapplicantscontinuedtoincreaseatthepresentrate.

Respmdentsmpoﬂedﬂratifﬂreylndmwaitﬂneeyeammgetahm'vestmgmdera
point preference system or had a one-in-three chance of being drawn in a random lottery, the
majority wouldratherhave apoint preference system (Table 35). However, if the waittirne
was increased to ﬁve years or the probability lowered to one-in—ﬁve, more preferred a random
lotterysystemCI‘able36).

Thoseinthedoggroupsshovedahigherrateofsupportfortherandomlotteryfor
bothsoenariostlmnotherhmrtgroups (Tables35and36). Respondentswhohadnotyet
hmrtedfavoredthepointpreferenceovertherandomlotterysysteminbothseenarios,buttoa
lesser degreewhentheperceived waittimewaslonger. Therewasnosigniﬁcant difference
betweenthe"before"and" er"cohortswhenthewaitwasshort,butforthelongerwait,a
larger percent of the "after" cohort compared to the "before" cohort chose the random lottery
systemCTables 3Sand36). Responsesof members of hunting organimtions did not differ
ﬁomﬂroseofnonmembersonthesequestions.

81

 

       
   

 

SN 3. Nam
Te £21 wank we 2m 3a
3: a: 9% Eu: 389952
We segue .Sﬂx SN 3% as am": Bag
3: Sm EN 5n: eﬁgz
Te .Gmdnm .ij 3; New Rm 8?: 352
m: ”.8 2:
ea in cam 8?: 8362
Se in 4% Sang emanate
2N mom SN an": 35:3
gm 3... :3. San: €35
2% 58.: .Smnem 0.2 2... «.8 menu €38
. Bu: $38
We 48.938; 3: 3% «R
an... .85... . m ...th 85%: e83
.355 IE 385.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eeﬁﬁﬁﬁ .aaﬁeﬂgseﬁeails guiiecag "Road.

82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3N SN 5:.
We as?“ .Sfx 3N Em Nam nan: .32
were gem
:28
SN 2%. 3. ”an: Eeaaoz
mugs 321 ﬁne“ SN 34 Sm RE bag 9&6 maﬁa use
SN «.8 2:. Eu: 35:52
Ta .321 .2”an EN 9: 3. ST: 2802 890 38a 5m
mega”:
q: 3m Sm
SN «.2 ”am Eu: BEE 82
4.8 «an ”.3. ﬁn: @330
<8 «mm we. an": €o.=wm
2m ”.3 $4 Sana €33
ﬂue £86"; .Emmx as on can 8?: $38
3.8 =8qu
3%: an:
In :82 swank mm mm a 8 8T. Queenie 3.
and. .83 Em sz Ea»... .53 gm
Sham.— IE 53
mahaueunggue «BIC whee «13.58% m

 

 

 

.Egaﬁﬁéaﬁﬁgsbgagsgaaasag "883.

83

W
Orﬂy37%ofﬂ1e1espondemsreponedd1atﬂieyweresaﬁsﬁedwiﬂicmrembear

mamgement (Table 37). Most hunt-method groups were dissatisﬁed, especially the dog-only
andgeneralistgroups. Therewerenosigniﬁcamdiﬁ‘erencesbetweenhowmembersofhmting
organimtions and nonmembers responded to this question; however, those in the "before"
cohort were less satisﬁed than those in the "aﬁer"cohort.

QﬂyoneﬂmdofﬂlerespondentsagreedwiﬂiasmtenemﬂmﬂmeRhademugh
information on the bear population to correctly decide how rmny bear to harvest, while a
similar percent either disagreed or were not sure (Table 38A). A slightly higher pereent
agreedtlnttheytmsttheMDNRtofairlyconsidertheinterestsofhmiterswhensettingbear
hunting regulations, but responses again were highly polarized (Table 38B).

Mosthmit-method groupswerealso split onthesetwostatements, withalmostas
manyagreeing, disagreemgormtsm'e,butthestill-onlyandmthmted groups showeda
higher tendency to agree with both statements (Tables 38A and 38B). A larger proportion of
respondents in the "after" compared to the "before" cohort agreed with both statements.
Membemofbearhmningmgammmmwemnnmﬁkelyﬂmnmmembasmdisag’eewim
bothstatemems. Responsesofmembersandnomnembersofotherhmtingorganimtions
diﬁ‘ered only on the second statement; members were more likely to disagree (Table 38B).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We as s a we. ,
“8.9m wink Sn 3: :8 man: 55.. i
and: seem .
:88 H
We v.9 «.2 Ex smug 3885A .
52"; .mmuux 3... SN 3.». can: 232 . dab _
55: Ed _
We m: EN EN Eu: 25882
82E .3"an Sm mm o2 an: Be“: 530 Egg _
£238.: _
cum 3” Nam Eu: Baﬂez _
3m :2 SN mane 2388
EM SN 3:. ”mu: 355m
3. o2 3. 3?: $83
8% 3m «5 ma 8?: €88
__ sedan 5an EM 3m men an: seamen
Benz Em _
We vane
:52 gunk 3. 8” e 9.. €3.23 5
as... .8; BEE 353...: ha. Bug gm
Beam .ueez

85

 

 

 

We :3 SN
_8.ova sane“ Nam 93
We 3». 3m can set. 23:52 9&5
an: .SJX Em 2m 8m ”an: Eng 385 use
We 3 2m 3” 3n: Eeaaoz 9&5
Ezra Sven SN EV 3m 8?: use": Ease
meanness
3N SN 34 En: BE 82
3% Ex as «an: eﬁﬁae
SN 8m «.5. Fm": €iam
v.2 3m v.8 8N": €25
ewe cam N9 ”.8 8E €38
5de 82% New. EN v.8 3a: .355
3%: ea
Eu ”an:
«Scum .3an 1mm «.9. 3.. gm 5..
use 33% Em sz 8.33 8.3 gm

 

 

 

 

 

 

§§3§§§8§§8
sacgcﬁﬁsoﬁngéaeuusﬁ~

H

 

“Zn—23632138363 gulch.

 

 

86

 

 

 

 

We SN :8 «.3
so?“ @8an 2m 3 Em
~% 3N 3m 3...
”Scum ink in 9mm 3... ”mane Ea»: deno manage
The 33 Sm 2v Bug 38882
scene {Mix 0.8 :3 SN ST... Ea”: 530 wgﬁm
gages:
EN ”.8 ”.8 Eu: 82582
3N N? we". «an: 23550
SN 3m Sm ”mu: €9=um
”.8 am can an": €23
Sue Rm 5* «.3 ST: €338
:31 .Smuux 3N v.8 3a are “538
334 BE
We van:
so: imam“ EN SM can £325 3.
use 323m 2% ez 8?: 8.?

 

 

 

Beg—almo— mﬁuon :33 main-—

3 58.335885 age—£3.33

 

 

ID

 

«2:2 a... 391 Egg!» 3 gig; ”mam 2.3.

87
Fiﬁy-threepercentoftherespondents agreedand 17%disagreedthattheMDNR
limited the harth of bear more because of political pressure than because of biological
evidence of decreasing bear populations (Table 38C). Still hunters reported a considerably
lowerrateofagneement Mththisstatementthanallotherhmter segments. Members of
hunting organimtions were more likely to agree to this statement than nonmembers.

maxim
Amajorityofrespondents(72%)reportedthatthebearpopulationintheamthey
hmtmostoﬁenwasincrwsing or stayingthesame, while only 7% thoughtthatitwas
decreasingCI‘able39). Respondents inﬂiedoggroupsweretheleastmsm'eabomthebear
population. Tinsemﬂie"aﬁer"cohonwerennremsmeﬂianrespondemsinﬂ1e"before"
oolmtmﬂmnmnbemofbearhmﬁingmganimﬁonswemmmmmeﬂmmembem.

88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eu Nam c2 ”.3 Sana £2
:21 .Neuax «a ”.2 men EH: pane
e38
mam": g8;
mute in we me. ”an: Baez
82E .3 TR ma v.2 Se awe 3%: 25
We 2m Q in Eu: g2
Scene Sane“ ”.2 a: 3» 8?: Ban: 830 g :3
egg
we. 92 3% RE. BE 82
mm m: we. man: E3950
Rm Rm 3N emu: saoaem
«.8 0.: 2m can: saoﬁm
ewe n: a: 9% 8T: €38
#8.: #:an EN 3 3m 8n: enema
332 Em
Eu mane
§dvm .Seuem no». 92 ”am ”uniﬁed =< “
__ say 333m 25 32 snag 8.? . gm
53:35.. 3823 3 secs» 33:1... 2.83 a
5.. 3535 13:33 2.82 28.3% .825 33.5.ng 2:

 

 

§§§§§a8§§i§§ Gama—am.

89

a"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W agoeﬁlaasgsaéasilagésgels

 

We SN we 9% 3m 2m": 5%
§dvm .9?an 9a 3 9mm 52. man: poem
:38
Te 2.2 E NS 99. ﬁne E2
8212 .212 92 S. 9: 93 2?. Ben: ibgﬁso
We a: E 9% 99. 8?: 389252
231.93 3 9m Em 93 N2": 252 ibgﬁm
gage:
92 2 9?. is. ”an: 2355
EN «.2 9:. 9R . ”mu: 2525
92 3 SM 92. am": 22823
2% 9e 3 9% 9% 2?: $528
_8.ovm .99; 9a 3 Ev 9: an: “3&8
3%: E
In can:
28.: .92; 98 S 9: 2:. 352382 =<
new .823 2am 82 $828; 85 £828— :33
£339 _

 

§o§E§2§§£SilaaB§e§e§ name—.3

 

 

Overall, respondents received most of their information about bear and bear hunting
ﬁom their bear hunting ﬁ'iends and from magazines (Table 40). MDNR employees were least
used as an information source. All other inforrmtion sources that were provided in the
questionmire were used "frequently" or "sometimes" by about half of all respondents.

The dog hunter groups reported using hrmting organimtion publicatiom and bear
hunting friends more ﬁ'equently than other hunt-method groups (Table 41).

As would be expected, members of hunting organizations used organimtion
publications more than nonmembers; however, this was not the most frequently used source of
information (Table 42). Bear hunting organimtion members used bear hunting friends for
informationrmrethanmnmembers did; whereas, membersofotherhmrtingorganizationsused
magaziresandnewspapersnnreﬁ’equemlyﬂiannomnembersdid

"Before" cohort respondents used bear hunting friends and hunting organimtion
organization publications more frequently than "after" respondems (Table 43).

Overhalfofﬂrerespondentsexpressedhighornnderateuuaestmanending
mrkslmpsmﬁ/moﬂrertypesofmfomnﬁmnlmeeﬁngsabombearmdbearhmuing (Table
44). Of the hunt-method groups, the still-only group showed the lowest level of interest.
Membersofhuntingorganimtions showedrnore interestinattendingthannomnembers did.

Taﬂe 40: Pereerl and lumber of responderls who use information sources

91

'neqmay", 'somum'; "rarely", and 'hever’“

 

 

 

 

 

 

Infornnﬁon Source Use % (n)
Bear Hunting Friends Frequently 61.8 (548)
Sometimes 25.9 (229)
Rarely 7.6 (67)
Never 4.8 (42)
Magazines Frequently 51.4 (454)
Sometimes 32.2 (284)
Rarely 8.6 (76)
Never 7.8 (69)
license Guide Frequently 31.3 (269)
Sometimes 26.7 (229)
Rarely 17.3 (148)
Never 24.7 (212)
Newspapers Frequently 20.2 (177)
Sometimes 32.3 (284)
Rarely 26.9 (236)
Never 20.7 (181)
Hunting Organ Public. Frequently 20.9 (181)
Sometimes 31.0 (269)
Rarely 27.3 (237)
Never 20.8 (181)
Television Frequently 16.0 (139)
Sometimes 35.0 (304)
Rarely 28.5 (247)
Never 20.4 (177)
9.4 (82)
24.3 (212)
24.6 (215)
41.7 (364)

9

 

 

 

 

fl.

I a
[-l

.L i : ’
4L,I\

. 7.-

l” ._ .. ...E.

 

I .. - . $.21..th
898 2 E98 2 5.8 3 G92 3” 82.8 3 a :2 9a 82225 $62
are 59.1 .5?er a .
899 9a 998 9a 2.8 9a 698 9” 82.8 9a 398 9N 8263
ﬁne 28.2 .913 a
:93 3 E98 3 is 3. G98 3 3.8 S 5.3 3 2:...— iué as}:
ﬁne .5.de .3892 e _
2.8 E 998 E 6.9 «N G98 2 3.2 an 5.8 an moan—$2
ﬁne «8?.— eati. B
see 3 393 9a 3:: 3 E93 3 £98 n." is 3 8.5 3.8.: a
are «8.21 .2 .Nuoee e
398 5 G99 2 22.8 3. G98 5 c 2.93 82.8 2 88mg
an... .282 .9289: a
l 893 S 698 3 see a." 693 3 698 S 693 2 152.. nae-2.8m a
r «H959: @958. @958:— @958:— ﬁmvg 995.8. 855.528:—
H BE: 2388 28.55 2:33 €35 .335
82

 

 

 

 

 

 

Egrggssgﬁeoaegg "=23.

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

acne Ere
3...! .3". e98 9m 999 9” 89.1.93 :98 9m :98 2 82295. :20:
Eve «8%
89: .21 998 2 698 2 £21.93 998 2 898 9a 82%?
98?... Se"...
28.: .3". 3.8 S 5.8 3 §..v._ .2". 998 2" 893 3 .255 as 295:
Sue game
28.2 9?. 998 3 G93 9" $921.92". 998 9a 898 2 822302
Bane sane
2.21 it G98 49 998 9a :93 .2E $99 .2 ﬁe 2 ﬁne 8802
an"... 3% .
8...: .93 998 3 69$ 92 221 9.1 998 S 892 2 88%:
ﬁre 98?...
39¢"; .2 .orL 998 92 $98 92 §..v._ .3“. 6.9 3 G93 3 ﬂea mg 8m
as... 3% Ge 58. 22 is: use .835 ﬁg I... Ge 88. 85cm 89253
35282 .92.: 358.82 his:
ﬂee nae-5.28 Sealed nae-£88 L

 

 

 

.giciaazagreﬁzaggcﬁeosegé ”a. 2.3

94
Taﬂe 43: Nhan freqency of use of infommﬁon sources aralyzed by cohorts“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before After
Cohort Cohort
Infonnation Source mean (SE) mean (SE)
Bear Hurﬂing Rim 1.5 (0.04) 1.6 (0.05)
(t=-2.4, P=0.0l8, df=521.5)
Wgazines 1.8 (0.04) 1.7 (0.05)
(t=1.1, P=0.291, df=738)
License Guide 2.4 (0.06) 2.4 (0.07)
(t=0.6, P=0.564, df=719)
Newspapers 2.4 (0.05) 2.6 (0.06)
(t=l.7, P=0.082, df=735)
(kgxm. Puliic. 2.4 (0.05) 2.7 (0.06)
(t-value=-3.5, P<0.001, df=727)
Television 2.5 (0.05) 2.6 (0.06)
(t=0.4, P=0.689, df=626.8)
MDNR Employees 2.9 (0.05) 3.0 (0.06)
(t=-l.5, P=0.125, df=586.5)

‘
- , II 'I ”a ='3"3 , ..— 'er

95

 

 

 

99:--- 99%.: 129+ I l .- w 19E .09.. .,
98 9% . 9% 89": 9209 _
9% 8:12 .935 n
928 _
,
98 99¢. 98 am“: 35552 ﬁne .28.: .9590 ﬂ
92 9mm 9% %«u: .2892 35399298 ﬂ
9a 98 9mm 99": 28882 Anne 98.9.2 Saree ,
92 9mm 9:. Nana Bag 59.0 995989 _
93.52 w
V
9% 99.. 996. we": 399262
98 92 3.“ man: @888
EN EN 92 emu: 9595
98 9: 9:. Sun: 959.9 _
98 98 9mm 92": 98.98 _
92 99m $9 an: “3998 _
ﬁne 98.12.9890 ,
§§§2_
9119.28.92 .9990“
9Q 98 9% ”an: $592895.
33...... 38......— 323 .
€339. ii: 399. nae—mom
.\.

 

 

 

 

E9282 8 93.532... gﬁggsgg 333.9. 28.9 a... 23

 

Thhypawﬁofﬂmmpondaﬂshﬂicatedﬂmﬂnyhadbecomlwsmterwedmbmr
humingduetothel990 changetoadmwing systemto allocate harvest tags (Table 45).
Fewer(l7%) saidthattheyhadbecomermreinterwtedduetothechange. Thebait-onlyand
sﬁH—odygroupshadalargerpoporﬁonofmpondentswhompoﬂedbeoommgnmm
interestedinbwrhmtingCl‘able46). Closetohalfofthestill—onlyandgeneralistshad
becomelassinterwted Eighteenperoentoftherespondentsinthe"aﬁer"cohortrepotted
beconﬁngnmehltermtedinbwhmﬁngduetothedmwingcomparedto16%ofthe"before"
cohort (XQ=13.3, P=0.001, df=2).

Orﬂyll%ofallrespondemsmponedﬂntﬂﬁsnewsystemcmsedmemwchangeﬂ1e
methodusedtohuntbear,butalargerpmportionreportedchangingmﬂieygohmtingwith
andwheretheygoCI‘able45). Twentyperoentofthempomlentsinthestill-onlygrom
indicatedthattheychangedthemethodtheyusedtohmttbwrbecauseofthedmmgfortags
(Table46). Fewerthan5%ineitherdoggmuprepottedachangeinmethod. Thedoggmups
alsoslmwedﬂielowestproporﬁonﬂiatclnngedwlnﬂieybmrhmnedwim

Wemﬂem(36%)ﬂwuglnﬂmﬂECMngelwmmhmmsemﬂmnmbaof
daysﬂwyspanbwhmﬁngmaswsonwmpmedmﬂwll%wlnmponedadecmsem
daysspent(Table 45). "lhebait-onlyandgenemlistgmupsweretwiceaslikelytoreportan
hmseindaysastheotherhmt-methodgroupsﬂable46).

Overaﬂﬁrdreponedﬂiatﬂiisclnngeinaﬂocaﬁonsystemcwsedﬂmnmbennre
likely to shoot the ﬁrst legal hear they saw, however, a slightly larger proportion said that it
(misedthemtobemoreselectiveabomthesizeofthebwrshotaableﬁ). Overathirdof
thegermalistandbait—onlygmupssaidthattheyweremorelikelytoshoottheﬁistlegalbear
theysawCTable46).

97

Tatie45: Pereedofmpomieﬂswhompoﬂedclnngingﬂnirhﬂingpacﬁowmseofﬂn

muwingmissmtngrtt

 

lldﬂnclmgemathawingforhawest

 

 

 

 

lags cause you to... Yes No Not Sure
%(n) %(n) %(n)

[ ...become more interested in bear hunting 16.8 (111) 75.1 (497) 8.1 (54)
' ...become less interested in bear hunting 30.1 (199) 61.5 (405) 8.4 (55)
5 ...be more likely to shoot the ﬁrst legal bear 35.0 (229) 58.0 (380) 7.1 (46)
. you see.
i ...be more selective about the size of the 38.6 (255) 52.9 (350) 8.5 (56)
’ hear you shoot.
I
j ...be more likely to hire a bear hunting 10.3 (68) 86.0 (567) 3.6 (24)
1 guide.
1 ...change the method you use to hunt bear. 11.2 (74) 84.2 (554) 4.6 (30)
' ...inclease the number of days you spend 36.0 (237) 58.4 (384) 5.6 (37)
i hear hunting in a season.
I
E ...decrease the number of days you spend 11.1 (72) 83.0 (539) 5.8 (37)
i bear hunting in a season
...change who you go bear hunting with. 21.3 (140) 76.6 (504) 2.1 (14)
I ...change the area that you hunt for bear.

 

'«IWfordl

 

9i" l|ll|| |l1l|l| .l |

 

:48... 831...... s... 818...... - .1,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avmdnm ddnmn SN 2N 5.2 5.3 9.3 _
659882559958...“
cmcdnm 6.28 gm Qt ﬁom 5.3 03 _
88 a 5 $585 3 .
H.888.»998.8585:.r...,588.53:.m
30ch .wdnax :3 9.2 as Z: 3: n
88 a 5 9585 3
558 :9» 9330 3:5: 3“ 88.55.. ,
Sodvm 6.38 ode Sm mam 9.8 >5 3
.33388388835...m
Sodvm .sznNX mm: :2 :2 Q9 3
.89 _
8.91 .9249 9: 9m 9: 2 8 memes; use e 22 s 939 e8. 3... 3
.8 so.» 3 3
830m .wduNX 5mm mac odor. 6mm «.09 8.8 8 8 3a 05528 8 3... .
_ 986nm .oNNuNX awn 3m 95m 3m 9cm .80. 8a 55 858 9 box: 8 3... _
:5th fan"? 39 9? ”mm «at. v.5 g 3 5 85895 82 9:83.. W
mocdum .oNNuaX ”.2 v.2 08 5.3 he 9585 3 5 88.55 8 883...
_ «use can: 5... 9a... are 8.... ...8 =8 88 85 n
__ 58h 888m 3.5809. .. o. . ..

83.8%..889865

3838356838888888888838 ”862....

99

ComrisononirionIearbrswiﬂldnGeneralBearI-hningPoplaﬁon

vaeydataﬁomrespondemswhoreponedﬂmtﬂreyhadbeenanoﬂioerofatleast
oneoftheeighthmuingorganizationslistedontl'tesm'veywerepooledwitl'lthedataﬁ'om
pﬂdqrmﬁmumimresponderﬂstwmeideﬁﬁedbyﬂwMDNRasbearophﬁonleadem
(Table 47). Allpilot questionnaire respondentswhowereusedintheanalysishadbeen
oﬂioers inat least oneof the eight hunting organizations. This combined group is referredto
ﬁ‘omthispointonasthe'Weader" group. Forquestionsthatwerethesameforbothtlwpilot
andﬁnalquestiomlaire,responsesweregroupedandoomparedtothoseofthenonleaders(any
respondentwhohadnotreportedbeinganoﬂicerinoneofthehmtingorganimtiononthe
state-wide mail survey). A sample size of 56 "leaders" was obtained andresults were used to
detanﬁmifﬂreirreeponseswemsigrﬁﬁcamlydiﬂ‘eremﬁombearhmuemmgaeml
(nonleaders).

Taﬂe 47: Repmerlaﬁon of lining organ'zaﬁom in the leathr grow

 

Hunting Organimﬁon
Michigan Bear Hunters Association
UP Bear Houndsmen Association

United Bear Hunters Association
Northeastern Michigan Houndsmen

(liner Hiding (hgrn'zations
Michigan United Conservation Clubs

Michigan Hunting Dog Federation
Michigan Coon Hunters
Michigan Bow Hunters Association

 

 

 

 

100

Nearly half(48°/o) ofthe respondents inthe leader group were dog-only or dog/bait (Table 48).
This is hrconsistentwithﬂlemaketqaofthebearhmuingpoptdaﬁonasawhole. Giventhe

diﬂmernes fomrd among hunt-method groups (e. g., dog-only vs. bait-only), it would be

expeaedﬂntﬂerespmmesofﬂnleadergroupmmdbesigriﬁcamlydiﬂ‘emﬁom

nonleadersonmanybearhmtingissues,ands1.rchwasthecase.

Taﬂe 48: Bearluling mthoth of '1eader" and 'honleader”

 

 

 

leaders Nonleadel

Hit-W Glow % (n) % (n) Suﬁslical Tests
Hunt Method

Dog/Bait 18.5 (10) 8.6 (63) X’=34.9, P<0.001

Dog-only 29.6 (16) 10.6 (77) df=5

Bait-only 14.8 (8) 35.3 (257)

Still-only 3.7 (2) 6.9 (50)

Generalist 31.5 (17) 23.9 (174)

Not Hunted 1.9 (1) 14.8 (108)
Tonia 7.0 (56) 93.0 (749)

 

 

 

 

 

Respmrlemshrﬂleleadergrmmhadbeenhmﬁngbearfornnreyemsmdhad

hmvestedsigniﬁemﬂymmbmrmﬂehlifeﬁneofhmuingﬂmrespmﬂansmﬂnmmeader

group (Table 49).

101

Taﬂe 49: ﬁlling clmacteristiee of 'leader” and 'hodeeder"

   
 

 

leader Norieader

Characteristic men (SE) mean (SE) Statistical Tests
First Year Bear 76 (1.41) 83 (0.41) t=5.2, P<0.001
Hunted (19-) df=682
Number of Bear 4.8 (1.91) 1.4 (0.10) t=5.3, P<0.001
Harvested df=682
Number of Days 9.8 (1.57) 8.0 (0.47) t=l.0, P=0.321
Spent Bear Hunting df=256

 

 

 

leaders also rated bear hunting as being more important tlnn did nonleaders (Table 50).

Triﬂe 50:
"leader" an] "mrleerhr"

 

 

 

  
   
     
 

Immune ratingofbearlluingoomredm oﬂlerrecredioml activities for

 

 

 

 

 

 

%of %of
Iearkrs Norieaders
F56 F744 Statistical Tests
33.9 13.3 X2=22.2, P<0.001
50.0 50.3 df=4

12.5 26.7

1.8 8.5

1.8 1.2

 

Intendeduseofhmtingmethodsoverthenextﬁveyearswas signiﬁcantly diﬂ‘erent for
leaders oomparedtononleaders (Table 51). Ahigherpereentageofrespondentsintl'leleader
gmupreportedthattheyintendedtousedogs,especiallydogsonly,andasnmllerperoent

intended to sit over bait compared to nonleaders.

102

Taﬂe 51: hm: to me bearllning mathork overthe next 5 years for 'learbf'rul
'horieader’“

 

 

 

 

 

%of %of

Leaders Norieaders
Imended 1h! thhod F56 F749 Statistical Tests
Dogs Started over Bait 27.3 16.3 X2=19.1, P<0.001, df=3
Dogs not Started over Bait 71.4 27.8 Xl=90.6, P<0.001,df=3
Sitting over Bait 41.1 66.4 X2=101.2, P<0.001, df=3
Neither Dogs nor Bait 23.2 22.7 X2=l36.1, P<0.001, df=3
Do Not Plan to Hunt in the 1.8 5.7 X’=150.0, P<0.001, df=3
Next 5 Yrs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooddchooeedlrmtlndstluqﬂiedtothan

Harvesﬁngabearwaslessmlponmumrespondemsmﬂwleadergmmﬂnnforﬂme
in the nonleader group (Table 52). On a scale of one to ﬁve with one being "most important"
and ﬁve "not important", 46% of the nonleaders rated harvesting a bear as a "1" or "2"

compared to 22% ofthe leader group.

103

TﬂieSZ: Runningofinportuneforremomwhynspomlemsgobearhningmﬂyzed

by 'Ieatbr" all "mrﬂeathr"

 

 

 

(t=-4.6, P<0.001, dr=767)

 

lbw inpartatis 61's as amonwhyyou woddgo bear Iearbr Nonleader
Inning? um (SE) man (SE)
To spend time with my bear hunting ﬁ'iends (t=0.6, 2.4 (0.18) 2.5 (0.05)
P=0.529, df=776)

To get away from work, school, or stress and to relax 2.4 (0.15) 2.2 (0.05)
(t=1.2, P=0.240, df=66.4)

To use my hunting skills 1.9 (0.14) 1.8 (0.04)
(t=l.0, P=0.337, df=787)

To lave bear meat 3.0 (0.18) 3.0 (0.05)
(t=0.0, P=0.998, df=776)

To harvest a bear 3.3 (0.20) 2.8 (0.06)
(t=2.6, P=0.0l l, df=774)

To spend time with my family 3.0 (0.21) 3.2 (0.06)
(t=0.9, P=0.39l, df=760)

To have the challenge of hunting a dangerous animal 3.0 (0.20) 2.7 (0.06)
(tr—1.3, P=0.200, d%773)

To see all Ivar bear dogs work 2.4 (0.24) 3.6 (0.07)

 

 

. — W

 

104
Aplmalityofrespondentsinboththeleaderandnonleadergroupsreportedalackof

conﬁdence in the MDNR having enough infomration about the bear population to conectly
decide how many bear to harvest (Table 53). There was also no signiﬁcant difference in the
responsetoastatementinvolvingﬂredegreeofu'ustthattheleadersandnonleadershadfor
the MDNRto fairly consider the interests ofhunters when setting bear hunting regulations,
withaboutathirdagteeing, disagreeing, ornot sure. 'Iherewas, however, adifference inthe
response to the statement, "...the WNR limited the harvest of bear more for political pressure
than biological evidence of decreasing bear populations", with 72% of the respondents in the
leader group and 54% in the nonleader group agreeing.

Taﬂe 53: Agreenml/(isagreenrm to statenmls about the MDNR analyzed by 'leader" ml
"mnleader"

 

 

 

 

 

 

%of % of
Leaders Nonlearbrs
Saleem Response n=56 n=749
I am conﬁdent that the MDNR has enough Agree 31.5 32.7
information on the bear population Disagree 42.6 34.5
(X2=1.7, P=0.424,df=2) Not Sure 25.9 32.8
I trust the MDNR to fairly consider the Agree 29.6 38.2
interests of hunters Disagree 40.7 35.2
(X‘=1.6, P=0.451,df-=2) Not Sure 29.6 26.6
tin MDNR linited the harvest of bear Agree 72.2 54.4
more for political pessure thin Hologieal Disagree 11.1 16.2
evirhnee of (bereasing bear poplatio- Not Sure 16.7 29.4
. (X2=6.6, P=0.038, df=2) _

 

 

 

105
Nearlyall(93%)respondentsintheleader groupreportedthatthebearpopulationwas
increasing or stable compared to 77% of the nonleader group (XZ=10.2, P=0.017, $3).
leademarﬂruﬂeademmpoﬂedﬂntmecﬁmofﬂebearpoprdaﬁmwasanmtunpomm
factor for the MDNR to consider when setting bear hunting regulations (Table 54). Length of
ﬂubearhnﬁngseasonwasmeunpommarﬂcmofMNesﬁngabearlesshnponamm
leaders oomparedto nonleaders.

Talia 54:1irwnlnhinantmeeslnrldtlnNDNRassigumﬂn following factors analyzed
by 'learbr” all 'horiearbr"

 

 

learbr Noﬂearbr
Factors mem (SE) mean (SE)
Interference among hunters 3.0 (0.19) 2.6 (0.05)

(t=1.9, P=0.056, df=738)

3 Protection of tin bear poplation 1.3 (0.09) 1.6 (0.03)
«=28, P=0.006, df=67.2)

lergth of the bearlluing season 2.4 (0.14) 2.7 (0.05)
, (t=2.6, P=0.012, df=66.l)

 

‘ Number of yrs. wait for a tag 3.9 (1.80) 2.0 (0.04)
(t=1.l, P=0.285, df=53.1)

Games of harvesting a bear 3.5 (0.17) 3.1 (0.05)
(t=2.2, P=0.026, dr=772)

? Freedom to choose hunt area 1.9 (0.15) 1.9 (0.04)
(t=0.01, P=0.934, df=780)

. Freedom to choose when to hunt 2.2 (0.17) 2.4 (0.05)
(t=1.1, P=0.273, df=62.6)

 

 

 

   

106
Respmsesmﬂestatenem'hmﬁngbearwithbaitslmmdconﬁmrembeallowedm

Michigan" were signiﬁcantly different for leaders compared to nonleaders; 22% of the leaders
and 8% ofthe nonleaders disagreed with this statement (Table 55). Also, a larger percent of
leaders, compared to nonleaders agreed that baiting interferes with other methods ofhunting
bear. Themajorityofleadersagreedtlntthereisnothingrmethicalaboutsittingoverbait,but
anevenlargerpereentofnonleaders agreedtothisstatement.

Trﬂe 55: Qin'om on Inning bearoverhait aralymed by 'Ieader" and 'inrlearbr”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%of
Statemem Respome learbrs
F56
Thereisnothing methicalorirmmralabout Agree 67.9
hunting bear over bait. (X2=15.7, P<0.001, df=2) Disagree 26.8
Not Sure 5.4
Bait hunters take more tlun their slnre of the Agree 32.7 20.2
bear. (X‘=7.9, P=0.019, F2) Disagree 56.4 55.2
Not Sure 10.9 24.6
Baiting activities lnterf' ere with other methods of Agree 28.6 11.1
hunting bear. (X2=15.2, P<0.001, df=2) Disagree 64.3 76.0
Not Sure 7.1 12.9
Bait sitters have a greater chance of harvestrng' a Agree 48.2 25.1
bear tlnn hunters who use dogs. Dlsagree' 46.4 57.6
(X‘=16.1, P<0.001, df=2) Not Sure 5.4 17.3
Hunting bear with bait should continue to be Agree 70.9 84.6
allowed in Michigan (X’=13.5, P=0.001, df=2) Disagree 21.8 7.5
Not Sure 7.3 7.9

 

 

 

107

leaders were more likelyto agree tlnnnonleaders (91%and 64% respectively) that

ming dogs to hunt bear should continue to be allowed in Michigan (Table 56). Respondents

mdeleadergrormalsowemnmﬁkelyﬁnnnmﬂeadmsmagreeﬂntﬂlereismﬂﬁng

rmethiealabouthrmtingbearwithdogs. Alargerpercentofmnleadersversusleadersagreed

thatdoghrmterstakennrethanﬂreirshareofﬂrebearandhaveagreaterchanceofharvesting

abear.

Triﬂe 56: Op'n'o- on Inning bearwith rbgs aralyzed by 'learhr" and 'horiearbr"

 

 

%of %of
leade- Noriearkrs
Statemrt Respome F56 F749
There is nothing unethieal or immoral about Agree 94.6 64.2
hunting bear with dogs. (XZ=21.7, P<0.001, df=2) Disagree 3.6 26.4
Not Sure 1.8 9.4
I-hlnterswhousedogstakemorethantheirshare Agree 9.1 24.2
of the bear. (X’=22.3, P<0.001, df=2) Disagree 81.8 48.9
Not Sure 9.1 27.0
Huntrn' g with dogs mterf' eres with other methods Agree - 40.0 49.9
of hunting bear. (X2=8.6, P=0.014, df=2) Disagree 54.5 36.0
Not Sure 5.5 14.1
Dog hunters have a greater chance of harvesting a Agree 21.8 35.2
beer tlmn bait sitters. Dlsagree' 70.9 41.3
(Xz=l8.7, P<0.001, df=2) Not Sure 7.3 21.5
Huntrng' bear with dogs should contrn' ac to be Agree 91.1 64.3
allowed in Michigan (X2=17.7, P<0.001, df=2) Disagree 1.8 22.0
Not Sure 7.1 13.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I==I=I=I=Iué

 

 

108
Theresponsesofleadeswemnotstaﬁsﬁcaﬂydiﬂ‘emmﬁomﬂroseofmmeademfm

two of the form altemative methods for limiting the bear harvest (Table 57). Differences were
formdinresponsestosettingashortseasonandrestrictingmeﬂrods; alargerpercentofleaders
disapproved of these methods compared to nonleaders.

Taﬂe 57: Amovﬂ offourmethods forlim’ting the nmirerofbearlmveswdeachyearin
Mcligan analyzed by 'learhr" and "nonleader”

 

 

 

 

 

 

%of %of

leader Noriearbrs
Mthods Response F56 F749
Limit the number of bear hunters by using Approve 58.2 51.0
some form of drawing Disapprove 30.9 34.5
(X2=1.2, P=0.561, df=2) Not Srne 10.9 14.5
Close the season each year after a set quota Approve 24.1 28.4
of bear have been harvested. Disapprove 68.5 56.4
($3.7, P=0.157, df=2) Not Srne 7.4 15.2
Set a very short semon to linit the hunter Approve 22.2 32.4
of bear harvested. Disapprove 74.1 54.0
(X’s-9.1, P=0.010, df=2) Not Sure 3.7 13.6
Restrict the methods med to harvest bear: Approve 9.3 18.0
(X‘=8.5, P=0.014, df=2) Disapprove 88.9 70.9

Not Srne 1.9 11.0

 

 

Leaderswerenot different fromnonleaders forthenumber ofyearstheywouldwait
for a harvest tag and still be satisﬁed with bear hunting, however, leaders would wait four
years compared to three years for nonleaders before quitting the application process (Table
58). The season length that respondents needed to be satisﬁed averaged 22 days for leaders
and 18 for nonleaders.

Tulle 58: longestresporlbrls woridwa'tforalmvesttag andstill be satisﬁedwith bear

109

 

 

 

llllillg ml before they quit agiying
learbr Noriearhr

Gnracteristic man (SE) um (SE) Statistical Tests
Years wait for 2.5 (0.14) 2.3 (0.04) t=0.9, P=0.351
satisfaction df=766

Years wait before 4.1 (0.31) 3.1 (0.08) t=3.l, P=0.003
quitting dt‘=52.2

Days in the bear 21.7 (1.87) 17.5 (0.41) t=2.1, P=0.041
hunting season F583

 

 

 

 

 

Choiceoftherandomlotterysystemasaneansforallocatingharvesttagswasnot

statistically different between leaders and nonleaders (Table 59).

Taﬂe 59: Oroice of poirt [reference or random lottery to allocate harvest tags analyzed by

'leader" turd "norﬂeader"

 

 

 

 

Either or Not Srne

 

 

 

 

Perceived Waiting Tim Respome Iearhr Noriearbr
3 Years or 1/3 Chance Random Lottery 42.6 28.4
(X’=6.4, P=0.092, df=3) Point Preference 37.0 52.1
Either or Not Sure 20.4 19.5
5 Years or 1/5 Chance Random lottery 47.3 40.2
(X’=l.7, P=0.639, df=3) Point Preference 34.5 34.7
18.2 25.1

 

 

110
Comrison of Dog-Leaders with DogNonleaders
Responsesofthosewhohrmtedusingdogsonlyordogsstartedoverbaitwhowere
also in the leader group (dog-leader, F26) were compared to the responses of dog-nonleaders
(n=l40) to determine if the leaders represented their constituents. Ideally, the bait-leaders,
generalist-leaders, and still-leaders also should have been compared to their nonleader
cormterparts,butduetosmallsamplesizesinthesegroups,thesecomparisonswerenotmade.
Few signiﬁeant differences were found when the responses of the dog-leader and dog-
nonleader groupswerecompared. Themeannmnberofbearsharvestedwashigherfordog-
leaders (3.9) than dog—nonleaders (1.7) (t=3.0, P=0.006, df=30.l). Also, dog-leaders had been
hunting bear longer than dog-nonleaders, since 1974 and 1980, respectively (1:3.1, P=0.002,
df=159). The number of days they spent hunting in 1992, however, did not differ.
Dog-leaders and dog-nonleaders were not signiﬁcantly different in their responses to
thestatements involvingconﬁdencemﬂreMDNR'shavingconectinfonnaﬁonabomﬂrebear
population or trust in the MDNR to consider the interests ofhunters. However, nearly all dog-
leaders (92%) agreed that the MDNR limited the bear harvest more because ofpolitical
pressure compared to agreement by 60% of the dog-nonleader group (XL—9.7, P=0.008, df=2).
Dog-leaders and dog-nonleaders differed somewhat in their opinions about hunting
bear with bait. Halfofthe dog-leaders agreed that baiting interferes with other methods of
hunting bear compared to 23% of dog-nonleaders (X2=8.3, P=0.016, df=2). Also, 39% of dog-
leaders indieated that baiting for bear should not continue to be allowed in Michigan compared
to only 17% of dog-nonleaders (X‘=6.7, P=0.035, df=2).

DISCUSSION

Overﬂlﬁmings
WWW

Respondentsmﬂrennﬂsmveywemsegmermdbasedonﬂrehneﬂrodusedmhmu
bear. Bearhunter types includect specialists, those who use only dogs, bait, orneither dogs
mrbaitgeemhstsﬂmsewhouseawmbhnﬁonofneﬂmdsgmﬂrespmdemswmhadnot
yetlumtedbearwithaharvesttaginMichigan Amajorityofrespondents(60°/o)wereinone
ofthespecialistgroups;however,mostwereinﬂrebait—onlygroup. Thedoggroupsandthe
still-only group, combined, representedlessthan 16% of respondents.

Oﬂrermrponamsegrmmaﬁoncﬁtenaﬂmtmmanalﬂedhmludedlengﬂlofﬁneﬂm
respondents 1nd been involved in bear hunting, and membership in hunting organimtions.
Respmdentswlnstartedbearhmrtingbefore 1990mremintothe"before"cohort,arxl
respondemsbegimringinoraﬁerl990weleplacedinﬂre"aﬁer"colort Because1990was
ﬂeﬁmtyearﬂmbearharvemmgswemhmiMﬂeseMgormswerewnmamdmdetennhe
ifbeliefs andattitudes ofrespondents whobeganbearhunting before 1990 diﬂ‘ered fromthose
beginningafter. Alrnosttwo—thirds oftherespondentswereinthe"before"cohort Aplrn'ality
(47%) ofrespondents in the "before" cohort were bait-only hunters and about a third were
generalists. Only 17%wereinoneofthedoggroups. The"atter"cohorthadevenfewer
(7°/o)respondentsinthedog groups with6l%inthebait-only group.

Respmrdentswlmhadbearlunﬁedharvestedameanoflﬁbeamhrﬂehﬁfeﬁne
Tinserespmﬂeusvdnmponedusmgmbaitmdogshadharveaedfewerbemsﬂmoﬂm
mm-neﬂndgormsammsemmedmmwtmﬂdogsreponedﬂBMManessmte

111

112
Also,thestill-onlygrouphadthelargestpereentofrespondentswhohadnotyetharvesteda

bear“, whereas,thedog/bait grouphadthesmallestperoent.

The eight hunting organimtions identiﬁed for membership and ofﬁcer status were
grouped into two types: four are bear hunting organimtions, and form are other hunting
organimtions that are not speciﬁc to bear hunting, but are involved in bear hunting issues.
Overlmlfoftl'lerespondentsintl'redoggrorqrsweremembersofatleastonebearhunting
organization. Theremaininghrmt-methodgrormshadfarfewermembers inbearhunting
organimtions with generalists having the largest percent (12%). Membership in the other
hunting organizations was not signiﬁeantly different among hunt-method groups.

 

Thedog-onlygroupsmrennmloyalmﬂehhmﬁngneﬂmdsﬂranoﬂerlnm-neﬂrod
groups,withfewerthan10%reportingthattheywoulduseamethodotherthandogstohunt
bear. lbwever,fewrespmﬂemsmanyoﬂrerhmu-meﬂndgrouphnexledmusedogsover
thenextﬁveyears. Bait-onlywerealsoloyaltotheirmethodhavinglessthan15%who
intendedtouseanothermethod. Halfofthosewhohadnotyethuntedbearinh'ﬁchigan
plannedtoonlyhmrtoverbaitforthenextﬁveyears. 'Tl‘eseresultsnnypointtoincreased
baithuntinginthefutureandadecreaseindoghmting Aloweruseofdogsinthe" er"
oohortoomparedtodre'hefore"oohortalsosupportsdrisuerd V

Usingonlyagrmtohuntbearwascharacteristicofthedoggroups,whereasthebait-
onlygroupreportedthehighestuseofbowamlarrowbyanyofthehmrt—methodgroups.
Becausethenejoﬁtyofrespondemsweemﬂrebait-orﬂygroupmdﬂnsewhohadnotyet
hmrtedbearreportedtlnttheyintendedtomainlysitoverbaittohmrtbearinthenextﬁve
yeasuseofbowswiﬂprobablycontinuetoincreaseintheﬁrtme. Therewas,however,no
signiﬁcant difference between equipment use for the "before" and "after" cohorts.

113
NbstofﬂreresporﬂemswlmhadhmnedbearinMichiganwerennmlikelymhmum

onlyoneareaofthestate. Mththeexceptionofthedog—onlygroup,respomlentsweremost
likely to use only the western Upper Peninsula to hunt bear. The dog-only group hunted, for
tlrennstparLinonlytheeastemUpperPeninsula. Almosthalfofthe"aﬁer"cohorthunted
onlyinthewesternUpperPeninsula. Ifcontinued,thistendencyforbearhmlterstouseonly
oneparﬁcularareamayhnﬁtahmnerschmcesforobtainingaharvesttag. Inalotterysystem
itisadvantageoustothehuntertoadjusttl'reareatheyhmltindependingonthenurnberof
tagsissuedinagivenarea.

Respmderrtsmﬂredoggroupssperunoredaysmﬂreﬁeldandhadﬂrehighest
lifetimeharvestrateofbearcomparedtooﬂrerhrmt—methodgroups. Incontrast,thestill-only
groupspentthefewestdaysandhadthelargestproportionwhohadnotlnrvestedabear.
Wnbersofbearhmtingorganimtionshadahigherlifetimeharvestrateandhuntedlonger
than did nonmembers. The "before" cohort was not signiﬁcantly different ﬁom the "alter"
cohortfordaysspentaﬁeld,butthenumberofbearlervestedinalifetimewshigherforthe
"before" cohort, as would be expected. Interestingly, the "after" cohort had been hunting only
threeyearsorless(themajoﬁtybeganin1992),butinthisshorttimeoverathirdhad
lnrvestedabear. Thisisprobablyduetoincreasingsuccessratessirrce l990,butbasedon
Jackson's (1980) theorythat hunters gothrough a series of "phases", lurvesting earlier inan
hxhﬁmmbmnmngwmwmdaccelemtenovemuhuoplnseshavinglessenmhasismﬂe
takingofbear.

 

Tledoggroupsratedbearhmrﬁngasbeingnnreimpmtamﬂmnﬂreoﬂrerhmu-
methodgroups did; whereas, still-onlyrespondentsratedbearhmtinglowerinimportance.
Bearhmrﬁngwasnnmhnponamtonembersofbearhmrﬁngmganimﬁonsﬂranto

114
nonmembers. Diﬂemesmmmtmwemaybebeeauseahmnerwlmisnomaptmjoma
bearhmrtingorganizationismeinvolvedinthatsport,orbecausemostmembersofbear
hunting organimtions are dog hunters andthere is ahigh level of involvement amongthe dog
hunters.

B E 3' E H .

Appreciative-oriented aspects of bear hrmting (i.e., being in the woods, seeing bear)
wereratedasnnmmmtmureasomforgomgbearmmﬁngﬂnnﬂeachievemmuoﬁeued
(i.e., harvestingabear, gettinga shot) for all segments (Deckerand Com1e11y1989). Of the
reasmsﬁstedonﬂemuvey,seehrgbeardogsmrkwasﬂennsthmoMreasmfmdog
hunterstogobearhunting Theaﬁiliative—orientedaspectofbeingwithﬁiendswasalsovery
impmﬂrumrespordeusmﬂedoggorm,bmlessmrpormmmoﬂerhmu-neﬂndgrorms
However,aﬂsegrremsratedsperxlmgﬁnewiﬂrfmnﬂyaslowermhnpmtameﬂmmudﬂr
ﬁiendsandloverinimportameﬂrannnstoﬂerreasmsforgomgbearhmﬁng Respondents
inthe"aﬁa"colnnplacedahigherimpmtmeeonlnrvesﬁngabearﬂnnﬂmseinme"before"
cohort. Becameﬂe"aﬁa"whonhadalﬁglerproporﬁmwhohadnotyetlnrveswdabear,
itappeamﬂmharvesﬁngabembewneslesshrmmmwnmedmoﬂmaspecmofbear
huntingonceabearisharvested. Insupportofthisreasoningrespondentswhohadmtyet
lmveswdabeanwmpamdmﬂmsemhadhmveswdmleastmebemmedgetﬁngaslmt
atabearandharvestingabearasmoreimportant Harvestingandgettingashotwaseven
lessmrponmufmrespmdeuswholndharvestednnmﬂmﬂneebeamwmparedmonem
twobears.

 

Aﬂsegrremsﬂmugluﬂntpotecﬁonofﬂrebearpoprﬂaﬁonwasﬂemosthnpmtmu
factmﬂntﬂreMDNRslmrﬂdcmsiderwhendetemﬁninglunﬁngregrﬂaﬁons. Itappearsthat
respondents,regardlessofhuntmethod,werethinldngofthegoodoftheresourcebeforethe
goodofthehunter. Nbderatelylﬁghinhnpmtancewaswaiﬁngﬁmeforaharvesttagaswas
ﬁeedomtochoosewlntareainMchigantobearhmrtin. Thiscouldbeduetothetendency
ofbearhunterstohuntinonlyoneareaofthestate. IVloderatelylowwasseasonlengthand
huntersuccess. Itisofimportancetobearmanagersthatrespondemsappeartobemore
concernedabouthowfreqwrtlytheywillgettohuntandwheretheywillbeabletodoit,
ratherthanhowlongtheseasonwilllastoriftheywiﬂharvestabear.

Thedoghmrtergroupthoughttlutwaiﬁngtimeforaharvesttagwaslessimportant
criteria for setting regulations than did other hunt-method groups. This is probably because
dog hunters ean purchase a participation permit and participate in a chase without a harvest
tag Also,previorslymmﬁomddataslnwingﬂutdoghmuersuemnnsthuerestedm
erqsenencingbeardogsworkﬂlanhawesﬁngabearsupportsﬂusreasoning Thelengthofthe
beuseasmwascmsidaednmrehnponamcntaiafmﬂedoggroupsmmpmedmoﬂermm-
metl'ndgroupswhichisconsistent withahigher level of involvementinarecreational
activity. hueresﬁngly,ﬂredog/baitgrormratedhnerfeememmngmnnersmﬂrewoodsas
moderately low in importance. During focus group discussions, this group was perceived as
beingthe biggest contributorto interference problens bybait, still, anddog-only hunters.

Membemofbearhmﬁngmgarﬁmﬁommtedprotecﬁmofﬂebearpoprﬂaﬁmhigler
hrimportancemrdhawestratelowerinhnpoﬂancetlnndidnomnembers. Harvestratewas
less importantto the "before" cohort oomparedto the "alter" cohort. Althoughthe "after"
cohortwashmtingatatimewhentherewerefewerhmrtersintheﬁeldduetothelimited
entrysystern,ﬂeyratedhuerferenceanonghmuemasnorehnportamﬂrandidﬂre'hefom"

116
group. hmeasedexposmetoﬂeseissuesmrecanyeamnnybeﬂlereasonfmﬂﬁshigler
rateofconcerruhowever,membersofbearhrmting organimtionswhoshouldalsobeexposed
toﬂeseissresratedhuerferencelouermhnponmceﬂntnormrembersdid

!' 1 HM” E H I
Respondents indicated they muld wait only two to three years before becoming

dissatisﬁedwithbearhrmting,butreportedtheymuldnotbegintodropoutoftheapplication
processuntiltheylndwaitedaboutfom'years. Currentwaitforaharvesttagaveragesabout
three years; therefore, many hunters should already be dissatisﬁed with the wait. If Wlsconsin
andMnresotaareanyimlieationofﬂendsforﬁrtruebearapphcarﬁs,Michiganwillsoon
moveclosertoanintolerablewaitingtimewl'rerehmrterssaytheywillbegindroppingout. If
someaamﬂydodropomMﬂnemonersbemplacmgﬂennreexpeﬁemedhmtem?
Results show that the "before" cohort is willing to wait longer before dropping out of
theapplicationprocessthanthe"aﬁer"cohort. Thosewhohavenotyethuntedbearandthe
doglnnﬁergorqrswerewiﬂhgmwaitlongerﬂmnoﬂrerlunu-meﬂndgroups. Also,members
ofbearhmrﬁngmMmﬁomwemwiumgmwaitlmgerﬂnnmmmmbusbefomdroppmg
outoftheapplicationprocess. 'l'hismaymeanthattherewillbeahighrateofﬁrst-time
hunterswhoarewillingtowaitlongertotrybearhmrting,buttheywillhaveahigherrateof
quittingtlnnthosehmrterswholmvemoreyearsofexperience. Theresultcouldbeincreased
appﬁcmﬁnmrbasmﬁhmeashgnmnbesofhexpeiemedhmﬁemhﬂrewoodsdrﬁngbear
season Hdrisweeﬂecasemchievenemmermdaspectsofbearhmuingnmybeconennm
importantrelativetoappeciativeaspectsintheﬁrtme. Also,thosehunterswhoclnoseto
remaininthesystemudﬂtendtobedissaﬁsﬁedwithﬂrelengﬂrofﬁmetheyrmmtwaitfora

lurvesttageausingmeissuemanagememﬁoblensfortheagency.

117
MW

Tlemnnberofdaysﬂmtrespomlemsneededmaseasontobesaﬁsﬁedwiﬂrbear
hunting was fairly low. This is consistent with the low level of importance that respondents
placed onhunting seasons as a factor the MDNR should consider when setting regulations. In
theU.P.,wheremostrespondentshmrtedbear,hlmterscanbeinﬂleﬁeldfor46days. Most
reportedthattheywouldbesatisﬁedwithl6daysorless.

The dog hunter group needed considerably longer seasons than other hunt-method
groups. Respondents inthe "before" cohort required longer seasons than the "after" cohort,
probablydue to the largerpercent of dog hunters inthe "before" comparedto the "after"
cohort. MDNRneeﬁngswiﬂrbearhmuerophﬁonleaderslnvefocusedinlargepmtonﬂre
lengthofthebearseason,whileitappearstlnttheemphasisonseasonlengthmaynotbe
sharedbybearhuntersingeneral.

WWW

Ihnuersmcessratewasmmﬂreraspeaofbearhmuingmgulaﬁmsﬂntwasmmideed
inthemailsurvey. Manyrespondemsmdicatedﬂratsuccessratewasnotimportamtoﬂrem
Almostallofthose,whohldieatedasuccessrate,repmtedarateﬂlatmscomparableorless
tlmthestateaverage. Thedogbaitgroup,whohadthehighestneannumberofharvested
bearshﬂieﬁedﬂrﬁnnmmwcesswasmededmbesaﬁsﬁedﬂmndidﬂeoﬂrerhmn-rmﬂmd
groups. However,thesuccessrateofthedog/baitgroupwasstillcomparabletothecrn'rent
stateaverageforharvestrates.

Respmrdansmﬂe"aﬁer"mhonmededabetterchameatbeingmncessﬁﬂmmpmed
totlwseinthe"before"cohort. Thisisanotherindicationtlmtthelessexperiencedhmrters
placennreemplnsismﬂeachievenemmanedaspectsofbearhmﬁngﬂnnﬂmnnm
experiencedhunters.

 

Respondents inthedog, baitarrdstill-onlygrormstendedtobecritical ofmethods
usedtohuntbearothertlmntheirown Manyoftheresponderrtsinthedogandstill—only
groups had negative beliefs about baiting, but fewer actually thought that baiting should not be
allowed in Michigan. Even higher proportions of the bait and still-only groups had negative
beliefs aboutdoghunting, butagain, fewerwerewillingtoreportthatit shouldbermde
illegal.

Results showed that most ofthe respondents who believed hunting bear with dogs or
bait should not be continued (i.e., anti-dog, anti-bait) led a problem with the ethics involved
withusingthesemethods. Inadditiontotheethical problems, rrearlyall oftherespondents in
theanti-doggroupbelievedthatdogs interferewithothermethodsoflmntingbear. The
majority of anti-baiters also behaved that baiting interferes with other methods of hunting bear,
but a larger percent~ believed that baiters take more than their share of bear. A large majority
ofbothanti- dogarxlbaitrespondentsalsobelievedtlntmingthesemeﬂmds gives huntersa
greaterchanceofharvestingabear. Beeauseﬂrisdisagreementofmethodsisdueinlargepart
to the ethics involved, there is less likelihood that the conﬂict will be resolved through
increased information. However, the scope of the problem could be reduced by cancelling out
ﬂieerroneousbehefsﬂratnnstofﬂeserespondentsholdabouttheuseofdogsandbait.

E18 1 l E E l .

Nbst felt that the bear population was either increasing or stable. A srmller
proportionofthedoggroupswere"notsme"aboutthepopulationtlnnwereotherhunt—
methodgroups. meersofbearhmrﬁngorgarﬁmﬁonswerennresmeﬂratﬂrepoprﬂaﬁon
wasincreasingthanwerenomnembers. Also,the"before"cohortwasmoresurethanthe
"aﬁer"cohort

119
WWW

Using a drawing to alloeate harvest tags was supported by a larger proportion of
respondentstlnnwereotheroptions(i.e.,closingtheseasonaﬁerasetqmtaofbearis
reached,setﬁngaveryslxntseasonorresuicﬁngmethods)exploredinthissmdy.However,
onlylnlfofthe respondents approved ofusingthismethodto allocate harvest tags. The
highest disapproval, overall, was for restricting methods used to hunt bear. Among hunt-
methodgroups,thesﬁH-onlygroupwastheorﬂysegmemﬂrathadsomesrqrponforresuicﬁng
methods,aswouldbeexpected Focusgroupdatadidmtrevealanyaltemativestotlese
options, therefore a possible reason for low approval could be that hunters do not feel that
limitinghurrternumbersisnecessaryatthispoint. Givenmostrespondentsfeltthatthebear
populationwasincreasingoraboutthesameinareasﬂrattheyhmrt,itislikelytheywould

believe limiting hunters is unnecessary.

MW

Familiaritywiththetwonnstviablemeﬂrodsofissuingharvesttagswasexploredin
the focus groups: point preference and random lottery. Most focus groups participants were
mtfamiliarwiththepointpreferencesysterneventhoughitwasbeingusedinWrsconsinand
Minnesota for issuing bear harvest tags. Those who were familiar had developed negative or
positive opinions about the system based on little actual information about the systems.
Random lottery was more familiar; however, little thought had been given to implieations of
using either system. Based on this, we provided a detailed description ofthe point preference
andrandomlotterysystemsandimplications ofmingeachsystemfor issuingbearharvesttags
in the survey questionnaire.

Focus groupssuggestedthatpreference foronesystemovertheotherdependedonthe
perceived waiting time for a harvest tag. When given a hypothetical waiting time of three

120
yearsoraoneinthreechanceofbeingdramr,themjorityofrespondentspreferredpoint
preference. This shifted to preference for the random lottery when the waiting time increased
toﬁveyearsoraoneinﬁvechanceofbeingdrawn

Thedoggroupswereverypolmizedonﬂusissuewhengivenﬂreshonerwait Forall
otherhrnrt-methodgroups,atleastSO%ofﬂreresporxlerﬂschoosepohupreferencewhenﬂre
waitwasrronnrethanthreeyears. Thosewhohadmtyethuntedwerethebiggestsupporters
ofthepointpreferencesystemforboththeshorterandlongerwait. Whenthewaitingtime
hmeasedﬂedoggrormshadﬂelmgestpaceuwlnclnosemrﬂomlonewofﬂeoﬂermm-
method groups. VVlth this longer wait the bait-only, still-only, and generalist groups became
polarized

Itappearsﬂntallrespondemsﬁkeﬂegmrmueeofalnrvestpenmtudthﬂepohu
preferencesystemonlyaslongasthewaitistlueeyearsorless,butchoosetotaketheir
chameswitharandomlotteryifthewaitgetslonger. Crnrently,applieantswillwait
approxirmtelythreeyearsforaharvesttag;ifalotteryisused,chanceswillbeaboutonein
three. Ifapplicarrtnmnberscorrtinrretoirrcrease,ﬂrewaitwiﬂgrowlonger. Allindications
arethatapplicantswillcontinuetoincrease,extendingthewaittimeforaharvesttagbeyond

theacceptablethreeyearsforapointpreferemesystern

 

Wnyrespordauswemdissatisﬁedudmcmeubearmgenembrnoverhalfmm
eithersatisﬁedorneithersatisﬁednordissatisﬁed. Ofthehurrt-methodgroupsthedog-only
andgeneralistgroupsweremostdissatisﬁed. Thedog/baitgroup,whotendedtorespond
sinﬁlmlymﬂedog-mﬂygroupmoﬂerissueewasmeofﬂemesaﬁsﬁedmnu-neﬂmd
goups. The"aﬁer"cohmtwasnoresaﬁsﬁedﬂmnﬂre"befme"cohoﬂwiﬂrmmubear

nnnagement.

121

Thefocusgroupssrqrphedaddiﬁonalinfonmﬁononwhybearhmuerswere
dissatisﬁedwithbearmanagement GroupparticipantswereconcemedabouttheMDbRs
ability to make competent decisions about the bear population Participants also did not trust
theMDNRtomakemanagementdecisionsthatwereforthegoodofthebearpopulationorthe
hunta'. Tlesefocusgrorrpﬁndingswemwmistanvvimmveyresmtsmdicaﬁngﬂntnnny
respmﬂeusdidmtageeﬂntﬂeNDNRhadaoughmfmnnﬁonmcmrecﬂydecidehow
manybeartoharvest. However,aboutthesamepercemwerenotsmeoragleedﬂratMDl\lR
did have enough information Again, the dog-only group responded quite differently ﬁom the
dog/bait group;thedog-only groupwasmostlikelytodisagree. Thestill-onlyandnothunted
groupswerethermstlikelytoagree. Membersofbearhmrtingorganimtionswerennre
ﬁkelyﬂnnnormrernberstodisagreeﬂratﬂeNﬂDNRhadernuglrmfornnﬁon The"before"
colutwasalsomorelikelytlmthe"aﬁer"cohorttodisagree.

AnotherstatememlookedatﬂreperceiveduustvmrﬂﬁressofﬂreMDhR Why
respmdansagrwdﬂntﬂeyuusteddeWNchmsiderﬂebeﬂhneresmofhmuemwlen
settingregulatiom,lnwever,aswiththepreviousstatement,overhalfwaseithernotsmeor
disagreed Thedog-mﬂyarxlﬂegenaahstgroupswerennsthkelymmtmﬂemlhnning
mganimﬁmnembaswemlessmmﬁngﬂmnmmembasmdﬂe'befom"wlnnwasless
mistingthanthe"aﬁer"colnrt

Based on these results, perceived credibility of the MDNR is less than positive.
Respondemsseemtobermsmeabomthequahtyanduseofthebiologicaldatatosetlnrvest
restrictions. Asnenﬁomdearﬁeraespondemsmaymtbeﬁeveﬂratﬂlecmremstatusofﬂe
bearpopulationwarrantstletypeofresnicﬁonsﬂratarebeingimposed 'lheymayseethese
resuicﬁonsasevideneﬂntﬂeMDNRdoesmtlnveadeqrntedataonﬂepoprﬂaﬁm Also,
mostfocusgrormpmﬁcipmusweremtfamiﬁarwiﬂlﬂrenetlmdsﬂntbiologistsusedfor

measm'ingthepopulation Thisnnyleadtoassumptionsontheirpartthatnotenoughisbeing

122
donetodeterminepopulationneeds. Focus groupparticipantsalsothoughttheh/IDNRwas

"selling them out" to anti-blurring interest groups. This could account for survey respondents'

lackoftrustintheMDNRtoconsidertheirinterests.

 

Resporxlemsappeartobegetﬁngnnstofﬂrehinfomraﬁonabombearandbear
lumtingfromtheirbearlmntingﬁiendsandnmgazines. Aboutlmlfusethebearlicenseguide,
newspapers, hunting organimtion publieations, and television either "ﬁequently" or
"sometimes" for inforrmtion Ofthese four sources,thelicense guideisusedthernost
"”ﬁeqtmﬂy

Tledoggroupsrnedbearhmrﬁngﬁimdsfminfmmaﬁonmeﬂranﬂeoﬂrahmu-
methodgroupsdid. Thismakessenseconsideringﬂredoggroupsratedspendingﬁmewiﬂr
bearhrmtingﬁiendsasaveryhnportantreasonforgoingbearlnmting Aswouldbe
expeﬂedﬂesﬁﬂodygoup,wlmratedspmdmgﬁnewiﬂrbearhmﬁngﬁierﬂsaslowm
importmnemsedbearlnmﬁngﬁiendslessﬂnnoﬂrerlnm-metlndgrorms Thedoggroups
alsomedmmingmganimﬁmpubheaﬁmsmeoﬁmﬂmdidﬂeoﬁahmu-neﬂndgroups
IhmﬁngmMmﬁonpubheaﬁonswereusednnmﬁeqremlybynembersofluming
organimtionsthannonmembers.

Ploﬁle ofSegrmrls

 

Resultsmdicatedﬂlathmumswlmuseonlydogsmtstmtedﬁombaitmhmﬁbeu
(dog-only)were6%ofthebearlmntingpoprlation Respondentsinthedog-onlygrouphave
hrmtedanaverageofl3yearsandthemajmitylndlnrvestedoneornorebeardmingtheir
bearhrmtinginvolvement. TheybearhmtedanaverageoflOdaysinl992. Almostall

123
interxltoonlyusedogsmtstartedfrombaittohmtbearforatleastthenextﬁveyears. Very

fewindicatedthattheydidnotplantolnmtbearinthenextﬁveyears. Mostofthedog-only
respmrkrﬁsparﬁdpatedhsevemloﬂertypesofhnﬁnghumalessadegeeﬂnnoﬂer
hunt-methodgroups. Theydorrotterrdtopayforassistanceinhmrtingbutonlyabouthalf
own their own dogs, so many rely on others to supply the dogs for their hunting experience.
AlnnsthalfindicatedthattheyhavehrmtedonlyintheeastemU.P. since 1980. Almostall
useonlyagrmtohmrtbear,butsomedousebothagrmandbow;nonehrmtedexclusively
withabow. Abomhalfaremembersofabearhmuingorganimﬁonandoverathirdare
members of other hunting organimtions.
Thelargenmjoﬁtyofdog—orﬂyrespmxlemsreponedﬂratbearhmﬁngisﬂrehnnst
impmtarﬁmmeofﬂreunnmimponamreqeaﬁonalacﬁviﬁesﬂmﬂreypmﬁcipatem Seeing
andheaﬁngbeardogsmrkisannstimportarﬁreasonforgomgbearlnuuing Alsohighin
Wmmgmwms,mﬂmgmmmbwhmngﬁMarﬂseemgabem
initsmtrnalhabitat. lewinimportamewasharvestingandgettingshotsatabear. Dog-only
respmrkmshﬂieatedﬂmmehﬁeedomtochmsewlmareaofhﬁchiganmbearmmmwas
highlyimportantfortheMDNRto considervvhensettingbearregulations.
TledogmﬂygroupwassaﬁsﬁedwiﬂraummﬂueeyearwaitforaharvestMgand
were willing to wait an average of ﬁve years for a lmvest tag before quitting the application
process. Themjoﬁtyneeded300rmoredaysinabearhmrtingseasontobesatisﬁed A
saﬁsfactmysmcessmtewasabomummtmhmuemhnsmcessratemsnahnponmuto
overhalfoftherespondentsinthisgrorq).
Thedog-onlygrouptendedtobecritiealofhmrﬁngbearoverbaiuaslimmajority
thoughtitslnuldcontinueinh/ﬁchigan. Onlyabouthalfthoughtbaitingwasethiealandmost
believedthatbaiterstooknnrethantheirshareofbear,andhadagreaterchanceofharvesting
abear. QﬂyWZWAofﬂredog—mﬂygrmrpﬂnugluﬂleirownneﬂndoflnmingumh

124

dogs interfered with othermethods of hunting bear.

Offomnrﬂndsbhrﬁtﬂebearharvestdogoﬂyresporﬂmtsapprovednnsthiglﬂy
ofusingadrawing,butmneofthemethodswereapprovedbyamajority. Theywere
polanzedonwhichmeﬂrodmusemanocateharvesttagsudthashonwaitﬁme,butwere
much in favor of the random lottery with a longer wait. The majority were dissatisﬁed with
amubearnnmgemmMﬂfewerﬂranaﬂurdﬂmuglnﬂlatﬂreWNRhademugh
informtiontodecidehowmanybeartolnrvestorconsideredtheinterestsofhunterswhen
settingregulations forbearhunting Alarge majority of dog-onlyrespondentsalsothought
politics playedabigger role in limiting harvests thanthe biology. About lulfthinkthe bear
population is stable and another third believe it is increasing

Dog-mﬂyresporxlentsreceiveﬂlehmfmnnﬁonabombearandbearhmuingmost
ﬁequently ﬁom their bear hunting friends, magazines, and hunting organization publications,
andrarelyfromMDNRemployees. Themaioritywouldbeveryormoderatelyinterestedin
atteruiingworkshopsormeetingsonbearandbearhrmting

 

Phueswlmusedonlydogbmsoneﬁnesstanﬂemﬁombaiﬂdog/baithepresened
5%ofthebearlmntingpopulation Thedog/baitgrouphadbeenbearhuntinganaverageof
lSyears,andthevastrmjorityhadlnrvestedatleastonebearintheirhmrtinginvolvement;a
thirdhadtaken3ormore. In1992,theyspentanaverageof10daysaﬁelddmingthebear
season hrlostplantocontinuetouseonlydogssometimesstartedoverbaitasamethodof
lumtingbear,andfewintendtodropoutofbearhmrtingforatleastthenextﬁveyears. (lily
asnnﬂpememmdicatedﬂreypaidforsonekindofassistancembearhmning However,
onlyabouttwo-thirdsownbeardogs,sohkeﬂredog—onlygromnnnynnrstrelyonothersto
supplydogs. Afewdog/baitrespondemsuseagrmandbowtohmrtbear,brnnearlyaﬂuse

125
onlyagun. Halfreportedthattheyhave onlyhuntedinthewestemUP. since 1980. Many
participateinothertypesofhunting,especiallysmallgame,whitetaildeer,andrquandgame
birds, butto a lesser degree thanother hunt-method groups withthe exception of dog-only
respondents.

A slim rmjority of the dog/bait group were members of bear hunting organizations,
whereasjustoverathirdaremembersofoﬂrerhmrﬁngorganizaﬁons. Alrnostallfeltthatbear
hmrﬁngwasﬂrehrmsthnpoﬂmumomofﬂehnnmimpmuremeaﬁonalacﬁviﬁes.
Dog/baitrespondentsgobearhmrtingtoseeandhearbeardogswork,butalsovaluebeingin
thewoods,sperxlingﬁmeudﬂrﬂlehbearhmuingﬁiendsmmlhavingﬂeopponmﬁtymseea
bearinitsnaturalhabitat lowinimportanceisharvestingabear,orgettingashotatabear.
Thedog/baitgroupreponedﬂratﬂleﬁeedomtochoosewhatareaofh/ﬁclngantobearhmnin
is very important criteria for the MDNR to consider when determining regulations.

Dog/baitrespondentsweresatisﬁedwithatwototlneeyearwaitforaharvesttagand
would on the average, wait over ﬁve years for a tag before quitting the application process.
Tlemajoﬁtymponedmatwmnmedayswasmededmaseasonmbesaﬁsﬁedvﬁﬂrbear
hrmting AsaﬁsfaaorymrccessmtewasabommmtmhmnembmWAreponedthatit
wasnotimportant.

Overtwoﬂlhdsofthedog/baitgroupmouglubaiﬁngdenﬁnmechigan
Mosttlnughtitwasethieal,andthatitdidnotinterferewithotheraspectsofhmrtingbear.
However,nostmponedﬂntbaitsiuershaveagreaterchameoflmrvesﬁngabearandlnlf
thoughttlnttl'leytakennrethantheirshareofbear. Veryfewindieatedthatdoghunting
interfered with other methods ofhunting bear.

Offorn‘methodstolimittheharvestofbear,usingadrawingwasthemostprefened,
butonlyaslimmajorityapprovedofthismethod Asinthedog—onlygrorqr,thedog/bait
groupwaspolarizedonwhichmethodtousetoalloeateharvesttagsgivenaslrortwaiLbut

126
mostpefenedrandomlotterywithalongerwait Aboutathirdweredissatisﬁedwithcurrent
bearmanagement. AsimﬂarpereerrtirrdicatedﬂnttlreMDdeidrrotlnveerrouglr
inforrnationtoconectlydecidehownmnybeartolnrvest. Aboutthesamepereenttrustedas
didnottrusttheMDl‘Rtoconsidertheinterestsofhrnrterswhensettingbearregulations. The
rmjority felt that political pressure was more responsible for bear regulation changes than bear
biology. Most thought that the bear population was either increasing or staying the same.

Bearhmrﬁngﬁimdsareusednnstﬁeqremlyasasomceofmfonmﬁononbearand
bear hunting. Magazines and hunting organimtion publieations are also used ﬁequently.
MDNR employees are usedthe least. The majority of respondents inthe dog/bait group
hﬂieatedﬂlatﬂeywemverymnnderatelyhneestedmauendingbearneeﬁngsor
workshops. ,

Thosewhositoverbaitastheirorﬂymemrsofhrmingbearwait-only)comprised44%
ofthe bear hunting population Responderts in the bait-only group have hunted for an average
ofsevenyears,andhalfhavenotyetharvestedabear. Theyhmrtedanaverageofeightdays
inthel992bearseason Mostplanonsticldngwiththeirchosenmethodoverthenextﬁve
yearsandfewintendtodropoutoverthistime. About13%paidforsomeassistancewith
bearlnrrrtingmetlmotherlmnt-methodgroups. Aborrttlresarrrepercerrtuseagrutabow,
orbothtohuntbear. Alrnostallreportedlnmtinginonlyoneareaofthestateforbear,
rminlythewestemUP. Respondentsparticipatedinoﬂrertypesofhrmtingtoahighdegree.
Nearlyalllnrntwhitetaildeerandsrmllgame. Fewer,butsti1120°/d,hrmtotherbiggame
animals.

Fewbait-mﬂyrespmderﬁwemnembersofabearhmﬁingoeraﬁonbmaﬂlhd
memembersofsomeotherhmrtingorganimtion Mostofthebait—onlygroupreportedtlnt

127
bemmmﬁngwasmeofﬂenmehnpmmmmeaﬁonalacﬁviﬁesﬂmﬂeyparﬁcipatembm
fewsaiditwasthennstimportant. Forbait-onlyrespondents,veryimportantreasonsfor
goingbearhuntingaretobeinﬂrevmodstohavetlreopportunitytoseeabearinitsmtmal
habitatarldtousetheirhmltingsldlls. Gettingshotsatabearwasmoderatelyhigh. Lowin
importamewasspendingtimewithfamilywhilehmrting Nurnberofyearswaitforaharvest
mgmrdﬁeedommclnoseudmtareamhmnmwemcomideredveryunpomcnteﬁaﬂmt
the MDNR should consider when setting regulations.

Thebait-onlyrespondentsreportedtheywouldwaitanaverageoftwoyearsandstill
besatisﬁedwithbearhunting. Tl'leywouldquitapplyingforaharvesttagifthewaitwent
beyondfouryears. Thennjoritywouldbesatisﬁedwithasixteendaybearseasonanda
mncessrateofabomwmmtenmnuemharvesﬁngabeu,husmcessmtewasnmmlponmu
to 40% of the bait-only grorrp.

Orly about halfthought doghuntingshould continue inNﬁchigan Asirnilarpercent
tlnughttlnttherewasmthingmethiealabomit Two-thirdsofthebait-onlygroupreported
ﬂmdogmmﬁnghnaferesvﬁmoﬂerneﬂndsmﬂlmlfﬂnugluﬂuewasabeuachameof
larvestingabearindoghunting. Athirdindieatedtlratdoglumterstakemorethantheirshare
ofthebear.

A slim majority of the bait-only group approved of limiting bear harvest through a
drawing Offorn'methodsgivmthiswasprefenedthemost. Whenalloeatingharvesttags
givenashmtwaiﬁngﬁmeﬁlemajmityclnoseﬂrepohupreferemesystern \Vrthalonger
waitnnreclrosetherandomlottery. Similarpercentsweresatisﬁedanddissatisﬁedwith
currentbearnanagement AboutathirdthoughttlmttheMDNRdidnothaveemugh
informationtocorrectlydecidehowmanybeartoharvest. Asmallerpercentdidnottrustthe
MDMtoconsiderﬂrehmﬁersirnerestswhensettingregrﬂaﬁons. Overlnlfthoughtthat
politicalpressurewasnnreafactorinlimitingtheharvestofbearthanbiology. Aboutathird

128
indieated that the bear population was stable and just under halfofthe bait-only respondents

reportedanincreaseinthebearpopulationintheareatheyhmrted
Bearhmrﬁngﬁiendsarﬂmagazinesmreﬁeqrmulyusedsomcesofbearhmﬁng

information for the bait-only group. MDNR employees were rarely used. The majority were

veryormoderatelyirrterestedinatterrdingworkshopsorrrreetingsaboutbearandbearhrmting.

Ihmterswhousedneitherbaitnordogstohmrtbear(still-only)wereS%ofthr3bear
hunting population The still-only respondents have hunted an average of 14 years, and two-
thirdshavenotyetharvestedabear. Theyhrmtedanaverageofsevendaysdmingthel992
bearseason Halfreportedthattheyintendtoonlyhmrtbearwithoutbaitordogsovertlre
nextﬁveyears,but19%plamredtousebaitastheironlymethodand12%wouldusemore
thanonemethod. Over 15%plarrnednottohuntbearoverthenextﬁveyears. Overhalfof
thestill-onlygroupuseonlyagrmtohmrtbearandathirdusebothagunandbow. The
majority hrnrt only inthe western U.P.; very few hunt innrore than one area. Still-only
respondentsdidnottendtopayforassistanceinhunting 'Iheyparticipateinrmrnytypesof
huntinginadditiontobear.

Orﬂy2%ofsﬁll-odyresporxlemswerenembersofabearhmuingorgarﬁzaﬁonbuta
thirdwerernembersof other hunting organimtions. Thenrajority of the still-only group
mmﬂedﬂrﬁbearhmﬁngwasmnnmhmomﬂmnoﬂrerrecreaﬁonalacdviﬁesﬂmtﬂry
participate in, and 20% said it was less important. Still-only respondents indicated that being
inthemods,usinghrmtingsldlls,andseeingabearinitsnatmalhabitatwereveryimportant
reasonsforgoingbearhurrting. Spendingtimewithbearhmrtingﬁ'iendsandspendingtime
with their familywere lowin importance. Harvestingabearwas moderately important. Still-
onlyrespondemsrepmtedﬂntﬂeﬁeedomtochoosewhatareamhmubearmisvay

129
important for the MDNR to consider when setting regulations.

Respondents in the still-only group would be satisﬁed waiting an average of two years
for a harvest tag, but reported that they would quit applying after an average wait of four
years. Thenrajorityvvouldbesatisﬁedwithabearseasonofnirredaysorless. A
saﬁsfaaorynncessmtemsmmtenhmuemmdovahalfmponedﬂetmmcessmtems
notimportant.

Halfofﬂesﬁﬂ-mﬂyrespondeusﬂnugluhmrﬁngbearudthbaitsmrﬂdcmrﬁmem
Michigan Morethanhalffeltitwasethicaltobait. However, overathirdindicatedthat
baitemmkennmﬂmnﬂrehslnmofbeumﬂthatbaiﬁnghuerfereswithoﬂrerneﬂwdsof
lrrrrrtingbear. Onlyathirdthoughthuntingbearwithdogsshouldcontinue. Aslimrmjority
repoﬂedﬂntmmgdogswasnmwncalarﬂnnstbeﬁevedﬂmdogshuefemudﬂroﬂer
nretlrodsofhurrtingbear. Justmrderhalfindicatedthatdoghrmtershaveagreaterchancefor
harvesﬁngabearﬂranbaitersandtheytakennreﬂranthehshareofbear.

Tlesﬁﬂ-mﬂygroupprefenedﬁnﬁﬁngﬂebearharveﬂbyresuicﬁngneﬂndsrsedm
hrmbearoverﬂreothertlneemethodsgivenhrtorﬂylnlfapproved. Mostchosethepoirrt
peferencesystemwhenwaitwasshort Weprefenedtherandomlotterywhenthewaitgot
longer,butathirdcontinuedtosupportthepointpreference. Athirdofthestill-onlygroup
msdissaﬁsﬁedudﬂrcmembearnmmgenermhnclosemﬂesanepercanuassaﬁsﬁed
PhlfofﬂesﬁH-mﬂygrormwaswnﬁdenﬂratﬂeMDthadmghhrfomnﬁmmwnecﬂy
decidehowrnanybeartoharvest. AsimilarpercenttrustedtheMDNRtoconsiderhrmter
irrterestswlrentheysetbearhurrtingregulations. h/bredisagreedﬂranagreedtllatﬂreNﬂDbR
limited the bear harvest more because of politics than biology. The rmjority of still-only
respxxlausﬂmuglnﬂmﬂebearpoprﬂaﬁmwashmeasmgmstablemﬂwareaﬂmﬂey
hunted.

Magazineswereﬂemostﬁeqremlymedsomoeofmfmmﬁmabombearandbear

130
hunting Bearhmrtingﬁiendswerealsousedsometimes for information TheMDNRand

hunting organimtion publications were used the least. The majority of still-only respondents
wereonlysliglrtlyirrterestedornotatallinterestedinatterrdingmeetingsorworkshopson
bear hunting.

 

Thosewhousedacombinationofmethodstohrmtbear(generalist)comprised25%of
thebearhrmtingpopulation Thegeneralistgrorqrhadbeenhmrtingforanaverageofll
years,andaboutha1fhadnotharvestedabear. Theyhrmtedforbearanaverageofeightdays
inl992. Abouthalfirrterrdtocorrtinueusingacombinationofmethodsoverthenextﬁve
yemsmdofﬂemrmuﬁngnnsthuendmonlyusebaiuwlereasafewwiﬂdogmdsﬁﬂ
hunt. Onlyasmallpereentdonotplantohrmtbear. Manygerreralistsuseagrmonlyorbotlr
agrmandbow,butonlyasmallpercentuseonlyabowtohmrtbear. Alargepercerrthurrt
only in the western UP. A few paid for assistance in bear hunting Nearly all hunt whitetail
deerarrdsmallgarne. Manyalsohmrttrn'keyandotheruplandgamebirds. Biggamehurrting,
otlertlnnblackbear,isdoneby22%ofthegeneralistgroup.

Orﬂy12%ofﬂregenaalistresporxlemswemnembersofabearhmrﬁngmgarﬁmﬁon
butathirdweremembersofotherhmrtingorganizations. Overhalfirrdicatedthatbear
hmﬁngwasmeofﬂeanrecreaﬁonalacﬁviﬁesﬂntﬂwyparﬁcipatemhnm
additionalfourthsaiditwasnomoreimportant. Themoreirnportarrtreasonsforgoingbear
hurrtingweretobeinthewoods,toseeabearinitsnatmalhabitat,andtousehrmtingskills.
louestinimportancewasspendingﬁmeudﬂrfmnﬂyandhavingbearneat. Harvestingabear
wasmoderatelyimportant Freedomtochosevvlratareaochhigantohmrtinwasrateda
nrost important factor forthe MDNR to considerwhendetermining regulations.

GereralistrespondaﬁshrdicatedﬂntﬂeymﬂdwaitanavemgeofMoyemsfora

131
lnrvesttagandstillbesatisﬁedwithbearhrmting,andwouldquitaﬁerthreetofouryearsof
waiting Themajoritywouldbesaﬁsﬁedwiﬂrasixteendaybearhrmtingseason A
saﬁsfmtmyswcessmtewastwommnhmuemhnWAsaidhaweﬂmtewasmthnponmn

The vast majority thought baiting should continue inMichigan Fewhad negative
beliefsaboutbaiting Fewer,butstillthermjorityreportedthathmrtingbearwith dogs should
continue. Mosthﬂieatedﬂntituaseﬂﬁcal,hnhalfbehevedﬂntdogshnerfereudﬂroﬂer
methodsofbearhrmting Moreagreedthandisagreedthatdogshadagreaterchanceof
lurvestingabearthanbaiters.

Moregeneralistsapprovedofusingadrawingforlinritingtlreharvestofbearstlranthe
othertlrreenrethodsgiverrbrrtnearlyasmanyapprovedofsettingaveryslxrrtm The
gumﬁstrespmﬂmmdnsepohuprefmovaﬂemﬁomlouaygivmaslmtwaitﬁne
foraharvesttag;however,randomlotterywaspreferredwithalongerwait. Overhalfwere
dissatisﬁedwithcrnrentbearnnmgement. OverathirrlvxeremtconﬁdenttlnttheMDbR
hasemughinformationtodecidelnwnnnybeartoharvest. MoredidmttrusttheMDNR
ﬂunuwtedﬂemwfairlycmsidaﬂehnaestsofhmnaswlensetﬁngbemmgulaﬁms. The
maioritybelievedtlerttheMDNRlimitedthebearlmrvestmebecauseofpolitiealpressrne
tlnnbiologiealreasons. Nbstthoughtﬂrebearpoprﬂaﬁonwaseitherincreasingorstablein
dreareatheylmntmostoﬁen

Tlrennstﬁeqrnmlymedsomeesfmmfonmﬁonmbearandbeuhmrﬁngwerebear
huntingﬁiendsandmagazines. MDNRenrployeeswererarelyused. Thegerreralistgrouphad
MmmmvmmmmlyhmedshgﬂthMmtm
allhuerestedinattendingmeeﬁngorworkshopsonbearandbearhmrting.

 

ThosewhohadnotyetgonehuntingforbearinIVﬁchiganorhadgoneonabearhunt
but without a harvest tag (not hunted) account for about 16% of the bear hunting population
Abouthalfplarrtouseonlybaittohurrtbearovertherrextﬁveyearsarrdjustoverafourth
intendtousermrethanonemethod. Fewplantoonlyusedogsornottobearhrmtatall.
TlenahmuedgormpaMdpmwmoﬂertypesofhmrﬁngespeciaﬂyMﬁtemﬂdeer,nmﬂ
game,andrq)landgamebirds. Fewweremembersofbearlmntingorganimtionsandlessthan
athirdweremembersofotherhrmtingorganimtions. Ahigherpercent(16%)ofthisgrmrp
were females compared to the other hunt-method groups.

Fewmthmnedresporxlemsrepmtedthatbearhunﬁngwasﬂrennstimportam
recreatiomlactivitythattlreyparticipatein,but44%considereditoneofthemoreimportant.
Thenothuntedgrorqrratedbeinginthewoods,havingtlreopportrrrritytoseeabearinits
natural habitat, and using hunting skills as nrost important reasons for going bear hrnrting.
I-larvestingandgettingshotsatabearwerenoderatelyimportant. Havingbearnreatand
spendingtimewithfamilywerelowinimportance.

Nothmnedrespondemsdmuglnﬂrmﬂrenmrberofyemshmuaswaitfmalnrvesttag
wasannstimportantfactortoconsiderwhensettingregulations. Thenothuntedgroup
reportedtheywouldwaitanaverageoftlrreeyearsforaharvesttagarrdstillbesatisﬁedwitlr
bearhrnrtingandanaverage of ﬁveyearsbefore quitting Aboutlnlfwouldbesatisﬁedwith
abearhuntingseasontlntvmsninedaysorless. Asatisfactorysuccessratewastuointen
hurrtersand40°/oreportedthatitwasnotimportant

Tlelmgemajodtyofmﬁhmﬂedrespondaﬁsrepmtedﬂratbaiﬁngslnﬂdcmninmm
Michigan, arrdfewhadrregative beliefsaboutbaiting Ahmsttwo-thirds indicatedthat
lrrrrrtingwitlrdogsshouldcontinue. Doghuntingwasconsideredmethiealbyjustmrdera
thirdofthenothrmtedrespondems. Overhalfthoughtthatdoghuntinginterferedwithother

133
methodsofbearhunting,arrdmanybelievedtlratdoghrrrrtershadagreatercharrceof

harvestingabeartl'nnbaiters. Afourthbelievedthatdoghunterstakemorethantheirshare
ofthebear.

Adrawingwasﬂremostapprovedmeﬂrodoflimiﬁngthebearhawestofﬂrefour
nrethodsgivenbutonlyhalfofthemthmrtedgroupapproved. Mostchosethepoirrt
preferemesystemwhenwaitwasshort,arrdless,brrtstilloverhalt,preferrediturlrenwaitwas
long Therewereasmanysaﬁsﬁedasdissaﬁsﬁedudﬂrcmrembearnnmgement Morewere
cmﬁdemdmnweremtmnﬁdemﬂntﬂeMDthademughmfonmﬁonmwnecﬂydecide
the nrrrnber of bear to harvest. Also, more trusted the MDNR to consider hunters when setting
regulatiorrstlrandidrrot. IessﬂranhalfbelievedtheWNRlimitedthebearharvestmore
beeame of political reason than biological.

Themthmuedgroupgetsﬂreirinfomraﬁonabombearandbearhmrﬁngmore
ﬁequemlyﬁombearhmrﬁngﬁiendsarxlnngaziresandmrelyﬁomﬂreMDbR Themajority
mmvewhueresmdmnndemmlyhuerestedmauaﬂingmrksmpsmneeﬁngsabombear

 

Respondemswhomrenembersofatleastoneofﬂrefombearhmrﬁngorgmumﬁons
given (bear-members)represerrted 12%ofthebearhmrtingpopulation Ofthosewhowere
bear-members, the largest membership (86%) was with the MI Bear Hunters Association A
muchsrmllerpercent(21%and17°/o,respectively)weremembersofﬂreUnitedBearlhrnters
andU.P.BearHormdsmengroups. Only4%ofthebearhuntingorganimtionmemberswere
mernbersintheNortheastenr MchiganHoundsmenAssociation

Nbstbear-members(6l%)werealsomembersofatleastorreoftheotherhunting

organimtions given on the survey. Of those who were bear-members, many (43%) were

134
members of MI United Conservation Clubs. Fewer were nrembers of Michigan Hrrrrting Dog

Federation, MchiganCoonPhnrtersandMichigan BowHunters(ll%, 9%,arrd 13%,
respectively).

Many (45%) of the bear-members were in either the dog-only or dog/bait group, with
a smaller percent (28%) in the bait-only grorrp. Some (18%) were generalists, but very few
wereinthestill—onlyormthurrtedgroups. Overafourthofthebear-membersintendedtouse
dogsstartedﬁombaitoverthenextﬁveyears,andoverhalfreportedtheywouldusedogsmt
startedﬁombait. Halfalsointendedto sit over baitbutonlyafewplarmedtouseneither
dogsnorbait

Bear-members, onthe average, hadbeenbearhurrting for 12 years, harvested 2.6 bear,
andspent8.8daysbearhuntinginl992. Bearhuntingisthemostimportantrecreatioml
activityfornearlyathird,andallbut13%oftheremainingbear-membersindicatedthatitwas
oneoftheirmoreimportantrecreational activities. Afew(10%)hadpaid sonreonetoassist
theminsomeaspectofbearhrmtingatleastoncedrningthel990-1992bearseasons.

Bear-nembesreponedﬂratminﬂewoodsmdseemgbearswemnnstimponmu
reasonsforgoingbearhunting Beingwithbearhrnrtingﬁiendsandusinghuntingskillswere
alsoratedfairlyhighinirnportarrce.Reasomthatwereratedlowinimportanceforbear-
mnbersuerehawesﬁngabear,getﬁngshotsatabear,andhavingbearneat

Bear-members reported they would wait about ﬁve years before quitting the bear
Mermhcaﬁonprocessandasaﬁsfaaorybearhmningseasmvmsﬂdayslmg The
majorityofbear-memberschosethepointpreferencesystemgivenashortwaitingtinre,but
moreprefenedﬂremndomlotterywhenﬂewaitforahmvesttagwemtoﬁveyears.

Overlnlfofﬂebear-membersweredissaﬁsﬁedwiﬂrmmembearnnmgemem. Many
werendcmrﬁdemﬂntﬂeMDNlesenughmfmnaﬁmonﬂebearpopulaﬁmmcomly
decidehowmanybeartol’nrvest. Nearlyl'ralfdidnottrusttheMDNRtoconsiderthe

135
interests of hunters when setting regulatiom. Also, the majority believed that the MDNR

linrited the bear lurvest me because of politics than biology. Almost all bear-members
thought ﬂat the bear population was either increasing or stable.

The nrajority of bear-members ﬁ'equently used bear hunting ﬁiends, hrrrrting
organization publications, and nragazines for inforrmtion about bear and bear hunting. Of the
sauces given, MDNR employees were used the least. Nearly halfwere very interested and
mmﬂmﬂﬁrdnndemtelyhuereswdmaneﬂingmrkshopsarﬂmeeﬁngsmbearmdbear

hunting.

 

Respondents who were not members of a bear hunting organimtion (bear-nomnembers)
nedeup88°/oofthebearhunterpopulation Some(26%)weremembersofoneoftheother
lrrrrrtingorgarrizatiorrs. Thehiglestrateofmembership(19°/o)wasinthe1\IﬂUnited
Conservation Clubs. Afew(9%)weremembersof Michigan BowHuntersandlessthan1%
were menrbers of Michigan Hunting Dog FederationorMichigan Coon Hrmters.

Many (47%) of the bear-nonmembers were in the bait-only group and 25% were
gerreralists. Aconsiderablepercent(l7°/o)hadnotyethmrtedbearandfewwereintlredogor
still-only groups. Thelarge majorityofbear-nomnembersirrtendedtolnmtbearoverthenext
ﬁveyearsbysittingoverbait. Asnnllpercentplannedonusingdogsstartedﬁombaitor
dogsnotstartedfrombait. Afourthreportedtheymulduseneitherdogsnorbait.

Bear-nonmembers had been bear hunting for seven years, spent 7.4 days aﬁeld during
besrseasonandharvested 1.3bears,ontheavelage. Bearhmrtingmsthemostimportant
recreational activitythatthey participated into only 9% of nomnembers, while a slim majority
considereditorreofthemoreinrportarrtactivities. Only8%paidaguidetoassistthemin
someaspectofbearhuntinginthel990—l992bearseasons.

136

Mgmﬂrewoodsmrdseemgbearwemnosthnponmureasonsforbear-mnnembers
togobearhrrrrting Modaatelyhighinnnponancewasusurghmuingsldllsmndgetﬁngaway
fromworkorstress. Harvestingandgettingshotsatbearswasnoderatelyimportarrt

Bear-nonmembers reported they would wait an average of four years before quitting
theapplicationprocess. Asatisfactorybearhuntingseasonwouldlastl6days,ontheaverage.
The majority of bear-nonmembers chose a point preference system over random lottery for
alloeatingharvesttagsifthewaitwasnotlongertmntlneeyears. Theybecamepolarizedon
thisissuewhenthewaitingtimewenttoﬁveyears.

A plurality of bear-nonmembers were dissatisﬁed with current bear rmnagement.
Bear-mmmbeswempolmizedmuiedrermmtﬂeMDthasemughmfomnﬁmonﬂe
bearpopulationtocorrectlydecidehownenybearstolnrvest. Lessthanhalftrustedthe
MDNR to fairly consider the interests of hunters when setting hrnrting regulations; however,
nearlyathirdwasnot sme. Aslim majority of bear-nonmembers believedthattheMDNR
hnﬁtedﬂebearhmvestnmebeeameofpoﬁﬁedpessmeﬂmevidaneofdecﬁmngbear
mnnbers;athirdwasnotsure.

Ofthesourcesofinfonmtionforbearandbearhuntinggivenonthesmvey,thenrost
ﬁequerrtlyusedsourceswerebearhmrtingﬁ'iendsandmagazires. Newspapers, television,
lmnting organimtion publicatiom, and license guides were used frequently or sometirrres by
abouthalfofthebear-mnmembers. Theleastusedsorn'cewasMDNRemployees. The
mm'mityofbem—nmmembasmmdﬂervmyhuaestedmmodamelyhuaestedmauaﬂing
meetingsorworkshopsonbearandbearhmrting.

 

Thosewhoaremembersofotherhuntingorganimtions (other-members)were3l%of
thebearhurrtingpopulation Ofthosewhoweremembersofatleastoneoftheseother
hrrrrting organizations, the largest percent (76%) were MI United Conservation Clubs nrernbers.
AthirdweremembersofMBowI-lmrtersandonly6%and5°/o,respectively,werenrembers
ochhiganlhrntingDogFederationanndhiganCoonIhmters. Oftlrosewlrowere
membersofoﬂrerhmuingorgarﬁmﬁons,23%werealsomembersofabearhmuing
organization

Many (40%) other-members were in the bait-only group. Over a fourth were
generalists, andonly14%were inone of the dog groups. The large majority of other-
nembasreponedﬂntﬂeyhuerxbdmusebaitoverﬂemnﬁveyearstohmubear. Asnnll
peroentstatedthattheyvmuldusedogsstartedﬁombait. Moreplarrrredtousedogsnot
startedﬁombait.

Qrtheaverage,other—membershadbeenbearhurrtingfornineyears,spent6.9days
aﬁelddrn'ingthe1992bearseasonandharvestedl.6bears. Eleverrpercenthadpaidfor
assistamewithsoneaspeaofbearhmuingdmingﬂrel9901992bearseasons. Halfreported
ﬂutbearhnﬁingwasoneofﬂenmeimpoMmcreaﬁmnlacﬁviﬁesﬂeypmﬁcipatem A
fomﬂrmdieatedﬂratitwasmmeimpmtamﬂmoﬂerreueaﬁmnlacﬁviﬁes.

Otler-nembasreponedﬂntbemgmﬂemods,seehrgabear,andusmgluming
sldllswereveryimportantreasonsforgoingbearhrnrting Beingwithbearhrmtingfriends,
getﬁngawayﬁomsuess,mrd5yingmgetaslntatabearwemnndeatelyimpmmrn
I-Iarvestingabear,lnvingbearmeat,andspendingtimewithfamilyweremoderatelylowin
importance.

Other-members indicated they would quit applying for a lnrvest tag after waiting an
average of form years. A satisfactory bear hunting season would last 16 days. The majority of

138
other-members chose point preference over random lottery for allocating harvest tags when the

waitingtimeforatagwasnonrorethantlrreeyears. Respondentsweresplitbetweenthese
twosystermwhenthewaitwasﬁveyears.

Aslim majority of other-membersweredissatisﬁed withcurrentbearmarragemerrt.
RespmxlemswmepolanzedonwledrerﬂeMDNRhademughmfonmﬁononﬂebear
population to conectly decide how rmny bear to harvest. Other-members were also split on
wleﬂerﬂmymmtedﬂethNmemiderﬂehumestsofhmuemwhensetﬁngbearhmﬁing
regulations. OverhalfagreedﬂratﬂreNHDNRlinutedﬂrebearharvestmoreforpoﬁﬁcal
reasons than evidence of a decreasing bear population Nearly three-fourths of the other-
membersrepoﬂedﬂratﬂrebearpopulaﬁonwaseiﬂrerhrcreasingorstable.

Oder-nmnbemobtainhrfonmﬁonmbearmﬂbearhmrﬁngnnstﬁeqremlyﬁombear
hunting ﬁ'iends and magazines. Hunting organimtion publieations were used less often, but
mrestiﬂusedﬁequentlyorsometinesbyﬂremajoﬁtyofrespondems. MDNRenrployees
wereusedtheleast. Wmeiﬂrerveryhuerestedorn'nderatelyhnerestedinattending

nreetings on bear and bear hunting.

 

Norrmembers of other hunting organizations (other-nonmembers) were 70% of bear
hrnrters. Only a small percent (6%) ofother-nonmembers were members ofa bear hrmting
organimtion Almost half (47%) of the other-nonmembers were in the bait-only grorrp, while
9%wereinoneofthedoggroups. Aconsiderablenmnber(l7%)hadmtyet gonebear
lrrnrting. The large nnjority reported they would sit over bait to hunt bear over the nerd ﬁve
years. Sonre other-nonmembers (10%) indicated they would use dogs started ﬁom bait, but
more(16%) intendedtousedogsnotstartedfrombait. Veryfewplannednottohuntbear

overtlrerrextﬁveyears.

139
Other-nonmembers, on the average, had been bear hunting for eight years. They spent

anaverage of7.7 days aﬁeldduringthe l992bearseason Theaverage number ofbearsthat
other-nonmembershadharvestedintheir lifetimewas 1.4. Asrmllpercent(8%)hadpaidfor
bearhmuingassistanceatsomeﬁmedrningthel990-l992bearseasons. Only11%reported
Mbearhmrdngmsﬂemmhmorquacﬁvityﬂmﬂeyparﬁcipatehhhu54%hﬂicated
tl'ratitwasoneoftheirmoreimportantactivities.

BeinginﬂrewoodsandseeingbearswerennsthnpmMreasonsforgoingbear
hunting for other-nonmembers. Moderately highininrportancewasusing huntingskills,
gettingawayfromworkorstress,andgettingshotsatbears. Harvestingabeararrdsperrding
timewithﬁiendswasonlyrmderatelyimpm'tant,andsperrdingtimevvithfamilywasevenless
important.

Oﬂrer—mmnembersreponedﬂreyworﬂdwaitfomyeamforaharvesttagonﬂre
average, before quitting the applieation process. A satisfactory bear hunting season averaged
17 days. Themajority of other-nonmemberschoseapoint preferencesystemoverrandom
lotteryforallocatinglmrvesttagswhenthewaitingtimewasnotlongerthanthreeyears,but
werepolaﬁzedovertlesetwomethodswhenthewaitwerﬁtoﬁveyears.

lessﬂranhalfoftheoﬂrer-normembersmredissaﬁsﬁedwithcrmembear
management. NearlythesamepercemagreedasdisagreedtlntﬂreMDNRhadenough
mfomnﬁonabomﬂrebearpoprdaﬁontoconecﬂydecidelnwmmrybeartohawest. More
(43%) trrsted than did not trust (32%) the MDNR to fairly consider the interests of hunters
wherrsettingbearregulations. I-IalfagreedthattheMDNRlimitedthebearharvestmore
becameofpoﬁﬁcalpressmeﬂnnbiologicalreasmmwhﬂeaﬂurdwasnot sure.

Oder-mmnembasusedﬁiendsmdnngaziresasasomceofmfonmﬁonabombear
andbearhuntingmoreﬁequentlythanothersom'cesgiven MDNRenrployeeswereusedthe
leastofthesevensources. Justoverhalfwereveryinterestedormoderatelyinterestedin

140
attendingworkshopsormeetingsaboutbearandbearhmrting,while20%werenotatall

interested

 

Thosewhostartedbearhrmting before 1990 ("before" cohort)were64% of tlrebear
huntingpopulation Athirdlndnotyetharvestedabear. The"before"cohortspentan
averageofninedaysbearhuntingin1992. OverathirdhuntedonlyinthewestemUP.
Only5%paidforhmrtingassistance. Almostallhuntedwhitetaildeer,andsmallgarne.
Manyweretm'keyanduplandgamebirdhrmters.

A fourth of the "before" cohort were nrernbers of bear hunting organizations and over
athirdweremembersofotherhuntingorgarrizations. Thevastmaioritythoughtthatbear
hmuingwasﬂennsthnpormruoroneofﬂennmhnpmtmumcreaﬁonalacﬁviﬁesﬂey
participateirr. The"before"cohortratedbeinginthewoods,seeingbearinitsnatrnallnbitat,
andusinglnmﬁngskillsasannstimponamreasonforgoingbearhmning Spendingtinre
withfamﬂyandharvesﬁngabearwereratedmoderatelylowinimponance.

The"before"cohortreportedthattheywouldwaitanaverageoftwoyearstogeta
harvest tagarrd still be satisﬁed, arrdwould quit applyingatteranaverage of fun years. Just
overhalfwouldbesatisﬁedwithabearseasonthatwasl6daysorshorter. Asatisfactory
mratewashmintenhmﬂembmhalfreponedﬂratitwasnotimpom

Themajority of "before" cohortresponderrts weredissatisﬁed withcm'rent bear
management. Asmanywereconﬁdentaswerenotconﬁdentthatthelt/IDNRhasenough
informationtocorrectlydecidelnwmanybeartoharvest. AboutathirdtrustedtheMDNRto
consider hunters interests when setting bear regulations. Nearly two-thirds believed the
MDNR limited the bear harvest more for political reasons than biological. Alnrost half
repoﬂedﬂntﬂrebearpopulaﬁonwashmeashrginﬂreareatheyhmunnstoﬁen

141
WWW

Thosewhobeganbearhuntinginoratter1990("atter"cohort)were37%ofthebear
hunting population Two-thirds of this group began hurrtingin 1992. Mostarebait-onlyand
generalisthurrterswith fewwhoaredogorstill-only hunters. About two-thirds ofthe "alter"
cohorthavenotyetharvestedabear. Almostlnlfuseonlyagrmtoharvestbear,butovera
thirdusebothagunandbow. ThelargestpereenthuntonlyinthewestemU.P.forbear. In
1992, theyspentanaverage of eight daysbearhurrting. Eleven percerrtpaid for somekindof
assistance forbearhunting since 1990. Almostallparticipateinothertypesofhmrting,
especiallywhitetaildeer,srmllgame,anduplandgamebirds. Overathirdwerewaterfowl
hunters.

Orrly9%ofthe"atter"cohortweremembersofabearhuntingorganimtions,and28%
weremembersofotherhuntingorganimtions. Fewreportedthatbearhrrrrtingwastheirnrost
Wrecreaﬁmalacﬁviternhalfsaidituesoneofﬂrenorehnponant The"after"
cohortratedbeinginthewoods,seeingabearinitsnatmalhabitatandusinghmrtingsldllsas
veryimportantreasonstogohmrting. I-Iarvestingabearandhavingopportmritiestogetshots
atbearsweremodelatelyimportant Spendingtimewithfamilyandhavingbearrreatwere
moderatelylowinimportance.

Respondentsinthe"after"colnrtreportedthattheywouldwaitanaverageoftwo
yearsforaharvesttagandstillbesatisﬁedwithbearhuntingandwouldquitapplyingatteran
averageofthreetofouryears. Thevastnnjoritymuldbesatisﬁedwithabearhrmting
seasonof16daysorless. Asatisfactorysuccessratewastwohmrtersinten Overathird
reportedthatsuccessratewasnotimportant

Athirdwasdissatisﬁedwithcrnrentbearmamgement Justoverathirdwasconﬁderrt
ﬂratﬂreMDNRlndenoughhrfmmaﬁontodecidehowmanybeartoharvest Almosthalf
mrstedﬂreMDNRmcmsiderﬂehuaestsofhmﬁerswhmsetﬁngmgrdaﬁmsonbear

142
hunting AsimilarpercentbelievedthattheMDNRlimitedthebearharvest more forpolitical

reasonstlnnbiologicalones. Aboutathirdthouglrtthebearpopulationwasirrcreasingand
anotlerthirdreportedthatitwasstable.

Thanh inBearHrmerOraracteristics mdAttitrlIes

 

Diﬁ‘emmesvrereﬂwuglumerdstmmngﬂmserespmrdentsusmgvanoushmuneﬂmds
based on results ﬁom Peyton's (1989b) proﬁle of 1984 Michigan bear hunters. In that study,
hunter types were aralyzed for differences in hunting clmacteristics (i,e. hunting experience,
equipment, dayshmued),atﬁnxhestowardﬂrebearpop.ﬂaﬁonandatﬁnrdestowardeach
other’s methods of hunting bear. Results ﬁomthat studyslrovved many similarities withthis
study,Malsosuggestedﬂntclmngesnnyhaveoccmredmﬂebearhmﬁngconnnmutyover
theeightyearsbetweenstudies.

Inl993,bearhunterstendedtobespecialists,astheydidirr1984,butsome changes
haveoccurred. T1egenemlistgrouphrcreasedﬁoml8°ﬂrt025%resrﬂﬁnginadecreaseinﬂre
dogandstill—onlygroups,butnotthebait-onlygroup. Thistrerrdmaycontinueasirrterrtions
museomybaitbyﬂwserespondausmlndmtyethmﬁedbearmhﬁchiganwemnunh
higherthancurrentuse,whileintentiomtohmrtonlywithdogsorneitherdogsnorbaitwere
lowerthancrnrerrtpractices.

Resrﬂtsfromﬂrel993smveyshowedthatﬂrenmnberofyearsofbearhmrﬁng
erqreriencewerehighestinthedoggroupsandlowestinthebaitgroup,asdidthe1984
results. Thestill-onlygroupwaslesserqreriencedinl984thantheywereinl993suggesting
ﬂmﬂevetemnhmnemnnylnvemmainedwhﬂeﬂelessemeﬁawedhmnasdroppedorn
The average number of days spent aﬁeld for each hunt-method group was higher in 1984, with
theexceptionoftlregerreralistgroup. I-Iowever,thedoggroupscontinuedtospendthemost

143
daysbearhmrtingandthestill-onlygrouptheleast.

Tletypeofequusedbybearhmuerswasalsodiﬁ‘erenbetueensmveys. In
1984, nrost hunters (77%) used only guns, 11% used bow and arrow, and only 8% used both
Grmonlyusedecreasedto45%inthel993studygwlereas,useofabowandbothgunand
bowirrcreasedto l8%and37%, respectively. Thisincreaseinbowhmrtingwasalsoapparent
inwlﬁtetaﬂdeerhmrtinginMchiganwheretherewasaSWAincreaseinarcherydeerhunters
from 1986tol993 (Iangenauetal. 1994). Currently, hunter educationisnotrequiredfor
bowhmrﬁnghuasbowhmrﬁngumdshmreasemisbewnesannmappareuweahessmﬂe
training of young hrrrrters, especially with bowhunting being targeted by animal rights and
welfaregrorrpsfor high woundingrates.

Members of hunting organimtions, especially bear hrrrrting orgarrimtiom, were a small
percentofrespondentsinl984astheywereinl993,buttl'reyappeartobeincreasing.
Membership intheMchiganBearHuntersAssociationanndhigan BowHunters
Association increased slightly, both showing about a 3% increase in respondents. Overall,
membershiptoorganizationsrelatedtobearhuntingwasat21%in1985and38%in1993.
Asinl984,thedoggroupswerethemostorganized

Payingforassistancewithsomeaspectofbearlnmtingorguidinghasshownaslight
increasefroml984. Olﬂy5%ofresporxlentsreponed'hiﬁngaguide"10yearsago,whereas
9°/o"paidforassistance"inl993. Thisapparerrtirrcreasemaybedueinparttochangesintlre
wordingofthequestion Respondentsnnynothaveequatedpayingsomeonetoplacebaits
forthemto'hiringagui "inthe19845m'vey.

 

h1984,aﬂﬁrdofﬂebearmnuersmveyrespmdausbehevedﬂntﬂebearpqxﬂaﬁon
wasindecline,55%thoughtitwasmtclnngingand12%reportedanincrease. Nlneyears

144
later, only 7% of respondents thought that it was decreasing, 32% behaved it to be stable, and
41%indieatedanincreasingbearpopulation Thispereeptionthatthebearpopulationis
huprovhrgcouldbearesultofﬂreﬁnﬁtedentrysystemwlﬁchwasstartedhr1990. Fewer
hmuersinﬂrewoodshavecausedsuccessratestomcreaseforﬂroseﬂratdogetatagandrnay
begivinghmrtersafalseindicationofnnrebears. Also, giventhesechangesinperceptions
aboutbearinMichigan,itmuldbeerqrectedthatbearhrmtersmaybelesssupportiveof
ﬁnmeproposahmresuiabearhmrﬁngmbeuhmvestmspimofﬂehnpommacedon

protecting the bear resource.

 

All specialist groups (dog-only, bait-only, and still-only) were critical of bear hunting
methods otherthantlreir own Thesenegative attitudesappeartohavennderatedﬁom 1984
to 1993,brncontinuedtoerdstforasubstamialpercentofrespondents. In 1984,46%ofthe
dog-only gloupdidnotwantbaitingtocontinueinh/ﬁchigan Asmaller, but srrbstarrtial
percent (32%), felt this way in 1993. Also, a srmller proportion of still-only hunters did not
want baiting to continue in 1993 conrpared to the 1984 results. Negative beliefs held by dog-
only and still-only hunters about baiting (i.e., bait hunters take more than their share, baiting
interfereswithothermethods, baitingisrrrretlrical) havealsomoderatedfromthe 1984 study,
but are still held by a considerable percent ofrespondents.

Thebait-only groupwas also less critieal ofdoglrurrtingin 1993 thanintlre earlier
survey as was the still-only group. Agreement to negative statenrerrts about dog hunting (i.e.,
dogstakenmeﬂnnﬂehslmreﬁoghmﬁnghuafereswiﬂroﬂrerneﬂndsbaiﬁngis
unethical)was less likelyinthebait-onlygroupfromthemorerecentsurvey. The still-only
group's negative beliefs about dog hunting also nroderated from 1984 to 1993.

Itisapositive signthatbearhuntersaretaldngaless criticalapproachtoother

145
methods of hunting bear. Many factors could be responsible for this change. Bear hunting

organimtions, which are primarily dog hunters, have taken a less judgrrrental approach to
baiting activities since the mid 1980's. Magazine and newspaper articles over the past few
yearshavealsopointedouttheneedforbearhmrtersto sticktogetlrertocombatthosewho
wouldliketoseebearhuntingbanrredaltogether. In 1985bearhuntingingeneralwasnot
beingﬂueatenedbyﬂreanhmlﬁghtsnnvememmﬂreerderuthatitwasin1993.Thisfearof
losing bear hunting may nrotivate bear hunters to be less judgmental and nrore supportive for
the good ofthe sport. An informational strategy aimed at getting correct information about
useofbaitarrddogstohrmters could goalongwayirrcorrectingthis image problem

(bnqmison of leaders and Nonlearhrs

 

Tlenakwpofﬂreleadergroupudﬂrrespectmhmnneﬂmduasqrﬁtediﬁ‘emmﬁom
bearlnnrtersingeneral. Doghuntersmadeuphalfoftheleadergroupcomparedtoonly 11%
of theactualpopulation Consideringthediﬂ‘erencesinbehaviorandattitudes of the dog
groups conrparedto the other hunt-method groups (i.e., bait, still, generalist) it would seem
thattheleadergrorqrwouldalsodiﬁ‘erinbehaviorandattitudesﬁomthenonleadergroup.
Theleadergrorqrwasslmwnmditferﬁomﬂremnleadergroupinresponsesrelaﬁngmbear
hmﬁngchmaaeisﬁcsmrmormweassigedmbwrhmmnghmonmmeoflmvesﬁngabem,
opinions toward the MDNR, perceived status of the bear population, and opinions about using
baitanddogs.

leadershadmnnedfmnnreyearsharvestednnrebearmndmtedbearhmningas
beingnnreimportanttothemthannonleadersdid. Irrterrtiontousedogsovertherrextﬁve
yearstohuntbearwasconsiderablyhigher,whereasbaitsittingintentionswerelowerinthe

leadergroupcomparedtothenonleadergroup.

146

Harvestingabearwasconsideredamoreirrrportarrtreasonforgoingbearhrmtingand
clamefmhawesﬁngabearmsmtedhiglermhnponameasaNHDNansidemﬁmfm
settingbear hunting regulations by the nonleader group corrrpared to the leader group. leaders
wemnnmhkelyﬂnnmmeadersmrepontlntﬂeMDNRﬁnﬁtedﬂrebearlnrvestnnmfm
political reasons thanbiological evidence and nonleaders indicated alriglrertrust inthe MDNR
to consider the interests of hunters when setting bear regulations.

Nonleaders reported a higher level of tolerance for bait sitting with rrrore nonleaders
tlranleaders agreeingthatbaitingisethicalandshould continueinMichiganandfewer
hxlicaﬁngﬂratbaitsittinghrterferesudﬂroﬂrermeﬂmdsofhmuingbear. Incontrast,leaders
conrparedtononleaders showednoretoleranceofdoghuntingaswouldbeexpecteddueto
thelargerpercentofdoghuntersintheleadergroup. Leadersweremorelikelythan
mmeadersmagreeﬂntdoghmuingwaseﬂﬁcalmrdslmuldbewnﬁnwdmhﬁchigan

Thesediﬁ‘emmesbeuwenleademandmnleademslnuldbewnsidaedbyresomce
managerswhenseeldnghrprnﬁomhmrtersonbearmanagememissues. Irrordertoerrsure
ﬂmhnunﬁombearhmuemtoaganypasomwladeqrmelympesemsbearhmmmgemral,

resource managers nrust strive to include a larger diversity of opinions.

 

Diﬁererwesuemfomrdmerdtbemeenﬂeleadermdmnleadergroupfmvanous
characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes related to bear and bear hunting to suggest that current
leadersarenotadequatelyrepresentingbearhuntersingeneral. Butdoleadersofeachhurrt
nrethod(i.e., dog, bait, still) represerrttlreir constituents? The responses of leaders who
reponedhmningudﬂrdogsonlyand/mdogsstanedﬁombahmmwmparedmﬂnseof
nonleaderswhorseddogs. Fewsigniﬁeantdiﬂ‘erenceswerefoundbetweentheresponsesof
dog-leaders and dog-nonleaders; therefore, in the case of dog hunting specialists, leaders

147
appear to be representative of their constituents. One divergence was in respondents' opinions
about the MDNR, with dog-leaders being rrrore likely tlnn dog-nonleaders to believe that the
MDNR limited the harvest of hear more for political reasons than biological evidence of
decreasing bear populations. Also, dog-leaders were less tolerant of baiting than dog-
nonleaders; a smaller percent reported that hunting bear over bait should continue in Michigan

Anotheraspectofopinionleaderrepresentationis: doopinionleadasmoderatetheir
auinﬂesmmrdissresdwmwminmdexposmetoﬂevaryingbeliefsmﬂatﬁnﬂes ofotlrer
opinionleaders? Thereisconcemﬂrathxlividualswhoareclnsentorepresemﬂreviemofa
certainconstituencyareinﬂuencedoverﬁmeandeventuallycometoonlyrepresentﬂreviews
oftheopirrionleaders insteadoftlreirconstituerrts. Thisdoesnotappeartobethecasewitlr
the dog hunter grorrp.

Unfortunately, sanrple size allowed analysis of only the dog-leader grouP; half of the
leader grorrpwere ineitherthedog-onlyordog/bait groupwiththeotlerhalfbeingdistributed
arnongthe generalist, bait, andstill-only groups. Wecanonlyspeculateontlre
representativenessoftheseotherhunt—method leadersuntilﬁrrtherresearchisdone. Given
ﬂelﬁglerrateofnembeshipofdoghmﬁemhbearhmﬁngmgarﬁzaﬁmwmﬂﬂehﬂgler
rate of involvenrerrt in bear hrrrrting conrpared to other hunt-method groups, it is likely that the
level of representation of dog-nonleaders through dog-leaders is not reﬂected in the other hunt-
rnethod groups.

148
Inqiicatio- for thgennrt

Bearhurrtersnotonlyterrdtospecialize irrtlris species, butrrrany specialize inone
particular hrrrrting method. Recreational specialization creates several challenges for resource
management. Specialists place considerable importance on their recreational activity and seek
to becorrre more involved in the processes of setting rules and regulations and placing demands
for biological research. Specialists also tend to be critical reviewers of resorn'ce narragement,
as reﬂected by the ﬁndings that nrost bear hunters, especially the highly specialized dog hunter
grorrps, were highly critical of the job that the MDNR was doing to manage bear.

Another marragerrrerrt problem that exists when dealing with specialist groups is their
critical attitude toward other subworlds. Dog hrrrrters showed limited tolerance of baiting
activities and baiters the sarrre of dog hunting, whereas still hunters did not tolerate either to a
very high degree. When specialists interfere with each other and seasons and hrmting
opportunity nrust be divided anrong different groups, allocation issues are intensiﬁed. A lack
ofsupportinthebearhmrtingcomnmnityalsocreatesopportmrities foranti-hurrtingirrterest
goupswlmuseassmimedwmovesiesmpemuademnhmwsﬂmtbearhmrﬁngmgenmal
can not be supported.

The negative opinions held by bear hunters toward baiting and dog hunting methods
arestronglyvalue-based Ahmstallwhofeelthatthesebearhrmtingmethodsshouldbe
banned consider them unethical practices. Unfortunately, value-based attitudes tend to be the
most difﬁcult types to change. Belief conﬂicts, however, are also involved in negative
evaluatiom of dog and bait methods. Such beliefconﬂicts are less diﬂicult to deal with and
sometimes can be changed through providing the correct information properly backed by facts
ﬁom a credible sornee. Tolerance for different hunting methods appears to be increasing

149
based on the comparison of 1984 and 1993 surveys, however, the associated conﬂicts will

continue to require considerable rmmgement effort into the future.
Tmﬂssuggeﬁﬂrﬁmwmcrrﬁmhuobearhmuingwiﬂwminmmspecializebrnnnm
appear to be specializing in baiting than dog hrrrrting. This could cause considerable changes
inthebearhurrtingcornrmrrrityasolderhomrdsmenarenotreplacedbynewrecruits. The
norespecializeddoghrmterswhoaremeorganizedthanbaiters, atleastforbearhurrting
issues, areresponsibleforrrotonlymrxzhoftl'rebearhunterissueactivity,butalsomostofthe
defense against anti-hunting activities. If anti-bear hunting activities are stimulated primrily
byuseofdogsarrdbait, decreasednurnbers ofdoghuntersmightreduceanti—hunting
pressrrres. However, if anti-hunting activities shift to bear hrmting in general, the absence of
organized dog hrrrrting specialists would rmke bear hunting nrore vulnerable to anti-hunting
eﬁ‘orts. \Vrth the dog group no longer lobbying the legislators for protection of bear hunting,
the essartially nonhurrting legislators may soon vote to strictly limit or eliminate bear hunting.

 

Theinvolvenrernofdoggroupsinbearnmragermualsohasamﬂrerside. Bear
hmnersusmgneﬂmdsoﬂrerﬂnndogstmdmtmbelmgmﬂemgarﬁzaﬁonsﬂratamnost
involvedinconnmnﬁcaﬁngbearhmrﬁngissuestoﬂnsewlnmakenﬂesandreglﬂaﬁons.
Thwfom,ﬂeNDbRNRC,statelegisl&om,mrdoﬂerhrﬂrmuialparﬁesnaymtbe
receivingarepresemaﬁvepictmeofwhatbearhmnersconsiderimportam. Thisstudyhas
slownﬂmdiﬁeencesdoerdstmmngﬂevaﬁombearhmn-neﬂndsmﬂbavwenleademmﬂ
nonleaders including. hunting characteristics; opinions toward other methods of hunting bear,
opinions toward bear hunting regulations and harvest tag allocation; and opinions toward the
MDNR. Theprevalence ofdog—opinionleadersinNﬂDNR/bearhunterrelationsnmstbe

150
considered in striving to manage for bear hunters in general.

A more balanced representation of views was reﬂected by nrembers of the "other"
hunting organimtions considered in this study (i.e., MUCC, MI Hunting Dog Fed, MI Bow
I-Iunters,andl\'ﬂCoonI-Iunters). Therewasnosigrriﬁcarrt differenceinthepercentofeach
hunt-method groupwlmuemnembersofﬂeseoﬂrerorgmﬁzaﬁons,andagreaterpememof
respondents belonged to these organimtiom than to the four bear hunting organizations. Also,
fewsigniﬁcamditferemesmrespomesmmfomﬂbaweennembemmﬂmmmmbemof
these other hunting organizations. Therefore, ﬁrtrrre bear nnmgement may beneﬁt by
aggressively recruiting representatives of these other organimtions in the decision-making
process.

Givencrrrrenttrerrdsirrspecialist groups, limitedrepresentationofallbearhrmting
groups, andtherangeofMDNRcredibilitythat seenrstoexist amongthe specialized groups,
bear management would also beneﬁt ﬁom increasing cormrrurrication processes to include a
rrrore diverse anay of opinion leaders outside of the hunting organimtions. Almost all bear
Wasegrmmsslmuedmleastanodermehnaeﬂmanerdingmrkshopsmneeﬁngsabom
bearandbearhunting Thisaverrueshouldbeerquoredfurtherwiththeintentionsof
increasinghunters' krrowledgeandawareness ofbotlrhurrterarrdresorrrce issues.

Also, most sources of infomertion, with the exception of bear hunting ﬁ'iends, were not
used ﬁequently by nrost respondents. Improved conrrrrurrication through hunting organization
publications, newspapers, magazines, and television could decrease the erroneous beliefs about
bearhuntingissuesthatwerequiteprevalerrtinsmveyresults.

151
W

An effective bear management plan for Michigan would start with a complete review
ofthesocialsurrourrdingsofthebearissue. Thiswouldincludegatheringinforrnationonall
bear stakeholders and on crrrrerrt and potential issues involving management of black bear in
Michigan Thisstrrlygaﬂremdmfonmﬁonabombearhmtersandissressrmomrdingbear
hunting, but other stakeholders including the rronhurrting public, legislators, animal activist
marﬂhndomcreatemmayofissresmvolvingbearnrusmmvievung
opportunities, hunter ethics, habitat protection, landowner rights, and a host of other topics. A
comprehensive plan would consider the views of all these stakeholders before neking bear
mgementdecisiom.

vaeysmxlfocusgroupsmeuseﬁﬂtoolsfornnnimnnguendsmbearhmuemmrd
stakelroldersingerreral. Focusgroupsareinvaluableforrnxlerstandingthedepthofanissue,
and when used in combiration with adequately developed questionnaires that amlyze issues,
mgemwiﬂbebenerabletoidemifyissresatearlystagesofdevelopnem Early
identiﬁcationofissuesiscritical. Issuesthataremtdealtwithinatimelymamrercanquickly
develophﬁommngeablesiﬂnﬁmswhichdamMmmmdinateannmnofﬁrmarﬂeﬁ‘on
mﬂrepmtofresomoenmngasarxllnveﬂepotauialofdamagingﬁumewnnmnﬁcaﬁm
andcredibility.

Qwestakelnldmsmﬂissueslnvebeenidauiﬁedbearmmngemrmutsetgoalsarxl
objectivesthatareagreedorrbyallagencypersorrrrelwlrowillbeinvolvedinearryingoutthe
bearmanagernerrtplan Goalsshouldbebroadandencompassallaspectsoftheresorn'ceand
resmuceusers,brnmrstnotconﬂictwiﬂrﬂeeapabiﬁﬁesofﬂeagemypasmnel. Thisis
especially inrportarrt in a state agency where opportunities for conrprelrensive information and
communication strategies are limited by available expertise and money.

152

Objectives should be prioritized with a reasonable time franre for conrpletion A
useful technique for this process would be to develop a conrmittee of agency personnel and a
ddzen'sadvisorywmnﬁﬂeeMmrkmgeﬂermcreateaplanﬂmtmnmassesmeneedsof
both personnel and stakeholders. The committees would work independently to identify goals
andobjectivesandthencombinetheireffortstocreatethe ﬁnalplan Thekeyto successful
use of this process may be in developing comprehensive guidelines for committee members
andsettingrealisticshortandlong-termgoals. Thismetlrodhasbeenusedsuccessfullyirr
Idaho for developing a bear management plan

To cany out the set goals and objectives, strategies should include two-way
cormnurrication processes between bear nrarragers and stakeholders. A continuing effort of
datacollectiorr, analysis, andinfomrationdispelsalisanirnportarrttaskoftheagency,but
involverrrerrt ofthe stakeholders nrust also be part ofthe process. Unless the agency is
obtaining feedback ﬁom the resource users and conducting evaluations on a continuous basis
the effectiveness of the managerrrerrt plan is unknown Again, the citizens advisory committee
is a useful tool for this process; however, it is critieal that committee members are selected for
ﬂehrepreseuaﬁveessmdmemplacedbyrewnembmsmamgrﬂarbasismensmeﬁesh
ideas and to avoid creating a committee tint becomes self-serving and no longer reﬂects the
needsoftlreirconstituerrts. Use offocus groupswouldalsobe important incombirrationvvith
ﬂedﬁzen'sadﬁsorygrormtoensmeﬂmﬂwﬁewsofbearusemmgemalammpresaued
Thistypeofprocesscouldarralyzeattitudesarrdbelraviorofthoseirrdividualswlroarermable
orrmwillingtoinitiatecontactwiththeagmrcy,butneverthelesseareaboutmanagementofthe
bear resource. These individuals undoubtedly make rrp the majority ofbear stakeholders so

areaninteglalpartofthemanagementprocess.

 

A well designed communication plan to and arrrong all stakeholders involved provides
managers the capability of dealing with comtantly changing demands and needs of diverse
bear nurnagement issues. Current cormnrrrrication processes have utilized a two-way process;
however, the process has included only a limited group of bear stakeholders who's primary
interesthasbeentoensrrrethecontinuationofbearhuntingwitlﬁntheparametersofaminonty
of hunting specialists.

Theeﬂ‘ectiveness ofthisprocesshasalsobeenlinritedbytlrelackofconsistencyin
documenting and evaluating the information gathered Meetings and other forms of
communication arrrong bear managers and stakeholders should be documented through voice
recordingmawmatemtemhnganduanscnbedhuomponsﬂatwnbemfemmedbybear
managers and stakeholders. This part ofthe process provides the agency with the capability of
effectively recalling statenrerrts and agreenrents that were nude by either the agency or the
stakeholders.

Mchigan'sbearnmgenenttobesuccessﬁd,nmstmﬂeaﬂemedsofaﬂbear
resource users. Unfortunately, many times these needs conﬂict with one another. How can
bear managers provide adequate hrnrting opportunities, viewing opportrmities, and nuisance
control while considering the pressures from anti-hunting groups, bear preservation groups and
legislators? Bear managers can not be "all things to all people" but they can beconre better
skilled at identifying these interests to create the best possible balance between the biological
needsofthebearpoprﬂationandﬂrederrmrdinghmmndimensions ofbearnurnagement.

IIIERA'IURECI'IH)

lIIERA'IUREG'IED

Amdt, J. 1974. Market segmentation Universitetsforlaget, Bergen, Oslo. 71pp.

Backstrom, C. H and G. Hursh-Cesar. 1981. Survey research. Second ed John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, Chiclrester, Brisbane, Toronto and Singapore. 436pp.

Baker, R. H 1983. Michigan mammals. Michigan State Univ. Press, East Lansing, Mi.
642pp.

Beech, R 1992. A review and evaluation of license plate programs designed to protect the
environment. Unpublished data. Michigan Department of Natural Resorn'ces.

Bickford, W. E. 1985. Developing prestige and addressing conﬂicts through information,
education and consensus. Trans. N. E. Fish & \Vrldl. Conf. 42:61-69.

Bless, C. and P. Achola. 1988. Fundamentals of social research methods. Govt. Printing
Dept, University of Zambia, Zambia.

Bloom, P. N. and W. D. Novelli. 1981. Problems and challenges in social marketing.
45(2):79-88.

Boushelle, G., L. Vlsser, and J. Harrrrnill. 1990. Michigan status report. Pages 40-43 in
Proceedings / tenth eastenr workshop on black bear research and nranagerrrerrt.
University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, NC.

Brown, T. L., D. J. Decker, and N. A. Connelly. 1989. Response to rmil surveys on
resorn'ce-based recreation topics: a behavioral model and an empirical analysis.
leisure Sci. 11:99-110.

Cohen, B. G. 1988. A new approach to strategic forecasting J. of Bus. Strateg 9(3):38-42.

Cronrpton, J. L. and C. W. Lamb, Jr. 1986. Marketing Government and social services. John
erey & Sons, Inc. New York, Chiclrester, Brisbane, Toronto and Singapore. 485pp.

Decker, D. J. 1985. Agency image: a key to successful natural resource management. Trans.
N. E. Fish & erdl. Conf. 42:43-56.

, T. L. Brown, N. A. Corrrrelly, J. W. Enck, G. A. Pomerantz, K G. Purdy, and W. F.
Siemer. 1992. Toward a comprehensive paradigm of wildlife rrranagernent:
integrating the human and biological dimensions. p 33-54 in Anrerican Fish and
Wildlife Policy. the human dinrension ed W.R. Mangun So. 111. University Press,
Carborrdale, I11. 272 pp.

154

155

, , and G. F. Mattﬁeld 1985. Deer population management in New Yorlc using
public input to meet public needs. Pgs. 185-196 in S. L. Beasom, and S. F.
Robertson, eds. Game harvest management. Caesar Kleberg Wildl. Res. Inst,
Kingsville, T.X.

 

,and R J. Gutierrez. 1980. Further insights into the multiple-satisfaction
approach for hunter rmnagement Wildl. Soc. Bull. 8: 323-331.

 

, and N. A Connelly. 1989. Motivations for deer hunting: implications for arrtlerless
deer harvest as a management tool. erdl. Soc. Bull. 17:455-563.

Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism. 1992. Reconrmended management actions
for the Idaho departrrrerrt of ﬁsh and game to consider when developing the black bear
species plan College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho,
Moscow, Id 25pp.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York,
Chiclrester, Brisbane, Toronto and Singapore. 325pp.

Ditton, R B., D. K Loomis, and S. Choi. 1992. Recreation specialization: re-
conceptualization ﬁom a social worlds perspective. J. leisure Res. 24(1):33-51.

Dolsen, D. E, and G. E. Machlis. 1991. Response rates and mail recreation survey results:
how nruch is enough? Jrrrl of leisure Res. 23:272-277.

Duda, M D. 1986. erdlife management the human elenrerrt. Fla. de1. :4pp.

. 1990. Marketing in a ﬁsheries and wildlife agency. Proc. Organ VVrldl. Planners
Conf. 12. Spp.

. 1991. A bridge to the future: the wildlife diversity funding initiative. Responsive
Mamgement Project of Western Association of Fish and Mldlife Agencies
Publication, Tallahassee, Fl. 32pp.

. 1992. Responsive managrrrerrt: ﬁrrdingtlreriglrt tool for the job Tans. N. A. VVrldl.
—&Nat. Res. Conf. 57:141-147.

, S. I. Cerulean, and J. A. Gillan 1989. Comprehensive wildlife education planning in
Florida: the value of human dimensions research Trans. N.A. erdl. & Nat. Resour.
Conf. 54:455-467.

Eberhardt, R., R Paterson, and W. Eilers. 1990. Marketing in a ﬁsheries and wildlife agency.
Responsive Management Project of Western Assoc. Fish de1. Agencies Publ,
Tallahassee, Fl. 89pp.

Edris, T. A. and A. Meidan 1990. (h the reliability of psychographic research encouraging
signs for nreasrnement accuracy and nrethodology in consumer research. Europ. J. of
Market. 24(3):23-41.

156

Geller, S. E. 1989. Applied behavior aralysis and social unrketing: an integration for
environmental preservation J. Soc. Issues. 45(1):]7-36.

Goldman, A. F. and S. S. McDomld 1987. The group depth interview. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englevvood Cliffs, NJ. 197pp.

Greiwe, R. J. 1980. An introduction to socia resorn'ce management Found. for Urban and
Neighborhood Dev.

Haley, R I. 1985. Developing effective communications strategy. John Wiley & Sons Inc.,
New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto and Singapore. 510pp.

Harger,E.M 1979. ReportfromMichigan. Pages46-61inD.Burk,ed Theblackbearin
modemNorthAmerica. TheAmwellPress,Clinton,N. J.

Jackson, R. M, and R. Norton 1980. "Phases" the personal evolution of the sport hunter.
Wlsconsin Sportsnnn 9(6): 17-59.

Jackson, R. M,R NortonandR. K. Anderson 1981. Theresornoemanagerandthepublic:
an evaluation of historical and current concepts and practices. Trans. N. Amer. Wlldl.
and Nat. Resour. Conf. 46:208-220.

Kellert, S. R 1985. Conﬂict and communications in natural resource management. Trans.
NE Fish and Wlldl. Conf. 4224-15.

Kellert, S. R., and P. J. Brown 1985. Human dimensions inforrmtion in wildlife
management, policy, and plamring Leisure Sci. 7:269-279.

Knuth, B. A, R J. Stout, W. F. Sienrer, D. J. Decker, and R. C. Stedrmn 1992. Risk
nrarragerrrent concepts for irrrproving wildlife population decisions and public
comrmmieation strategies. Trans. N. A. Wlldl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 57:63-75.

Kolerrosky, G. B. and S. M Stratheanr 1987. Black bear. Pages 442-455_in M Novak, J. A.

Baker,ME.Obbard,andB.Malloch,eds. Wildfurbearermanagementarrd
conservation in North Ameriea. Ontario Ministry of Nat. Res.

Kotler, P. 1982. Marketing for nonproﬁt organimtions. Prentice-Thu, Inc., anlewood
Cliffs, NJ. 528pp.

Langenau, E., S. R. W‘mterstein, and W. E. Moritz 1994. Allocating deer hunting
opportunities to Michigan hunters. Mi. Dept. Nat. Res. Wlldl. Div. Report No. 3028.

13pp.
Langer, J. 1991. Focus groups. AmDemograph 13(2):38-42.

lautemchlager, R. A., and R. T. Bowyer. 1985. \Vlldlife management by referendum when
professionals fail to communicate. Wlldl. Soc. Bull. 13:564—570.

leopold, A. 1986. Game management. Univ. of Wlsconsin Press, Madison, Wi. 481pp.

157

Lovelock, C. H and C. B. Weinberg 1978. Readings in public and nonproﬁt marketing.
Scientiﬁc Press. 304pp.

Mandese, J. 1989. Who are the targets. Market. and Media Decis. 24(7):29~35.

Oskanrp, S. 1991. Attitudes and opinions. Second ed Prentice Hall, anlewood Cliffs, NJ.
499pp.

Peyton, R. B. 1984. A typology of natural resorn'ce issues with inrplications for resource
management and education Michigan Academician 17(1):49-58.

. 1989a. Institutional and public constraints on dynamic management of ﬁsh and
wildlife resources. Pages 146-160 in J. M Sweeney, ed Management of dynamic
ecosystems. North Cent. Sect, The Wlldl. Soc., West Lafayette, Ind

. 1989b. A proﬁle of Michigan bear hunters and bear hunting issues. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
17:463-470.

, J. W. Robinson, and W. A. Donohue. 1990. Commrnrication and dispute resolution
for ﬁsheries and wildlife managers. Responsive Management Project of Western
Assoc. Fish \Vrldl. Agencies Publ., Tallahassee, Fl. 147pp.

Pierce, R. and A. I. Sorkin 1972. How to conduct a psychographics study. Bank Marketing
Association, Chicago, Ill. 31pp.

Ponrerantz, G. A, and K A Blanchard 1992. Successful corrrrnunication and education
strategies for wildlife conservation Trans. N. A \Vrldl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 57:156-
163.

Purdy, K G. and D. J. Decker. 1989. Applying wildlife values information in management:
the wildlife attitudes and vales scale. Wlldl. Soc. Bull. 17:494-500.

Riche, M F. 1989. Psychographics for the 1990's. Am Demograph 11(7):24-31, 53-54.

Rueff, R. 1991. Demographics won't ﬁnd the bull's-eye. Advert. age. 62(6):20.

Schlegelmilch, B. B. and A C. Tynan 1989. The scope for market segrrrentation within the
charity market: an empirical analysis. Managerial and Decision Econonrics.
10(2):]27-134.

Smith, R. P. 1985. Are we taking too many bears? Mich Out-of-Doors 39(4):64+.

Smolka, R. A, and D. J. Decker. 1985. Identifying interest groups' issue positions and
designing comrmmication strategies for deer management in northenr New York.
Trans. N. E. Fish & \Vrldl. Conf. 42:112-124.

Snavely, K 1991. Marketing in the government sector: a public policy nrodel. American
Review of Public Administration 21(4):311-326.

158

Stout, R. J., D. J. Decker, and B. A Knuth 1992. Evaluating citizm participation: creating
communication partnerships that work Trans. N. A VVrldl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 57:135-
141.

Sudman, S. 1983. Applied sanrpling. Pages 145-194 in P. H Rossi, J. D. Wright, and A B.
Anderson, eds. Handbook of survey research Academic Press, Inc., Sam Diego. 755

pp.

Thonre, D. H, E. K Brown, and D. J. \Vrtter. 1992. Market infomnation hatching
management with constituent demands. Trans. N. A Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 57:164-
173.

Tull, D. S., and D. I. Hawkins. 1993. Marketing research Sixth ed Wemillan Publ., New
York, NY. 863pp.

Twedt, D. W. 1964. How irrrportarrt to marketing strategy is the heavy user? J. Market.
28:71-72.

Unruh, D. R. 1979. Characteristics and types of participation in social worlds. Symbolic
Interaction 2:115-130.

Walker, B. 1985. Study of black bears can be tricky because of their traits, expert says. The
Flint J. Nov. 10.

Way, R 1983. Publicizing conservation needs. Trans. N. A VVrldl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 48:58-
62.

erdlife Division 1988. Black bear nranagerrrent. Michigan Department of Natural
Resorn'ces, Wlldlife Division Report No. 4532. 21pp.

APPENDICES

159

APPENDIXI

Amoval letter from UCHRIIE

160

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 «aroma
AND DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

April 5, 1993

T0: Ms. Lisa Grise
4A Natural Resources Building

RE: IRB 8: 93-150
TITLE: ASSESSING STAKEHOLDER PREFERENCES REGARDING
CURRENT AND FUTURE BLACK BEAR MANAGEMENT
OPTIONS
REVISION REQUESTED: NIA
CATEGORY: l-C
APPROVAL DATE: 04/05/1993

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects‘ (UCRIHS) review of this project is conplctc.
Iamplcasadtoadvisathatthcrightsandwclfaroofthchumansubjcctsappcartobcadcquatelyprotoctcdand
methodstoobt'aininfonnodconscntaroappropriato. Therefore. tthCRIHSapprovodthisprojoctincludingany
revision listed above.

UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators
planning tocontinuoaprojcctbeyondonoycar mrrstsockupdaradccrtiﬁcation. Request forranewcdapproval must
be accompanied by all four of the following mandatory assurances.

1. Thohumansubjoctsprotocolisthosamoasinprevioussmdics.

2. ‘I‘hcrchavobecnnoilleffoctssuffcredbythowbjoctsduototheirparticipationinthosmdy.

3. Thcrchavobccnnoconplaintsbythcsubjoctsorthcirrcprescntativesrelatodtothcirparticipationinthc
study.

4. Thuchsndbamachangohﬁomrchmvhmmtmmwhfomﬁmwhichmﬂindicﬂogm
dskwhummbjoasthmthuasumodwhmmcpromwlwumiddlymviewodandappmvod.

There is a maximum of four such expedited rcncwalspossible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond
thattimenood tosubruititagain forcomplcto review.

UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to initiation of the change.
Investigators must notify UCRIHS prowtly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints. etc.) involving
human subjects during thecouracofthowork.

If we can be of any future help, please-do not hesitate to contact us at (517) 355-2180 or FAX (517) 336-1171.
David E. Wright, Ph.D.

UCRIHS Chair

   

DEW:pjm

1 cc: Dr. R. B. Payton

MSU is on Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity lam‘mnon

161

AWFNDIX II

Gossaly of tours

Aﬁer cohort-

Bait only-

Bait sitting-

Benr hunting
organimtion-

Beer hunting
organization member-

Before Cohort-

Dog/bait-

Dog only-

162

GILBSARY OFTERNS

Thoserespondentswhobeganbearhmtinginoraﬁerl990,
whenIVﬁchigan began issuingalimited number ofbear harvest
tags.

Food iterm such as bakery goods, vegetables, fruits, meets, and
Inneywhichareusedbyhmterstoattractanimals.

The hunt-method segment which describes those
who hunt bear by sitting over bait piles as their only means of
hunting beer.

Amethodofhmtingwherethehmterstationshim/herselfreer
apileofbaittoattractthehmttedanimalinclosetothe
hunter.

Knownorganizationsinh/ﬁchiganthatatthetimeofthe
survey dealt primarily with beer hunting-related issues. This
includes: Michigan Beer Hunters Assoc, U.P. Beer
Houndsmen Assoc, United Beer Hunters Assoc, and NE.
Michigan Houndsmen Assoc.

Thoseresporxlentswho,atthetimeofthesmvey,were
membersofoneormoreofthebearhmuingorganimﬁons
givenonthesurvey.

Thoserespondentswhobeganbeerlnmtingbefore 1990,when
Michigan began issuingalimited number of beer harvest tags.

The hunt-method segment which describes those respondents
wholmntbeerbyfollowingapackofbeerdogswhichpm'sw
andattennﬁtotreethehmtedbenr. Dogsweretheironly
mnsofhmrtingbenratthetimeofthesm'vey,butall
respondentsinthissegmenthave,attimes,startedthebear
dogsfrombaitpiles.

The hunt-method segment which describes those respondents
who hunt bear by following a pack of beer dogs which pursue
andattempttoneethehmltedbeer. Thiswastheironlymenns
ofhmitingbeer,atthetimeofthesmvey.

Hunt-method segment-

MDNR-

Other hunting
organization-

Other htmting

organimtion member-

Nonleader-

Still only-

Not yet hunted-

163

The hunt-method segment which describes those respondents
who,atthetimeofthesmvey,hadlumtedbeerusingmore
than one method which may include: dogs, dogs started ﬁom
bait, bait sitting, or neither dogs nor bait.

Segmentation based on the respondent's method of hunting
beer. The four hunt-method segments in this survey include:
dog only, dog/bait, bait only, still only, generalist, and not yet
hunted

Thoserespondentsﬁomthepilot sm'veywhowereknownto
be involved in meetings with the MDNR on beer hunting
issues and who had been oﬂicers in hunting organimtions.
Also, those respondents from the state-wide survey who
reportedhavingbeenanoﬂicerofoneormoreofthelnmting
organizations given on the survey.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Known hunting organizations in Michigan that at the time of
the survey did not deal primarily with beer hunting-related
issues, but had been highly involved with beer issues. This
includes: Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan
Hunting Dog Federation, Michigan Coon Hunters, and
Michigan Bow I-hmters Association.

Thoserespondentswho,atthetimeofthesmvey,were
membersofoneormoreoftheotherhmtingorganimtions
givenonthesurvey.

Thoserespondentsfromthestate-wide surveywhodidnot
report having been ofﬁcers of any of the hunting organimtions
given on the survey.

The hunt-method segment which describes those respondents
who, at the time of the sway, hunt beer using neither dogs
norbaitastheironlyrrieensofhmtingbeer.

The hunt-method segment which describes those respondents
who,atthetimeofthesm'vey,hadnotyetgoneonabenrhmt
inMichiganortheyhadaccontpaniedsomeorieonahmmbut
they did not have a harvest tag.

164

ATTENDIX III

Focus group screwing survey

165

TELEPHONE SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE
MICHIGAN BEAR HUNTER STUDY - FOCUS GROUP SELECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAME SEX

ADDRESS (nNTACI‘TRIES
CALLBACK'IIME

PHONE

HHLO. Mynameis . IamwithMichiganStateUniversity. Maylspcakto ?

 

HELLO. IunwidiMichiganStateLhﬁversity,Dcparmiemofﬁsheies&Wildlifc Weselectedyunnameﬁom
aliaofpeopleMioappliedforbearhmtingpermitsin1992mdwe'recallingtoseeifyouwmldbeinterestedin
takingpartinadiscussiongmupabwtbearhmting Areomreoordscorrectinidentifyingyoumabearhtntta
applicant?

YES continua:
- NO PmsaryfordwhwonvaﬁamTernimuedl.

Anyouintéestedinhearingmoreabwtthcdiscussiongrwp?

YESoomime
NOI'msorryfortheinoonvenienocTemiuethecdl.

Agmupof8-10peoplewhohaveminterestinbearhmtingwillnwetforabthhomsinEscanaba—Mackinaw
City-Flintwithinthenexttuomontls. Themwillbeukedtodiscussvariwsaspeasofbmrhmtingbut
prirmrilyhowtheDNRshmldallocatebearhimtingpermits. Eachofthepartioipantsinthedisctmimgrwpwill
bepaid$40. Participatiminthediscussiongmupwillbcmtirelyvolmtary. Nameswillbekeptconﬁdentialand
muldnotappearinanyreportofdiestudy.

demngpeopledglnmwmﬁndomwhowouldbchtuestedinpmﬁoim TlmmewillselectS-IO
peoplefromyourarea. Ifymmesdededwouldyoubewiﬂhgmpmﬁcipatehdﬁsdiscmimgrmp?

NO(Iemon: )
It'NO-‘IhaltYouandhma’mecdl

_YES

IIYI'B...

Wewillbevoicerecordingallofthegmmssothattheinfonnationpmvideddm'ingdiediscussioncanlaterbe

analysedforareport. Wouldyouobjecttoyanvoioebeingrecordedduringdiedisansiongrwp?

NO

_YES (reason: )
It‘YliS-‘IhnkYouandhma’nteall

 

We will also be video-taping some of the groups for review by DNR wildlife biologists. Would you object to being
video-taped during the discussion group?

NO
YES (reason: )

166

Thankyouveryrnuch. Wemuldlikediediscussiongroupstorepresemallofdiebearhmﬁnginterestsinthestate,
soweneedsomebasicinformaﬁontouseinselectingthoseuhowillbeinvitedtoparticipate. Couldyoutake3
or4mintrtesnowtoanswersonrcquesﬁmsab0tnyombearhmninginterests?

IfYE...Oominuebquestionl
“mumabeuerﬁniexvlmlcancallbacktogctdrisinfonnaﬁm?

 

1. First,Imuldlikemaskyouabandietypeofhmﬁngmcdiodsyouusewlmyoubearhmt

ADoyouusedog? NO YE
It'NO... It'YE...
Doyouhuntoverbait? NO Doyouuseyourowndog? NO YE
YE Doyoueverstartthedogoverbait? N) YE

Doyoueverhtmtoverbaitwidioutdog? -_NO _YE

B.Doyouuscagun orbow ?both

Zlhveyouevaprovidedsavioeswahmﬁnggtﬂdemodubearhmwesfunmey’? __NO YE
3.Wlutyeardidyouﬁrstparticipateinabearhmt?

4. Sirrcediertabwthowmanyyearshaveyouacmallybeenbearhmuing?
5.1bwmanybearshaveyouharvestedsinccyoustartedbearhmting?

6.1herehmbeenalotterysystemtoallocatebcarkilltagsinoel990.Thatwouldbei’oyearsntx counting
thisyearsbearseason. Howmanytimeshaveyouappliedforakilltaginthis3yeuperiod?

l 2 3

7.Didyourooeiveakill tag? NO YE

8.Doyoubelongtoabearhmtingclubororganizatim?
NO YE Which one(s)doyoubelong to?

 

IFYE...
AIIaveyoubeenaclubotﬁcerwithindielastSyears?

NO YE

9.Ifyouweinvitedtoparticipateinthediswssiongroup,whichtimesmuldyounmbewillingtomect?

Weekday morning Saturday mornings Sunday mornings OTHER
Weekday afternoons Saturday afternoons Sunday afternoons
Weekday evening Saturday averting Sunday evening

 

 

Thankyouverymuchforywroooperation. Ifyouarechosentopanicipateindrediscussiongroup,mwillnotily
youatleast2wwksinadvanceandgiveyoualltheinformationyouwillneedtoattend. lsyouroorrectmailing
address (referbaddreasonlilt page)? 'Ihankyou...tema‘nmeedl

167

APPENDIX IV

Focus grow (iscmsion guide

D' . 0.!

168
forBearHrnrtirg Focus Goran

I. Irlmthntion

A

Moderator introduction

1. name

2. with MSU, Fisheries and Wildlife
3. moderator role

Instructionstoparticipmts

1. Weinvitedyoutotakepartinthisdiscussiongrouptoﬁndouthowyouasbearhmtersfeclabout
variombearhmtingissues Weareespecially interested inhowyouthinktheDNRshould allocate
bearlmrvesttags

Theinforrmtimﬁunthisstudywillhelpthe DNRdctenninewhichmanagementoptiomare
preferredbybearhmters.

2. Therearconlyafcwthinglmrldlikeyoutoremcmbcraswepoceedwithdrisdiscussion

a Wdrehnirgmndiscussimtmightnnirﬂysoﬂratldon‘thavetotakenotec Iwarrtto
rarindwaymnnmneswillruminmnﬁWmdwillndappemhmyrcpmtof
thisstudy.

b. Iexpeawewillhavesomcdiﬂ‘ermoesinopirﬁonheretonight,butpleasedon‘tlcttlm
keepyouﬁomsluingyorl'thorglls Becauscﬂusisasrnllgrmmeachofyarr
cormrcntsarevery important.

c WelnvemarrydﬁngtodisarssintwolnIIcsoInnyhavctoaskyoutobehiefin
someofyouranswerstokeepthediscrssionnnvingalmg.

d Pleascuymspeakomdaﬁmsoﬂratallymncamurtscmbeclem’lymdastood
Mmlgobackoverthetapc
3. %Wyoutaldngdeﬁnemmhaetmﬁglnmrdbcpmtofmndiscmimgrwp.

4. Iat‘sbeginbyintroducingourselves,ifeachofyouwmldshareyourﬁrstnarmandwlmyom
ﬁom. Couldwestartwith...

11 InmrtmoeofBearlnIirg.

A.

ISNIN.

FusLIwouldliketoﬁndoutabomyominvolvementinbearhmting Iet'sgoaroundthe
tableandifeachofyouwouldsharehowlongyouhavebeeninvolvedinbearlnmtingarxl,
brieﬂy,howyougotstarted.

Howmuchtimedoeachofyouspendonbearhmtingandalltherelatedactivities?

1.Probe: pepmingmdpacﬁcmgwiﬂreqmmermﬁnﬁngmnbaita‘doguaimngscoming

ortarrarmactuallyhmtingabear.
Howhnpmtmﬁisbearhmﬁngtoyoucmrpmedtooﬂrertypesofhmﬁngmxloda
recreational activities that you participate in?

1.:Probe Ifyouhadtogiverpallyomrecreational activitiesexceptorewouldyouchoose
tokeepbearhunting?

m. lining

169
m

Nodeﬁketodiscussﬂrevmioushmﬁngnrtlndsinvolvedinhmﬁngbems.

A.

C.

20MN.

Whmtingnethodsdoyouusetohmtbears?
1.Probe: dog, bait, dogs started over bait, still, bow, riﬂe, pistol

Doyourseﬂesanenetmdornetmdsmwﬂratyoumedwhmyouﬁrststmtedbem'
hmting?

1.Probe: Have youexperimentedwith diﬁ‘erent methods?

2.Probe: Would you considertryingadiﬂ‘erentmethodintheﬁrtme?

3.Probe: Which methods would younotcorsider using?
Ifyoucouldrrolmgeruseyomfavaitennthodtohmﬁbearworﬂdyouwnﬁnuetohmn?

Nowthatwe'vetalkedabwtyominvolvementinbearhmting,Iwouldliketoﬁndoutabouttheldnds
of things tint make you bear hunting erqaerience enjoyable

“3M .4349 17"."???
II/ II/ / p
//////r ,

A.

C.
35NIN.

Let’stakeacoupleofminutesnow,arrdifyouworﬂdjotdownanythingﬂratyoufeelisan
Welmmhavingmajoyablebemhmﬁngseasatﬂmwe'ﬂpmﬂmupmﬂt
ﬂipdmt.

Probe:

1. possessingaharvesttag

a. Howimportantispossessingaharvesttagcorrparedtoparﬁcipaﬁngina
hunt?

gettingashotatabear

seeingbears

gettingatrophybear

socialaspects-beingwithﬁimds

numberofdaysspentaﬁeld

beinginnature

$999993.“

Aﬁer'looldngatalloftl'reseitermwhichdoeachofyoufeelaremostimportant? Let'stry
toidentifythetopthree

170
V. Pbma't Allocrlion

NowI'dliketodiscusshowyoufeelabouttheallocatimofbearharvesttag. Asyoumayknow,therehas
bemmanocaﬁmsysteminplaceinb/ﬁdngantoaﬂocateharvesttagsmce 1990.

BiologistsInveestablishedthatthebearharvestnmstbelimitedtoabom1000bearsamuallyandthereareat
least 12,000peopleintermtedinhmtingbears. Wiretlra'ornayouagroewiﬂidmlet'sassmrefor‘rightmw
dutitisnecessarytocontinuealinritedharvestsomehow.

Corsideringtmt,canyouthinkofanywaysthatlimitingyomharvestingopportmitiesinbearhuntingcould
bebeneﬁcialtoyou? Iat’stakeammrtbﬂﬁnkabmﬁﬂrﬂmdnnkealistofanyﬂﬁngﬂratmmnﬁnd.

Carryouthink of. rulems with having your harvesting opportunities limited?

 
 

1.Probezthemrmberofbearharvested
thenmnberofhmtersthatcanhmt
theareasthatyoucanhmtin
bearpopulationstability
huntercrowding

811108881216
guiding
451VIN.
A. WratdoyouﬂrinkofwlmyouheardretamPoimPrefa'enceSystem?
1.Probe: Areyou familiar withthisterm?

B. MratdoyoutiﬁnkoerenyoulearﬂretermRandmnIottaySystem?
1.Probe: Areyoufamiliarwiththisterm? 50m

Iwmrldlikegoutotakeafewminutesnowand 'veusyouropiniononafewbearl‘runtingmanageme'rt

omm' I
Remember, orngmmwweareassmmngthataneederdststoresuictlmvestofblackbearinMI. So,wewant
tolanwhowﬂﬁseanbeaoomplisl'edtobestmeetymnneedsmdprefm.

Wehaveselectedafewchoiceswhichaskyoutonnkesometradeoﬁ's. You'responseheredoesnotrepresem
avote-ithelpsusmxiastmdﬂemlaﬁvehrpatmoeofﬂﬁnglikemwoﬁmyoucangobem'hmﬁngwnmed
tobeingassured ofapermit.

Wewillalsobedevelopingsomethinglikethisforthemailsmveyandyourreactiontohowwehaveworded
thesequestiom will helpusdesignthatpart.

AlotnmchoioeserdstandthcresrﬂtsofﬂresenoetingandthcmailsurveywedoinAugrstwillhelp
determinewtntisﬁnallyusedinw.

C. Howdoyoufeelaboutthequestiommthissheet?
1.Probe: Were the questions and choices clearly stated?
2.Probe: D'd youthinkthequestions weensy/diﬂiculttoanswer? Why?
3.Probe:“!hatdoyouﬂﬁnkabm1ﬂ1ednicesﬂntweoﬂ‘eodindﬁsexeoise?
4.Probe: Howwmﬂdymfeeliftheyemsbetweenhmningweeinueasedordecreased?

171

D. Overall,whatmeyomopirﬁorsmsystanlvssystem2mttequesﬁomaire?
1.Probe: Wlmdoyou feelarebeneﬁtsandproblerm ofeach system?
lHRIOMN.

Nowl'dliketodiscussbearhmrtingseasas. IntheU.P.,BearhmtasnmstnowchoosebetweenZdiﬂ‘erent
hmtperiodsthateachlwt36daysztheﬁrstperiodbeginsSept.10andendsOct.16;thesecondperiodbegins
Sept. 15andendsOct.21. DogmrrotallowedinﬂreﬁrstSdaysofﬂreﬁrstperiodsodoghmﬁersﬂmtwm
aﬁrllhuntperiodnmstapplyforthesecondperiod.

Thesuccessratefml'arvestingabearishighestinthisﬁrstﬁvedayswithchancesforharvestingabear
decliningatterthattime. Beemseswcessrateissolﬁglrmﬂrisﬁmtﬁvedaycﬂmmefeweharvestparmts
availablefortheﬁrsthmrtperiod. Thisgiveshmuesthatapplyinﬂresecondpeiodmelmvestpanﬁtsand

abetterchanceofbeingselected
WWW
E Howdoyoufeelaboutthissystem?

1.Probe: Is it acceptable or umcceptable? Why?
2.Probe:Wcorﬂdbedu1etolravemeeqrﬁtableseasors?

Howwouldyoufeelaboutasystemtlmlnsonlyonehmtperiodforeveryone?
1.Probe: Isitpossiblemhavedoglnnnasstmﬁngatdiesmmﬁn'easbaitmdsﬁﬂlnmas?

If respome is positive...

Inasysbmlnvirgodyommitnﬁldyﬂﬂnmehatrsmﬂdbeinﬂnm
dairgﬂnﬁrstﬁvedayswlnnmmisﬂglmtﬂﬁwoddmdtinmbemsbehg
him Inmpomcleaslmvestpemihooddbedlocmdorfewerthysgivenindnsemon
hemmeﬂlrtlmsaremtoverlnrvested.

zmwaaumpwe? Whyorwhymt?

HowwouldyoufeelWasystanﬂratrestictedﬂreareasﬂratdoghmrterscorﬂdhmtin,
bragaveﬂrandeoppmunﬁtymbeginhmﬁngatﬂesameﬁmeasﬂebaitlnmas?
1.Probe: Howwouldyoudecidewhichareastoresuictdoghmtersﬁomusing?

2.Probe: Could you eﬂ‘ectively keep dog hunters out of "bait only" areas

Whatdoyouthinkaboutseparateseasom?
1.Probe:lfyouhadtochoose,whichwouldyouratherhave: alongerseasonthatwas

carbimdorovelappingoraslutesemmﬂntsqraratedbaitmﬂdoglnmas?
2.Probe: Howshortaseasmwouldbeacceptable?

lI-IRZSMIN.

vr HalirgAniicmionrnllioemes

A.

 

Are there any problerrs with the application process involved in allocating permits?
1.Probe: Is the form simple/conﬁning?

2.Probe: Are applicatiors easy/difﬁcult to obtain?

3.P1obe: Are deadlines for application clear/rnrclear?

4.Probe: What could be done to improve the application process?

172

Orrrently the DNR reﬁmds application fees to unsmcessful applicants.

VII.

B. Would you support a nonrefundable application fee of $3.00?
1.Probe: Why or why not?
2.Probe: Ifthemreywasearnmkedforbearresearch, wouldyousrmportthis?

NowI‘dliketoleratyouthinkaboutbearhtmtinglicemes. O.rrrently,bearhmtersthatusedog
nmstbuyaparticipationlicensetonmthedogdm'ingbearseason,butbaithmrtersdonotlnvetobuy
alicemetoputoutbait.

C. Is that acceptable?
1.Probe: Why or why not?
2.Probe: Do you see any reasom for loving this regulation?

Also,bemhmﬁasﬂrﬁmedogmhmnnmtobtainadogpackliceschnoﬂrahmnasﬂmgedog
donot.

D. Is tint acceptable?
1.Probe: Why or why not?
2.Probe: Doyouseearryreasonsforhavingthisregulation?

E. Howabomﬂrecostoflmntinglicemes? Whatdoyouthinkaboutthecmrentfeeof$14.35
for a MI bear license?
1.Probe: Should the liceme fee be increased?
2.Probe: How much?
3.Probe: Resident/mrresident?

F. Doyouﬂrinkincreasingapplicationorlicensefceswoulddeterhmtersthathavealow
interestinbearhmtingﬁomapplying?
1.:Probe Isdeteringlowinteresthmtersimportant?
2.:Probe Hownruchofanina‘emewouldittake?

1HR401VIN.

AﬂihlkshmdﬂnmNR

We'vebelildnngamofﬂefaausinvolvedmmngingﬂreMbempopmaﬁm Now, I‘dliketo
hearwhatyoudﬁrﬂrabunhowﬂreDNlemragedbmrmﬂbearlnmﬁnginM.

A WtypesofnnnaganenacﬁviﬁesdoesﬂreMDNRpefamfmbemsmﬂbearhmﬁng?
1.ProbezAreﬂ'reeanymamgementactivitiesthatyoufeelarebeneﬁcialtobearsorbear

hunting?
2.Probe: Aretlrereanyrmmgermrtactivitiesttatyou feel havecausedproblems forbears
abmrhunting?

3.Probe: Howwelldoyoudﬁnkﬂrelawenfmcamdivisimdealswidrbearorbearhmner
issues?

4.Probe:Areyoufmﬁﬁarwiﬂ1myresemohdmttheDNRiscmducﬁngmﬂrebem
population?

B. Doyouﬂﬁnkﬂrebearpoprﬂaﬁmisdeclhﬁnghueasingorstayingthesame?

1.Probe: Whydoyouthinkthis is?
2.Probe: Doyou feel the DNRis respomible for any changes inthe bearpopulation?

173
AreyoufamﬁliarwithanyMDNRsporsuedprograrmﬂratbeneﬁthmners?

1.Probe: Hunter ed, hunting workshops?
ZProbe: Do you participate in any?

lI-IRSOMN.

FilmeBearMngenmNeeds

A.

Whatdoyouseeastheﬁmrreofbearhm'rtinginlvﬂ?

1.ProbezDoyouworryaboutlosingbearhuntingfortheﬁrtme?
2.ProbezDoanimalrightest'sattacksonbearhmtingconcemyou?

I-Iaveyoutakenanyactionstosrmportbearhmtingrights?
Aremyofyoufanﬁliarwiﬂrorgarﬁzaﬁmsﬂratmecmredwithbearhmﬁng?

1.Probe: Have you looked into joining any of these organizations?
2.Probe: Mratarethereasmsfordecidingtojoinornotjoinanorganimﬁm?

Doyouﬂﬁnkﬂmﬂesemganizaﬁmsremesanyomviemmgardingbearlnnﬁng?

1.Probe: Would you say you have primarily positive or negan've opinions of hunting
organimtions?

How march say do you feel non-hunting stakeholders (landowners, noncomumptive users,
public) slouldhaveindetermininghowbearsarennnagedinMI?

WratdoyouﬂrinkneedstobedonetoassmeﬂreﬁmneofbearlnmﬁnginMI?

1.Probe: Howdoyoufeel abouttheactions ofotherbearhmters?
2.Probe: Is hunter compliance 3 problem in bear hunting?

How you feel about regulations tlmt limit or eliminate certain hunting methods?

1.Probe: Smhaswhenandwheocatainmctmdscanbemedmmﬁﬁngbaiﬂngﬁme, limiting
dog use, electronic collars on dogs)

2.Probe: Arethey fair/unfair?

Howdoyoukeepinfonmdmbearandbearlumtingissm?

1.Probe: Newspaper, magaa'ne, newsletters, ﬁ'iends

WhatmctlndsworﬂdyoubehnaestedinseeingtsedbydreDNRtokeepyoume
informed?

1.Probe: surveys, meetings, focus groups

(bnclmion

A.
B.

Thankyouforyoucooperation
(Iftimeallows)Arethereanybearlmntingissuesthatyoufeelwereimportarmbutwerenot
discrssedhaetonight.

174

APPENDIX V

Focus group summries (six focus group)

175
Flint Bait Grow

 

 

Participams
T # yrs. In! M
lst yr: bear bear # bear hurt over of beer
# city sex laud laud taken w/rhgs hit organ.
1 Webberv. m 1990 2 0 no yes no
2 Saginaw m 1955 21 3 no yes no
3 Burt m 1960 15 2 no yes no
4 Flint m 1959 4 0 no no no
5 Ovid m 1990 3 0 no yes no
6 Vassar m 1976 15 7 no yes no
7 Irnlay City m 1992 l 1 no yes no
8 Roches. H m 1947 25 0 no yes no
2: Walled L m 1992 1 0 no yes no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INVOLVEMENTINBEARHUNITNG
Parﬁcipamsbearhmnednninlyonﬂreweekemis,meereﬁredindividualspenttheentireseason
at his hunting site.

Mostmdividmlsbaitedpriormﬂrehmrﬁngseasommainlyonﬂreueekmds.

Manyswmedfmbearﬂmughomﬂeyearwhﬂepmﬁcipaﬁngmﬁsiﬁngarﬂoﬂmtypesof
hunting
Thehnportmmeofbemhmﬁngwnmedmoﬂrermcreaﬁomiwﬁviﬁesmngedﬁombemgﬂe
most important activity to some participants to not any more important for others.

Manyfeltbearhmningwasnnrechaﬂengingﬂranoﬂrertypesofhtmﬁng,butthelimitedseason
andareatohuminwasadrawback

Participants hunted bear over bait and stalked them with bow, muzzleloader, and pistol.

Onehﬂividmlhadhmnedudﬂrhomrdsmmﬂoﬂmsinwedmhneestmﬂﬁsmeﬂwd Some
hadbadexpeﬁmwesvummmﬂhmnes;inmver,mnstagoednmdlinmﬂhmnascamed
problemrs.

HUNTER SATISFACIION

The factors that make bear hunting mjoyable were: the freedom of being hunting, scouting, using
equipment, seeing wildlife, being in nature, teaching relatives about hunting, practicing with
equipment year-rotmd, anticipation of the unknown, feeling of accomplishment, and seeing a bear.

Themnsthnpomfactorswemseemgwﬂdlife,seemgbems,andbeingmnaume

176

AIIDCATION OF HARVEI‘ TAGS
Participants could not think ofany beneﬁts ﬁom having a limited entry system for bear hunting

Allfeltthepopulationwasnotthreatenedbeforealimitedentrysystemwasused,andtherewas
notenoughevidencetoputthisldndofresuictiononbearhmters.

Mostwereconcernedthathmrters wouldtake smallerbearsbecause theydidnot knowwhenthey
would have another opportunity to hunt.

Orlyone individualhadieardofthepointpreference systemasameansofallocatingharvest
tags.

Manywerefamiliarwiththerandomlotteryas itrelatedtoallocationofothertypesofimnting
licenses.

Participants were generally confused about how the buddy system worked and if your odds of
beingdrawnimreasedordecreased. TheyfelttheMDNRdidnotprovideenoughdetailsonthe
speciﬁcs of the current allocation system

Mostwouldratherhavetl'repointpreferencesystemifthewaitforatagwas3yearsorless,but
aﬁer that, many felt they would rather take their chance with random lottery.

Awaitofmorethan3 yearswasnotacceptabletoanyoftheparticipants.

None felt conﬁdentthatthebiological infomrationtheMDNRusesto setharvest goals isaccurate.
SEASONS
Nbsttinughtbaitandstillhmtingshouldbeseparatedﬁomhomdhmrtingevenifthe seasons
were shortened

Ifseuonswereseparatemarticipamswouldlikeatleast 15 daysperhmrtperiodwitharotation
eachyearofwho hunted ﬁrst.

Participants listed some potential problems involved in using separate seasons including: not
beingabletohmrtbothasahomrdsnnnandbaiter,andhavingmorebaitersthaninmrdsmen.

Aﬁerdiscussingprosandconsofseparateperiodsfordogandbaithmrters,mostindicatedthey
wouldaccepttheseasonsastheyarenow.

In discussing the current system of overlapping hunt periods, they preferred to have no dog
trainingforatleastSdaysbeforethestartoftheﬁrstperiod

Acombinedhmrtperiodforallbearhmrterswasnotacceptabletoanyonc

GehﬂiﬁmnlmhmnedaMmedpropetyonDrmmnndIslmdwasvewlmsdabomﬂe
wmbimdhmﬁpeﬁodsandexpressedasmongdislikeofﬂrelslandhomdsmen

APPLICATIG‘I ms
Most thought the application form was fairly simple to ﬁll out.

177

The biggest problem appeared to be ﬁnding out when fomns would be available. Participants felt
thatdatesforapplyingforatagweretoolateintheyear,andtheyneeanretimetoplantheir
huntingtrip ifthey received atag

SomemreconﬁrsedabomwhytheMDNRsetseparateseasonsforbowhmmersintheRedOak
Area and would appreciate getting information on why these decisions are rmde.

None would support a nom'efundable application fee unless the money was ear-marked for bear
research

AﬂpmﬁcipamswemverydismistﬁﬂofﬂeMDNR'suseofhmﬁngﬁcmsedoﬂars.

Somre thought houndsmen should not have to purchase a participation permit to follow dogs, but
many were unfamiliar with the participation permit and felt it was unfair for hourrdsmen to take
partinabearhmrtiftheyhadnotdrawnaldlltag.

All agreed houndsmen should have to obtain a pack license for their bear dogs.

The license feewasconsideredfairbyparticiparrts, andtheywerenot mterestedrnseemgthe fee
increased as a method of discouraging low involvement hunters from applying

ATTIIUDETDWARDTHEMDNR
AllmommwamofanyspeciﬁcnnnagemerﬁplmwfmbearmbearhmﬁngbyﬂreMDNR

Participants thought the MDNR was not effectively mranaging wildlife and could do a better job
if it was split into different agencies that handled environmental and wildlife issues separately.

Most were satisﬁed with the job law enforcement was doing in relation to bear.

TheywerefamiliarwithbearresearohonDnnmmndIsland,butmranywerecritical oftheuseof
tint infomnation by the MDNR. They did not feel Drurnmond Island research was applicable to
the rest Ofthe state.

Somewereawaroofastudyinvolving"phosphoms"tomarkbearteeth,butfeltthestudywas
not successful.

Attitudes concemingthebearpopulationweremixed, withmnstfeelingthepopulationmaybe
going down somewhat, but many biological reasons for population ﬂuctuation were brought up
including: the closing of dumps made bears more visible in other areas, clear-cutting limited bear
inbitatinsomeareas, bearsarenoctumal soit'shardtodeterminenmnbers, bearsaremorevisible
whenit'sabadyearfornatmalfoods.

178

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
Mostkeepinfomnedonbearandbearhmrﬁngissresﬂmoughmagazires, newsletters, andother
hunters.

All agreedmore infomationﬁomtheMDNRisneeded, suchas anewsletter summarizing season

Pam'cipants felt annual surveys of hunters were a good idea and had no problemrs with answering
them

Only one individual was familiar with a bear hunting organimtion (Michigan Bear Hunters Assoc.)
and he had been a prior member.

HJTUREOFBEARAND BEARHUNTING
Participants generally felt the future of bear and bear hunting in Mchigan was unstable.

Most were concemed about animal-rightist's attacks on hunting and felt mrore education hadto be
done at the school level to prevent the problem

AerltﬂarewasamedfmanmganizaﬁmMmpresanedhmﬁemmgemralmwmneranﬁ-
hmrtingfromothergroups.

Non—compliance with hunting regulations was thought to be a problem by most participants. They
felt this was mainly due to a lack of law enforcement ofﬁcers to police the areas.

179
Flirt Brahman Grow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P. l' . I
# yrs. I!!! m
lst yr: bet hear # bear In! over of bear
# city sex hand um w/tbgs bm't organ.
1 Leonard m 1971 20 1 yes no no
2 Bridgeport m 1975 9 0 yes yes no
3 Capac m 1992 1 0 yes yes no
4 Perry m 1975 20 1 yes yes no
5 Flint m 1975 16 1 yes no no
6 Capac m 1988 2 0 yes no no
7 Allenton m 1983 6 2 yes yes yes
8 Otisville m 1962 7 0 yes no no
9 Milford m 1967 15 2 yes yes no
10 Romeo m 1984 9 3 yes no yes

 

 

 

INVOLVEMENTINBEARHUNTING
Pmﬁcipantsmpmteddeyspendasmhﬁnaaspossiblemaimngdogarﬂbearhmﬁng Tire
amomrtofﬁmewaslimitedtoweekendsformostbecauseofwork Qreindividualbegantraining
dogs inJulyandcontinuedtotrainrearlyeveryweekendandsome weekdaystimoughhunting
season.

Most participants felt bear hunting was one of their most important recreational activities they
participated in; only two considered it the most important activity.

Somemedexclusivelydogs,butmanyalsohmrtedoverbaitwithoutdogsorbaitedtokcepbears
inthearea, buthuntedusingdogs.

Alliadtseddogsandbaitedatsomepointintheirbearhmrtingexperiencewiththeexception
ofoneindividualwhohadnot tried baiting.

Halfhadchangedhowtheyhmrtedbearﬁomwhentheyﬁrststarted. Thoseparticipantswho
wemcmemlyhmrﬁngoverbaitiadsartedasdoghmarxldangedmbaiﬁngdwm
problems associated with hunting with dogs (low success rate in seeing bear, dislike of certain
hormdhmrters,trespassonprivateproperty).

Mostwouldbedisappointediftheycouldnolongerhmnbearwiﬂrdog. Somewouldnolonger
hmrtbeariftheycouldnotusedogs,butotheswouldclangetobaitingorstillinmting

HIJNTHISATTSFACIION
h/IostrespondemsconsideroddogsﬂremnstimportaMpanofbearhmrting
OﬂarmprﬂﬂmadebearhmﬁngajoyablehahdodzbemgmﬂBMOdSJedngbwnswmg
othertypesofwildlife,thechallengeofoutsnartingbear,beingwithﬁicnds,takingothersona
bemhmﬁandteachingﬂremabombear,ﬂredangerofbeingclosetoabear,andexercise.

Mostfeltharvestingabearwasimportantmrtilyouldllabear,arx1thenitbecomeslowin

180
importancecomparodtotheotheraspectsofbearhmrting
Helping others harvest their ﬁrst hear was considered a thrilling experience by some participants.

AIIDCATION OF HARVEI‘ TAE
Participants found more problems associated with having a system that limits the number of
harvest tags than beneﬁts.

Problems brought up by participants included: not being able to my a gun to protect your dogs,
the lifetime license is not valid, fewer hunters hurts the economy, uncommitted hunters and anti-
hunters are attracted, bugs in the system allow people to cheat, commrercial exploitation increases.

Mostthoughtthelimitedentrysystemwasgoodforthebearpopulationandlesshmrtersinthe
woodsnadeforabetterqualityhunt.

Participants felt the MDNR did not have enough data on the bear population to know how the
population was doing

Most were not familiar with the point preference system and how it worked Participants were
cognimntoftherandomlottery,butwerenotconﬁdenttiatitwasaneﬁ‘ectivesystemfor
allocating harvest tag.

Preference for one system over the other depended on the perceived waiting time for a harvest tag:
point preference for a shorter wait, random lottery for a longer wait

Tianainwmmnwasfmﬂareasombehhﬂgomgmalhmwdanrysystemmﬂarﬂanﬂatype
ofallocationsystemused

Mostthoughtthebearharvestwaslimitedmoreforpoliticalreasonstianconcemforthebear
population, andtherewasnoneedforalimited entry system for hunting black bear.

SEASONS

Most participants were in favor of a season that comrpletely separated dog and bait hunters.
Baiterswouldhuntfortheﬁrst10daysorsoandthendoghmrtersmuldhavetheremainderof
theseason. Oneindividualpointedouttiathewouldnotlikebeingkeptﬁomtraininghisdog
duringthis lOdaysbeforethestartofthedoghmrtperiod

Oneseasonforallbearhunterswaslessdesirabletianasplitseasonforallparticipants.

AﬂhﬂicmedMasysmmaﬂovﬁngaﬂbearhmnemtodareﬂaseasomhnresuiaedﬂamea
tiatdoghunterscouldmemuldnotwork They did not have enoughcontroloverwheretheir
dogswentoncetheywererurmingabear.

Oneparﬁcipamsuggestedﬂatﬂrenmnberofhmnersshouldnotbelinﬁted;insteadthebear
seasonsixruldbeshortenedtolimitthenmnberofbearharvested

APHICATION PROCESS
Most had problemrs obtaining a bear hunting application; some lad to drive long distances.

181
Nonestatedtiattheformwasconﬁrsingorhardtoread

All participants were against having a nom'efundable application fee. They felt the MDNR was
not entitled to additioral revenue. One participant commented that they do not know how to

spendthemnneytiattheyalreadyreceive.

Most did not think dog hunters should have to buy a participation permit to run their dogs. Some
thought that either baiters should have to pay to help carry bait or the participation permit should
be eliminated

Some participants indicatedtiathunters should notberequiredto getpack licenses forbeardogs
becauseotherhomrdhmrtingsportsdidmtrequirethem

License fees were considered too low to some participants. One individual suggested raising the
costofalicenseto $50 - $75 andtimallowinganyonewhowantedtohmrtbuyalicense. Others
argued that setting a high license rate would unfairly keep some people from hunting.

Allthoughttiatnonresidents shouldeithernotbeallowedtoapply foraiarvesttagorshould
have to pay a very high fee.

ATTITUDE TOWARD TI-IEMDNR
Littlewas krrownabout researchbeingdone bytheMDNRonbear. Some knewtherewasa
study done on Drurnmond Island, but positive comments were not made about this study.

SomewereconcernedtheMDNRwasestimatingthenumberof bearirnproperly.

Tiaywemwncemadﬂemnhmﬁemmdmni-hmnemhadmaremﬂwmewiﬂrﬂaWNRﬂan
huntersdid

Most were supportive of law enforcement's job of dealing with bear hunting issues, but they felt
their were not enough officers to do an adequatejob.

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
Orﬂyoneparticipantwasacmrentmemberofabearhmtingorganimﬁon Mostwerefamiliar
with at least one of these organimtions.

Allagreedtieseorganizationsrepresentedbearhmrtersto somedegree,butsomrewereconcemed
tiat they only represented dog hunters. Overall, participants had positive feelings toward these
organizations.

Michigan United Conservation Clubs was a common source of information about bear and bear
hunting Otherbearhmterswerealsoapopularsomoeofinformation.

Workshops were considered a good method of getting infonration to hunters.

182

Mail surveys were thought to be efﬁcient for getting information from hunters, but the lack of
feedback ﬁ‘orn the MDNR was not acceptable.

Some participants thought the mediawas one ofthe mainproblems forbadhunter image.
Afewsaidﬂiatﬂieyhadwﬁﬂenﬂieircongressmenabombearhtmﬁngissues.
HJTUREOFBEARANDBEARHUNTING

Most thought that the bear population went in cycles, whichdepended on food sources. Others
thought that thepopulationwas increasing inthe areas they hunted

One individual who hunted inthe Lower Peninsula thought that decreasing habitat was responsible
foradeclineinthebearpopulationinthatpartofthe state.

Allwereconcemedabouttl'reimpactofanimalrightsgroupsonbearhmrtingandlosingbear
huntingintheﬁrtme.

Most did not feel that nonhunters should have asay inbearhunting issues, rminlybecause
nonhmrterswerethoughttobeignorantofbearhmrtingfacts.

183
MacldmthyBaitGlom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parﬁcirlus
# yrs. [Ill m
lst yr: heu- hear # bear In! over of but
# city sex Inbd laud Hen w/dogs bit organ.
1 St Ignace m 1972 13 9 no yes no
2 Petoskey m 1977 16 1 no yes no
3 Kincheloe m 1992 1 0 no yes no
4 Harbor Spr m 1990 2 1 no yes no
5 Boyne Cty m 1984 8 1 no yes no
6 Stalwart f 1990 3 0 no yes no
7 Indian R m 1976 12 0 no yes no
8 Cedarville m 1989 2 0 no yes no
A Rudyard m 1978 10 0 no yes no

 

 

 

MGMEWENTINBEARHUNTING
Somebeganhuntingbearbeeauseofmrisamep'oblemsintheareathattheylivedorvaeationed
Odmsbecmmhﬁeresﬂﬂmughﬁimﬂsﬂnwebearhmﬁemmjuﬁasmaddiﬁmmldnﬂmge
to othertypes ofhunting.

Participantsspernavaﬁedarmmuofﬁmebearhmningudﬂrﬂrebrﬂkofﬁnespemonpreseason
baitingactivities.

Nbstcmsideredbwrhmﬁnglesshmbrﬁﬂmmoﬂmmcrmﬁonﬂacﬁﬁﬁesﬂwypmﬁdpﬂe
in,butonlyoneortworateditlowinimportance. Nonereportedthatbearhmrtingwastheir
most important activity.

Methodsusedtohmtbearincludedbaitingandstillhmﬁng Someusedbowandarrowonly,
orgunonly,othersusedboth

Nbstwueusmgdiﬂ'a‘ernequipmnmteclnﬁqtesﬂmwhatﬂnyﬁmtusedmhmbeu.

Onlyoneparticipanthadtriedhmtingbearwithdogs;otherswerenotinterestedintryingdogs
inthefuture.

HUNIHISATISFACI‘KN

Aspects of beer hmtingthatmadeforanenioyable hunt included: being with familyineamp;
seeingtheﬁrstsigns of bear aroundthebait; prehunt activities; anticipation of thelmnt;watehing
bearbelnvionthetl'nillofhmrtingadangerousaninnl;beinginthevsoodsjustbeforedark;
slmingbearhmtingstoriesmrxlbeinginnatme.

MdemmlwammideﬁﬂmﬂmeﬂmasprMWennstmrpmtmnfma
satisfyingbearhunt.

184

AILOCATION OF HARVEST TA(B
Problems associated with having a limited entry system for bear hunting were too long ofa wait
for a lurvest tag and fairness in allocating tags (those living in bear areas should get preference).

Therewereperceptionsﬂratﬂeelkloﬂerysystemgavemfairadvamagetoﬂroseudrolivedinthe
somheastemlowerPemmtdaandﬂntﬂﬁswasalsohappmﬁngMﬂrﬂebearpenms. All
participants strongly believed that applieants living in bear areas should have more permits
allocated to them.

Beneﬁts mentioned for a system that limits the harvest ofbear were: preventing the overharvest
of bear, and getting bigger bear.

Somereportedstatistics shoudngﬂratnomorebearshadbeentakenintheyearsbeforethelinﬁted
entrysystem.

Only one participant was familiar with the term point preference system, but more were familiar
with random lottery.

Most preferred random lottery over a point preference system for allocating harvest tags; however,
none were very satisﬁed with either system.

SEASONS
Participantsdisagreedontheneedtolimitdogtrainingforuptotwoweeksbeforethestartofthe
ﬁrstseasonintheUP. Nbstbelievedthatbearswouldnotretmntobait foratleastaweekor
rmreoncetheyhavebeennrnbydogs; some disagreed.

All considered one hunt period for all bear hunters unacceptable.

The current overlapping hunt periods were more acceptable tlun hunt periods that were shorter,
but completely separated dog ﬁom bait hunters.

APPUCATION PROCESS
Applieation forms were viewed as being fairly clear.

One problem that was mentioned involved a misunderstanding when checldng the box for
acceptance of leftover permits; it was reportedly not clear that applicants may receive a leftover
permit foranareaotherthantheonetheyappliedfor.

Participantswereuncrestedinhroudnghowﬂreuoddsofgetﬁngapermitchangedifdreyappﬁed
with another hunter“, none of the participants knew.

All reported that they would support a nonrefundable application fee of three dollars.

Participation licenses for dog hunters were considered fair became of the potential damage that
dogs can do while bear hunting

hereasedhcensefeesmmacceptablearﬂcmsideredagoodwayofweedingomﬂeless
involvedbearhunters,butsperxlingﬂrennneyonbearmanagementwasimportanttosome. This
groupappearedtobennnhlessdistrustfuloftheMDNRs 'goflicensedollarsthanthe

185
other focus groups.

ATTITUDE TOWARDTHEMDNR
SomebelievedﬂntﬂreDNRwasmomcomemedabomﬂreophuonsamineedsofthosewholive
intheDetroitareatlnnthoseinthenorthempartofthe state.

ParticipantsweremsmeofanynnnagementactivitiestlnttheMDNRperformedforbearorbear
hunting
Fewwereinformedabout anybearresearchbeingdoneinlt/ﬁchiganandsomeexpressedconcern

tlnt the MDNR intentionally did not provide information to the public on any research that was
being done.

Some had negative comments about conservation oﬂicers not doing their jobs, but most believed
tlntthereweretoofewofﬁcersandtintkeptthemﬁ'omdoinganadequatejobofenforcing

regulations.
There was an overall opinion, based on reported discussions with ﬁeld biologists, that the

biologists were trying to do their job, but due to bureaucratic problems in "MDNR nnrngement"
biologists were urnble to make the changes that were recommended by hunters.

INFORMATION AND EJUCATIONS

Participants were concerned that the MDNR did not obtain any infomntion about hunting and
wildlife populations from the hrmters, who were thought to be more informed than the wildlife
biologists.

Few had any comments on hunting workshops.

Nonewemnnrnbemofabearhmningmgarﬁmﬁonbrnnnstwemnembemofsoneodrer
hmtingorganizations.
Thosewl'rowerefamiliarwithbearhmrtingorganimtionsinMichigandidnotjoinbecausethe
memberswerethoughttobeprinnrilydoglnmters. Manyreportedtlnttheywouldjoinabear
hunting organization tint was for baiters.

Participants mentioned using nngazines (especially the MUCC magazine) and other bear hunters
for infomntion on bear and bear hunting

All would like to receive infonrntion from the MDNR on bear and bear hunting

Some were concerned that the NDNR intentionally did not supply enough or accurate information
tothe media.

PUTUREOFBEARANDBEARHUN’IING
All believed tlnt the bear population was either increasing or stable.

Mostwemmmenndabomﬂeinrpaaofanumlﬁgmsmmni-hmﬁnggroupsmhmrﬁng
Someweresmetlntbearhmrtingwouldcontinueintheﬁrtmebecauseoftheproblemstlntthe

186
public would face with nuisance bear if hunting were stopped

Participants believed tint most nonhunters had very little knowledge of bear and do not contribute
moneyto nnnagenrent, and so, should not have as much say in how they are nnnaged as hunters.

Although participants reported instances of bear hunters not complying with regulations, overall,
they believed tlnt bear hunters were no worse than other types ofhunters.

187
Mackinaw Qty Ihurdsmen Group

 

 

 

Particirmls
# yrs. llllt mutt.
lst yr. bear hear # bear but over of bear
# city sex land In“ Non w/dog hit organ.
1 Cheboygan m 1978 15 1 yes no no
2 Petoskey m 1983 7 1 yes no no
3 Rudyard m 1966 12 2 yes no yes
4 Harbor Spr m 1976 18 0 yes no no
5 Alanson m 1986 7 0 yes no no
6 Clnrlevoix m 1965 28 8 yes no yes
7 Brutus m 1976 17 8 yes no no
8 Clio m 1962 30 4 yes no yes
L Brutus m 1982 10 2 yes no no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INVOLVEMENT IN BEAR HUNTING
Participants typically bear hunted with ﬁ'iends and family.

Alluseddogstohmrtbearandstartedthemﬁ'omtracks. Startingdogs frombaitwasnot
consideredagoodpractice.

Overall, theyexpressed little interest inusingmethods othertlnndogs. None would continue to
bearhuntiftheycouldnolongerusedogs.

Manylndhmrtedwithdogsasyomrgsters forsrrnll game.
Nbstﬂnuglﬁﬂntbearhmrﬁngwasﬂeirnnstunportamrecreaﬁonalacﬁvity.

HUNTER SATISFACIION

Factors that rrnde bear hunting enjoyable included: good weather for following dogs and tracking;
seeingsigns ofbeartlntcanbetracked; successfullytreeingabear, hmrtingwithpeoplewho
practice good sportsnnmhrp; getting exercise; being outdoors; watching dogs perform (especially
thoseyoulnvetrarnedyomselt); bemgwrthfnends; rntroducrnglodsandadultsto bearhuntrng
Watchingdogsperfonnwasthemostimportantaspectofbearhmrting

Cmryingagmwasnotnecessaryfmhavingasaﬁsfyingbemhmningemerieme. Qreparticipant
reportedtlnthewasmerelaxedandcouldbetterery'oythehmrtifhewasnotearryingagun.
Anothererqxessedconcemforprotectinghisdogsfrombeinginjmedbyabearifhedidnothave
agun.

188

AHmATION OF HARVEST TA(B

Participants ind nnny negative comments about using a system tint limits the nrnnber of bear
harvestedincluding irndequatedatausedbybiologiststodetenninethenmnberofbears
harvested; faintess in selection of applicants; cheating in the system (nonhunting family members
and anti-hunters applying); and too long of a wait for a harvest tag.

The only beneﬁcial attribute of this type of system was assrnance tint the bear population would
not decline.

Most were familiar with the point preference system for allocating harvest tags. Some had
negaﬁveconnnentsabomitsuseandoﬂrerssrmponedtiﬁstypeofsystem

Allbrﬁorepmﬁcipamwouldmﬂrerhaveamrxiomloﬂerysystemﬂnnponuprefemme.

Oreparticipantsuggestedanaltenntivesystemtlntdidnotlirnitthenumberofharvesttags,but
closedtieseasonaﬁerasetqmtaofbearsmstakenasinsonnoﬂrerstates. Problems
associatedwiththissystemwerebroughtrmbyothers,suchasthetaldngofmoresmallbearsor
sowswithcubsbecauseofthemrlmowntimefactorandfairnessinallocatingharvesttime.

Allagreedtlnttheywouldnotdropoutofbearhmrtingevenifthewaitingtimeforaharvesttag
was considerably longer than the current wait, as long as they were able to participate in a hunt.

SEASONS
Somewerebotheredtinttheycouldnotbeinthemodswiththeirdogsdmingtheﬁrstﬁvedays
oftheseasonintheU.P., othersthoughtitwasagoodwaytolimit conﬂict.

Participants disagreed about what type ofseason would work best. Some preferred a combined
season for all hunt types; others would rather have overlapping or separate hunt periods for bait
and dog hunters.

I-Iavingalongseasonwasveryimportant,andnonewerewillingtosettleforfewerdayssotint
seasons couldbeseparate.

APHICA'IION mocrss

Most had problems obtaining participation permits and would like to have a participation permit
sentiftheydidnotreceiveaharvesttag.

Sonnwereresemﬁdthatﬂeyhadmobtainapmﬁcipaﬁonpermitwhenothertypesofhuntersdid
not.

Allweredistrustingoftheh/IDNRsuseoflicensedollars. Mostwouldnotopposethe
participationpennitfeeiftheythoughtthemoneywas goingintobearresearchinsteadofthe
"general fund".

Mosthadconsideredclnnging, orknewsomebodywhohadcinnged, their social securitynurnber
on their application form to have a better cinnce of receiving a harvest permit. None admitted
to actually doing this.

Somewereinfavorofanomeﬁmdableapplicationfeeorahigherlicensefeeonthebasistint

189

it would limit the number of nonhrmters who applied Others did not want to have more money
going to the MDNR or were worried tint higher or nomefundable fees would nnke hunting a
"rich nnn's" sport.

Participants did not have a problem with having to obtain a pack registration for their dogs.

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE MDNR
There was an overall distrust in the MDNR's use of money on appropriate projects.

Participants were concerned tint there were not enough conservation oﬂicers in the ﬁeld to
enforce hunting regulations.

Some were vaguely familiar with bear research being done and most had positive comments.
Only one participant had a positive impression of MDNR biologists; others would like MDNR

biologists to consider bear hunters a source of information on bear hunting instead of just
checking them for licenses.

INFORMATION AND FDUCATIONS
Current hunter education for young hunters was thought to be irndequate for teaching gun use and

safety.

Most had not participated in any workshops on hunting.

Some were current or past members of bear hunting organimtions.

Participants had mixed responses about the representativeness of bear hunting organimtions, but
most were familiar with them and agreed tint the organimtions, overall, were beneﬁcial to bear
hunting through providing leadership and infomntion sources.

AllagreedtintnnremeetingswithbearhmrterswouldimprovetheWNR'smderstandingof
whatisactuallygoingoninthewoods.

Newspapersandbearhunting friendswereusedfor information aboutbearandbearhunting.
AnuwreaseduseofmwspapemarﬂnngadnesbyﬂnNﬂDNRfmmmﬁsiﬁngufonmﬁmabom
bearissueswas suggestedfor improved communication tobearhunters.
FUTUREOFBEARANDBEARHUNTING
Participantsdidnotagreeonthestatusofthebearpopulation; somethoughttlntitwas
drastieally decreased while others were sure it was increasing

Availability of food was considered more responsible for bear numbers than any changes in bear
hunting regulations.

Mostmreconcenndabomﬂeeffectsofﬂreanhnalnglrtsnnvennruonhmning
Somewerewoniedaboutcormnereial guidinganditsimpactsonbearhrmting

Most were aware ofcurrent legislation to limit bear hunting and some had written letters to

190
newspapers or public oﬁ‘rcials.
Participantsthoughttint hunterethicsneededtobe improvedtoensurethe futrneofbearhunting

Use of collars for radio-tracking dogs was not considered an unethical use of equipment.
Participants thought tint the problems associated with this equipment were nninly due to a
misunderstanding in how the collars were being used

191
WBaitGroIp-Inwlevel ofBearHrningExperience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participus
# yrs. III! uni).
lst yr: bear bear # hear In! over of hear
# city sex III“ lutd ﬂea w/dogs hit organ.
1 Bark River m 1992 1 0 no yes no
2 Wallace m 1992 1 0 no yes no
3 Rapid Rivr m 1992 l 0 no yes no
4 Hermansvil m 1992 1 1 no yes no
5 Escarnba m 1990 2 0 no yes no
6 Daggett m 1992 l 0 no yes no
7 Wells m 1992 1 0 no yes no
ii Stephenson m 1990 l 1 no yes no

 

 

 

INVOLVEMI‘NTINBEARHUNTING

Allhadjustrecentlybegrmbearhrmting Mostbeeameinterestedinbearhmrtingﬁomseeing
ﬁ'iendsorrelativesbearhmrtorhelpingsomeonebait. Othersinddecidedtotakeupbearhmrting
asachangeofpaceﬁomothertypesofhrmting

Nbststartedbaitingassoonasitwaslegalinthefall. Somewouldorrlyspendweekends
attendingtothebaitwhileotherswentalmosteveryday.

Scouting activities before the baiting season were fairly limited for most participants.

Waspentmmoretinnaueekorsostockpilingbaits;homver,theydidsuggesttintthey
muldbespendingmoretimeatthatintheﬁrtmebecausetheyfomrdtheydidmthaveadequate
suppliestolasttheseason.

Bearhmrﬁngwasmtﬂennstunponammcreaﬁonalacﬁvitymanyofﬂeparﬁdpmns,butsome
preferredﬂnsohmdeofﬂnmodsdmingbearseasonoveroﬂnrhmningseasms.

SonnhadmgaﬁvewmmnsabomhmrﬁngbearwiﬂrdogsﬂntvmrebasednniMymrmmm
ﬁmnodmhmnembrnnnstwerefaulyaccepﬁngofitasanaltennﬁvemetind

Althoughallindusedonlybaittohuntbear,somestatedthattheywouldbeinterestedinusing
dogstohuntbearinthefutme.

HUNTER SATISFACTION

Participants found the following aspects of bear hunting created a satisfying experience: spending
time inthewoods, observingvvildlife withoutthernbeingdisturbed, thechallenge, observingthe
beinvior of bear and other wildlife, the peacefulness of the woods, anticipation of hearing
movement, thethrill ofharvestingabear, swappingstories withotherhunters, beinginthewoods
in the fall.

Thetopthreemostsatisfyingelementsofbearinmtingwere: beinginthewoods,watchingbears
andtheir habits, andinrvesting a bear.

192

AIIDOATIONOFHARVETTAE
Havingastablebearpopulationwastheonlybeneﬁttohavingalimitedentrysystemtintwas
mentioned

Cheating was considered a serious problem with a limited entry system. Some were concerned
about anti-hunters and nonhunting ﬁiends or relatives applying for the harvest tags.

Having to wait for long periods of time for a harvest tag was also a problem associated with
having limited entry.

Sornewereconcemedtlntwithawaitingtimeforatagmoresrrnllbearswerebeingtaken
beeausehunterswerelesswillingtowaitforabiggerbearandtakethechanceofnotgettinga
bear.

MostdidnotmntﬂeneﬂrodsusedbyﬂreMDNRmobtaininfomnﬁonabomﬂnbear
population for setting harvest quotas.

Afewwerevaguelyfamiliarvxithapointpreferencesystemasitisusedinwestemstates;more
were familiar with a random lottery.

Aﬁerdiscussingtheprosandconsofpointpreferenceandrandomlottery,allthoughttintthe
point preference system was a better choice; however, most would only be satisﬁed waiting 3-4
yearstogetainrvesttag

SEASONS
TheﬁvedayswithoutdogsatthestartoftheﬁrsthuntperiodintheUP.wasconsideredtoo
short.

Mostﬂmuginﬂntdoghmnemweregemrallynnmmessﬁﬂﬂrmbaitemsodoghmnem should
lnve ashorterseason.

Trainingdogsupmnﬂthestartoftheﬁrsthmrtperiodwasmtapproved; mostthoughttintbear
muldnotcomebacktoanareaforseveraldaysoncetheyhadbeenchasedbydogs.

Conﬂictbetweendogandbaithunterswastinughttobeaseriousproblemandcouldbebest
handled by keeping the groups as separate as possible.

Sepmateseasomwemfavoredevenwhenﬂnnmnberofhmnmgdaysmeachseasonwas
shortened to 2-3 weeks as long as bait hunters were allowed to hunt ﬁrst.

APPIICATION PROCESS
Some thought tint the application fornn were too conrplicated Suggestions for improving the
systemwemmsendpreprimedfonmmﬂmseappﬁcamswinhadpreviouslyappﬁed

Anonrefundable application fee forthe price of a license orhigher was considered a good idea,
mainlybecause it would limitthenurnber ofpeopletint applied foraperrnit but did not intend
tohunt 'Iheydidnotregardthecostasabarriertoparticipationbecausetheythoughttintoti'rer
expenses associated with hunting were much higher.

193

Participation permits for dog hunters were considered unnecessary for those tint were not handling
the dogs and just going along on the hrmt.

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE MDNR
Participants were unfamiliar with research being done by the MDNR on black bear.

Some stated that the MDNR should involve hunters more in helping to estinnte bear numbers.

Conservation ofﬁcers were thought to be enforcing the laws fairly well. Some had negative
comments about situations involving conservation ofﬁcers, while others had positive comments.

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
Someweremembersofhuntingorganizations,butnoneweremernbersofabearhmrting
organization or were very familiar with any.

Bearorganimtionswerethoughttorepresentbearhmrtingingeneral,eventhoughbaitimnters
werenotalargepartoftheseorganimtions.

Unclear bear hunting rules and regulations were a problem for nnny. A lack of conrrnunication
on the part of the MDNR for cinnges in regulations was thought to be responsible.

Bear workshops and regional meetings were considered good potential methods of communicating
inforrrntion to bear hunters.

Tire focus groups were thought to be an effective way of getting infomntion from hmrters.

Somehadexperienced problems ingettingintouch with individuals attheNDNRwhocould
answeranyqrestionstinttheynnyhaveaboutbearorbearhunting

Participants received most of their information about bear and bear hunting ﬁ'om the hunting guide
with little infomntion coming from newspapers, or nngazines. Some information was obtained
ﬁom ﬁ'iends, but overall, participants considered bear hunters a secretive group who did not share
rmrch infomntion.

194

FUTURE OFBEARAND BEARHUNTING

Most felt that the bear population was stable or growing. Fluctrntions in the number of bears seen
byhmrtersmrethoughttobearesultofchangesinbearhabits orhabitatandnotnecessarilydue
to more bear.

Bear nuisance and how it should be dealt with was a problem that participants did not agree on.
Some believed tint nuisance bears should be live-trapped and moved, while others wanted
propertyownerstohavetherighttoshootmrisancebearifneeded

Aninnl rightists were not considered a serious problem; however, one participant did recount an
argument vvithananinnl rightistontheethics ofhtmting.

Participants agreed that nonhunters who have an interest in black bear should have a say in how
bear are nnrnged, but some thought tint experienced hunters have more knowledge than
nonhunters about bear.

Allagreedthathuntersmustlearntoorganizethemselvestoprotecthmtingforﬂreﬁnmeandpm
their differences aside. Fighting among hunters was recognized as a big problem for hunting

195
F‘scrnalnBa’thrp-Iighlevel ofBearHIlling Experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participlm
# ya. In! and:
1st yr: hem" hear # bear but over of beer
# city sex laud w mien w/rbgs hit organ.
1 Cedar Rivr m 1960 20 7 no no no
2 Wallace m 1977 15 3 no yes no
3 Vulean m 1965 17 0 no yes no
4 Bark River m 1980 16 3 no yes no
5 Bark River In 1978 15 2 no yes no
6 Rapid Rivr m 1945 6 2 no no no
7 Manistique m 1960 25 9 no yes no
8 Spalding m 1985 8 3 no yes no

 

 

INVOLVEMFNTINBEARHUNTING
Nbstmmtedhmrﬁngbearbeeareeofexposmetobearwhﬂeomhmrﬁngoﬂnrmmnls.

Sonestanedwiﬂrfarnﬂynembersmndoﬂersbeganwiﬂrﬁiendsoralone.

Manyspendallyearinvolvedinsomeaspectofbearhmrting,ﬁ'omcollectingbaitthroughoutthe
winterto scoutingbeartirroughoutthe springandsmnmer.

Collecting bait was a very time consuming activity for some participants and resulted in large
stockpiles of foods ﬁom various sources.

Orly two of the participants considered bear hmrting their most important recreatiornl activity,
but others considered it important

Manyusedabowtohuntbear;oneparticipantcomrnentedtinthernedabowtohmtdeer,but
didnot feel conﬁdent usingabowtohurrt bear.

Noneuseddogstohmﬁbearmrdifﬂreycouldnotbaitﬂreyworﬂdstalkbearasopposedtousing
dogs. Some comments about hunting with dogs were negative; however, most supported the
rights ofhmrterstousetheirmethodofciniceaslongastheyobeyedthehuntingnrles.

HUNTFRSATISFACTION
Theaspectsofbearhmrﬁngﬂntnndeforasaﬁsfyingexpaiememcltxied: harvestinganinnls,
sinringtheexperiencewithldds, beinginthewoodsalone,e)qreriencingbearscomingcloseto
you,scorninganmeaforbear,nldngpictmesandobservingwﬂdlife,ﬂrepersmnlcinllerrgeof
hmrtingalesserhmrtedaninnl,arxistudyingbearbelnvior.

Themostimportantaspectswere: beinginthewoods,observingwildlife,andharvestingbears.

196

AILOCATION OF HARVET‘ TAE
When participants were asked about the positive and negative aspects of limiting the number of
inrvest tags, most responded with negative comments.

Many participants said tint there is an equitability problem in allocating harvest tags; hunters
living in bear areas should have preference over those who do not.

Sonewereconcerredabomﬂrecheaﬁngﬂntnﬁginoccminalhrﬁtedemysystem Cinnging
thenurnbersinyoursociaisecmitynmnberwasbroughtup,andoneindivid1nladmittedtinthe
hadgottenaharvesttageveryyearbyusingthismethod

Nonresident hunting licenses for bear were considered unfair to resident hunters, and some thought
tint they should be eliminated

Tienninconcmnfmusinganaﬂocaﬁmsystemappearedmbeoverﬂnneﬂwdsusedfm
collecting inforrrntion on bear. Most considered the data irndequate for correctly estinnting the
mrrnberofbeartintcouidbeinrvested

On the positive side, some recognized tint the bear population could be improved by limiting the
mrrnberofbearharvested, ifdoneconectiy.

Haifhadieardofthepointpreferencesysternasitisusedinotherstatesforaiiocatingharvest
tags. Those who were familiar with the point preference system had positive comments about its
use inotirerstates.

After discussing both the point preference and random lottery system, most thought the point
preference system was a better choice.

Participants focused much nrore on the equitablility aspects (i.e. norrresiderrts and preference to
thoselivinginbearareas) ofharvesttagalioeationthanwiththetypeofsystemtintsl'rouidbe
used

NbstwerewillingtowaitZ-3yearsforaharvesttagandstillrerrninsatisﬁedwithbearimnting

Alongerwaitof5-6yearswasconsideredmsatisfactory,butmostrepmtedtinttheyprobabiy
wouldnotquitbearhunting

SEASONS
I-IalfappliedfortheﬁrsthmrtperiodinthererPeninsula,sotheycouidhmrtchrringtheﬁrst
ﬁvedayswithouttherebeingdogsinthemods. Theotirerhaifwhoappliedforthesecond
periodreportedtintbyapplyinginthesecondperiodtheyhadabetterchanceofgettingatag,
andtothemtintwasmoreimportanttinnlumtingwithomdogs.

Allagreedtintitwasimportarrttohavetheoptionofapplyingforaperiodtintinssornedays
whendogscan'tbeused Somethoughttintﬁvedayswasnotemughtimeandtint lOdays
muidbermrefair.

Noneoftheparticipantspreferredhavingashorterseason, evenifitrneanttintmoreinrvesttags
would be available.

197

Somewouidiiketheseasontobemovedtoaweekorsoiaterintheseasonsotheywerenot
competingwithanabmrdanceofberriesandothernaturalfoods.

Some likedthe idea ofsplittingthe seasonto have shorter, separate hunt periods for bait and dogs,
but they thought it would be a problem due to the majority of hunters being baiters.

APPUCATIONPKXES
Theappiication deadlinewasthoughttobetoo late inthe year, with littletimetopianahurrt for
thosetintmesuccessﬁriatreceivingatag

Some had problerrn obtaining application forms due to a shortage in availability of the form or
an inconvenient location

Allwereurncceptingofanomeﬁmdableapplieationfeeonthebasisthattheydidnottrustthe
MDNRtouse moneyproperiy. Theyreportedtint iftheykrrewthe moneywas beingsperrt on
either the cost of running the application system or bear research, then they would not have any
problem with paying a nonrefundable fee.

Some participants thought raising the application fee would help discourage low interest hunters
ﬁ'omapplying brnmostcmrsideredﬂrismrfairtoiouermconehmnersmnnymtbeableto
afford a higher application fee.

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE MDNR
There was also an overall mistrust in the MDNR's ability to nnke good nnrngement decisions
regarding the bear population and bear hunting

Nbstsaidﬂntnnmywasﬂnnnﬁvaﬁngfaambeiﬁrﬂnmngenemdecisiommderﬂnnﬂe
goodoftheresorneeorresourceusers.

Conservation officers were thought to be doing a good job, overall.

NbsthadheardofsomebearresearchbeingdoneinMichiganbutmostoftheirinfornntionwas
basedonwinttheyhadheardﬁ'omotherhmrters. Details aboutactuairesearchwassketchyat
bestarrdaﬂwereskepticalaboutthequalityoftheresearch Allagreedtintmoreresearchwas
needed, and money shouidbe earrrnrked fortint pin-pose.

INFORMATION AND FDUCATION
All agreed tint the MDNR should spend money on educational programs to improve the pubiic's
knowledge of wildlife issues.

Noneweremembersofabearhuntingorganimtion,andthosewhohadheardofanyofthese
organizations considered them interested prinnrily in dog hunting Ali agreed tint these
organimtions were good for bear hunting in general despite their concentration on dog hunting

issues.

Inforrrntion about bear and bear hunting was obtained nninly ﬁ'orn other hunters. Magazines
wereusedsomewhatandnewspapersveryiittie.

198

Participants recommended having more infomntion about bear and bear hunting available at the
district ofﬁces when they picked up application forms.

Allthoughttintthefocusgr'orrpswereagoodwaygettinginfonnationtotireMDNRandthey
wouidalsobeinterestedinattendingnnremeetings.

FUTUREOFBEARANDBEARHUNTING
Nbstthoughttintthebearpopuiationwasincreasingandsomethoughtlimitingthenmnberof
bearharvestedwasresponsibieforthisincrease. Wreportedseeingnnnybearoverthepast
year. QwhrdividrnigressedﬂntﬂremwemnnmﬂnnSOﬂOObearmﬂnUpperPerﬁnsuia

Some had experienced confrontations with animal rights groups, and all were concerned about the
dannge they were doing to hunting Some brought up pro-active strategies to deal with the
problem such as educating school-age children and using positive messages about hunting

Nonhurrter involvement in bear management was thought to be a problem; most considered
nonhunters to have little krrowiedge of bear and bear hunting issues.

Themsportsnnn—likeactionsofhmrterswasaconcern,andallagreedtinthmrtersmustdoa
better job at policing themselves. They thought tint, overall, bear hunters were more likely to
conme with hunting regulations than other types of hunters.

199

APPENDIX VI

Pilot survey

200
*** 19930pinionSuveyofMicliganBearHu1ers ***

I. Yarlmthea’I-Iuﬁghm
Ibwinveyouparﬁcipatedhrbeariuninginlwdrigan?(aieckme).

IHAVEWBEARWBNWIOWYHARVETABEAR IGOIDQUB‘IWZ]
THAVEIUI‘RHEVEDAHARVETTAOBUI'IHAVECWMMWAMHINLJMIOWZ‘]
IHAVENEVRBE-NWABEARHUNINMO'HGAN...MIDWZSI

Ibwunnybcars,ifany,haveyeupasaniiyharvestedhrhﬁdﬁganordseuim?

BEARS

Wyeardidyouﬁrstgohrmtingspeciﬁcaiiyforbearsinhﬁdﬁgan?
W19

Ammmmmmﬁmmmmrm. Sincethenabouimvmanyyearsinwyw
hmtedbearineachofdrcfoliowingues? (Piesercfertothemapofwchign)

Map of Michigan
mmmmmm
mmmmmm
masmnrammm
YEARSONDRWISUM)

Sincel980, whatpercentofyourbearhmtinghasbeenspentusingeach
ofthefoliowingmethods?

Aawr %ornramtmooosnmmsmmovmm

Am %ornmmlmmmrmmrsmumovmmm
Aaour %ornrsmralsxrovarm
Am_%ornramtusmommmoosmrmvmooosoam

 

 

 

Intireiast3bwsasan(l990-i992)inwnmybeusifmy,inw)mpusanliydummgdnfolmhg
mednds(donothniudewumdedbearsdntwuerureuiewd)?(&eiemmba)

WW

oocsnurwuzasrmmovmmrr
ooosmArwmaNorsrAmovmaAn
srrrmoovarrwr
onrr-rrmormvocvmoooosoaam‘)

COCO
r—u—o—n—
NNNN
“WWW

201
awkwambgwmmwammrm ﬂ

7. Murmadidwuapplyforahawesttaginthis4yearpa'iod?(Cireleaiithatapply)
r990 1991 1992 1993 . ‘ _ .
8. Howmanytirnes,ifsny,didyoureceiveainrvesthgindris4yearﬁnnpaiod?(€ireiemmmba)
0 l 2 3 4 .

9. Thefoianghbkadsinwymubwhmﬁngpacﬁcsinwchmgdshmhuveamgsmlhnhedhi990.

IDidthecinrgeinl990carseyoum: I (Circleodyone)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ammmnnokussrouumm YE no
WMWG’DAYSYGJHANIOMBFARWINAW YE m
WIT-EMOFDAYSYOUSPDDBEARHIMINGNAW YE m
BEWIMYTOWTHEFIRST‘IEGALBEARYwm-L YE m
asmkasaracnvamrrmasrmormamvwsuoor. YE m
mmmmmmmmm YE no
WLESINIEEIEINBEARHUNTING. YE no
DEWEMYTOVIGATEBEARWWAW YE M)
DEWEIMYIOHTREABEARWW YE m
ammvwoommmmwrm YE m
ammwnmrrwmmam YE m

 

 

 

 

10. DidyouhmrtbeerinMclrigandwinglMHGreckone)
__m...[srm-mmaru]

_Yl§...FY3,pieasecheiedndaysMyouhmmdbeuherugandmmgl992

SEPTEMBER 1992 OCTOBHI 1992

 

ll.

15.

16.

202

In the last 3 bear seasons (1990-1992), did you pay any individuals to assist you in any part of bear hunting?
(Check one)

_NO [mmmmgumravﬁ]

YE

12. Ifyeginmidryearsdidyoupaysomeoneforassistance?(Cireleone)
1990 1991 1992

13. Wkindofbearhmtingassistancedidtheypmvidctoyou? (Checkaiitintapply)

SETGII‘BAITSPCRME
WWWMMETOHUNIWTHHRDOGS
WWW”
WANARFAKRWTOI'TUNTGIWIN

our-rum EXHAIN):

l4. Whichoftheseyearsdidycukiilabear’? (Circleonechoice)

[Drum
1990 1991 1992 mam
1990-92

hthym,whidrofﬂnfoibwhghmingnwdnd(s)doyouhnaﬂmmemhmubwsinMidrigm?
(Checkailthatapplytoyou)

DOGSI'HATARESTAR‘IEDOVEBAI’I‘
NGSIHATARENOI'ST'AKIHJOVEBATT

WOVEN

ammuormvmcooosoam
TDOFDTHANCNHUNHNGBFARSNMIGHGANINTHENEXFSYFARS.

mm

MWisbwhrﬁngbymcarpuedbodutypesofmeaﬁmMympmﬁdpahhadrs
ﬁddngwmhggmdaﬁnghﬂdngkggingcmpdﬁwmﬁmﬂodumofhwﬁngnamkauyme)

BEAR HUNTING TS...

“WWW mmwnvmmrl PARTIGPATE IN.

ONEG’MWEWTANTWTWLACUVHIETHATIPARTIGPATEM

WWWMWMMWUMWWTTPARHGPAIEW.

LES WTANT‘THANWOTI-EIRKREATIONAL ACTIVITIE THATT PARTICIPATE IN.
__NOI'ATAILWTANI‘TOME.

203
II. WHAT MAKE BEAR HUNTING SATISFYING?

l7. Howimportantareeachofthefoilowingasreasonswhyyoumuldgobearhunting? Pieasecireietirenmnber
foreachreasondntbestshowshowimpatamyoutiunkitis.(cueienmnber)

 

i
'5

[Fbw' mrldthisbeasareasonwhyymmidgobear

tomovmrmoamkmr
mosuwmmoumrgsaroouoasmessmnw
mauovusmowsuoormosxnrs
mommmmmomooos
IOBEAWHIMEAMJGEI‘ABEAR
mmmmmmmmm
roceumonrvoumawr
maeovnrammromorammmmmo
mmmwnummmv
mmovusmomrrummosrmrsmqmummrmo
mammarmmmoxomousm
momorsmmmmnmomooesmnﬁam ]
mmmwnummr—ms i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNNNNNNNNNMN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I—I—I—I—II—e—I-n—o-I—l—I—‘s—I
wuwwwuuwuuuwu

##&&h#bhbhh##
MMMMMU’OMMMMMMM

N

 

rs. Piasedminwmﬂradrofdmeﬁdashﬂmmmﬁsﬁdimﬁﬁbarhnﬁngbymﬁngeadrd
themﬁ'omltoS. Use'i'fordremostirnpamﬁctamd'S'fordreleasthnpamfactor.

mmmmwmvmmmmmmmwnumm
HAVINGAIMBFARHIMMSEASON
WIMVMTOWAH‘MANYYEARSKJRABFARHARVEIPEMTT
MVMAVEYMGIMGWABEAR
WTOOTOCSEWAMDINWHATPARTGIHESTAIEIHUNF

i9. OvaﬂLhowsaﬁsﬁedamymMﬂrmbeuhmﬁngOppaunuﬁesdeuganNGwdcuuym)

vary smsnr-D

m1“ sansrrr-r)

Mann SATIS-IED NOR orssmsrrrr)
mwrm orssmsrrr-r)

__ vr-mr orssmsrrm

204

III. YOUROPINIG‘ISABOUTBEARHUNTINGANDTHEMTGTIGANDNR

 

Please review the following informadon before proceeding any further with the
survey.

0 Prior to 1990 hunters could purchase a bear license and hunt in'any part of the state
open to bear hunting.

0 Under the new system, hunters apply for a harvest tag by selecting a hunt period within
one of eight management units located in the Upper and northern Lower Peninsulas.

0 Harvest tags are issued through a drawing that has varied slightly each year since
1990.

0 The chance of being drawn for a bear harvest tag in 1993 was about 1 in 3. .This is
because there were bear hunter applicants and only harvest tags.

0 The number of harvest tags available is determined by DNR biologists based on the bear
population, bear habitat and human needs. For 1993 the harvest goal is 1000 bears.

 

 

 

v

20. thﬂmmyouaguudimgwmdefouowingmm(dmkmmdubea
representsyouropinionforeachstatenurt)

I SA'S'IWYAGIIE A-Am E-NOI‘m D‘DBAGGE E'MYM I

IAMWTTHEMTGEGANWRHASMWMAHONWHIEBEAR

 

POHJIAHWTOWLYWEDWMANYBFARSIOHARVEINMGHGAN SA A E D so
FACHYFAR.

INSHTEG'WTTIEYSAY,TIBMWRLMTHJHIEIMRVETGBEARSMEBEAIE
(FWPRESUREIHANWG’WEVMG’AW SA A E D S)
BEARKJHJIATIM

 

ITRUSTHEDNRIOFARLYWTHEMEEISOFWWWMM
WWW SA A E D S)

 

MDNRWGVEMTGHGANRWSIHATUVENGKNFARBFARWATA
WMWNAHARVETTAGWWM. SA A E D S)

 

MDNRSHOILDGNEmmaTiﬂ-NSAGIFATEWNAHARVETTAG WWING.

 

MMWGVEYOIMHLNIES(14—16YRS)AGREAIEGMNCENAIMRVET
TAGDRAWM. SA A E D S)

 

WGMWMMWABEARHARVEITAQUISVEYWTANF
ERLETOGEI‘ATAGTHESAWYWASMYT-IUNIINGPAKINE. SA A E D S)

 

 

 

 

205

21. Pieasechdednmwsdmbedrqxesauyunopmianabunhmﬁngbwwimwgsamhh.

 

sr-srmvxm A-Am E'MI‘SUIE D-‘DSAm w-srntnaxam

 

WMYRMMTH),H{EEISWWCRWW
HUNI‘NGBEAROVERBATT.

SA

. A

m .

D

 

BATH-IllNI‘ERSTAKENUIETHANTI-ERSIAREG’THEM

 

WWWWMWGWM

.9

6

8

 

BAHSI'HESHAVEABEFFEGMWHARVEMABFARWWIHAT
LSEDOGS.

a

8

 

WMWHWWWIOBEWNMIGHGAN.

 

6

9

 

WWYWIE,MISWWCALGIWW
WBEAkmDOGS.

9
>
a
e
B

 

HLNTBISMIOUEDOGSTAKEMEIHANII‘ERS-IAREG’TI‘BM

 

Wmmmmmmmmm

 

WWHAVEABEUEGIMWIMRVEIMAMIHANWW

 

 

WMWDOGSSHOUDWTOBEAUDWEDNW

 

999?
>>>>

6556

coco
3999

 

Heasecheckthemwerdubestrepesedsyowoﬁrion

22. rmmmwmmammmmeanrmmmmmwom

(Clockwork)

_1oouow?
_Aaourmcrrr?
_rooruar?
_rMN0rsmB

23. Whatdoyouthinkisinpparhrgmdeblackbearpopuhﬁmhrdwmymiumnnstottmﬂandraﬂyone)

_srzmsroar~:mmsmc
smasroar—zxaomnrr-zmmarm
samsroaeoaazmsmo

muorm

 

206

IV. YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT BEAR REGULATIONS IN MICHIGAN

24. Pmmmwuwudisppmofmchofdnfolwmnwndsfaﬁmiﬁrgmcm
ofmmvmdeadrywhhﬁdriganmhebdwanmdmbeamwuophﬁmfaach
staternent) - . .

ISA‘SWYAME A'Am E‘NOI‘SIIE D'm E'WYW I

IMFTHENLNBBICFBEARHUNIESBYLBINGMWWWAWM. SSA A E D S)

 

mmmmmmmmmmmmm SA A E D S)
YEARAFIEASETQLD’I‘AWBEARKIUSHASBEBNIW.

 

mEIMH-EWCFBEARWBUTSETAWWTOLMI SA A E D S)
MWGDAYSAVAIIABIETOHLNT'.

 

 

Donormnranwamoramnwmamaasmcrnmmmoosm SA A E D so
romavrsramnsmeusaornoosmm '

 

 

 

 

Wemmmmmdywwhmdbwwm bufordruraaofdissadouplm
Wdudemq’buhmmkﬁnﬂedanhywbrm

25. Midwfdefolimvingmrgamdsmridymbesaﬁsﬁeduﬁdrﬂomkauym)
MWTOBESAWIWDHAVEIOGETABEARHARVEITAONMGHGAN:

_Evmvvm

_Armsrorusvmv2mrzs
Armmavmnmns
Armmmv4mns
Armmmvsvmas
Armmsvmvémas
Armsrom-zmv'lmns
i'MNOI‘SlRE

26. thmywmﬂmmmabwimveamgbefueywmﬂQmappiyhgthugm?
(Mariya!)

TWOUIDQUITAPPLYMRXKAHARVETTAGINMIFTHADTOWAH‘.

_maEnMN2Yr-yms

__maranrm3mas

_mR£nrAN4vmas

__mRr-:mm$mas

_mRETHAN6YEARS

_M0R£nrAN7vmns
_Iwomboorrrmuammvsvmmmumwm
_i'MNOTSURE

207

 

mmMnmmmm

 

 

herrigarovatheerymtheproportioanhm wlrotqabeaontlrewargeis:

I ottoflohruasiutlrelowalbdra'da
. ‘Zou'qI'IO'hutasbrtlrewperPeIim-da
3odof10huasonmklad.

 

 

27. Anma’rgtlraeisaliniﬂolhamﬁaofbecdulhebmmﬂowlobeluvarredinllﬁclrigarearhyar,
Mratisdrelouestdnnceforharvesﬁngabeuthatyoumuidbesatisﬁed withintheareathatyouimnt‘?
(Greckmiyone)

FORWNBESAIWIWDWANTHEWMIEKRBERWWBEEIESHMN:

iOUI‘G-‘TOHUNTESHARVETABEAR

ZOU'I‘G’TOHUNTESHARVET'ABEAR
3OUI‘G-‘lOI-RMESHARVET‘ABPAR
4OUT'G‘TOHINTESHARVEI'ABEAR
SMG’TOWHARVEI'ABFAR
_mmrsrmz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WWMMMRMGANBMW
WWII! mama ﬂatl’ar'odlﬂ mums!
Whae (WW WW WW WW
Minnie
When SeptIo-OdZI quIS-Oar26 34117-quﬁad Squid-Sq!“
Gal-W7

Widow-ads Mdogslnwoorb Anfmofbu Ardrayordyﬁom 11”]me
endowed dur'rgIerdys WW Gal-W7 Immanuel

 

28. Mkanatsydmwhaedoghdasadbdsﬂasdmnmhmmmisdnmm
peioddntyouwouidbesaﬁsﬁedwithfatheueaﬂntyouhmuﬂanckauyme)

FalMETOBESAIIST‘ETWmIHBi-EMPEKDTOBBATLEASR

OTHERWIFASESPECIFYDAYS

7 DAYS (momma t W).

9 DAYS (mcmeo 2 war-Icarus).
16 DAYS (mcmeo 3 mos).
23 DAYS (nummo 4 W).
_ 30 DAYS (mom 5 wammns).
_ 37 DAYS (muomo 6 maps).
_ 44 DAYS (INCIUDING 7 mm).

I'MNOTSURE

 

29.

30.

31.

208

dehutpaiodfordoghrmswasmplddy memllrehutpaiodforotlwbea-Iuem(ag, ba't
Mammy,whatisdnshatesthmupoioddntyoumddbesaﬁsﬁeduddr?(0wckmuyme)

WSB’ARATEFMNTWIWDBESAWFIIEWWWASATW

7DAYs(mommalwm<rmD).
9DAYS(momm02wr-r-:r<nms).
16DAYs(mo.u)ma3 W).

7.3 DAYs(mo.UDma4war-xn~ms).
_30DAYS(morr)maswrsaa-:ms).

_37 DAYS(mommaéwr-rar<mis).
__44DAYs(momma7wrr-xams).
_OIHER(PI£ASESPECIFYDAYS ' ).
_l'MNOI‘SURE

V. WHAT TRADE-DEE “OULD YOU (HOSE?

MW-mlwetowdtmwofﬂymfwahavaaghm. ' . I

RamnboingMoumuiymmedm3anofmy10hnosmﬁdlyhamabwhwﬁdﬁgan
wuddwudnmemwahanadﬁﬁanlymrmmdwalmveamgifymrdmnefahawesﬁngabwwas
increasedtoanyofthefoiiowing?(01eckoniyone)

TWOWTOWAHANADDIHONALYBARFMYWRATEWTO:

_4ouror=10

_sourorro

__6ouror=10

_7ourorro

_maranrAN7ouror=lo

_rmwrommwaemmmmmmrmrmwowmnmA
BEAR.

__rMNorsuRE

Rumnberingthatthemrmberofdaysinaiumtperiodmgeﬁom7to4l,“ould}ouchoosetowaitone
addiﬁanlyeartoreceiveahanesttagifdremnnbo'ofdaysinymrinmpoiodwashuearedbyanyofthe
following: (Owekonlyone)

TWDGIOOSETOWMTANADDWONALYEAREMYHUNTWWASWBY:

_3 DAYS (momma l ware-n3)

_ 7 DAYS (momma ONE warm)

_ 10 DAYS (momma TWO warmers)

_ 16 DAYS (moqua mar-r: wmamDs)
_rmmmrwmo~emmmmmornemmmoromsusrmm
__I'MNOTSURE

209

32. Asbearhuntingregulationsaredesignedforivﬁchigantherearegoingtohavetobetrade-offs. Inyouropinion,
howrrmchimportanceshouldtheDNRassigntoeachofthefoilowinginthetrade—oﬂ‘process?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Somewhat Not NotSure

I-iowimportantareeachoftheseﬁrctors? Important Important Important Importam

A WWMW l 2 3 ’ 4 _ S
mnrawooos ’

B morscnonornraamrowumon 1 2 3 . 4 s

C 'mua'nrorsaAscms l 2 3 4 5

D mmormasrrummswmroa l 2 3 4 S
AaEARrrAavasrrmm

E orAno-zsoraenmaAam l 2 3 4 5
(suaoassrzAres)

F rammoroosamrmzrorm t 2 3 -4 5
10mm

G rammoroosewrrrmrommr 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33. Ofﬁreabovefactorspieaseidortifythe3mostirnportanttoyeubyputtingtheletterofthefactormthe
appropriatelinebeiow.

WIMPORTANT WWWANT THIRDIBDSI‘IMPGITANT

WhymMmeeM/adoﬁgbarluvdminm

I MM WWW I RAMOMLOHEIY um. I

 

- Appﬂarnrecdvepolrtsemhyea'duthgy 0 Aﬂrppﬁcanlravemaqrdduaofbdm

rpplyforeluvarlugaddomlgdom~ «twoforaluvadugedyanevarfthry
mswoanfdtheprwioreyear

- Appﬁarﬂwithdrenmtpoilnreodveluvat
rqubstbruﬂqrpﬁcanwiﬂgdaluvesr - meerdrumamhymm
mwmyytheykeqrmbg duzismgrumofrhrywmevabemn

0 WWWMIoraWIQ - Mduaqudrgmnforaluvestrqedr
Madame/withstand yea'dqradsondremofluvauqs
(lemofluuastlquly avdkﬂeardthemq'luuasdum

0 Onaeqpﬁaangdahavartagﬁheirpoirc
gobmirlozao

 

 

 

 

34.

35.

36.

210

IfﬂreaveragearnomuofﬁmeymrhavetowaitforaharvesttaginhﬁdriganisZto3yeas,midyouprefer
drepoiruprefoencesystanordrerandomiottoysystern?(areckaﬂyone)

iftheaverageamountoftimeyouinvetomitforaharvesttaginMichiynislrotiyeas,wouldyouprefer
drepoirﬁprefoencesysternortherandaniottoysyston?(ared<aﬂyme)

_ImarurnraPomrPaa=mSYsrm
_IPRB-‘H{1HERMIDOMLO1TB{YSYSTBA
_EnrrrzSYSImISAoorrrAaua
_I‘Mr~rorsrm£

ThkkyunoppoumhymwllanidriganDNRhmvyoumﬂdlmemswbwhaﬁngregrimdh
Michigan. Pleasecmmoﬂmmyspecbwhidryoufedueaiﬁaifudwﬂﬂlmcusiduasdwysaﬁnn

regulatronsandplansforaiiocatingbearharvedtags

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37.

211

VI. SOURCESOFBEARHUNTINGINFORMATION

yesornoforeachquestion)

The foilowingtableasksaborlmmreneesand involvement Mdrbearhmtingorganizations inMichigan.(Circie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you m a Have you ever been
rmrrber of dis or ofﬁcer in dis
orgarization? organimﬁon?
YE NO YE E
YE N0 YE E
YE E YE E
NCKTHEASIERN MICHIGAN YE E YE YE N0 YE E
HGJNDSBM ASSOOATIONI
MiG-TIGAN (1)04 HLNIESI YE E YE YE E YE E
MiG-IIGAN EW HUNIES YE E YE YE NO YE E
ASSOGA'IION
U.P. BEAR HOUNDSMBI YE E YE YE E YE E
ASSOCIATION
MTG-TIGAN UNITED YE NO YE YE NO YE E
WVA'IION CUJBS
(MUG?)

 

 

38.

Maturation Souce

MAGAHNE

i

M

i

 

NEWAPES

 

TELEVISION

l
l

 

HUNTING (RGANIZATIW HBUCATIE

_

 

FRIBIDS

 

MWYIES

 

mmnmaume

 

 

 

OIHER (EXPLAIN):

 

NNNNNNNN

 

wwuwuww

 

##h#v§hh#

 

 

Hownmdrdoyoursednfoiiowingsoncesfainfannﬁmmbearardbearhmﬁnﬁ Cireletherulrbo'thatbest
describeshowrmchwruseeachsource.

aw Somme

39.

212

Wintinforrnationwouldyouliketohaveabonbearandbearhmrtingdntisnotourorﬂyavailabletoyou?

 

 

 

 

 

thestedmuﬂymbehmmgmkﬂnpsmWaoduwpsofmfmmﬁanangsabonbeu
andbearhmrting?(0reckoniyone)

_veryinterested
_moderatelyinterested
___siightiyintaested
___notatailinterested

VII. DECRIPTIVE INFORMATION

Shmmwontkmwymumnediefolioudngareposanlquestimsdntwillheipusdescribethepeoplewhoare
involvodinbearhunting

41.

42.

43.

45.

46.

Whatisyourage? years
Wintisyourgender?((}reckone)
male female

Wintmdrehighestgradeleveiymcunpletedhrsdrool?(aieckaﬂyme)

______gradeschooi
__somehighschool
__compietedhighschool

_ . i ..
_sornecoiiege
_compietedeoilege
_graduateorprofessionalschooi

Wint county do you live in? county
Since 1990, have you gone hunting for any ofthe following: (Greek all that apply)
whitetail deer
elk
rabbits
game birds (e.g, grouse, pheasant)
water fowl
Doyou cunentlyowndogsthatyouuse inbearhunting?

no yes

213

APPFNDIXVII

Summary ofchrnges based on [ﬂat survey resrlts

214
Summary of Changes Based on Pilot Survey Results

Identiﬁed by question number on survey and responder! umber from ﬁlm group

5.
6.
8.

10.
14.

15.
16.
17.

18.

19.

20.
21.

using gun and bow -9
sitting over bait with gun, sitting over bait with bow -9
Did not answer this question -6

Delete "plan to h ", change to "spent" -11

Room for comments under box -9

Skipped some of the questions -1

Room for cormnents under box -13

"More likely to violate baiting regulations" -20
Didnotansweranyquestions inthebox-hedid not receiveatag-Zl

Wrote in "one week for LP. and the week of bow only" - "asked why this question. " -4

Answeredthiseventhoughhedidnotuseaguide-32
Answeredthiseventhoughhedidnotuseaguide-lo

sitting over bait with gun, sitting over bait with bow -9

Change "no more important" to "equally as important" -11

"Does not include reasons applicable to do-it-yourself bait sitters"
"Combine shooting skills and hunting skills"

"Add- Theopportmitytoseeabearinhisnatmaihabitat"

"Add - Tire cinllenge of outsnnrting a bear"

"Add a does not apply choice"-13
Heprrta7nexttotheﬁ‘eedomofclmiceitem-36
Oniyanswered2ofthequestionsinthebox-24

May be confusing, does each get ranked 1-5 or collectively? 11
Ranked iterm incorrectly -31

Only ranked 2 choices ~24

"I found this question confusing! Not sure how to answer" -8
Ranked items incorrectly -17

"Should not conﬁrse bear hunting opportunity with MDNR bungling of permit system" -
l3

"somewhat dissatisﬁed— can't get a tag -36

"Ask this as a 2-part question - before 1990 and after 1990 -17

Add plural to partner -13
"Trust is confusing - change to think or feel" -8
Why no questions about bow hunting? Break it down into gun, bow and dogs-9

23.

27.

28.

29.
30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.
36.

37.

215

Room for comments under this question -35
Checked increasing but wrote comments of decline prior to 1990 -20

Successrateisnotimponam-opponmritytoshootoneiswhatcomts-M
Add option of "not important" —8

Put a "3" on the line next to 23'days -1
Checked 2 choices -24

Did not answer -1

Did not answer -1

Suggest adding additional option of "Hunting with bear hunting pals more important than
success rate"

"This question is misleading (see survey) -31

Add option of "success rate not important" -8

Asked "how does this relate?"

Did not answer -1
"Tire season should be shorter not longer" ~20
Put a ? next to this question -4

"Circle the appropriate number for each item" -11

"This question is ambiguous -and these goals are not mutually exclusive as is implied" -
20

Wrote in "in my area" for an item he checked as not important -36

Didnot anweranyquestions inthebox-6

Delete the word "longest" under point prefer. syst. -ll
Didnotﬁllin3rdmostimportant-l

"Ifthe wait is the same, why do they favor one over the other. You are not informing
them tint one will be different ﬁorn the other. Leave out years wait -11

"Make it clear tint the prefer. syst. nny include a 3-18 yr wait within a few yrs, and the
system would be locked in forever." -9

Did not answer -1

Wrote in "neither is acceptable" - "I do not favor either of these systems. I favor a data
base approach" (see survey) -36

Did not answer --11, 1

Do you want to include costs oflicenses and hunts here? -11

"One area tint is being avoided is how nnny bears are being wounded and by whom?
I feel this has serious impact on the resource" (See survey for sample question) -9

Didnotansweranyofthesequestions-6

38.

216

No room to write what "0 " is.

Personal scouting should be a source. - 11

"Other bear hunters" as a choice -36

"Find out on my own" -24
Didnotansweranyofthesequestions-6

Put a ? next to the "other" option but circled "3" —8
Add "Bear Researchers/Biologists" option -10

Add "My own Experience" option -17

217

APPENDIX VIII

Mailing contents for statewide bear inner survey: Melanin, cover letters, and postcard
reninder

218

1993 OPINION SURVEY OF MICHIGAN BEAR HUNTERS

I YOIIRWVOLWWBMRHIMMWMGHGAN
HowhaveyouparticipatedinbearhmtinginMidﬁgan?(Greckadyone) ' i ‘
IC] IHAVEFRJNTEBEARWBEKOUWIOIMRVETAMIWIOQUETMZI
2C] [HAVENEVEHADAHARVETTAGBUTIHAVECKNEAUNGWABEARHLNE[WMQUE‘IDVII]
JD [HAVENEVEBWWABFARWNMGEGANLWPIUWII]
ibwnnnybear,ifmy,inveyouposonilyinrvestedinhiﬁduganordseuhoe?

BEAR

Wyeudidyouﬁrstgoiuntingspeciﬁcallyforbwinhﬁdrigan?

ABOUTl9

Abearhmtinglicensehasbeanrequiredtoiurtbearsincelm. Sincethorabouthownmyyearsiuveyouiuneduhile
beinglicorsedtoharvestabearineachofthefollowingareas? (Pleaserefertothemapbelmv)

YEARSIN'II'BWEIENU’PEWA

Since 1980,Mupowuofyorbarhmuhrg.(Mahaweuug)wadanmhgeadrofdnf00whrgnndnds?

 

 

 

Am %OFTHETIMEIUSHDIDGSWTWEESI‘ARIEOVEBAH‘.

Am %(FTHETIMEIUSPDDCXISIHATWEENOTSTAR’IEOVEBATT.
ABOUT %G-‘THE‘IIMEISATOVEBAIT.

ABQII‘ %ormemlusmommmuoosmrmvmvmooasoam.

 

Mhrebearadmvirgtoiswbea-luverllqsmlm I

 

Didyoureeeivealnrvesttagandgobearhmuingatieastmceduingiwo-1992?(Omkonlyone.)
ID Holsrm'mcur-xnorvlu
ID YEIGOIOQUES'IIONU

219

Cheiedreyearsdratyoupasaniiydraabeumingeadrofdnfolbwingmolnds. Donotincludewoundedbearthat
weruretrieved. Circleyem(s)or"nobear’foreachmethod

W

1990 l991 1992 no m
1990 i991 1992 no m
1990 1991 1992 so am:
1990 i991 1992 no as.

W

IXXBIHATWEESTAKTEOVEBAH'.
NOSIHATWERENOTST‘ARTEOVEBAH‘.
SITTMOVEBATT.
onraawnroDNormVOLvmaDoasoaaArr.

mrummmmmmmmmwmormwabmmmm
throughadrawingin 1990. Circleonemponseforeachstatonent.

 

Diddrechmgemarlrawingforhrlvesttagseorseyoum:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...becorm unrelrtresbdinbearlurting? YE w “Jim
whamnlesslmuesedhrbearlurtingﬂ YES to warm
...bemrelildybshoottheﬁrstlegaibearyousee? YE m norm
...bemreselectiveaboutthesiuofthebeuyurshoot? YE N) norm
...bemoreiikelytohireabeariuningguide? Yes no mrsuu:
...changethemethodyouusetolurtbel’i YE m norm
“mmmofdaysyouspordbathlﬁngiraseasm? YE m norm
..decreasethenurberofdaysyouqrordbetluting'maseason? YE in warm
...changewhoyougobeuhuntingwith? YE no norm
...dnngetheareathatyouiurrlforbear’? YE it) warm
Consuls:

 

 

DidwubeariutwidrainrvesthghrhﬁdrimduingiMNQreckaﬂyme)

at] mlaommmlol

aD YE...lfyes,plasechckdlofdndaysMyouhmuedbearhh/ﬁdrimduirgl992.

mm 1992

MODE 1992

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

I3.

220

Indrelmt3betsmsons(i990-l992).didyoupayanyonetoassistyou'uranypartofbearinmtingﬂ(areckonlyone.)
ID NO [comer/mm!”
20 YEnyes,whidryemsdidyoupaysomemeforassis&ncc?(cimkyear(s).), i990 . 1991 .1992

inthenaxtSyeas,whichofthefollowinghmrtingmethod(s)doyouintotdtornetolumtbearinMichigan7.(Greck
dimmiymyou) ' '

.D DOGS'IHA‘I‘ARESI‘AKTEOVEBAIT.

20 DoasnrATAasNOl‘srArtrmovr-nam.

:0 snrmaovmrwr.

.0 mmmrmvmmoarwr.

so rmmrmmmmmmmmmnnmosvwzs
(Hmroaum):

mmsumemwmmmdmmmmnmmm
mmmmmmmmmdwmuarym)

ICI WWWMWMWWTIPWATEN

1C] MGMWWMWWWIEWTIPWATEN.

3C1 EMEWANTWANYMWIWLACWMTIPARHGPATEN.

a0 EWANTHMNWMWNWIEWTIPARHGPAIEN

3C1 ETATAILWI‘ANI‘TOME

H WWWRWW

Howimportantieeaehofthefoiiowingasareasonwbyyouwouldgobearhunting? Foreachreason
listed below, circle the number to show how important it is to you.

 

How rmportan’
would go bear hunting?

tisthisasareamwhyyou

[
i

 

 

To spend time with my bear hunting friends.

 

Togetawayﬁommrhschoolmretressandtorelax.

 

To use my hunting skills.

 

To have bear meat.

 

Tobawtheopporhmitytdgetaahetatabear.

 

To be in the woods.

 

To harvest a bear.

 

To spend time with my family.

 

To have the challenge of hunting a dangerous animal.

 

To enjoy the prehunt baiting activities.

 

To have the opportunity to see a bear in its natural
habitat.

hhﬁhhhhhhbh

 

 

To see and hear bear dogs work.

F‘HHI-IHHHHHHFIHIEE

 

 

NNNNNNNNNNMN"

 

wwwmwwwweewmee

 

IA

 

GOGGOGMO‘GGO‘O

 

 

221

m YOUR OPINIOAS ABOUT BEAR HUIWM AM) TIE MGHGANDM

 

 

Homemwmfdbwhghfmbq'mwmrgwiﬂrﬂzsmey.
- Befoelmhnuoswuﬂpnchmeabeuhconemhunhmmnofdanpmmbwhmuing'
- mrmmmmmmwrmmmwmmymm.

- lbdadnnewsyﬂonhﬂosanﬂyﬁxahuwsthgbysdedhgahrﬂpabdwidmawofdm
nnrngononmitslomdintheUppermdncrthonImPorhrsulm.

- Thedmrceofbeingdrawnforabeuiuyesttaginlmmaboutlinl Thisisbecausethoewere16377
eligr‘biebearhmrtoawlicartsniimharvesttagsimred.

- mmawmmsmwmmwmummmm
andhunmneeds. Forl993thehovestpalisappmrinmeiy1£00bean

 

 

i4.

Pieasehrdicatewhedroymageeadkegeewidrdnﬁilbwingmts. Cireieoneansuerthatbestrepresentsyou
opinion foreachstatemerl.

 

SA-MYAM A-Am m-norm D'DBAGE SD‘S'TMYDSAGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

InnemﬁdortdreMinsmrghinformatimmdrebearpoprﬂatim SA A NS 0 m
toconectiydecidehownnnybeartoharvestinhﬁdriganeachyear.
hspiteofutmdwysaanWthnimddninneuofbeunmbewmofpoliﬁcal SA A NS D so
modmbecwseofbiologicalevidorceofdeoeashrgbeupopuhﬁms
lmanNRtofahlycusidadrehwoedsofiumswhordieysabearlumﬁng SA A NS D
reguianms.

IieDNRdmldginidrigmresidousdntﬁwhranen-beninbimagremdm SA A NS D so
ofreceivingaharvesttagevenifitrerhcesmymdm
TheDNRdnuldgiwsoriaciﬁnmageno'dmofreceivhrgahmvenugmifh SA A m D a)
roducesmyowncimces.
TinDNRsinuldgiwyumghumULMynhgreatodmofmceivhrgahnvenmg SA A NS 0 SD
evenifitreducesmyownchances.
Regudleesofdnsystanfaobminhrgabeumngitisvoyhnpotamfannmga SA A NS D m
atagthesameyeuasmyiurtingpanrﬁs).

 

 

 

l5.

OvoathmvsaﬁsﬁedueyouwidronmbeunmgmmhrMidﬁganNOmkmlym.)

l U VERY SANS-TED.

2 0 WT SATISFIH).

3 Ci NEITHER SATIS’IED hm DISSATISHH).
r C] EMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.

5 Ci VERY DiSSA'IISI-IED.

222

16. Whatdoyouthinkishappalhgmdnbladtbwpquhﬁmhdnmwuhuunnsmftmﬂamkaﬂyma)

ID mmwm

ID mmwmmmmm
JD mmBEmm

‘U I'MNOTSURE.

SD lHAWWI‘YETWBEARINMG‘HGAN.

 

 

 

 

l7. mmmwmmdmmmsulmmmmdwum
bear.(Checkonlyonc.)
ID TOOIINI?
2C] ABOUTRIGHT?
30 TOOHIGH?
40 I'MNOTSURE.

18. Faeadnofdnfolhwhgmmplesechdcﬂnmdmmmptmsmophﬁm

 

SA'MYAGE A-Am us-mrsum n-nmm sn-mvnmau
Wharpmpaiymguhtﬁdmisnodﬁtgmdhimluhmuﬂabmlhmﬁngbwm
bait.

 

9

A

U

 

Baitluma'stnkcnmdmdwirslmofdlebet.
mmmmmmmommamgbm
ﬁnitsiuashaveagtmdnnoeofharvsﬁngabwdmhmdutmedop.
Hmtingbwwimbaitshouldcmtixmmbenllouedthidﬁm
Mmpopaiymguhtddmisnodlingmwﬁmlorimmﬂabom
hmningbearwithdogs.
Hmtasmusedogsmkcmedmmeirdmofdnbw.
Hundngwidldogshtafasvﬁmodumemodsofhuﬁngbw.
Doghuntashaveagrmchameofharvsﬁngabwdunbaitsittas.
Hunting bwwim dogs should continuembeanomd in Michigan.

 

 

 

>>>>
coco

 

O

 

 

 

 

89988989?
>

5586555555

8888888888

>>>>
coco

 

 

 

 

223

IV. YOUR OPNONS ABOUTBElk REGUIAIIONS‘ WMIGIIGAN

l9. mmmmwadimmmofmofdnﬁlmmfalhﬁﬁnghmofbw
Wmmywinhﬁdnigan Ciidedtemeanswudmbastmmophimforeashmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E'WNLYM A'm NSBMSUEB 03m 80.81132011me
Limit the number of bear hunters by using some form of drawing. 8A A NS D SD
Donot limit the numberofbearhuntera, butclose the season eachyear . SA A NS D SD
after a set quota of bear have been harvested.
Do not limit the number of bear hunters, but set a very short season to 8A A NS D SD
limit the number of bear harvested.
Donot limit the number ofbearhunters, but restrict themethodsused 8A A N8 D so
to harvest bear (use of dogs and/or bait).

 

 

 

 

' Wemmmmmgummmdmmmmwhmmdmmm
mmmmofbwhmmuwmyuhm

20. Wishelmgestwahforabearhmvsthgdutmmldbesaﬁsﬁedwim?
lWBESATISFIHDIFIWAMWWTMNWNINWKMONLYWE)

ID WYYEAR.

ID MMYZYFARS.

3C] MWY3YEARS.

eU MWY4YBRS.

SD MWYSYEARS.

OD MWYGYWS.

1C] lWDSTMBESAWWMA6YEAR‘l/Aﬁ.
3C] l'MNOTSlmE.

21. WkwmmmﬂmmmammmmmmﬂQmthﬁgﬂﬂ
lWQUITAPHNMNMGHGANH’IWWTGETAHARWTAGATLBSR(G{HXMYONE)

ID MWYZYFARS.

2C] ONCBEVERY3YEARS.

3C] ONCEEVRY4YFARS.

4C] ONGEVRYSYEARS.

5C] ONGEVBIYGYBRS.

6C] [\KOUIDCDNHNUETOAPHXWAFIEIA6YEARWAW.
1C] I'MNOTSURE.

224

2?. OnatlyﬁodZianuuasluvadabaz Wisdwlomdwwcforhsrvesﬁngabcardutywmldbc
satisﬁedwidiintheamadatyoulnnu‘?

IWBESAWFMWMTENKHARWAMWASNOINW(GMQIXGE)

ID lWTWlOWHARVNAm
20 ZMGIOHUN'MSHARWAM
JD 3MG10HUNFH‘SHARVBTABEKR.
40 4MCP10HWH‘RSHARWABFAR.
SD SMWIOWHARVBTAM
‘0 WWW

1D mumlsmrmrmmm

23. WmewmwmdMMmemmmwﬁm741
dqs. mammmmmmumﬁthm-ummm

lWlDBESAﬂmFﬂ-IEWIIWNMSIEJMLESSW3(G~HXMYGE)

.0 7DAYS(MJJDlNGllﬂ-E®D).

10 9DAYS(NC]JJDINGZWEB<B~DS).

1E] lémvs(m1mn3wmcmns).

.0 23mvs(mam4wam-ms).

so 30mvs(mam5wam).

so 37mvs(mm6wm<mas).

1C] vas(mm7mcmzs)

:0 mmmspmmvs J.
90 I'MWTSURE.

24. yummm/ammMWw/mwmfawwmwm
madam Mmmcldhelobem Wisdueslmseasondutymmldbeslisﬁedwﬁi?

Mmmmmsmmlmwsesmmmmmsmmmmwssmwmmxm)

no 7mm(mmmolwm<ao)

2C] 9mvs(mm2wm<mas).

3C] lGDAYS(NG.UDM3WH-J<DDS).

40 23mvs(m1m4waa<mas).

st] 3ODAYS(MJDNGSW).

sD 37DAYS(maiDm6wm~os).

1D I‘MVMSE’ARAEWISWTWANTTUME.
:U I'MNOTSIRF.

225

V WME-OPFS mum YOUCHOOE?
I ' Mmelwetowdtmwatgequ-Jymforaluvatqinm I

25. 0mﬂyabmﬁ2anofevuy10hmwsmﬁillymabwhw EMMMWW
mahMtu‘sdmofIm-veaingabearwwldm ledywdioosemwaitmeaddiﬁaulyeartomeive
ahmvcsttagifitimprmredmdmmforlnrvstingabw’?

lWDGWWWAﬂANWMFMWMTEWTOKMNYOE)

ID 3MGIOHUNTHISHARVESTABEAR.

ID 40111]: lOl-IUNTHISHARVETABEAR.

ID SMGIOHUN'IHZSHARVESTAM

lU GMWIOWHARVBTAM

3C] MEWGMGIOHWIESHARVSTAM

6C] [WMWMVEAWWMTMAHARVBTTAGTHANANWMM
”MAM

1U mmrrm

26. 111cnmnbaofdaysinabearlumtingseasmm13eﬁun7to4l. Waddyoudioosetomitomsdditianlywm
meiveaharvesttsgifdienmbaofdaysinmlumﬁngmwhuwat

lWMT’OWMTANWMFﬂ-EWlﬂNTNWASWBYATIﬂSRKJ-EXOLYOE)

no 3mvs(mmlwsam).

:D 7mm(mamlwaa<mn).

aDlODAYS(n~K1UDn~IGZWE-XB~IDS).

4016MYS(MJJDIN03M-E®Ds).

SD lWDMWHAWAWWAﬂMAHARVNTAGWAWW.
6C] I'MNOTSURE

27. Asbarhnﬁngleguhﬁasmdevebpedfahﬁddgandmﬁﬂbehdooﬂsm lnmropiniaghowundi

hnpatmedmldanNRassignmmdlofdndengfaaastdeddhgmfﬁ? Chdetheappmptisl:
nmnberforeachfaaor.

 

Hownanueeachormeracmis? W

lnterfamoeamongbearhunmindiemods. l
Protectimofdiebwpowlatim l
Mofbearhmtingseasons. l
Nmnberofyeamhmtaswaitforabearlwvstpamit l
Gmmofhaxvstingabw. l
Fmedantodloosemmofhﬁdﬁgantohmtm l
FreedantodiooseMmtohunt. l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not

Sue
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

AA&L&&&[:
muuummuii

 

 

NNNNNNN

 

WWWUUUU

 

 

 

226

VI YOUR OPNOM ABOUT W BEAR IMRVEBT Z463

Auujadcbaemmybetmmmlnwdeymulﬂcdehmveamgsisedwhyem Folloun'ogissorue

WMWMmmbkmmmmwmmm-ummmmmm
Hememdtlneiﬂomﬁoumdmhmwﬂchfclhw. Yowdnigllfdiqsaisimt-ll -

==

-Applicants receive points each year they -Applications are drawn randomly by
applyforaharvesttaganddonotgetone. computereachyeartodecidswhogets

 

 

How It Works: a harvest tag.
-Applicants with the most points receive
harvest tags ﬁrst. -All applicants have an equal chance
of being drawn in a given year.

-Once applicants receive a harvest tag.
theirpointtotalgoesbscktosem.

 

-Youareassuredofevenmallygettinga -Youhavethesamechsnoeofbeing

 

harvesttag. dnwmevenifyouhuntedtheyear
Possible before.
Advantages: -Once the system is operating, you could
predict closely the year you would have -It is possible that you might be
encugbpointstoreceiveatag. drawnforaharvesttagmoreoften
thanyouwouldexpectperhapsevery
year.
~Youcanpredictwhenyouwillhave -Itispossiblethatyoumightmbe
Possible enoughpointsaccmnulatedtobedrawn drawnforaharvesttagorlessoften
Disadvantages: foraharvesttag.butthereislittlechance thanyouwouldexpect.
that you could get one sooner.

 

 

-If more people apply for harvest tags, it would decrease your chances of being
drawn in the random lottery system or increase how long you would have to wait to
get a harvest tag under the point preference system.

 

 

 

 

Consideringthecunentnmnbsr-(in 1993)ofbearharvesttagapplicantsandavailahleharvesttags,the
probability of being drawn under a random system would be 1 in 3. Under a point preference system you would
get a tag every 3 years (if you applied every year).

28. Given these current numbers, which system would you prefer? (Check only one.)

u D A RANDOM may.

2 C] A POINT PREFERENCE SYSTEM.
3 D EITHER ONE.

4 D I‘M NOT SURE.

31.

32.

227

 

themhmﬁngmyccmhnmhgemaﬂmepwpkapplyﬁcrmmmismdw

duneofbehigdmwnmdademuysystaneadiyenmlddeaemqa,uderapdmpefaebe
symdiemsnberofyearsymmildlmetovmtwmldinaeme

mmmofwmmwwmmmmmmmmdmofm
slurvmttsgwaslhiamdadepchaprefuunesystunwmouldlnvemmSyeusmgetammg Under
ﬁnmeccnditions,wlﬁchmldymprefeﬂ(0edtcnlyone.)

ll] ARANDWLOTIHIY.

10 ammsmm
:0 3015108.

40 NWTSURE.

Hammmmmdhmfudmbwmmmlﬂdykitthatyou
wmldapplyfcraharvmttageveryye-Q(Gieckcnlyone.)

IU IDEWHEYWD.
20 lPRGBABLYWLD.

1C] IWYWDWT.
4C] lDB-‘INI'IEYWWI‘.
sCll'MNOTSURE.

HaRANDOMWﬁEWSYSFEMmmthchignfu-MbamngsmlﬂdykRMym
wouldapplyforahsrvmttageveryye-Naieckmlycne.)

ID [DB-‘INI'IEXWD.
1C] lPRWBLYWD.

1C] tmvmmr.
4C] Imvmnmr.
SD I'MPDTSIRE.

mmemmebdwmmwdmyddiﬁaﬂcmmmwumiduhawmmingammm
craRANDOMlD'ITERYSYSTchrismingbemhsrvesttags (Please'mcludeadditicnslpagmifnecmmy)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

228

m SOIRCES‘ 0FBE4RHUNIMMURM4HON

33. IlefdlwdngnbleadmsbanmmmdhwlvmﬁdwwhmﬁngagammgninMdiigan.(Circle)es
ornot‘creachquestion.) ' '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aleyeufamiliar Wereyouma Areyounmnlxe Hweyouevu'been
Q-garﬁmﬁm withthis {nernbcrofthis memberofthis anoﬂicerinthis
lW? organimm? crgamnnon? organization?
==7 j
”H. ”.1
Cmservatimdubs Y3 to YES No YES NO YES NO
(MUCC)
magma rm NO YES NO yrs NO was NO
”mm? YES NO was NO was NO was NO
W was NO was NO YES NO was No
Michichanunters YE to YES 10 YES 10 rm m
M Mm yrs NO YES NO was No YES NO
”PW rm NO YES NO YES No YES NO
M W rm NO Yes No YES NO was NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34. lbwmdudoyeumedrefolbw’mgmcmfahfannﬁmmbearmdbethﬁng? Grcletherambertlntbmt
dmcn'bmhowrmchyoumeeacbmce.

Infonnstion Sauce Bun-ﬂy Sod-u I buy
W 3
Names
Television
Hunting organizatial publications
* Bear hunting ﬁ-icnds
DNR «mm
License application guide
Other (explain):

 

 

if

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u—s—u—s—s—s—s—s
NNNNNNN

 

 

uuuuuu
basbhhb

 

 

 

 

3S. Whatinfonnsticnvmldywliketchsveabaﬁbearmdbearhmﬁngdntisnotumuulyavailsbletowu?

 

 

36. MWmumummmgmmMammofwmmmmmmm
hunting?(Gieckonlyone.)

ID veryintermted 2C] modemtelyintermtcd at] slightly interested ID notatall interested

229

VIE DWI/E MDRIIMIION

Wenmddnfoﬂowinginfmnaﬁmmlwlpcarmebearhmswhhoduhmdnggrmps. 'lhisinfonmtionwillremain
conﬁdentialandwillnotbemsociatcdwidiyomnmreoraddrem. , .

37.
38.
39.

41.

42.

43.

Whatiswurage? YEARS

Wisyom'gender’? iCIMALE 20W
Mistwmdiehighestgradelevelyoucmpletediisd'nol?(0ed<mlyme)
IUG‘RANSOiOOL 50mm

:0 WWW somm
:DWHIGHW 1UWIEGKWQMLSGDOL

4C] VCXTKIIONALTRAINING

 

Wcomtydoyoulivein? (DUNN

Since 1990,haveyougonelumtingforanyofdiefollowing:(aieckalldiatapply.)
IUWl-II'IEI‘AEDEER 40W
:UO’IHEIBIGGAME(HJ<,O\RMJ,EIC) sUMGAWBIRIB(GROUSEPHFASANF,EIC.)
JUSMALLGAME sDWATHUUWL
Doyoucmrerulyowndogsthaywuseinbeu'hning? tDNo ' 20m

Wherrymlumtbeardoyouuse: uDAGtN :DABOW JDBOTH

PleasetakethisopporumitytotelldielldidiiganDNRhcwyurmldliketoseebearhmtingregulmdinMichigm.
UsethespaoebelowtocursnerucnalysmectsuhidiyoufeellecriﬁcslfordieDNRtoconsidamdieysetﬁnse
regulatiorsandplans forallccatingbearluvesttags.(Anachextrasheetsifneedcd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

Please place the questionnaire in the stamped envelope provided and mail to: Department of Natural Resources

Wildlife Population Studies
PO Box 30030
Lansing, MI 489099965

230

Letter #1
August 1, 1993

Dear Bear Tag Applicant:

Younnybeaware ofthemixedfeelings amongbearhtmtersoncertainissuesofbear
hurting and bear rmnagement in Michigan Michigan State University is working cooperatively
with the Department of Natural Resources‘ Wildlife Division to obtain information from bear
hunters, like you, to help better understand your needs. To achieve a balanced bear management
plan, the Wildlife Division must consider the needs of people and the well-being of the bear
population

Enclosed is a copy of the "1993 Opinion Survey of Michigan Bear Ihmters". We are
sendingthis questionnairetoasmall nmnberofhmterswhowercrarxlomlyselected ﬁomalist
of 1992 bear harvest tag applicants. We need you help-whether or not you consider yourself
an active bear hunter. The information obtained in this survey will be used by the Wildlife
Division to help deﬁne bear htmter priorities in setting bear hunting regulations and issuing
harvest tags.

Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and yom' name will be kept
conﬁdential. Your response is very important, so please ﬁll out the questionnaire and retm'n it
to us in the envelope provided as soon rrspomible.

If you have any questions concerning the sm'vey, please feel ﬂee to call Lisa Grise at
(517) 353-0308 or Ben Peyton at (517) 353-3236.

Your prompt return Ofthe completed questionnaire is necessary for the success ofthis
study. Thank you for your involvement!

Sincerely,
R. Ben Peyton Lisa Grise
Professor, Fisheries & Wildlife Graduate Assistant, Fisheries & Wildlife

Michigan State University Michigan State University

23 1
Poswald Renillbr

August 7, 1993

Dear Bear Tag Applicant;

Youshouldhavereceivedorwillbereceivingsomannilsmveyregardingymnopuﬁmnmbearhmﬁnginlvﬁdugm Ifyouhave
alreadycormlctedthissurvey,thankyouforyourassistance. lfnot,whenyoudoreceivethissurvey, ﬂamecormlecrndretrsnit
msoonrs possiﬂe.

lfasurvcyhasnotarrivedwithinaweclcplemecallus

Thesuccemofomstudydepmdsmymnpmnnreunnofﬂrcconplctcdsmvey.

ﬂanks for your help!
Sincerely,
R Ben Peyton Lisa Grise
fessor Graduate Assrstant

Pro .
Michigan State University Michi State University
(517) 53-3236 (517) 53-0308

232

Letter#2
August 14, 1993

Dear Bear Tag Applicant:

Recently we sent you a survey regarding your opinions on bear hunting in Michigan. If
you have already completed and returned the "1993 Opinion Stn'vey of Michigan Beer Hrmters",
thank you for yom' assistance. If you did not, please take the time to complete the sm'vey. We
have enclosedanothercopyincaseyoumayhave misplacedtheﬁrstcopywe sentyou

Wewouldliketoremindyouofhowimportantyomirnmtistothesuccessofourstudy.
TheDepartmentofNatmal Resom'ceswantstolmowhowyoufeelaboutbearhmitingandbear
management in Michigan.

Please complete your survey and return it as soon as possible in the envelope provided
Your name will be kept conﬁdential. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
either of us.

Thank you for your assistance!
Sincerely,
R. Ben Peyton Lisa Grise
Professor, Fisheries & Wildlife Graduate Assistant
Michigan State University Michigan State University

(517) 353-3236 (517) 353-0308

233

Iettcr#3
August 21, 1993

Dear Bear Tag Applicant:

Receme you have received surveys regarding your opinions on beer hunting in Michigan.
If you lave already completed and returned this survey, thank you for your assistance. Ifnot, we
would liketoaskyoutoplernetdretlretimemwtoconpleteit.

We appreciate howbusyyoumustbeatthistirneofyear, butyomirnmtintohowour
natmalresom'cesaremanagedinMichiganisveryimportant TheDepartmentofNatmal
Resources has the responsibility to manage our environment in our best interests. Yet, even these
professionals cannot manage effectively without inforrmtion about the public they serve. Our role
as researchers is to give them the necessary information-but we cannot provide it without your
help.

Youmaynotunderstandwhywchinfomrationisneededandbereluctamtospendthe
time and effort to complete this survey. All we can say is, we are professionals who respect your
privacyandthevalue Ofyourtime. Wewouldnotask forthis help ifwedid notthinkthatitwas
worthwhile. .

Please complete your survey and return it as soon as possible in the envelope provided
Ifyou have misplaced your copy of the survey or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate
toeall eitherofus. Theretmnofyomcompletedsm'veyisnecessaryforthe successofour study.

Thank you for your assistance!
Sincerely,
R. Ben Peyton Lisa Grise
Professor, Fisheries & \Vrldlife Graduate Assistant
Michigan State University Michigan State University

(517) 353-3236 (517) 353-0308

GRN STRTE UN V. I

I L 8
"ll ll! III II lllllllll
1 El

2 30102007

HICHI
ll!
13

snares
llllll
755