\

. .3.

"
.a..w...,

 

 

 

 

3.“. . r
t

I.

 

{:1 . ._ LI:

, .. 1‘ gnu. v. égawuiﬁ

 

I I lull 'iulll

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Support for Lethal Wildlife Management in Michigan:
Results from the 1999 and 2000
Resource Attitudes in Michigan Surveys

presented by

Melissa Hodges Koval

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

Mala KIM/M1344»

“Major Pr gfessorﬁ Signatul‘é
Dew/now- //j 30051

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

SUPPORT FOR LETHAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN MICHIGAN:
RESULTS FROM THE 1999 AND 2000
RESOURCE ATTITUDES IN MICHIGAN SURVEYS
By

Melissa Hodges Koval

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

2002

ABSTRACT
SUPPORT FOR LETHAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN MICHIGAN:
RESULTS FROM THE 1999 AND 2000
RESOURCE ATTITUDES IN MICHIGAN SURVEYS
By

Melissa Hodges Koval

In the past, wildlife management largely focused on game species management
for the beneﬁt of consumptive recreationists. However, managers have noted a growing
interest in wildlife among non-traditional audiences. Wildlife agencies across the United
States have begun to incorporate human dimensions information into their management
policies in an effort to respond to the desires of an increasingly diverse constituency.
This paper presents two studies utilizing results from the annual “Resource Attitudes in
Michigan” (RAM) Survey to assess support for lethal wildlife management. In Study 1,
data from the 1999 RAM Survey were used to measure support for lethal wildlife
management among wildlife agency personnel and the Michigan public. Wildlife agency
personnel were generally more supportive of lethal wildlife management than were
members of the public; majorities of both groups found lethal management acceptable in
all of the situations that were considered. In Study 2, data from the 2000 RAM Survey
were used to assess gender differences in acceptance of lethal wildlife management in
eight situations. Men were more supportive of lethal wildlife management than were
women in most of the Situations, and scored higher than did women on a scale measuring
overall support for lethal wildlife management. In both studies, respondents were

particularly supportive of using lethal management to control wildlife diseases.

For my husband, Volga, who was willing to give up the ocean for me.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Angela Mertig,
who, over the course of this project, was not only my major professor, but also my
mentor, supporter, sounding board, and friend. Without her understanding, support and
empathy, this project could never have been completed.

I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Drs. Ben Peyton,
Bill Moritz, and Frank Lupi, for their input on this project and their review of my work.
Special thanks to Bill Moritz, who had the foresight to envision annual Resource
Attitudes in Michigan surveys.

Thank you to the students and staff in the MSU Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife Human Dimensions Laboratory who provided moral and academic support. A
special thank you to Laura Cimo, for all the car rides and baby breaks, and for helping me
to simultaneously cope with graduate school and motherhood.

Heartfelt thanks to my family. . .. To my husband for always supporting me, to
my daughter for always knowing just how to make me smile, and to my parents for
always encouraging me in my chosen path.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources Wildlife Division for making this project possible through their ﬁnancial
support and their commitment to advancing knowledge through human dimensions
research. This project was supported by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act

under Pittman-Robertson project W-127-R-16.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER I
UNITRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management .............................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 2
Goal of the Research ..................................................................................... 4
Study 1 .............................................................................................. 5
Study 2 .............................................................................................. 6
Literature Cited ............................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER H
STUDY 1: MICHIGAN PUBLIC AND WILDLIFE AGENCY PERSONNEL
ATTITUDES TOWARD LETHAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ......................... 10
Abstract ......................................................................................................... 10
Key Words .................................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................... 11
Study Purpose .................................................................................. 17
Methods . ....................................................................................................... l 8
Public Survey .................................................................................... 18
Wildlife Agency Survey ................................................................... 19
Variable Measurement ...................................................................... 19
Analysis ofthe Data ....................................................... 21
Results .......................................................................................................... 24
Sample Characteristics ...................................................................... 24
Support for Lethal Wildlife Management ......................................... 27
LWM Scale ....................................................................................... 29
Discussion ..................................................................................................... 3 1
Support for Lethal Wildlife Management ......................................... 31
LWM Scale ....................................................................................... 36
Management Implications ............................................................................ 41
Literature Cited ............................................................................................. 44
CHAPTER HI
STUDY 2: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ACCEPTANCE OF LETHAL
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT: A STUDY OF THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC .......... 49
Abstract ......................................................................................................... 49
Key Words .................................................................................................... 49
Introduction . ................................................................................................. 50
Gender and Environmental Concern ................................................. 55
Gender, Animal Rights, and Animal Welfare .................................. 56
Gender and Consumptive Recreation ............................................... 57

Purpose of Study ............................................................................... 58

Methods . ....................................................................................................... 59
Variable Measurement ...................................................................... 59
Analysis of the Data ......................................................................... 61
Results ........................................................................................................... 64
Discussion ..................................................................................................... 72
Response Bias .................................................................................... 78
Conclusions ................................................................................................... 79
Notes ............................................................................................................. 81
Literature Cited ............................................................................................. 82
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 87
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 89
Appendix A: UCRIHS Approval Letters ...................................................... 90
Appendix B: 1999 RAM Survey Materials .................................................. 95
Appendix C: 2000 RAM Survey Materials ................................................. 118

vi

Table II-l.
Table II-2.
Table II-3.

Table II-4.

Table II-5.

Table III-1.
Table 111-2.
Table 111-3.
Table 111-4.
Table 111-5.

Table III-6.

LIST OF TABLES

Measurement of the independent variables used to explain support
for lethal wildlife management among members of the public and

wildlife agency personnel in Michigan .............................................

Results of the explanatory or independent variables by sample .......

Michigan public and wildlife agency personnel support for lethal

wildlife management in given situations ..........................................

Standardized simple and multiple regression coefﬁcients and
R-squared values for the Lethal Wildlife Management Scale and

explanatory variables by sample ......................................................

Public and wildlife agency support for various lethal wildlife

management situations in Michigan .................................................

Measurement of the independent variables used to explain support

for lethal wildlife management among Michigan men and women .

Results of the explanatory or independent variables by gender in a

study of attitudes toward lethal wildlife management in Michigan ..

Support for lethal wildlife management in given situations by

gender ...............................................................................................

Standardized simple and multiple regression coefficients and
Model R-squared value for the Lethal Wildlife Management Scale

Zero-order and partial correlations between gender and support for

the eight lethal wildlife management situations ...............................

Ranking of support for the use of lethal wildlife management in
particular management situations among Michigan men and

women .............................................................................................

vii

..... 22

..... 25

..... 28

..... 3O

..... 33

..... 62

..... 66

..... 68

..... 71

..... 73

..... 73

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management

Wildlife agencies, as public entities, are charged with the task of managing
wildlife in the interest of the public. In the past, wildlife management decisions were
typically based on the desires of a limited constituency of consumptive resource users
seeking larger populations of game species. However, over the last several decades,
wildlife managers have recognized a growing interest in wildlife among non-traditional
audiences, such as non-consumptive wildlife recreationists (e.g., wildlife viewers, bird
watchers) (Lyons 1987). In addition, there seems to be an increasing expectation among
members of the public that they should be allowed to participate in government decision-
making (Lyons 1987; Decker 1994; Decker et al. 1996). These factors, combined with
an increase in the frequency of controversies over wildlife management policies in recent
years, have been at least partially responsible for the development of the specialized ﬁeld
of human dimensions of wildlife management (Decker 1994).

Clay and Schmidt (1998) noted that public acceptance of wildlife management
programs and activities often hinges on the study and application of human dimensions
information to management situations. Human dimensions research has been used for
such purposes as identifying and understanding an increasingly diverse set of
stakeholders, obtaining stakeholder input for management decision making, improving
acceptance of management decisions, and evaluating outcomes of management actions

(Decker and Enck 1996; Decker et al. 1996). It is hoped that gathering and applying

human dimensions information will enrich relationships between the management agency
and members of the public, Open communication lines, and thereby create trust among

members of the public in the agency’s ability to manage the resource.

Statement of the Problem

At a time when both human and wildlife populations are growing and
human/wildlife conﬂicts are increasing across the United States, the need for human
dimensions research has never been more evident. Wildlife managers are repeatedly
being faced with public concerns about wild animals as humans and wildlife increasingly
occupy the same landscapes. To deal with these concerns, wildlife managers must often
focus on wildlife population management as the key to resolving human/wildlife
conﬂicts. Managing wildlife populations can involve both lethal and non-lethal
management. The term “lethal wildlife management,” as it applies herein, encompasses
two main goals: 1) to control the risks wildlife pose for people, animals, and the
environment, and 2) to provide opportunities for consumptive wildlife recreation (e. g.,
hunting, trapping). These two goals are closely linked in that consumptive wildlife
recreation is not only a goal of management in itself, but it is also often utilized to obtain
the ﬁrst goal of protecting people, animals, and the environment from wildlife-related
risks. Lethal wildlife management may be used for such purposes as ensuring public
safety, controlling wildlife diseases or damage, preserving ecological health, ensuring
species survival, managing wildlife population levels, or providing opportunities for
hunters to obtain food or trophies. While Americans generally ﬁnd non-lethal

management acceptable, lethal wildlife management tends to be somewhat controversial

(Lauber et al. 2001), and has often sparked intense public debate.

Animal protection groups (i.e., animal rights and welfare groups) as well as anti-
hunting/trapping groups have been responsible for bringing much public attention to the
issue of lethal wildlife management through protests (Tilt and Spotila 1991; Jasper and
Nelkin 1992), media campaigns, and legislative processes (Gentile 1987; Minnis 1998).
For example, anti-hunting protests were used in Maryland to interfere with the Opening of
the deer hunting season (Hill 1991). Legislation has been introduced in many US. states
— and passed in some — to ban wildlife trapping or particular trapping methods (Gentile
1987; Minnis 1998). In another well-known case, animal protection proponents used the
media to draw public attention to fur hunting of harp seals (Phoca greonlandica)
beginning in the mid 1960’s. As a result, the import of baby seal pelts was banned in
Europe and the traditional lethal harvest techniques were scrutinized and limited (Tilt and
Spotila 1991). The vast media attention surrounding the issue irreparably damaged the
seal pelt market, changing the entire industry. As these cases illustrate, animal rights,
animal welfare, and anti-hunting/trapping groups have been successful in limiting the use
of wildlife for consumptive recreation and economic gain. These cases and others like
them caused Decker and Brown (1987: 59) to note: “The animal rights movement is
particularly disconcerting for most wildlife professionals because it opposes not only the
activities that management makes possible (e. g., hunting and trapping) but also the
underlying assumptions and precepts upon which the profession has been based.”

In order to avoid — or at least minimize the potential for — negative public reaction
to management actions, managers must ﬁrst be aware of public perceptions and concerns

about lethal wildlife management. Past studies have found that a majority of the public

prefers non-lethal means of controlling problem species (Schmidt et al. 1997; Reiter et al.
1996). Still, lethal wildlife management may be acceptable to the public if they feel that
the Situation warrants its use (Schmidt et al. 1997). Members of the public have
generally been the most supportive of lethal wildlife management when public safety is
threatened by wild animals, such as in cases of wildlife diseases or high incidence of
wildlife/car accidents (Kilpatrick and Walter 1997; Schmidt et al. 1997; Reiter et al.
1999). Public concern about property damage by wildlife has also led to increased
support for lethal wildlife management (Schmidt et al. 1997; Wittmann et al. 1998;
Manfredo et al. 1999). Further research is needed to assess public support for the use of
lethal wildlife management in other situations, and how support varies among different
sectors of the public. Wildlife managers must understand and respond to the concerns of
their constituents regarding lethal wildlife management if they wish to minimize conﬂicts

and ensure continued leadership in determining management actions.

Goal of the Research
The goal of this research was to utilize data from the “Resource Attitudes in

Michigan” (RAM) surveys to assess support for lethal wildlife management in Michigan.
The RAM surveys are recurring, statewide human dimensions surveys designed to assess
trends in public opinion toward general wildlife management issues as well as attitudes
toward speciﬁc emerging wildlife issues. The ﬁrst RAM survey was implemented to
members of the Michigan public in 1999, and annual surveys followed thereafter. The
1999 survey was intended to create a baseline of data to which results from future public

RAM surveys could be compared. In order to also develop a baseline of responses from

natural resource managers, the 1999 survey was administered to a selection of Michigan
Department of Natural Resources personnel. This thesis presents two studies utilizing
data from the 1999 and 2000 RAM surveys to assess support for lethal wildlife

management in Michigan.

Study 1

Researchers have shown that management agency personnel and members of the
public often differ greatly in their perceptions of particular management actions (Peyton
and Langenau 1985; Leuschner et al. 1989; Vining and Ebreo 1991; Messmer et al. 1997;
Lauber and Knuth 2000). Further, wildlife managers have not always been very accurate
in gauging public opinion and responses to management decisions, even for those
stakeholder groups with which they are the most familiar (Hendee and Harris 1970;
Saltiel and Irby 1998). This situation has created a need for human dimensions research
to explore management situations in which public and personnel opinions may diverge.
Failing to recognize and respond to the spectrum of attitudes public stakeholders hold
toward management actions, such as lethal wildlife management, could lead to
controversy and possibly political action that could limit the power of the agency to
manage wildlife.

Study 1 utilizes data from the 1999 RAM survey to assess public and wildlife
agency personnel attitudes toward lethal wildlife management in Michigan. The
objectives of the study were to:

1. Determine whether wildlife agency personnel and members of the public

differed in terms of their support for lethal wildlife management in 7 lethal

management situations.

2. Assess differences between the public and wildlife personnel in overall
support for lethal wildlife management, as measured by a Lethal Wildlife
Management (LWM) Scale.

3. Identify any differences in support for lethal wildlife management among
different subgroups (e. g., demographic subgroups) of respondents within each

group (wildlife personnel and public).

Study 2

In general, studies have found that women are not as supportive of lethal wildlife
management as are men; they tend to prefer non-lethal methods to control wildlife
populations (Sanbom and Schmidt 1995; Lauber and Knuth 2000). Women are also
more likely than are men to support the anti-hunting (Gray 1993) and animal rights
movements (Sperling 1988; Herzog et al. 1991; Richards and Krannich 1991; Jasper and
Nelkin 1992; Eldridge and Gluck 1996; Minnis 1998; Kruse 1999), both of which are
opposed to most lethal wildlife management actions. Animal rights activists and anti-
hunting/trapping groups have been successful in lobbying for legislation to limit the use
of particular lethal management techniques, and continue to challenge the way in which
wildlife agencies manage wildlife (Minnis 1998). Gender differences in attitudes toward
animals and their management can, therefore, have profound implications for wildlife
managers who are responsible for managing wildlife resources on behalf of the public.

In the second study, data from the 2000 RAM Survey were utilized to assess

gender differences in acceptance of lethal wildlife management in Michigan. The 2000

RAM survey was used because it had two advantages over the 1999 RAM for the
purposes of this study. First, the original sample for the 2000 RAM was divided equally
by gender, whereas the original sample for the 1999 RAM was male-biased due to
sample source. Second, the 2000 RAM included an additional lethal management item
related to trophy hunting that we believed was important for identifying gender
differences in support for lethal wildlife management. Thus, the objectives of Study 2
were to:
1. Determine whether gender differences existed in terms of support for lethal
wildlife management in 8 management situations.
2. Assess differences between men and women in overall support for lethal
wildlife management, as measured by a Lethal Wildlife Management (LWM)

Scale.

Literature Cited

Clay, W.H and RH. Schmidt. 1998. Utilizing human dimensions information in federal
wildlife damage management programs. Transactions of the 63rd North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63: 215-226.

Decker, D. 1994. What are we learning from human dimensions studies in controversial
wildlife situations? Some observations and comments. Human Dimensions
Perspectives 21: 1-4.

Decker, D. J. and J. W. Enck. 1996. Human dimensions of wildlife management:
knowledge for agency survival in the 21St century. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 1: 60-71.

Decker, D. J. and T. L. Brown. 1987. How animal rightists view the “wildlife
management-hunting system.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 599-602.

Decker, D. J ., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1996. Human dimensions research: its
importance in natural resource management. Pages 29-46 in Ewert, A. W., editor.
Natural resource management: the human dimension. Westview Press, Inc.:

Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Eldridge, J. J. and J. P. Gluck. 1996. Gender differences in attitudes toward animal
research. Ethics and Behavior 6: 239-256.

Gentile, J. R. 1987. The evolution of antitrapping sentiment in the United States: a
review and commentary. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 490-503.

Hendee, J. C. and R. W. Harris. 1970. Foresters' perceptions of wildemess-user
attitudes and preferences. Journal of Forestry 68: 759-762.

Herzog, H. A., Jr., N. S. Betchart, and R. B. Pittman. 1991. Gender, sex role orientation,
and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoos 4: 184-191.

Hill, R. 1991. More shouts than quivers in Maryland hunt protest. Journal of Forestry:
30-31.

Jasper, J. H. and D. Nelkin. 1992. The animal rights crusade: the growth of a moral
protest. The Free Press: New York, New York, USA

Kilpatrick, H. J. and W. D. Walter. 1997. Urban deer management: a community vote.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 388-391.

Kruse, C. R. 1999. Gender, views of nature, and support for animal rights. Society and
Animals 7: 179-198.

Lauber, T. B. and B. A. Knuth. 2000. Suburban residents' criteria for evaluating
contraception and other deer management techniques. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 5: 1-17.

Lauber, T. B., M. L. Anthony, and B. A. Knuth. 2001. Gender and ethical judgments
about suburban deer management. Society and Natural Resources 14: 571-583.

Leuschner, W. A., V. P. Ritchie, and D. F. Stauffer. 1989. Opinions on wildlife:
responses of resource managers and wildlife users in the southeastern United
States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 24-29.

Lyons, J. R. 1987. Basic and applied social research needs in wildlife management.
Pages 285-295 in Decker, D. J. and G. R. Goff, editors. Valuing wildlife:
economic and social perspectives. Westview Press, Inc.: Boulder, Colorado,
USA.

Manfredo, M. J ., C. L. Pierce, D. Fulton, J. Pate, and B. R. Gill. 1999. Public acceptance
of wildlife trapping in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 499-508.

Messmer, T. A., L. Comicelli, D. J. Decker, and D. G. Hewitt. 1997. Stakeholder
acceptance of urban deer management techniques. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:
360-366.

Minnis, D. L. 1998. Wildlife policy-making by the electorate: an overview of citizen-
sponsored ballot measures on hunting and trapping. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:
75-83.

Peyton, R. B. and E. E. Langenau, Jr. 1985. A comparison of attitudes held by BLM
biologists and the general public towards animals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:
117-120.

Reiter, D. K., M. W. Brunson, and R. H. Schmidt. 1999. Public attitudes toward wildlife
damage management and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 746-758.

Richards, R. T. and R. S. Krannich. 1991. The ideology of the animal rights movement
and activists’ attitudes toward wildlife. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56: 363-371.

Saltiel, J. and LR. Irby. 1998. Perceptions of game damage in Montana by resource
agency personnel and agricultural producers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 84-91.

Sanbom, W. A. and R. H. Schmidt. 1995. Gender effect on views of wildlife
professionals about wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 583-5 87.

Schmidt, R.H., M.W. Brunson, and D.K. Reiter. 1997. National public attitudes toward
animal damage management and policy. A report prepared for the United States
Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Sperling, S. 1988. Animal liberators: research and morality. University of California
Press: Berkeley, California, USA.

Tilt, W. and J. Spotila. 1991. Wildlife management or animal rights - lessons from the
harp seal. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. 56:409-422.

Vining, J. and A. Ebreo. 1991. Are you thinking what I think you are? A study of actual
and estimated goal priorities and decision preferences of resource managers,
environmentalists, and the public. Society and Natural Resources 4: 177-196.

Wittrnann, K., J. J. Vaske, M. J. Manfredo, H. C. Zinn. 1998. Standards for lethal
response to problem urban wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 3: 29-48.

Chapter II
STUDY 1: MICHIGAN PUBLIC AND WILDLIFE AGENCY PERSONNEL

ATTITUDES TOWARD LETHAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Abstract

In recent years, natural resource agencies have recognized the importance of
incorporating public opinion into their management policies to better identify the needs
and desires of a broad public constituency. In the spring of 1999, a mail survey was
designed to assess attitudes toward a broad array of natural resources issues. Surveys
were sent to Michigan residents (56% response), as well as to all employees in the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division (76% response) in order to
compare public and personnel responses. The portion of the survey discussed here was
designed to assess support for lethal wildlife management in Michigan. Seven situations
were identiﬁed in which lethal wildlife management can be used: to control wildlife
diseases, ensure species survival, preserve the ecological health of an area, control
wildlife damage, ensure public safety, manage population levels of wild animals, and
provide opportunities to gather food. Wildlife agency personnel were more supportive of
lethal wildlife management in all the situations than were members of the public;
however, majorities of the public were supportive of each lethal management situation as
well. Areas of largest disagreement between agency personnel and the public were the
use of lethal management for obtaining food and controlling wildlife damage. Among
the public, men and those who were more supportive of consumptive recreation were

more likely to ﬁnd lethal wildlife management acceptable, even while controlling for the

10

effect of other relevant factors. Agency personnel who were more supportive of
consumptive recreation were also more accepting of lethal wildlife management, as were
older employees and those in management positions. The general public support for
lethal management seen in this study suggests that it may be possible for managers to
implement lethal wildlife management in Michigan with few conﬂicts. However, since
public support for the use of lethal wildlife management varies by management situation,
managers will need to continue to consider public attitudes in speciﬁc lethal management

situations.

Key Words

Agency, attitudes, lethal control, managers, Michigan, opinion, public, wildlife

Introduction

Over the last several decades, public resource agencies have recognized a growing
interest in citizen participation in natural resource decision-making (Decker et al. 1987;
Decker and Enck 1996). In the past, wildlife management decisions were typically based
on the desires of a limited constituency of consumptive resource users asking for larger
game species populations. However, increasing interest in non-game wildlife among
members of the public has led natural resource managers to realize the need for
understanding and considering the interests of a broadening public constituency. Wildlife
managers have not always been very accurate in gauging public opinion and response to
management decisions, even for those stakeholder groups with which they are most

familiar (Hendee and Harris 1970; Saltiel and Irby 1998). Interaction with members of

11

the public is often limited to contact with an “outspoken few,” leading to bias in
understanding attitudes of the public in general (Hendee and Harris 1970). To resolve
this problem, agencies have begun to incorporate human dimensions research into the
development of management plans, allowing managers to better understand the interests
of their constituents. This knowledge is essential in assessing public reaction to
management decisions (Brown and Decker 1982) and identifying potential sources of
controversy before they develop into full-blown conﬂict. Additionally, the study and
application of human dimensions information may increase public acceptance of wildlife
management programs and activities (Clay and Schmidt 1998). When stakeholders feel
that they have a voice in the development and implementation of a management policy,
they are likely to be more supportive of the policy, reducing the potential for conﬂicts
(Bjerke et al. 2000). Including the public in decision-making may also prevent citizens
from feeling alienated with regard to decisions being made about “their” wildlife. When
people feel powerless they may begin to seek alternatives to agency management of
resources, possibly through democratic means such as ballot initiatives and popular
referenda. These processes have been used successfully by citizens in several states to
establish a system in which members of the public have a direct vote on how resources
will be managed, thereby limiting the power of wildlife managers to institute particular
wildlife management policies (Minnis 1998). By incorporating public opinion into
management plans, managers may decrease the likelihood of this happening.

Managers can also use human dimensions information to identify situations in
which public and personnel opinions diverge. Members of the public and agency

personnel often differ greatly in their perceptions of particular management actions

12

(Peyton and Langenau 1985; Leuschner et al. 1989; Vining and Ebreo 1991; Messmer et
al. 1997; Lauber and Knuth 2000). Although managers ultimately institute wildlife
policies, identifying and reconciling disparities between public and agency personnel
beliefs about wildlife management is essential to smooth policy implementation. Relying
solely on managers to determine wildlife policies in the public interest is likely to lead to
disputes if managers do not accurately gauge public desires pertaining to wildlife.
Further, Muth et al. (1998) found that even among wildlife managers, there is some
disagreement about the appropriateness of various wildlife management policies.
Identifying and reconciling these areas of disagreement within the agency will allow
wildlife agencies to develop a single, Shared vision of wildlife management, a vision
which, according to Muth et al. (1998), will be essential in leading the direction of
wildlife management in the future.

In much of the United States, human/wildlife conﬂicts (e. g., property damage,
public safety risks) and other wildlife-related problems (e. g., spread of wildlife diseases,
deterioration of ecological health) have become more common in recent years, leading
managers to put new emphasis on research to understand public opinions about possible
management solutions. The rise in wildlife problems has been attributed to several
factors, including management practices favoring increases in certain species (generally
for consumptive recreation), growing human populations, and urban expansion into areas
that were formerly wildlife habitat. Not surprisingly, wildlife managers have often
focused on controlling wildlife populations as a way to decrease these problems.
Wildlife population control has utilized both lethal and non-lethal methods. In general,

researchers have found that a majority of the public prefers non-lethal means of

13

controlling problem species, such as birth control or removal of animals to another area
(e.g., Schmidt et al. 1997; Reiter er al. 1999). However, several studies have indicated
that lethal methods of control may be acceptable to the public if they feel that the
situation warrants their use (Loker et al. 1999; Schmidt et al. 1997). Our focus here is on
identifying those situations in which members of the public and wildlife agency
personnel ﬁnd lethal wildlife management warranted. With this in mind, we assessed
several situations in which lethal management might be used: ensuring public safety,
controlling wildlife damage and wildlife diseases, preserving ecological health, ensuring
species survival, managing wildlife population sizes, and allowing people to obtain food.
Several studies have found support for lethal wildlife management among
members of the public when people are faced directly with wildlife problems. For
example, members of the public have been shown to be very supportive of destroying
mountain lions that have injured or killed a person (Manfredo et al. 1998; Wittmann et al.
1998). Not surprisingly, public safety consistently emerges as one of the most important
issues determining the need for lethal management (Kilpatrick and Walter 1997; Schmidt
et al. 1997; Reiter et al. 1999). Like public safety, concern about wildlife damage tends
to rank among the most important determinants of public support for lethal wildlife
management. Members of the public have been found to be supportive of lethal
management in order to protect agricultural crops (Schmidt et al. 1997), livestock
(Manfredo et al. 1999), and pets (Wittrnann et al. 1998) from wildlife depredation.
Wildlife diseases may also threaten livestock, pets and people, as well as various
wildlife species. Public concern about diseases that can spread from wildlife to humans

(e. g., Lyme disease, rabies) has been growing as people and wildlife increasingly occupy

14

the same areas. Members of the public have been found to be supportive of lethal
management to control wildlife diseases in beaver and coyote (Wittrnann et al. 1998),

and white-tailed deer (Kilpatrick and Walter 1997). In Colorado, residents found
trapping acceptable to control wildlife diseases, even though they were not very
supportive of trapping in general (Manfredo et al. 1999). The potential for wildlife
diseases to spread to other species seems to be an important factor in public acceptance of
lethal wildlife management.

Few studies have explored public acceptance of lethal wildlife management to
ensure wildlife species survival or to protect ecological health. However, growing
wildlife populations have caused changes in habitat and species diversity in the United
States. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), which are considered overabundant
throughout much of the United States, present a revealing example of this situation. Deer
have been implicated in changing the composition of eastern deciduous forests through
browsing to the extent that the diversity of bird species has decreased (McShea and
Rappole 1997). Evergreen forests have been impacted as well. According to Alverson
and Waller (1997), deer browse has caused the rate of hemlock forest regeneration in the
Great Lakes Region to decline. A number of studies have corroborated the drop in ﬂoral
and fauna] diversity as a result of deer browse (see Christoffel and Craven 2000). As
these examples illustrate, one ﬂourishing species can be detrimental to the wellbeing of
other wildlife species or even entire ecosystems. In such cases, managers may turn to
lethal methods in order to protect wildlife species and ecosystems.

Because many of the problems mentioned above (e.g., wildlife damage,

ecosystem health) tend to increase in severity as wildlife population sizes increase,

15

managers often focus on controlling populations as a way to limit a variety of negative
wildlife impacts. Lethal methods may also be used to maintain or manage population
levels of species that are not overabundant or problematic, but have the potential to
become so. Several recent studies conducted in the US. have found majority public
support for lethal management (speciﬁcally, the use of regulated hunting) to control
overabundant wildlife populations (Duda et al. 1998).

One other aspect of lethal wildlife management that is important to consider is
public acceptance of hunting or trapping wildlife for food. Wildlife managers often use
hunting or trapping to achieve lethal management goals like wildlife population reduction
or damage control. Tracking public acceptance of consumptive recreation is important
for that reason, as managers’ options may be limited if people reject the use of
consumptive recreation in management. On the other hand, it is also important to assess
acceptance of consumptive recreation to obtain food as a reason for lethal management in
itself because large public constituencies desire access to wildlife resources for this
purpose. Overall, members of the public seem to be fairly supportive of hunting, though
public approval for hunting has been shown to vary with hunter motivation (Duda et al.
1998). In a study in Maryland, residents were most accepting of hunting for meat among
several possible hunter motivations (Duda et al. 1998). Trapping for food has also been
found to be acceptable, despite the fact that trapping in general is not widely supported
(Responsive Management 2001). However, public support for hunting and trapping for
food should not be assumed, as is evidenced by the recent trend toward citizen-initiated
ballot initiatives to limit hunting and trapping in several states noted by Minnis (1998).

This trend emphasizes the importance of monitoring public perceptions about

16

consumptive recreation and incorporating such information into wildlife management.

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess public and wildlife agency personnel
attitudes toward a variety of situations in which managers might choose to use lethal
wildlife management. We expected that wildlife personnel would be more supportive of
lethal wildlife management in each of the seven situations assessed (i.e., ensure public
safety, control wildlife damage, control wildlife diseases, ensure species survival,
preserve ecological health, manage population levels, and gather food) than would
members of the public. Among both groups, we expected to see the greatest support for
lethal management to protect public safety, control wildlife damage, and control wildlife
diseases. We also believed that preserving ecological health and ensuring species
survival were also likely to be of high concern, particularly for wildlife personnel. We
suspected that public support for using lethal management to obtain food would be lowest
among all the management situations.

Within each of the groups (public and personnel), we believed that support for
lethal management would likely vary considerably among different subgroups of
respondents. We assessed several variables as possible precursors to support for lethal
wildlife management, including gender, age, education level, household income level,
area of childhood residence, property ownership, frequency of hunting and ﬁshing,
experience with wildlife problems, attitude toward consumptive recreation, and, for
personnel only, management position. Based on substantive reasoning and ﬁndings of

similar studies (discussed below), we expected that men, older people, those with lower

17

levels of education and income, those growing up in more rural areas, property owners,
more frequent hunters and anglers, those who have experienced wildlife problems, and
those who are more supportive of consumptive recreation would be more supportive of
lethal wildlife management on the whole. In addition, we believed that agency personnel
in management positions would be more supportive of lethal management than would

those in non-management positions.

Methods
A mail survey was developed to assess attitudes toward a wide variety of natural
resource and wildlife issues in the state of Michigan. Members of the Michigan public
and employees of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Wildlife
Division were contacted in order to evaluate public and agency opinions on these issues

in general, and attitudes toward lethal wildlife management in particular.

Public Survey

In February 1999, the survey was mailed to a representative sample of 2000
Michigan residents (see Mertig and Koval 1999). Names and addresses were purchased
from Survey Sampling, Inc. (Fairﬁeld, CT), a survey sampling company specializing in
drawing representative samples from public telephone listings. Following the
recommendations set forth by Dillrnan (1978), a series of survey mailings was used to
encourage response to the survey. As an incentive to complete the survey, respondents
were entered into a prize drawing for one of several gift cards to a national discount store.

The survey received a ﬁnal response rate of 56% (n=952, sampling error +/- 2%) after

18

deletion of bad addresses and those ineligible to respond. Because the response rate was
considered rather low, a brief follow-up survey was sent to the non-respondents, but
revealed no important differences between the original respondents and the non-

respondents who chose to respond to the follow-up survey.

Wildlife Agency Survey

In May 1999, all 186 employees in the MDNR Wildlife Division were sent a
survey identical to that sent to the public. To increase response and to ease fears of
individual identiﬁcation, agency surveys were coded only by broad job classiﬁcation to
ensure that individual respondents would be completely unknown to the researchers.
Using broad codes precluded multiple individualized mailings; however, the agency

survey still received a healthy 76% response rate (n=142).

Variable Measurement

We identiﬁed several real-life situations in which the use of lethal wildlife
management might be warranted. Seven items measured support for lethal management
in particular situations, while one additional item determined a respondent’s acceptance
of killing individual animals under any circumstance. The seven situational items read as

follows:

19

As long as it is properly controlled, is it acceptable to kill individual wild animals

in order to...

a. ...control wildlife diseases

b. ...ensure species survival

c. ...preserve the ecological health of an area

d. ...control wildlife damage

e. ...ensure public safety

f ...manage population levels of wild animals

g. ...provide opportunities to gather food
Respondents were also asked to assess an eighth item, a statement on acceptability of
killing under any circumstance:

It is never acceptable to kill individual wild animals.

For each of the eight items, respondents were asked to choose one of three
possible response categories: yes, no, or unsure. For bivariate analyses, the items were
coded ordinally with higher numbers reﬂecting support for lethal management in each
situation. A scale assessing degree of support for lethal management was also
constructed on the basis of the eight items. Respondents must have answered at least one
of the eight items in order to receive a score on the scale. Respondents received a score
by summing the number of situations (from the seven situational items) in which they felt
that lethal management was acceptable (i.e., a “yes” response to the question). If an
individual felt that it was not acceptable to kill an individual animal under any
circumstance, they were given a score of zero on the scale. The Lethal Wildlife

Management (LWM) Scale, therefore, ranged from 0 to 7, with a higher scale score

20

reﬂecting more support for lethal wildlife management overall.

Several independent or explanatory variables were used in this analysis: gender,
age, education, income, childhood residence, property ownership, frequency of
participation in hunting and ﬁshing, previous experience with wildlife problems, support
for consumptive recreation, and, for agency personnel only, management position. Table

II-l presents the measurement and coding for each of these variables.

Analysis of the Data

Data were analyzed using SPSS 10.0.7 for Windows software for social statistics
(2000). First we present basic descriptive statistics for the explanatory and dependent
variables by sample, noting any statistically signiﬁcant differences between the two
samples. Comparisons between sample means were assessed using AN OVAS, and
differences between proportions were examined using Pearson’s chi-squared tests. We
next present an analysis of the overall LWM Scale. Principal Components Analysis and
Cronbach’s alpha were used to assess scale dimensionality and reliability, respectively.
Both simple and multiple linear regression analyses were utilized to evaluate the effect of
the explanatory variables on the LWM Scale. According to Tabachnick and Fidell
(2001), it is important to evaluate both simple and multiple regression results in order to
get a complete understanding of the effect of an independent variable in the regression.
The results of the simple regression Show the total relationship of the independent
variable with the dependent variable, while multiple regression elucidates the unique
relationship of the independent variable with the dependent variable, compensating for

any redundancy between the effects of the independent variables. In interpreting linear

21

Table II-l. Measurement of the independent variables used to explain support for lethal
wildlife management among members of the public and wildlife agency personnel in

Michigan.
Variable

Coding

 

Gender 3 0
1

Age b

Education c

Income d
Childhood residence °

Property ownership f

Hunting frequency g
Fishing frequency h

Experience with

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
l
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0
l
l
2
3
4
l
2
3
4
. O
wildlife problems ' 1

Female
Male

Age is continuous

Less than high school graduate

High school graduate or GED

Vocational or Trade School

Associate's Degree (2 year degree)

Some College

College Graduate (Bachelor's or 4 year degree)
Graduate or Professional Degree

Less than $20,000
$20,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $74,999
$75,000 or more

Rural, Farm

Rural, Non-Farm (2,500 people or fewer)

Small Town (From 2,501 up to 25,000 people)
Urban Area (From 25,001 up to 100,000 people)
Metropolitan Area (More than 100,000 people)

No
Yes

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently

No
Yes

 

22

Table II-l (cont’d).

 

Variable Coding

Support for 7 item scale. Each item was coded from 1 to 5, with 1 representing
consumptive the least support and 5 representing the most support for hunting,
recreation’ trapping or ﬁshing. Respondents were given a scale score only if

they had two or fewer missing responses on the set of items.
Those with missing values had a middle response (3) assigned for
the relevant missing item(s). An overall scale score was then
calculated by adding item responses. Range: 7 to 35; Cronbach's
Alpha for the public sample = 0.82; unidimensional scale (1 factor
explaining 49% of the variance in items).

Management 0 Non-management position
position k 1 Management position
(agency only)

 

a Are you male or female?

b In what year were you born? (Age = 1999 - year born.)

c What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?

d What was your gross household income (before taxes) in 1998?

e In what type of area did you spend all or most of your childhood?

f Do you own property in Michigan?

8’ h About how often, in a typical year, do you engage in each of the following natural resource
activities? . .Hunting, Fishing

I A respondent was considered to have experienced problems with wildlife if he or she responded
positively to any of the three following questions: 1) Have you or any members of your immediate family
had any problems with white-tailed deer in the state of Michigan within the last 5 years? 2) Have you or
any members of your immediate family had any problems with Canada Geese in the state of Michigan
within the last 5 years? 3) Have you or members of your immediate family had any problems with other
species of wildlife in the state of Michigan in the last 5 years?

J For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Agree, Mildly Agree, are
Unsure, Mildly Disagree or Strongly Disagree. 1) Hunting is an important part of our national heritage. 2)
In general, hunters tend to be very concerned about protecting the environment. 3) In general, hunters are
socially responsible individuals. 4) I oppose all forms of recreational hunting. 5) Trappers are concerned
about the humane treatment of animals. 6) I feel trapping animals for fur is acceptable when it is properly
re ulated. 7) I feel ﬁshing is acceptable when it is properly regulated.

Job classiﬁcations for agency personnel were divided a priori. Those considered in a management
position included: biologists and supervisors (37% of the agency respondents fell within this category).
Those considered in a non-management position included administrators, secretaries, technicians and
laborers.

23

regression results, a statistically signiﬁcant positive coefﬁcient indicates that the
explanatory variable has a positive effect on the dependent variable (in our case, the

LWM Scale) in the population.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Table II-2 presents a comparison of the public and wildlife agency samples based
on the explanatory variables used in the study. The samples were similar in terms of
gender, although both samples were somewhat male-biased with about 3/4 of each
sample being male. For the wildlife agency sample, the gender bias was not unexpected,
as it simply reﬂects the proportions of men and women working for the agency. For the
public, however, this bias may result from two main sources: 1) a sample drawn from
public telephone listings — men are more likely to be listed than are women, and 2) a
greater level of interest in the subject of the survey (natural resources) among men than
women.

Public respondents were somewhat older, on average, than were agency personnel
— not surprising, given that people retire from the agency as they get older. Also not
surprising, agency personnel were more highly educated and earned higher incomes than
did members of the public. Sixty-eight percent of agency personnel reported having
earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, while only 31% of the public reported having done
so. However, members of the public in this sample were more highly educated than

would be expected based on US Census (2000) results, which report that 20% of

24

Table II-2. Results of the explanatory or independent variables by sample.

 

Wildlife
Variablea Statistic Public n Agency n
Gender % Male 75 910 72 138
Age * Mean 52 897 44 135
Education * % College
Degree+ 31 909 68 138
Income * % 2 $40,000 58 821 77 132
Childhood residence * % Urban or
Metropolitan 41 909 22 139
Property ownership % Yes 82 908 83 139
Hunting frequency * % Frequently 22 916 55 142
% Never 50 18
Fishing frequency * % Frequently 25 922 32 142
% Never 22 11
Experience with
wildlife problems % Yes 58 952 61 142
Support for
consumptive Mean 26.5 942 30.8 142

recreation *

 

a See Table II-l for variable measurement.

"' Statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups at P<0.05

25

Michigan adults have earned at least a bachelor’s degree. Seventy-seven percent of
personnel and only 58% of the public reported household incomes of at least $40,000 in
1998. Public household incomes were similar to US. Census (2000) results, which
reported that 55% of households earned incomes of at least $40,000 in 1999. Members
of the public were about twice as likely as agency personnel to have spent all or most of
their childhood living in urban or metropolitan areas. Both groups were similar in terms
of property ownership, with 82% of the public and 83% of wildlife personnel owning
property in Michigan.

In terms of outdoor recreation, agency personnel were very active — they
participated in both hunting and ﬁshing more often than did members of the public.
Fifty-ﬁve percent and 32% of wildlife personnel reported that in a typical year they
participated “frequently” in hunting and ﬁshing, respectively, while only 22% and 25%
of public respondents did so. According to the most recent estimates of the US. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 10% of Michigan adults (age 16 or older) engaged in hunting and 14%
engaged in recreational ﬁshing in 2001 (U .S. Department of Interior and US. Department
of Commerce 2002). This survey, therefore, appears to have overestimated the hunting
and angling populations in Michigan. This is likely due to a combination of factors.
First, respondents were asked to report their participation in hunting and ﬁshing in “a
typical year.” This would likely lead to a greater proportion of hunters than would be
found based on actual participation in hunting or ﬁshing in a single year. Second, since
the sample was male-biased and men participate more often in hunting than do women, it
follows that the sample would reﬂect a disproportionate number of hunters. Finally,

hunters may have been more likely to respond to the survey due to a greater interest in

26

natural resource issues than could be the case for many others in the general public.
Not surprisingly, given their greater participation in hunting and ﬁshing, wildlife
personnel scored higher on a scale measuring support for consumptive recreation
(hunting, ﬁshing, and trapping) than did members of the public. Similar majorities of

both groups had experienced problems with wildlife in the last ﬁve years.

Support for Lethal Wildlife Management

Wildlife agency personnel were more likely than were members of the public to
support lethal wildlife management in all of the given situations, though the public was
also fairly supportive in all cases as well. Table II-3 presents the lethal wildlife
management items by sample. In every case, agency personnel were overwhelmingly
supportive of using lethal management. The biggest gaps between the perspectives of the
two groups were with regard to providing opportunities to gather food (89% agency and
60% public support), controlling wildlife damage (89% agency and 65% public support),
managing wildlife population levels (95% agency and 74% public support), and
preserving ecological health (96% agency and 76% public support). Both groups were
most supportive of lethal wildlife management to control wildlife diseases, with 99% of
personnel and 91% of the public supporting lethal management in this situation.

Agency personnel were particularly opposed to the statement “It is never
acceptable to kill individual wild animals” — not even one respondent agreed with the
statement. Very few members of the public agreed either; however, they were more

unsure about this question than were agency personnel.

27

Table II-3. Michigan public and wildlife agency personnel support for lethal wildlife

management in given situations.

 

Variable a Statistic Public Wildlife Agency
Control wildlife diseases b * % Yes 91 99
% No 3 0
% Unsure 6 1
n 937 142
Ensure species survival * % Yes 80 94
% No 9 1
% Unsure 11 4
n 928 142
Preserve the ecological % Yes 76 96
health of an area * % No 8 0
% Unsure 16 4
n 926 141
Control wildlife damage * % Yes 65 89
% No 16 2
% Unsure 19 9
n 932 142
Ensure public safety * % Yes 79 92
% No 10 2
% Unsure 11 6
n 933 142
Manage population levels of wild % Yes 74 95
animals * % No 14 2
% Unsure 12 3
n 936 142
Provide opportunities to gather % Yes 60 89
food * % No 19 3
% Unsure 21 9
n 926 140
It is never acceptable to kill % Yes 2 0
individual wild animals ° * % No 83 99
% Unsure 15 1
n 913 139

 

a . .
See methods section for variable measurement.
For bivariate analysrs, “No” and “Unsure” responses were combrned for this Item In order to meet the

requirements of the chi-squared test.

C . . . . . . .
For brvanate analysrs, “Yes” and “Unsure” responses were combrned for this Item In order to meet the

requirements of the chi-squared test.

"' Statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups at P<0.05

28

LWM Scale

The LWM Scale, which was made up of the 7 Situational lethal management
items, achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77, reﬂecting a high level of reliability or
consistency among the items. Principal Components Analysis found the scale to be
unidimensional, extracting one factor that explained 43% of the variance in items. Scale
reliability and dimensionality were assessed using the public sample. Not surprisingly,
wildlife agency personnel scored higher on the LWM Scale (i.e., they approved of killing
individual wild animals in more cases) than did members of the public (F =62.45 l ,
df=1083, P<0.001). On average, members of the public approved of killing individual
animals in about 5 of the 7 situations, while agency personnel approved in about 7 of 7
situations.

Simple and multiple regression analyses were utilized to assess the ability of the
explanatory variables to predict support for lethal wildlife management, as measured by
the LWM Scale. Table II-4 presents the results of the analyses for both the public and
wildlife agency samples.

Among the public, men, those who participated more ﬁ'equently in hunting and
ﬁshing, those who had experienced problems with wildlife in the last 5 years, and those
who were more supportive of consumptive recreation were more supportive of lethal
wildlife management, at least at the bivariate level. At the multivariate level, controlling
for all other variables, only gender and support for consumptive recreation remained
signiﬁcant. Taken together, the independent variables did a reasonable job explaining the
variation in the dependent variable; the R-squared value indicates that approximately

22% of the variation was explained. Support for consumptive recreation had a somewhat

29

Table II-4. Standardized simple and multiple regression coefﬁcients and R-squared
values for the Lethal Wildlife Management Scale and explanatory variables by sample.

 

 

 

 

Explanatory Public Public Agency Agency
Variable Bivariate Multivariate Bivariate Multivariate
Gender (male = 1) 0.264 ** 0.152 ** 0.164 0.028
Age 0.031 0.038 0.224 * 0.221 "'
Education - 0.012 0.040 0.122 0.001
Income 0.060 0.033 0.091 -0.074
Childhood residence - 0.064 0.016 -0.161 -0.152
Property ownership 0.056 -0.036 0.045 -0.096
Hunting frequency 0.203 ** -0.087 0.180 * -0.056
Fishing frequency 0.190 ** 0.045 0.006 -0.l30
Experience with
wildlife problems 0.105 ** 0.044 0.127 0.139
Support for
consumptive 0.428 ** 0.426 ** 0.260 ** 0.218 *
recreation
Management position -- -- 0.335 ** 0.318 **
(Manager = 1)
n 764 764 129 129
R2 -- 0.218 -- 0.238
Adjusted R2 -- 0.207 -- 0.166

"' P<0.05 ** P<0.01

30

stronger effect on the dependent variable than did gender. In fact, taken alone, support
for consumptive recreation explained 18% of the variance in support for lethal wildlife
management.

In the bivariate case, wildlife agency personnel who were older, hunted more
frequently, were more supportive of consumptive recreation, and were in management
positions were all more likely to support lethal wildlife management. Hunting frequency
dropped out at the multivariate level; only age, support for consumptive recreation, and
management position had signiﬁcant effects. Again, the independent variables explained
a fair amount of variation (~24%) in the dependent variable. Management position had

the strongest effect, explaining 11% of the variance when taken alone.

Discussion
Support for Lethal Wildlife Management

Support for lethal wildlife management was remarkably high among both the
public and wildlife agency personnel. Majorities of both groups believed that all the
situations presented acceptable conditions for the use of lethal methods. Still, differences
between public and agency personnel in terms of support for lethal management in each
situation should not be discounted, as they may indicate areas of potential discord.

As expected, the results showed that wildlife agency personnel were
overwhelmingly supportive of lethal management, regardless of the situation. The
reasons behind using lethal wildlife management seemed to be much more important for
members of the public in determining acceptance of such management policies. For

example, while 91% of the public supported the use of lethal wildlife management to

31

control wildlife diseases, only 60% supported the same to obtain food. Personnel
responses showed much less variation. Table II-5 presents a list of the management
situations ordered from highest level of support to lowest. In order to determine whether
level of support for lethal management differed between these situations, percents of
“yes” responses in each situation were treated as Bernoulli proportions (Lindgren 1976).
The Bernoulli proportion for each situation was compared to that of the next proportion
on the list. Pairwise tests using Z-test statistics were applied to compare approval rates
for the lethal management situations within each group (public and agency personnel).
Analyses of Bernoulli proportions revealed no Signiﬁcant differences in agency personnel
support for the use of lethal management in consecutive situations on the list. In other
words, personnel support for lethal management to control wildlife diseases did not differ
from that to preserve ecological health, which did not differ from that to control
population levels of wild animals, and so on. The same was not true of public responses.
Members of the public seem to require more justiﬁcation for the use of lethal wildlife
management than do wildlife agency personnel.

Use of lethal management to control wildlife diseases received the highest level of
public support and among the highest for wildlife agency personnel. Support for lethal
management in this situation was far stronger than for the other options, particularly in
the public sample. Although we did not expect this to be the case, it is actually not
particularly surprising given current conditions in Michigan. In recent years, Michigan
has been facing a complex problem involving bovine tuberculosis (BTB), a disease that
has affected the health of Michigan’s livestock and white-tailed deer herds (Bovine TB

Eradication Project 2002). Even though the chance is very low, humans can also contract

32

Table II-5. Public and wildlife agency support for various lethal wildlife management
situations in Michigan.

 

 

Level of Support

for Lethal Management a Public Wildlife Agency

Highest Wildlife diseases * Wildlife diseases
Species survival Ecological health
Public safety Population levels
Ecological health Species survival
Population levels * Public safety
Wildlife damage * Wildlife damage

Lowest Food Food

 

3 These rankings are based on the percentage of respondents choosing a “yes” response for each of the
situational management items.

* Indicates signiﬁcant difference (p<0.05) between support for lethal management in the situation and the
situation that follows on the list.

33

BTB. White-tailed deer are believed to be a reservoir host of the disease in Michigan,
and much of the management to control BTB has focused on controlling deer in the area
of the state where the herds have been affected. Media reports have heightened public
awareness of the BTB problem, as well as the methods being used to control BTB in
Michigan’s deer herd. Further exploration into public motivations for supporting lethal
methods to control wildlife diseases is called for. Our results indicate that using lethal
methods to control BTB may not be particularly controversial for the majority of the
public, despite the fact that it has been of concern among speciﬁc stakeholder groups
(e. g., hunters).

Support for lethal management to protect public safety was lower than we
expected for both groups relative to support for the other situations. These ﬁndings do
not suggest that the issue of public safety is unimportant - lethal management for this
purpose was still supported by large majorities of the public and agency personnel. Our
results indicate that public safety is simply not as much of a concern as other issues in
Michigan — wildlife diseases in particular seem to be of much higher concern to both
groups.

Contrary to our prediction and despite the rising number of incidents and costs
associated with wildlife damage noted by researchers in recent years, support for lethal
management to control wildlife damage was among the lowest for all of the situations
among the public. Still, a majority (65%) of the public supported lethal management in
this situation. Several different factors might account for the lower level of support for
lethal management in this situation. First, people may see wildlife damage as a cost of

choosing to live near wildlife. Such costs may be acceptable if people perceive beneﬁts

34

from having wildlife near their homes (e. g., wildlife viewing). Second, our focus on a
general situation may not accurately reﬂect attitudes and concerns of those who are
experiencing speciﬁc incidents of wildlife damage, particularly in areas of severe
damage. Researchers have found that as severity of damage increases, so does
willingness to support lethal management to control nuisance wildlife (Wittrnann et al.
1998; Loker et al. 1999; West and Parkhurst 2002). Additionally, people may prefer
non-lethal means of controlling wildlife damage. Further research is necessary to
discover which, if any, of these factors play a role in public acceptance of lethal
management to control wildlife damage.

Members of the public were more supportive of using lethal wildlife management
to ensure species survival than to preserve ecological health. The strong support for
lethal management to ensure species survival seen among members of the public could be
related to public exposure to, and conservation organization emphasis on, endangered
species issues, and less public exposure to the concept of ecosystem management, which
focuses on entire systems, rather than individual organisms or species. Further, members
of the public may not see a link between wildlife populations and ecosystems and,
therefore, may not recognize the negative impacts overabundant species can have on
overall ecosystem health.

As we expected, members of the public were much less supportive of controlling
wildlife population levels via lethal means than were agency personnel, though again,
lethal management in this situation received majority public support. Wildlife managers
are responsible for setting goals for game species population sizes, often issuing hunting

or trapping permits to obtain their goals, so it is not surprising that agency personnel are

35

very supportive of lethal wildlife population control. Members of the public, on the other
hand, may not be as familiar with these common management practices, leading to less
public support for lethal population control.

Like controlling wildlife population sizes, hunting or trapping for food was, as we
expected, not as popular with members of the public as was lethal management in other
situations. The public seems to be much more supportive of lethal management to control
a perceived wildlife problem than for simply obtaining food. Personnel were far more
supportive of this Option than were members of the public. Of all the lethal management
situations, this one exhibited the largest percentage difference between public and agency
support, highlighting an area of potential conﬂict. Because hunting and trapping are also
considered to be important tools for wildlife managers in controlling wildlife populations,

it is especially important to be aware of public attitudes toward this issue.

LWM Scale

Of all the explanatory variables, gender and attitude toward consumptive
recreation were the most strongly related to overall attitude toward lethal wildlife
management in the public sample. Frequency of hunting and ﬁshing participation and
experience with wildlife problems were also signiﬁcant, though these relationships
existed only at the bivariate level (see discussion below). NO other explanatory variable
in the public sample contributed signiﬁcantly to explaining support for lethal wildlife
management.

As we expected, men were more supportive of lethal wildlife management than

were women. This corroborates the results of other studies, which have found that

36

women are generally opposed to lethal management techniques to control wildlife
populations (Donnelly and Vaske 1995; Teel et al. 2002). Women’s opposition to lethal
management is most likely related to their reportedly high levels of concern about animal
cruelty and exploitation (Kellert 1980) and general aversion to killing or violence (Gray
1993)

Positive attitudes toward consumptive recreation were also associated with
support for lethal wildlife management in the public sample, as we predicted. In fact,
attitude toward consumptive recreation was a much stronger predictor of support for
lethal management than any of the other explanatory variables in our study. As was the
case here, Donnelly and Vaske (1995) suggested that speciﬁc attitudes related to a
management action are better for predicting public reaction than are traditional
sociodemographic characteristics. In addition, lethal management Often involves
consumptive recreation as a management tool, so it is not surprising that those who
support consumptive use of wildlife also ﬁnd it acceptable to use lethal methods to
control wildlife populations. One of the lethal management situations discussed in this
paper (“provide opportunities to gather food”) speciﬁcally concerned attitudes toward
consumptive recreation. Given this Obvious overlap, it is highly likely that a person’s
attitude toward consumptive recreation would strongly inﬂuence their attitude toward
lethal wildlife management. Still, we believe it was important to include attitude toward
consumptive recreation in our model, as it provided an opportunity to explore the
relationships between the other independent variables and the dependent variable while
controlling for the strong impact of consumptive recreation attitude on support for lethal

wildlife management.

37

We accurately predicted that members of the public who hunted or ﬁshed more
frequently and those who had experienced problems with wildlife would be more
supportive of lethal wildlife management (though only while not controlling for the
effects of other variables). Both hunters and anglers are consumptive users of wildlife
resources who are more likely than those who do not participate in consumptive
recreation to share a utilitarian disposition towards animals (Kellert 1980). It is therefore
not surprising that we found a positive relationship between hunting or ﬁshing frequency
and support for lethal wildlife management. In a Utah study, researchers found a similar
result: hunters were more supportive of lethal predator control than were non-hunters
(Teel et al. 2002). Another study reported that hunters in Pennsylvania were much more
supportive of a proposed moose hunt than were non-hunters (Donnelly and Vaske 1995).
In our study, when all other variables were controlled in the multiple regression, hunting
and ﬁshing frequency were no longer predictive Of support for lethal management,
suggesting that these relationships may be mediated by attitude toward consumptive
recreation.

Similar to our ﬁnding, other studies have also suggested that experience with
wildlife problems increases the likelihood that one will support lethal wildlife
management. In one case, homeowners and agricultural producers in Virginia who
experienced wildlife damage problems were more likely to support dramatic reductions
in wildlife population size (West and Parkhurst 2002). A community in Connecticut
experiencing numerous deer problems voted in favor of holding an archery hunt to cull
the herd (Kilpatrick and Walter 1997). While experience with wildlife problems was not

the strongest predictor of attitude toward lethal management, it is still an important

38

variable to assess as concerns about human/wildlife conﬂicts continue to grow. Further,
in more speciﬁc management situations — rather than the general ones explored here —
experience with problems is likely to be an even stronger predictor of public support for a
lethal management action.

Age, consumptive recreation attitude, and management position were the
strongest predictors of support for lethal wildlife management among wildlife agency
personnel. Hunting frequency was also signiﬁcant, but only at the bivariate level. No
other independent variable in the personnel sample signiﬁcantly helped to explain
support for lethal management. As we predicted, older personnel were more likely to
support lethal management than were younger personnel. Kellert (1980) and Kaltenbom
et al. (1999) found that older people tend to hold more utilitarian views of animals than
do younger people. This could be true for older wildlife personnel as well (although this
was not the case for the public in this study). Younger people tend to be more humanistic
(Kellert 1980) and ecologistic (Kaltenbom et al. 1999) in their orientation toward
animals, suggesting that they may be more Open to a variety of solutions to wildlife
overabundance issues, rather than just lethal ones. In addition, older personnel are likely
to possess a more traditional management perspective than that of their younger
counterparts. In a study of entry-level wildlife managers, Kennedy and Mincolla (1982)
suggested that new recruits into natural resource management have a somewhat idealistic
view Of the ﬁeld. With time, some of this idealism may fade as they gain experience and
deal with the realities of natural resource management, such as the need to implement

lethal wildlife management. The fact that older personnel were more supportive of lethal

39

wildlife management may, therefore, reﬂect not only age, but also their experience in
wildlife management.

As was the case for the public, positive attitudes toward consumptive recreation
were related to support for lethal wildlife management. Unlike the case for the public,
however, attitude toward consumptive recreation was not the strongest predictor of
support. Management position was a much stronger predictor Of attitude toward lethal
management in our study. Among wildlife personnel, managers were more likely to
support lethal management than were non-managers, as we predicted. We suspect that
managers are more aware of problems with wildlife as well as methods to deal with those
problems. They are likely more willing to do “whatever it takes” to manage wildlife
problems successfully and with a minimum of costs. In a study comparing attitudes
toward animals among Bureau of Land Management biologists and the public, Peyton
and Langenau (1985) similarly proposed that biologists tend to rely on objective
scientiﬁc arguments —- as opposed to value-laden judgements — to assess wildlife
management issues. This perspective likely leads to greater support for lethal wildlife
management.

We were somewhat surprised that we did not ﬁnd any signiﬁcant relationships
between the other explanatory variables (education, income, childhood residence, and
property ownership) and support for lethal wildlife management for either sample group.
Studies have found that people with lower levels of education (Donnelly and Vaske 1995;
Teel et al. 2002) and income (Donnelly and Vaske 1995) are more likely to support lethal
management actions. Rural residents have been found to be more accepting of lethal

wildlife management than their urban counterparts (Teel et al. 2002). In our study we

40

found no such relationships for these explanatory variables. We also falsely believed that
property owners, who may be more likely than non-property owners to be concerned
about wildlife damage, would be more supportive of lethal management. It seems that
landowners may be tolerant of some wildlife damage, perhaps because of perceived
beneﬁts of having wildlife on their land or because they are not experiencing wildlife

damage severe enough to warrant lethal management of wildlife.

Management Implications

While the study showed majority public support for all the lethal management
Situations, some issues seemed to resonate more strongly with the public than did others.
In particular, members of the public were overwhelmingly supportive of lethal wildlife
management to control wildlife diseases, ensure species survival, and ensure public
safety. They were much less supportive of lethal management in other situations such as
controlling wildlife damage or providing opportunities to gather food. Diefenbach and
Palmer (1997) suggested that managers should use marketing techniques to promote
wildlife population control and management to the public. By focusing on the issues of
greatest concern to the public, such as controlling wildlife diseases, managers have the
best chance of developing a message that will increase the level of support for lethal
wildlife management among the public, and thereby decrease disruptive opposition to
management policies. Marketing campaigns utilizing a variety of approaches, including
print and television media, government brochures, and public meetings have the greatest
likelihood of garnering broad support for lethal wildlife management policy.

Managers should be aware that despite the ﬁndings of general support for lethal

41

wildlife management in this study, other researchers have found that lethal techniques
remain controversial, particularly in urban and suburban environments, even after they
have been implemented for some amount of time (Lauber and Knuth 2000; Lauber et al.
2001). Persisting conﬂicts over use of lethal management suggest that it will be
important to continue monitoring public opinion about lethal management in the future as
urban and suburban areas continue to grow and the number of human/wildlife conﬂicts
continues to increase.

Further, because in this study agency personnel were more supportive of each
lethal management situation than were members of the public, managers seeking to
implement lethal wildlife management should be cautious. Majority public support for
each situation suggests that managers have a good base from which to start, but public
support varies greatly depending on the management situation. If possible, managers
should attempt to include members of the public in the decision-making process when
situations arise in which lethal wildlife management is being considered. Doing so will
allow managers to gain insight into public perspectives about and management
preferences for the situation, to educate public participants about the diversity of needs
and concerns for public lands, and to develop management plans that satisfy a variety of
stakeholder interests (Lauber et al. 2001).

One concern of this study is the possibility that the public sample may not be
entirely representative of the state of Michigan due to response bias. The overall
response rate (56%) was somewhat low. In addition, men, hunters, anglers, and those
with higher levels of education responded to the survey in disproportionately greater

numbers than would be expected based on known populations in Michigan. The question

42

is whether response bias among these groups may have resulted in artiﬁcially high levels
of support for lethal wildlife management. While space limitations here do not allow for
a complete analysis of all the possible segments of respondents, and it is not possible to
fully characterize survey non-respondents, managers may be particularly interested in
identifying differences in support for lethal management among hunters and non-hunters.
For the purpose of this discussion, non-hunters are those who indicated that they “never”
hunt in a typical year, while hunters are those who reported hunting “frequently,”
“sometimes,” or “rarely” in a typical year. A brief analysis of these groups revealed that
while hunters were more supportive of lethal management than were non-hunters in most
situations, there were no differences between the groups in level of support for lethal
management to control wildlife diseases or ensure public safety. As was the case for the
public and wildlife agency samples, hunters and non-hunters were more supportive of
lethal management to control wildlife diseases than for any other purpose. Further,
majorities of both hunters and non-hunters were supportive of lethal management in all
situations. So while some differences existed between the two groups, the high level of
support for lethal wildlife management found among both hunters and non-hunters
suggest that the study results here may be fairly accurate in representing the state, despite
possible response biases.

Another point worth noting is that this study assessed attitudes toward lethal
management in general. Managers may need to continue to study public attitudes in
speciﬁc management situations, Since public attitudes may be modiﬁed by species of
concern, area of interest, and severity of issue, among other factors (Riley and Decker

2000). Case-speciﬁc attitudinal studies may be necessary to effectively assess likely

43

public reaction to lethal management actions. A case in point: our ﬁndings showed a
high level of support for lethal management to control wildlife diseases, possibly
reﬂecting public and agency concerns about bovine tuberculosis in Michigan’s deer
herds. We suspect that the public may be fairly supportive of lethal wildlife management
to control BTB in white-tailed deer; however further exploration into attitudes toward
control methods is needed to determine if this is the case. This information could be
invaluable to managers dealing with BTB in Michigan’s deer herds.

Finally, further analyses of sociodemographic and attitudinal explanatory
variables could provide a more complete picture of public attitudes toward lethal wildlife
management overall and for speciﬁc lethal management situations. More detailed
attitudinal variables could be especially helpful in gauging public reaction to
management actions. Such analyses could allow managers to better predict sources of
opposition to planned lethal wildlife management and, therefore, provide opportunities

for building consensus for effective policy implementation.

Literature Cited

Alverson, W. S. and D. M. Waller. 1997. Deer populations and the widespread failure of
hemlock regeneration in northern forests. Pages 280-297 in W. J. McShea, H. B.
Underwood, and J. H. Rappole, editors. The science of overabundance: deer

ecology and population management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington
DC, USA.

Bjerke, T., J. Vitterso, and B. P. Kaltenbom. 2000. Locus of control and attitudes
toward large carnivores. Psychological Reports 86: 37-46.

Bovine TB Eradication Project. 2002. Bovine Tuberculosis. Accessed: July 31, 2002.
<http://www.bovinetb.com>.

44

Brown, T. L. and D. J. Decker. 1982. Identifying and relating organized publics to
wildlife management issues: a planning study. Transactions of the 47th North
American Wildlife Conference 47: 686-692.

Christoffel, R. A. and S. R. Craven. 2000. Attitudes of woodland owners toward white-
tailed deer and herbivory in Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 227-234.

Clay, W.H and RH. Schmidt. 1998. Utilizing human dimensions information in federal
wildlife damage management programs. Transactions of the 63rd North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63: 215-226.

Decker, D]. and J. W. Enck. 1996. Human dimensions of wildlife management:
knowledge for agency survival in the 21St century. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 1: 60-71.

Decker, D. J ., T. L. Brown and G. F. Mattfeld. 1987. Integrating social science into
wildlife management: barriers and limitations. Pages 83-92 in M. L. Miller, R. P.
Gale and P. J. Brown, editors. Social science in natural resources management
systems. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Diefenbach, D. R. and W. L. Palmer. 1997. Deer management: marketing the science.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 378-381.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley-
Interscience, New York, New York, USA.

Donnelly, M. P. and J. J. Vaske. 1995. Predicting attitudes toward a proposed moose
hunt. Society and Natural Resources 8: 307-319.

Duda, M. D., S. J. Bissell, K. C. Young. 1998. Wildlife and the American mind: public
opinion on and attitudes toward ﬁsh and wildlife management. Responsive
Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA.

Gray, G. G. 1993. Wildlife and people: the human dimensions of wildlife ecology.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Hendee, J. C. and R. W. Harris. 1970. Foresters' perceptions of wildemess-user
attitudes and preferences. Journal of Forestry 68: 759-762.

Kaltenbom, B. P., T. Bjerke, and J. Vitterso. 1999. Attitudes toward large carnivores
among sheep farmers, wildlife managers, and research biologists in Norway.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4: 57-73.

Kellert, S. R. 1980. American’s attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: an update.
International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 1: 87-119.

45

Kennedy, J. J. and J. A. Mincolla. 1982. Career evolution of young 400-series US.
Forest Service professionals. Career Development Project Report 1. College of
Natural Resources and Utah State University Agricultural Experiment Station.

Kilpatrick, H. J. and W. D. Walter. 1997. Urban deer management: a community vote.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 388-391.

Lauber, T. B. and B. A. Knuth. 2000. Suburban residents' criteria for evaluating
contraception and other deer management techniques. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 5: 1-17.

Lauber, T. B., M. L. Anthony, and B. A. Knuth. 2001. Gender and ethical judgments
about suburban deer management. Society and Natural Resources 14: 571-583.

Leuschner, W. A., V. P. Ritchie, and D. F. Stauffer. 1989. Opinions on wildlife:
responses of resource managers and wildlife users in the southeastern United
States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 24-29.

Lindgren, B. W. 1976. Statistical Theory, 3rd Edition. Macmillan Publishing CO., Inc.:
New York, New York, USA.

Loker, C. A., D. J. Decker, and S. J. Schwager. 1999. Social acceptability of wildlife
management actions in suburban areas: 3 cases from New York. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 27: 152-159.

Manfredo, M. J ., C. L. Pierce, D. Fulton, J. Pate, and B. R. Gill. 1999. Public acceptance
of wildlife trapping in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 499-508.

Manfredo, M. J ., H. C. Zinn, L. Sikorowski, and J. Jones. 1998. Public acceptance of
mountain lion management: a case study of Denver, Colorado, and nearby
foothills areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 964-970.

McShea, W. J. and J. H. Rappole. 1997. Herbivores and the ecology of forest understory
birds. Pages 298-309 in W. J. McShea, H. B. Underwood, and J. H. Rappole,
editors. The science of overabundance: deer ecology and population
management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, USA.

Mertig, A. G. and M. H. Koval. 1999. Attitudes toward natural resources and their
management: a report on the “1999 Resource Attitudes in Michigan Survey”.
Technical report. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Department of Sociology.

Messmer, T. A., L. Comicelli, D. J. Decker, and D. G. Hewitt. 1997. Stakeholder

acceptance of urban deer management techniques. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:
360-366.

46

Minnis, D. L. 1998. Wildlife policy-making by the electorate: an overview Of citizen-
sponsored ballot measures on hunting and trapping. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:
75-83.

Muth, R. M., D. A. Hamilton, J. F . Organ, D. J. Witter, M. E. Mather, and J. J. Daigle.
1998. The future of wildlife and ﬁsheries policy and management: assessing the
attitudes and values of wildlife and ﬁsheries professionals. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63: 604-627.

Peyton, R. B. and E. E. Langenau, Jr. 1985. A comparison of attitudes held by BLM
biologists and the general public towards animals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:
117-120.

Phillips, M. L., K. J. Boyle, and A. G. Clark. 1998. A comparison of opinions of
wildlife managers and the public on endangered species management. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 26: 605-613.

Reiter, D. K., M. W. Brunson, and R. H. Schmidt. 1999. Public attitudes toward wildlife
damage management and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 746-758.

Responsive Management. 2001. Attitudes toward and awareness Of trapping issues in
Connecticut, Indiana and Wisconsin. A report prepared for the International
Association Of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Furbearer Resources Technical
Workgroup.

Riley, S. J. and D. J. Decker. 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars
in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 931-939.

Saltiel, J. and LR. Irby. 1998. Perceptions of game damage in Montana by resource
agency personnel and agricultural producers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 84-91.

Schmidt, R.H., M.W. Brunson, and D.K. Reiter. 1997. National public attitudes toward
animal damage management and policy. A report prepared for the United States
Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

SPSS, Inc. 2000. SPSS for Windows, Release 10.0.7, standard version. SPSS, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Tabachnick, B. G. and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Using multivariate statistics, 4th edition. Allyn
and Bacon: Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Teel, T. L., R. S. Krannich, and R. H. Schmidt. 2002. Utah stakeholders’ attitudes
toward selected cougar and black bear management practices. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 30: 2-15.

47

US. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000. Accessed December 5, 2002.
<http://www.census.gov>

US. Department of Interior and US. Department of Commerce. 2002. 2001 National
survey of ﬁshing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. US. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Census Bureau Report F HW/Ol-NAT.

Vining, J. and A. Ebreo. 1991. Are you thinking what I think you are? A study of actual
and estimated goal priorities and decision preferences of resource managers,

environmentalists, and the public. Society and Natural Resources 4: 177-196.

West, B. C. and J. A. Parkhurst. 2002. Interactions between deer damage, deer density,
and stakeholder attitudes in Virginia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 139-147.

Wittmann, K., J. J. Vaske, M. J. Manfredo, H. C. Zinn. 1998. Standards for lethal
response to problem urban wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 3: 29-48.

48

Chapter III
STUDY 2: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ACCEPTANCE OF LETHAL

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT: A STUDY OF THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC

Abstract

A mail survey of the Michigan public was utilized to identify gender differences
in support for lethal wildlife management in eight situations. They included: controlling
wildlife diseases, ensuring species survival, preserving the ecological health of an area,
controlling wildlife damage, ensuring public safety, managing population levels of wild
animals, providing Opportunities to gather food, and allowing hunters to obtain trophy
animals. The survey achieved a ﬁnal response rate of 43% (n=1970). When controlling
for the effects of several explanatory variables, gender was an important predictor of
support for lethal wildlife management overall; men were more supportive than were
women. Men were also more likely to support lethal management in ﬁve of the eight
situations. While men and women differed in their support for lethal management in
each of the situations, marked similarities between the groups in how they assessed the
need for lethal management bode well for managers making decisions involving lethal

wildlife management.

Key Words

Attitudes, gender, lethal management, Michigan, opinion, public, survey, wildlife

49

Introduction

As wildlife populations in suburban areas continue to grow and human/wildlife
conﬂicts increase across the United States, wildlife managers are repeatedly being faced
with public concerns about wildlife. Wild animals are posing risks to people as both
human and wildlife populations increase in size and occupy the same landscapes. Often,
managers must focus on wildlife population management as the key to resolving
human/wildlife conﬂicts. Managing wildlife populations can involve both lethal and
non-lethal methods. While Americans generally ﬁnd non-lethal methods acceptable,
lethal methods remain controversial (Lauber et al. 2001).

One reason for this is the rise of the animal rights movement, which seeks to grant
animals rights that are equal or similar to those of humans, and the animal welfare
movement, which seeks to limit animal suffering (Schmidt 1989; Causey 1992; Minnis
1998). In recent years, these movements have been gaining support from the mainstream
public (Minnis 1998) and changing the way in which managers conduct wildlife
management (Schmidt 1989). Decker and Brown (1987) asserted that the animal rights
movement in particular is a threat to wildlife management because it opposes traditional
wildlife activities such as hunting and trapping, and questions how and why managers
manage wildlife. At the same time that the animal rights and welfare movements have
been gaining momentum, an anti-hunting movement has also emerged. Animal rights
and welfare groups as well as anti-hunting groups have been responsible for bringing
much public attention to the issue of lethal wildlife management through protests (Tilt
and Spotila 1991; Jasper and Nelkin 1992), media campaigns, and legislative processes

(Gentile 1987; Minnis 1998). For example, anti-hunting protests were used in Maryland

50

to interfere with the Opening of the deer hunting season (Hill 1991). Legislation has been
introduced in many US. states — and passed in some — to ban wildlife trapping or
particular trapping methods (Gentile 1987; Minnis 1998). In another well-known case,
animal rights activists used the media to draw public attention to fur hunting of harp seals
(Phoca greonlandica) beginning in the mid 1960’s, ultimately leading to the near-demise
of the entire industry (Tilt and Spotila 1991). AS these cases illustrate, animal rights,
animal welfare, and anti-hunting groups have been successful in limiting the use of
wildlife for consumptive recreation and economic gain. In addition to their shared
concerns about wildlife management practices, these movements have another major
aspect in common: all three are predominantly made up of women. As both
human/wildlife conﬂicts and the need for lethal actions to control such conﬂicts continue
to increase, managers will, therefore, need to address the speciﬁc concerns women have
about lethal wildlife management.

Researchers have long recognized differences between men and women in how
they relate to animals and the environment. Gender differences in attitudes toward
animals and their management can have profound implications for wildlife managers who
are responsible for managing wildlife resources on behalf of the public. Traditionally in
the United States, wildlife management focused on managing wildlife and habitats to
increase opportunities for consumptive recreation (i.e., hunting, ﬁshing and trapping);
managers and constituents have generally been male and white. Increasingly, the ﬁeld of
wildlife management is embracing a broader constituency, but to do so there must be a
greater understanding of the desires and concerns of non-traditional wildlife constituents,

such as women. Managers considering the use of lethal wildlife management will need

51

to understand and respond to gender differences in acceptance of lethal wildlife
management in order to minimize conﬂicts in policy implementation. This paper
examines gender differences in support for the use of lethal wildlife management in
Michigan.

Lethal wildlife management may be used for goals such as controlling wildlife-
related risks (e. g., diseases, wildlife/car collisions, crop damage) as well as for providing
consumptive recreational opportunities (e.g., hunting, trapping). While several studies
have focused on general public attitudes toward the use of lethal management, fewer have
concentrated on gender differences in support for lethal methods. In general, researchers
have found that a majority of the public prefers non-lethal means of controlling problem
species, such as birth control or removal of animals to another area (e. g., Schmidt et al.
1997; Reiter et al. 1999). However, several studies have indicated that lethal methods of
control may be acceptable to the public if they feel that the situation warrants their use
(Loker et al. 1999; Schmidt et al. 1997). Our focus here is on assessing situations in
which men and women might ﬁnd lethal wildlife management warranted. With this in
mind, we identiﬁed several Situations in which lethal wildlife management has been used:
to control wildlife diseases, ensure species survival, preserve the ecological health of an
area, control wildlife damage, ensure public safety, manage population levels of wild
animals, provide opportunities to gather food, and allow hunters to obtain trophy animals.

Acceptance of lethal wildlife management has been found to vary based on the
risks or costs associated with a management situation. In general, people ﬁnd lethal
management most acceptable under circumstances in which the level of risk to humans is

high. Studies have found that members of the public generally ﬁnd lethal wildlife

52

management acceptable if it is intended to protect public safety (Kilpatrick and Walter
1997; Schmidt et al. 1997; Manfredo et al. 1998; Wittmann et al. 1998; Reiter et al.
1999), control wildlife damage (Schmidt et al. 1997; Manfredo et al. 1999; Wittmann et
al. 1998), or control wildlife diseases (Kilpatrick and Walter 1997; Wittmann et al. 1998;
Manfredo et al. 1999). Public support tends to be somewhat lower for lethal management
related to consumptive uses of wildlife; consumptive activities for sport (rather than
need) are particularly controversial (Regan 1983; Wenz 1983; Decker and Brown 1987;
King 1991).

In general, women are not as supportive of lethal wildlife management as are
men; they tend to prefer non-lethal methods to control wildlife populations (Sanbom and
Schmidt 1995; Lauber and Knuth 2000). In our 1999 study measuring attitudes toward
lethal wildlife management, women were less supportive than were men of lethal wildlife
management overall (see Chapter 11). Several studies have corroborated this lack of
support among women for lethal control of predators (Teel et al. 2002; Zinn and Pierce
2002) and deer (Lauber et al. 2001). In a study of wildlife professionals, Sanbom and
Schmidt (1995) found that even among wildlife managers, women were less supportive
than men of using the lethal techniques of shooting, trapping, or poisoning to control
wildlife populations. Interestingly, male and female managers in the study considered
different factors in making a decision as to whether particular lethal methods were
appropriate. Male managers tended to focus on the cost-effectiveness of the technique,
while female managers were more concerned about producing a quick and humane death

for the animals. As this example illustrates, men and women tend to differ in their

approach to making decisions affecting wild animals. Similarly, in a study of gender and

53

attitudes toward animals, Kellert and Berry (1987: 365) noted that “the strength and
consistency of male vs. female differences were so pronounced as to suggest gender is
among the most important demographic inﬂuences on attitudes toward animals in our
society.”

To explain the prominent differences in men’s and women’s attitudes toward
animals, many researchers have turned to the works of feminist theorists like Nancy
Chodorow and Carol Gilligan (e. g., Kellert and Berry 1987; Stem et al. 1993; Eldridge
and Gluck 1996; Peek et al. 1996; Lauber et al. 2001). Chodorow (1978) suggested that
girls’ feelings of sameness and identiﬁcation with their mothers as their primary
caretakers cause them to feel connected to the world, while boys develop a sense of self
that is separate and distinct from the world. Building on Chodorow’s theories, Gilligan
(1982) postulated that women’s early socialization creates an “ethic of care,” leading
them to be more altruistic and empathetic toward others. Women are therefore nurturers
and caretakers; essentially, women “mother.” Some feminists also equate the suffering
and oppression of women with oppression of animals and nature (Merchant 1990; Gaard
1993). Ecofeminists see a strong connection between women and animals, and see it as a
woman’s role to liberate not only women, but also animals and nature. In light Of these
feminist philosophies, the ﬁndings that women are more likely than are men to Oppose
lethal wildlife management make sense. If women tend to nurture others and they feel
close ties to animals, it follows that they may be less supportive of management practices
that would directly harm individual wild animals. Research on gender and environmental

concern, animal rights and welfare issues, and attitudes toward consumptive recreation

54

generally support these feminist theories, and provide further insight for understanding

women’s attitudes toward lethal wildlife management.

Gender and Environmental Concern

Studies of gender and environmental concem have often yielded conﬂicting
results, probably because the ways in which environmental concern has been measured
have lacked consistency. There seem to be two main branches of environmental concern
research. The ﬁrst measures general concern about the environment, while the second
measures concern about environmental risks. General, national level studies of gender
and environmental concern have been particularly inconsistent, ﬁnding little or no gender
difference (e. g., see Van Liere and Dunlap 1980; Smith 2001). However, recent studies
of gender and environmental risk concern have found women to be more concerned than
men, particularly when local level environmental risks are involved (Blocker and
Eckberg 1989; Mohai 1992; Stem et al. 1993; Davidson and Freudenburg 1996; Zelezny
et al. 2000; Hayes 2001; Smith 2001). Hayes (2001) suggested that due to their nurturing
roles and their perceived need to protect their families and communities from harm,
women are predisposed to a higher level of concern about environmental risks than are
men. While most environmental risk concern literature has involved anthropogenic,
technological risks, Zinn and Pierce (2002) suggested that the same principles could be
applied to assess concerns about potentially dangerous wildlife. In a Colorado study,
women were found to be more concerned than men about dangerous wildlife, though they
were still less willing to support killing an animal that had injured or killed a human

(Zinn and Pierce 2002). Still, concern about environmental or wildlife-related risks may

55

lead women to be more open to using lethal methods to control dangerous wildlife than
they would have otherwise been. Women, therefore, may ﬁnd lethal wildlife
management more acceptable in situations that pose risks to humans (i.e., ensuring public

safety, controlling wildlife diseases) than in those that do not present such risks.

Gender, Animal Rights, and Animal Welfare

As mentioned above, women seem to have a particularly strong afﬁnity for
animal rights and welfare causes; both movements are predominantly made up of women
(Sperling 1988; Herzog et al. 1991; Richards and Krannich 1991; Jasper and Nelkin
1992; Eldridge and Gluck 1996; Minnis 1998; Kruse 1999). Peek et al. (1996) suggested
that women’s experiences with oppression make them more concerned about equality,
and therefore animal rights. Kellert and Berry (1987) also noted that women are more
“humanistic” and “moralistic” than are men in their attitudes toward animals. In other
words, they tend to be more concerned about the well-being of individual animals (as
opposed to an entire species) and more concerned about animal cruelty issues. Similarly,
Siemer and Brown (1992) found that female wildlife rehabilitators were motivated by a
sense of moral obligation to animals. Women’s moralistic and humanistic orientations
likely disproportionately attract them to animal rights and welfare causes. In addition,
women are more likely to question the need for animal research (Eldridge and Gluck
1996), are less supportive of manipulating wildlife populations (Zinn and Pierce 2002),
and are less trusting Of institutions, such as wildlife agencies (Davidson and Freudenburg

1996) than are men. These factors, taken together, may explain, at least in part, why

56

women have so readily embraced the animal rights and welfare movements and also tend

to Oppose the use of lethal wildlife management.

Gender and Consumptive Recreation

Women have not only become key players in the animal rights and welfare
movements, but they have also taken a lead role in the emergence of an anti-hunting
movement, which questions the appropriateness of hunting and trapping (Gray 1993).
Women seem to be particularly concerned about issues related to animal exploitation,
including killing animals for fur, meat or sport (Applegate 1973; Shaw 1977; Kellert and
Berry 1987). Given their concerns, it is not surprising that women are less likely to
participate in (Kellert and Berry 1987; Connelly and Decker 1996) or support (Lauber et
al. 2001) consumptive recreation than are men. Proponents of the anti-hunting
movement believe that hunting is unethical because hunters kill casually, with no
“reverence for life” (Causey 1992: 56), and because hunting is destructive to women and
nature (King 1991 ). According to anti-hunters, there must be a justiﬁable reason for
killing animals (Causey 1992), and hunting for sport or recreation is not considered
justiﬁed (Regan 1983; Wenz 1983; Decker and Brown 1987; King 1991). Although the
literature shows women are Often open to using lethal management if they feel the
situation justiﬁes its use, their strong association with anti-hunting would likely lead
them to oppose lethal wildlife management for obtaining trophies or food.

In general, studies on gender and environmental concern, animal rights and
welfare issues, and attitudes toward consumptive recreation suggest that women are not

likely to be as supportive of lethal wildlife management as are men, regardless of the

57

situation. However, as the potential for risk to humans increases, support for lethal
management is likely to increase as well, reducing the disparity in men’s and women’s

acceptance of lethal wildlife management.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to assess differences between men and women in
terms of support for lethal wildlife management in a variety of management situations
including: controlling wildlife diseases, ensuring species survival, preserving the
ecological health of an area, controlling wildlife damage, ensuring public safety,
managing population levels of wild animals, providing Opportunities to gather food, and
allowing hunters to obtain trophy animals.

For both men and women, we expected to ﬁnd the most support for lethal wildlife
management in situations involving risks to humans (i.e., ensuring public safety, and
controlling wildlife diseases). Further, we expected to ﬁnd particularly low levels of
support among women for lethal wildlife management involving consumptive recreation
(i.e., providing opportunities to gather food, and allowing hunters to Obtain trophy
animals). We believed that gender would be an important predictor of support for lethal
wildlife management overall; men would be more supportive than would women. We
also believed that men would be more supportive of lethal management in each of the

management situations than would women.

58

Methods

A mail survey was developed to assess public attitudes toward a wide variety of
natural resource and wildlife issues in the state of Michigan. In the spring of 2000, the
survey was mailed to a sample Of 2500 men and 2500 women in Michigan (see Mertig
and Koval 2001) in order to assess the effects of gender on attitude toward these issues in
general, and toward lethal wildlife management in particular. Names and addresses were
purchased from USADATA.com, a ﬁrm specializing in drawing representative household
samples ﬁ'om a combination of sources (e. g., telephone lists, driver’s licenses).
Following the recommendations set forth by Dillman (1978), a series of survey mailings
was used to encourage response to the survey. As an incentive to complete the survey,
respondents were entered into a prize drawing for one of several gift cards to a national
discount store. The survey achieved a ﬁnal response rate of 43% (n=1970, sampling

error +/- 1%) after deletion of bad addresses and those ineligible to respond.

Variable Measurement

Several real-life situations were identiﬁed in which the use of lethal wildlife
management might be warranted in Michigan. One item determined a respondent’s
acceptance of killing individual animals under any circumstance, while eight additional
items measured support for lethal management in particular situations. The ﬁrst item
read as follows:

Do you believe it is acceptable to kill individual wild animals in certain

circumstances?

59

For this item, respondents could choose between three response categories: yes, no, or
unsure. Those respondents who responded positively (i.e., a “yes” response) or were
unsure about whether killing individual animals would be acceptable in certain
circumstances were also asked to evaluate the following eight items pertaining to the use
of lethal management in speciﬁc situations:
As long as it is properly controlled, is it acceptable to kill individual wild animals

in order to...

a. ...control wildlife diseases

b. ...ensure species survival

c. ...preserve the ecological health of an area

d. ...control wildlife damage

e. ...ensure public safety

f ...manage population levels of wild animals

g. provide opportunities to gather food

h. ...allow hunters to obtain trophy animals

For each of the eight situational items, respondents were asked to choose one of

three possible response categories: yes, no, or unsure. A scale assessing degree of
support for lethal management was constructed on the basis of the eight situational items.
Respondents must have answered at least one of the eight items in order to receive a
score on the scale. Respondents received a score by summing the number of situations
(from the eight situational items) in which they felt that lethal management was
acceptable (i.e., a “yes” response to the question). If an individual felt that it was not

acceptable to kill an individual animal under any circumstance, they were given a score

60

of zero on the scale. The Lethal Wildlife Management (LWM) Scale’, therefore, ranged
ﬁ‘om 0 to 8, with a higher scale score reﬂecting more support for lethal wildlife
management overall.

In the multivariate analyses, gender differences were assessed while controlling
for the effects of several independent or explanatory variables: age, education, years lived
in Michigan, childhood residence, property ownership, previous experience with wildlife
problems, frequency of participation in hunting, support for consumptive recreation, and
level of environmental concern. Table III-1 presents the measurement and coding for

each of these variables.

Analysis of the Data

Data were analyzed using SPSS 10.0.7 for Windows software for social statistics
(2000). Basic descriptive statistics are presented for the independent and dependent
variables by gender; statistically signiﬁcant differences between men and women are
noted. Comparisons between means were assessed using AN OVA, and differences
between proportions were examined using Pearson’s chi-squared tests. Responses for the
situational lethal management items were coded ordinally for these statistical
comparisons, with higher numbers reﬂecting more support for the lethal management
item (i.e., no=1, unsure=2, yes=3).

Both simple and multiple linear regression analyses Of the LWM Scale were used
next to identify the factors affecting support for lethal wildlife management overall.
According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), it is important to evaluate both simple and

multiple regression results in order to get a complete understanding of the effect of an

61

Table 111-1. Measurement of the independent variables used to explain support for lethal
wildlife management among Michigan men and women.

 

 

Variable Coding
Gender 3 0 Female
1 Male
Age b Age is continuous
Education d 1 Less than high school graduate

Years lived in
Michigan °
Childhood residence °

Property ownership f

Experience with

wildlife problems 8

Hunting frequency h

Support for
consumptive
recreation '

2 High school graduate or GED

3 Vocational or Trade School

4 Associate's Degree (2 year degree)

5 Some College

6 College Graduate (Bachelor's or 4 year degree)
7 Graduate or Professional Degree

Years in Michigan is continuous

1 Rural, Farm

2 Rural, Non-Farm

3 Small Town (25,000 people or fewer)

4 Urban Area (From 25,001 up to 100,000 people)
5 Metropolitan Area (More than 100,000 people)

0 NO
1 Yes

0 NO
1 Yes

1 Never
2 Rarely
3 Sometimes
4 Frequently

7 item scale. Each item was coded from 1 to 5, with 1 representing
the least support and 5 representing the most support for hunting,
trapping or ﬁshing. Respondents were given a scale score only if
they had two or fewer missing responses on the set of items.

Those with missing values had a middle response (3) assigned for
the relevant missing item(s). An overall scale score was then given
to respondents by adding item responses. Range: 7 to 35;
Cronbach's Alpha = 0.83; unidimensional scale (1 factor
explaining 50% of the variance in items).

 

62

Table 111-1 (cont’d).

 

 

Variable Coding

Level of Assessed by creating an environmental concern scale of 10 items
environmental taken from the revised 15 item “New Ecological Paradigm” (NEP)
concern 3 scale (Dunlap et al. 2000). Answering positively to the items

marked with a “+” (see footnote) and answering negatively to the
items marked with a “-“ would reﬂect a higher level of
environmental concern. Items were coded from 1 to 5 with higher
numbers reﬂecting a more “pro-environmental” stance.
Respondents were given a scale score only if they had two or fewer
missing responses on the set of items. Those with missing values
had a middle response (3) assigned for the relevant missing
item(s). An overall scale score was then given to respondents by
adding item responses. Range: 10 to 50; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.73;
scale with 3 dimensions (3 factors explaining 54% of the variance
in items).

 

a Are you male or female?

b In what year were you born? (Age = 2000 - year born.)

c How many years have you lived in the State of Michigan?

d What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?

6 In what type of area did you spend all or most of your childhood?

f Do you own property in Michigan?

8 A respondent was considered to have experienced problems with wildlife if he or she responded
positively to any of the three following questions: 1) Have you or any members of your immediate family
had any problems with white-tailed deer in the state of Michigan within the last 5 years? 2) Have you or
any members of your immediate family had any problems with Canada Geese in the state of Michigan
within the last 5 years? 3) Have you or members of your immediate family had any problems with other
species of wildlife in the state of Michigan in the last 5 years?

b . . . .

About how often, In a typical year, do you engage In each of the followrng natural resource
activities? . .Hunting, Fishing

' For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Agree, Mildly Agree, are
Unsure, Mildly Disagree or Strongly Disagree. 1) Hunting is an important part Of our national heritage. 2)
In general, hunters tend to be very concerned about protecting the environment. 3) In general, hunters are
socially responsible individuals. 4) I oppose all forms of recreational hunting. 5) Trappers are concerned
about the humane treatment of animals. 6) I feel trapping animals for fur is acceptable when it is properly
regulated. 7) I feel ﬁshing is acceptable when it is properly regulated.

J The following statements talk about the relationship between humans and the environment. For each
statement, please indicate whether you Strongly Agree, Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly Disagree, or
Strongly Disagree. 1) We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support (+). 2)
When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences (+). 3) The earth has plenty
of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them (-). 4) Plants and animals have as much right as
humans to exist (+). 5) The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern
industrial nations (-). 6) Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws Of nature (+). 7)
The so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated (-). 8) Humans were
meant to rule over the rest of nature (-). 9) Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works
to be able to control it (-). 10) If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major
ecological catastrophe (+).

63

independent variable in the regression. The results of the simple regression show the
total relationship of the independent variable with the dependent variable, while multiple
regression elucidates the unique relationship of the independent variable with the
dependent variable, compensating for any redundancy between the effects of the
independent variables. In interpreting linear regression results, a statistically signiﬁcant
positive coefﬁcient indicates that the explanatory variable has a positive effect on the
dependent variable (in our case, the LWM Scale) in the population. Principal
Components Analysis and Cronbach’s alpha were used to assess scale dimensionality and
reliability, respectively. Finally, zero-order and partial correlations were used to evaluate
gender effects on support for lethal wildlife management in each of the given situations.
To be consistent with the coding of items for the LWM Scale, the situational lethal
management items were coded dichotomously (yes=1, no and unsure=0) for the zero-
order and partial correlations. In addition, only those people who provided responses for
all of the independent and dependent variables used in the analyses were included in the
calculations of zero-order and partial correlations and multiple regression coefﬁcients

(n=17l6).

Results
Similar to the original sample, which was split evenly between the sexes, 52% of
the respondents who reported their gender on the survey were men and 48% were women
(n=1912). Table III-2 presents male and female responses for the explanatory variables

used in the study. Men in the sample were slightly older and lived in Michigan longer,

on average, than women, though the mean differences in years were small (2 and 3 years,

respectively). Men were also more likely to own property than were women, with 85%
of men and only 79% of women reporting property ownership in Michigan. Not
surprisingly, given the traditional gender bias in participation in consumptive recreation
activities, men participated in hunting more frequently than did women. Thirty-three
percent of men and 8% of women reported that they participate “frequently” in hunting in
a typical year. According to estimates by the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, 22% of men
and 2% of women (age 16 or Older) in Michigan engaged in hunting in 1996 (U .S.
Department of Interior and US. Department Of Commerce 1998). This survey, therefore,
appears to have overestimated the hunting population in Michigan. This is likely due to a
combination of factors. First, respondents were asked to report their participation in
hunting and ﬁshing in “a typical year.” This would likely lead to a greater proportion of
hunters than would be found based on actual participation in hunting or ﬁshing in a Single
year. Second, hunters may have been more likely to respond to the survey due to a
greater interest in natural resource issues than could be the case for many others in the
general public.

Men were more supportive of consumptive recreation than were women, while
women scored higher in terms of environmental concern than did men. There were no
differences between men and women in terms of childhood residence, experience with
wildlife problems, or educational attainment. However, both groups in this sample were
more highly educated than would be expected based on US. Census (2000) results,
which report that 21% of men and 20% of women have earned at least a bachelor’s

degree.

65

Table 111-2. Results of the explanatory or independent variables by gender in a study of
attitudes toward lethal wildlife management in Michigan.

 

Variable a Statistic Men n Women n

Age ** Mean 50.9 988 48.8 892

Education % College Degree+ 32 990 29 908

Years lived

in Michigan ** Mean 44.9 991 42.5 907

Childhood % Urban or

residence Metropolitan 42 986 43 907

Property ownership ** % Yes 85 992 79 910

Experience with

wildlife problems % Yes 54 995 52 917

Hunting frequency ** % Frequently 33 950 8 873
% Never 39 76

Support for

consumptive Mean 27.2 987 22.9 899

recreation **

Level of

environmental Mean 34.0 988 35.2 901

concern **

 

a See Table III-l for variable measurement.
*"' Statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups at P<0.01

66

Table 111-3 presents the breakdown of responses to the lethal wildlife management
items by gender. Both men and women were very supportive of the idea that lethal
management should be used under certain circumstances. Men were somewhat more
likely to support lethal management than were women, however, with 92% of men and
85 % of women indicating that lethal management was acceptable under certain
circumstances. For the eight speciﬁc management situations, majorities of both men and
women supported using lethal wildlife management to control wildlife diseases, ensure
species survival, preserve the ecological health of an area, control wildlife damage,
ensure public safety, and manage population levels of wild animals. Men were more
likely to support using lethal management than were women in six of the eight situations.
For the other two situations, controlling wildlife diseases and ensuring public safety,
there were no statistically signiﬁcant gender differences in level of support. Men were
also more likely than were women to ﬁnd lethal wildlife management acceptable to
provide opportunities to gather food and allow hunters to obtain trophy animals, though
support was low for these two items among both groups. Of all the management
situations, both men and women were most supportive of using lethal wildlife
management to control wildlife diseases, and least supportive of doing so to allow
hunters to obtain trophy animals.

The 8 situational lethal management items were used to create a scale to measure
overall support for lethal wildlife management. The LWM Scale achieved a Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.81, reﬂecting a high level of consistency. Principal Components Analysis
found the scale to have two dimensions, extracting two factors explaining 57% of the

variance in items.2 One factor contained the two items related to consumptive recreation

67

Table IH-3. Support for lethal wildlife management in given Situations by gender.

 

 

Variable ’ Statistic Men Women
Acceptable under certain % Yes 92 85
circumstances ** % No 3 5
% Unsure 5 10
n 985 900
Control wildlife diseases % Yes 94 92
% No 2 2
% Unsure 4 6
n 943 832
Ensure species survival ** % Yes 83 74
% No 6 8
% Unsure ll 17
n 940 826
Preserve the ecological % Yes 81 73
health of an area ** % No 7 8
% Unsure 12 19
n 940 826
Control wildlife damage ** % Yes 72 56
% No 14 20
% Unsure 13 24
n 939 824
Ensure public safety % Yes 83 80
% NO 8 7
% Unsure 9 12
n 938 828
Manage population levels of wild % Yes 77 62
animals ** % NO 12 19
% Unsure ll 19
n 939 829
Provide opportunities to gather % Yes 61 49
food ** % NO 20 24
% Unsure 18 27
n 937 827
Allow hunters to obtain trophy % Yes 33 14
animals ** % No 54 75
% Unsure 13 11
n 941 830

 

68

Table 111-3 (cont’d).

 

a . .
See methods section for variable measurement.

b For statistical analyses, variables were coded ordinally, with higher numbers reﬂecting more support
for each lethal management situation (i.e., no=l, unsure=2, yes=3).
** Statistically signiﬁcant difference between groups at P<0.01

69

(provide Opportunities to gather food and allow hunters to obtain trophy animals), while
the other factor was made up of the remaining management items. This distinction
makes substantive sense in that the consumptive recreation items involve human use of
wildlife, while the other items reﬂect more general wildlife population management.
Despite the non-unidimensionality of the LWM Scale, for ease of the analyses presented
here the scale was treated as one entity measuring overall support for lethal wildlife
management.

Men were more likely than were women to support lethal management overall, as
measured by the LWM Scale (F=84.455, df=1884, P<0.001). Simple and multiple
regression analyses were utilized to assess the ability of the explanatory variables to
predict support for lethal wildlife management overall, as measured by the LWM Scale
(Table 111-4). 3 At the multivariate level, being male, having a higher level of education,
owning property, having experienced problems with wildlife, having a more positive
attitude toward consumptive recreation and exhibiting a lower level of environmental
concern were all predictive of support for lethal wildlife management. Overall, the
explanatory variables contributed signiﬁcantly to explaining variation in support for
lethal wildlife management (F =46.505, df=1715, P<0.001); the R-squared value indicates
that approximately 21% of the variation was explained. In addition to the relationships
found in the multiple regression analysis, living in Michigan longer, growing up in more
rural areas, and hunting more frequently were predictive of support for lethal
management at the bivariate level. Interestingly, while education was not related to
support for lethal wildlife management at the bivariate level, it contributed signiﬁcantly

in the multiple regression model, indicating that some other explanatory variable or

70

Table 111-4. Standardized simple and multiple regression coefﬁcients and Model R-
squared value for the Lethal Wildlife Management Scale.

 

 

 

 

Bivariate Multivariate

Explanatory Variable Coefﬁcient Coefﬁcient
Gender (male=l) 0.219 ** 0.072 **
Age 0.037 0012
Education 0.018 0.084 **
Years lived in Michigan 0.056 * 0.005
Childhood residence -0.092 ** -0.006
Property ownership 0.101 ** 0.050 *
Experience with wildlife problems 0.156 ** 0.110 **
Hunting frequency 0.252 ** 0.004
Support for consumptive recreation 0.421 ** 0.368 **
Level of environmental concern -0.193 ** -0.097 **

n 1716 1716

R2 -- 0.214

" P<0.05 ** P<0.01

71

variables used in the multivariate analysis suppressed this relationship in the bivariate
case (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). In this model, only age did not signiﬁcantly
contribute to explaining the variance in support for lethal management at any level,
though age was still controlled for when calculating partial correlations to evaluate
gender inﬂuences on support for each of the lethal management items.

Table III-5 presents zero-order and partial correlations between gender and
support for each of the 8 lethal wildlife management situations. In the bivariate, zero-
order correlations, men were signiﬁcantly more supportive of lethal wildlife management
than were women in all 8 situations;4 this was also the case in 5 of 8 situations at the
multivariate level. Men were more likely than were women to support lethal wildlife
management to ensure species survival, preserve the ecological health of an area, control
wildlife damage, manage population levels of wild animals, and allow hunters to obtain
trophy animals, even when controlling for the effects of other variables in the partial
correlations. After controlling for other variables, men and women did not differ in
support for lethal management to control wildlife diseases, ensure public safety, or

provide Opportunities to gather food.

Discussion
Interestingly, despite the fact that men were more supportive of lethal wildlife
management in most of the lethal management situations, men and women seem to be
remarkably similar in their relative assessment of which situations warrant the use of
lethal management. Table 111-6 shows how men and women ranked the eight

management situations in terms of support for lethal wildlife management. In order to

72

Table 111-5. Zero-order and partial correlations between gender and support for the eight
lethal wildlife management situations.

 

 

Zero-order Partial
Variable Correlations 2‘ Correlations b
Control wildlife diseases 0.070 ** 0.006
Ensure species survival 0.134 ** 0.060 *
Preserve the ecological health of an area 0.126 ** 0.053 *
Control wildlife damage 0.179 ** 0.085 **
Ensure public safety 0.055 * -0.012
Manage population levels of wild animals 0.178 ** 0.067 **
Provide Opportunities to gather food 0.145 ** 0.022
Allow hunters to obtain trophy animals 0.228 ** 0.063 **
n 1716 1716

 

3 Responses were coded dichotomously (yes=1, no and unsure=0) for both zero-order and partial
correlations.

b Controlling for the effects of age, education, years lived in Michigan, area of childhood residence,
property ownership, experience with wildlife problems, hunting frequency, support for consumptive
recreation, and level of environmental concern.

* P<0.05 ** P<0.01

73

Table III-6. Ranking of support for the use lethal wildlife management in particular
management situations among Michigan men and women.

 

 

 

Level of Support

for Lethal Management a Men Women

Highest Wildlife diseases * Wildlife diseases *

A Species survival Public safety *

Public safety Species survival
Ecological health * Ecological health *
Population levels * Population levels *
Wildlife damage * Wildlife damage *
Food * Food *

Lowest Trophy Trophy

 

8 These rankings are based on the percentage of respondents choosing a “yes” response for each of the
situational lethal management items.

"‘ Indicates signiﬁcant difference (p<0.05) between support for lethal management in the situation and
the situation that follows on the list.

74

determine whether level of support for lethal management differed between these
situations, percents of “yes” responses in each situation were treated as Bernoulli
proportions (Lindgren 1976). The Bernoulli proportion for each situation was compared
to that of the next proportion on the list. Pairwise tests using Z-test statistics were
applied to compare approval rates for the lethal management situations within each group
(men and women). In most cases, proportions differed ﬁom one situation to the next for
both groups. Rankings of the acceptability of lethal wildlife management utilization in
particular situations by men roughly paralleled those of women, even though women
were generally less supportive of lethal management.

As we predicted, support for lethal wildlife management was strong among both
men and women for situations involving risks to humans: controlling wildlife diseases
and ensuring public safety. It is likely that both groups were most supportive Of using
lethal management to control wildlife diseases due to a current wildlife disease problem
in Michigan. Recently, Michigan has been experiencing a highly publicized problem
involving bovine tuberculosis (BTB) in its white-tailed deer herds. Media reports have
heightened public awareness of the BTB problem, as well as the methods being used to
control BTB in Michigan’s deer herd. Men and women are likely very concerned about
eliminating this disease in Michigan, and their support for lethal management to control
wildlife diseases reﬂects their concerns.

We also predicted that women would not be very supportive of lethal
management for obtaining food or trophies. These consumptive recreation-related
situations actually received the least support of all the situations among men as well as

among women. Lethal management for trophies was the only situation that did not

75

garner majority support from either men or women. Both men and women seem to ﬁnd
lethal management most acceptable when it is used to protect people, wildlife, or the
environment. For many Michigan residents, killing animals does not seem to be justiﬁed
for obtaining food or trophies.

As we predicted, men were more supportive Of lethal wildlife management
overall, as measured by the LWM Scale, reﬂecting their more “utilitarian” attitudes
toward animals (Kellert and Berry 1987). Those with higher levels of education,
property owners, those who experienced problems with wildlife, those who were more
supportive of consumptive recreation, and those with lower levels of environmental
concern were also more supportive of lethal wildlife management overall. Of all the
explanatory variables used in the multiple regression analysis of the LWM Scale, support
for consumptive recreation had the strongest effect on support for lethal wildlife
management by far. This is not surprising given the nature of the lethal management
situations explored in this paper. Several of the situations involved wildlife population
control for various purposes. In such situations, resource managers often utilize
consumptive recreationists (i.e., hunters and trappers) to accomplish their management
goals. Furthermore, two of the situations (“provide Opportunities to gather food” and
“allow hunters to Obtain trophy animals”) speciﬁcally concerned attitudes toward
consumptive recreation. Given the obvious overlap of consmnptive recreation and lethal
wildlife management, it is highly likely that a person’s attitude toward consumptive
recreation would strongly inﬂuence their attitude toward lethal wildlife management.
Still, we believe it was important to include attitude toward consumptive recreation in our

model, as it provided an Opportunity to explore variable relationships while controlling

76

for the strong impact of consumptive recreation attitude on support for lethal wildlife
management.

Our ﬁnal prediction was that men would be more supportive of lethal wildlife
management than would women in all of the management situations. This was only the
case in the bivariate, zero-order correlations. When controlling for the explanatory
variables in the partial correlations, men were more supportive of lethal management in 5
of the 8 situations. There were no gender differences in support for lethal management to
control wildlife diseases, ensure public safety, or provide Opportunities to gather food.
Two of these situations, controlling wildlife diseases and ensuring public safety, involve
using lethal management to protect humans from risks posed by wildlife. Since women
tend to have higher levels of environmental risk concern (Blocker and Eckberg 1989;
Mohai 1992; Stem et al. 1993; Davidson and Freudenburg 1996; Zelezny et al. 2000;
Hayes 2001; Smith 2001), perhaps they were as supportive of lethal wildlife management
as were men in these situations because of the risks animals posed to humans in these
cases.

It is interesting to note that even when attitude toward consumptive recreation was
controlled for in the partial correlations, women were still less supportive of lethal
management for trophy hunting than were men, though they did not differ from men in
terms of support for lethal management to Obtain food. Women seem to be particularly
Opposed to killing animals for sport. This is consistent with the ﬁndings that women tend
to be drawn to animal rights causes, (Sperling 1988; Herzog et al 1991; Richards and
Krannich 1991; Jasper and Nelkin 1992; Eldridge and Gluck 1996; Minnis 1998; Kruse

1999), which oppose such activities.

77

Response Bias

One concern of this study is that the sample may not accurately represent the state
of Michigan due to response bias. The overall response rate (43%) was somewhat low.
In addition, hunters, as well as those with higher levels of education, responded to the
survey in disproportionately greater numbers than would be expected based on known
populations in Michigan. The question is whether response bias may have resulted in
artiﬁcially high levels of support for lethal wildlife management in this study. While
space limitations here do not allow for a complete analysis of all the possible segments of
respondents, and it is never possible to fully identify the characteristics of survey non-
respondents, it is possible to identify differences in support for lethal management among
male and female hunters and non-hunters. It is particularly important to look at any
differences between these groups because hunters are likely to be more supportive of
lethal wildlife management than are non-hunters. Further, if respondents were
disproportionately made up of hunters, it follows that non-respondents would
disproportionately be non-hunters. For the purpose of this discussion, non-hunters are
those who indicated that they “never” hunt in a typical year, while hunters are those who

’9 66

reported hunting “frequently, sometimes,” or “rarely” in a typical year. A brief
analysis of these groups revealed that among Michigan women, greater than expected
participation among female hunters did not have much of an effect on support for lethal
wildlife management. There were no differences between female hunters and non-
hunters in terms of support for lethal wildlife management in most of the situations. The

only cases in which disproportionate response among female hunters may have increased

support for lethal management were in managing wildlife populations and in the two

78

consumptive recreation situations — three situations receiving among the lowest levels of
support of all the management situations. Male hunters were more supportive of lethal
management than were male non-hunters in most situations. However, there were no
differences between the groups in level of support for lethal management to control
wildlife diseases, preserve ecosystem health, or ensure public safety, all of which
received among the greatest support of all the management situations. The
disproportionate response among male hunters may have slightly increased support for
lethal management in the other situations. Overall, however, the impacts were not great.
For example, majorities of both male hunters and non-hunters still supported the use of
lethal management in all situations except obtaining trophies, which did not receive
majority support from either group. So while some differences existed between male and
female hunters and non-hunters, they did not seem to overly skew the results of the study,
suggesting that these ﬁndings may be fairly accurate in representing the state, despite

possible response biases.

Conclusions
While men and women differed in their level of support for each of the lethal
wildlife management situations explored here, there were marked similarities between the
groups in terms of how they assessed the need for lethal management. Both men and
women found lethal management most acceptable to control wildlife diseases and least
acceptable for consumptive recreation (i.e., Obtaining food and trophy animals). The
similarities bode well for managers who are struggling with making management

decisions involving lethal wildlife management. While many studies have found mixed

79

support for using lethal wildlife management, in most cases explored here, majorities of
both men and women found lethal management justiﬁed. Still, women were not as
supportive as were men in most of the situations, so managers should be aware of the
need to understand and respond to women’s concerns about lethal wildlife management
in order to minimize conﬂicts and avoid potential political impediments to implementing
policies that involve such methods.

This will be of particular importance as populations of species like white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and coyote (Canis latrans) continue to grow in many areas
across the United States. Public support for the use of lethal management to control these
populations will be critical, particularly in suburban and urban areas where management
Options are likely to be limited. In some cases, involving the affected publics in the
decision-making process may be necessary for promoting public support for lethal
wildlife management. Gaining the support of women for such management is of
importance since they are not only more likely than are men to oppose lethal wildlife
management, but their association with the animal rights and welfare movements also
suggests they may be more likely to support legislative efforts to legally prevent lethal
actions.

When speciﬁc instances arise in which they feel that lethal wildlife management
may be necessary, managers should seek to include women in the management decision-
making process, possibly through the use of a Citizen Task Force approach (Curtis and
Hauber 1997) or some other Open forum that promotes the exchange of ideas among
citizens, and between citizens and wildlife managers. Whatever the approach, managers

should ensure that women feel accepted as participants and comfortable in expressing

80

their ideas. While public involvement alone cannot solve all management problems, by
utilizing such an approach it may be possible to develop a management decision that is
acceptable to the interested and affected citizens (Lauber and Knuth 1998), and thereby
prevent undesirable legislative or political backlash to the policy decision.

Managers may also be able to use public involvement to market or promote
wildlife population control and management to the public (Diefenbach and Palmer 1997).
Public forums may be used to gather information about how best to develop a message
about wildlife management that will resonate with affected citizens, and also as a stage
for disseminating this message. This study showed that both men and women were very
supportive of using lethal methods to control wildlife diseases and protect public safety.
By focusing on issues like these that are of greatest concern to the public, managers have
the best chance of developing a message that will increase the level of support for lethal
wildlife management, and thereby decrease disruptive Opposition to management
policies. Marketing campaigns utilizing a variety of approaches, including print and
television media, government brochures, and public meetings have the greatest likelihood

of garnering broad support for lethal wildlife management policy.

Notes
1. A slightly different version of the LWM Scale was used in a similar 1999 survey of
Michigan residents. The 1999 LWM Scale consisted of 7 situational items (“Allow
hunters to Obtain trophy animals” was added in 2000) and responses to the situational
items were not contingent upon response to the question about whether it was

acceptable to kill individual animals under particular circumstances (see Chapter II).

81

2. Factor analysis (Principle Components Analysis) and the reliability measure
(Cronbach’s alpha) were presented for the combined male and female samples since
results did not substantially differ when calculated by gender separately.

3. In order to determine whether one regression model would apply to both male and
female sub-samples (i.e., that the explanatory variables had similar effects for both
men and women), a Chow test was performed using the original explanatory variables
as well as items incorporating interaction between the variables and gender (Chow
1960). The results of the Chow test indicated that there was no difference between
the regressions for the two groups, and therefore only one regression model that
incorporated gender as a dummy variable was necessary.

4. Due to differences in coding for the analyses and different sample sizes, signiﬁcance
results differ slightly for the chi-square tests and zero-order correlations. Men were
more supportive Of lethal wildlife management than were women in 6 of 8 situations
in the chi-square tests, while they were more supportive in all cases when data were

analyzed using zero-order correlations.

Literature Cited

Applegate, J. E. 1973. Some factors associated with attitude toward deer hunting in New
Jersey residents. North American Wildlife Conference 38: 267-273.

Blocker, T. J. and D. L. Eckberg. 1989. Environmental issues as women’s issues:
general concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly 70: 586-593.

Causey, A. S. 1992. A reference for life: is hunting moral? Proceedings of the

Govemeor’s symposium on North America’s Hunting Heritage. July 16-18.
Bozeman, Montana, USA.

82

Chodorow, N. 1978. The reproduction of mothering: psychoanalysis and the sociology
of gender. University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, California,
USA.

Chow, G. C. 1960. Tests of equality between sets of coefﬁcients in two linear
regressions. Econometrica 28: 591-605.

Connelly, N. A. and D. J. Decker. 1996. Overcoming constraints to women’s
participation in consumptive uses of ﬁsh and wildlife. Transactions of the North
American Wioldlife and Natural Resources Conference 61: 379-3 87.

Curtis, P. D. and J. R. Hauber. 1997. Public involvement in deer management decisions:
consensus versus consent. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 399-403.

Davidson, D. J. and W. R. Freudenburg. 1996. Gender and environmental risk concerns:
a review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior 28: 302-
339.

Decker, D. J. and T. L. Brown. 1987. How animal rightists view the “wildlife
management-hunting system.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 599-602.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley-
Interscience, New York, New York, USA.

Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig and R. E. Jones. 2000. Measuring
endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues 56: 425-442.

Eldridge, J. J. and J. P. Gluck. 1996. Gender differences in attitudes toward animal
research. Ethics and Behavior 6: 239-256.

Gaard, G. 1993. Living interconnections with animals and nature. Pages l-12 in Gaard,
G., ed. Ecofeminism: women, animals, nature. Temple University Press:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Gentile, J. R. 1987. The evolution Of antitrapping sentiment in the United States: a
review and commentary. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 490-503.

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development.
Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Gray, G. G. 1993. Wildlife and people: the human dimensions of wildlife ecology.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Hayes, B. C. 2001. Gender, scientiﬁc knowledge, and attitudes toward the environment:
a cross-national analysis. Political Research Quarterly 54: 65 7-671.

83

Herzog, H. A., Jr., N. S. Betchart, and R. B. Pittman. 1991. Gender, sex role orientation,
and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoos 4: 184-191.

Jasper, J. H. and D. Nelkin. 1992. The animal rights crusade: the growth of a moral
protest. The Free Press: New York, New York, USA

Kellert, S. R. and J. K. Berry. 1987. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward
wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 363-371.

Kilpatrick, H. J. and W. D. Walter. 1997. Urban deer management: a community vote.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 388-391.

King, R. J. H. 1991. Environmental ethics and the case for hunting. Environmental
Ethics 13: 59-85.

Kruse, C. R. 1999. Gender, views of nature, and support for animal rights. Society and
Animals 7: 179-198.

Lauber, T. B. and B. A. Knuth. 1998. Reﬁning our vision of citizen participation:
lessons from a moose reintroduction proposal. Society and Natural Resources 11: 411-
484.

Lauber, T. B. and B. A. Knuth. 2000. Suburban residents' criteria for evaluating
contraception and other deer management techniques. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 5: 1-17.

Lauber, T. B., M. L. Anthony, and B. A. Knuth. 2001. Gender and ethical judgments
about suburban deer management. Society and Natural Resources 14: 571-583.

Lindgren, B. W. 1976. Statistical Theory, 3rd Edition. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.:
New York, New York, USA.

Loker, C. A., D. J. Decker, and S. J. Schwager. 1999. Social acceptability of wildlife
management actions in suburban areas: 3 cases from New York. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 27: 152-159.

Manfredo, M. J ., C. L. Pierce, D. Fulton, J. Pate, and B. R. Gill. 1999. Public acceptance
of wildlife trapping in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 499-508.

Manfredo, M. J ., H. C. Zinn, L. Sikorowski, and J. Jones. 1998. Public acceptance of
mountain lion management: a case study of Denver, Colorado, and nearby

foothills areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 964-970.

Merchant, C. 1990. Preface to The death of nature: women, ecology, and the scientiﬁc
revolution. Harper and Row: San Francisco, California, USA.

84

Mertig, A. G. and M. H. Koval. 2001. Attitudes toward natural resources and their
management: a report on the “2000 Resource Attitudes in Michigan Survey”.
Technical report. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Department of Sociology.

Minnis, D. L. 1998. Wildlife policy-making by the electorate: an overview of citizen-
sponsored ballot measures on hunting and trapping. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:
75-83.

Mohai, P. 1992. Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender gap
in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources 5: 1-19.

Peek, C. W., N. J. Bell, and C. C. Dunham. 1996. Gender, gender ideology and animal
rights advocacy. Gender and Society 10: 464-478.

Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal rights. University of California Press: Berkeley
and Los Angeles, California, USA.

Reiter, D. K., M. W. Brunson, and R. H. Schmidt. 1999. Public attitudes toward wildlife
damage management and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 746-758.

Richards, R. T. and R. S. Krannich. 1991. The ideology of the animal rights movement
and activists’ attitudes toward wildlife. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56: 363-371.

Sanbom, W. A. and R. H. Schmidt. 1995. Gender effect on views of wildlife
professionals about wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 583-587.

Schmidt, R. H. 1989. Animal welfare and wildlife management. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 54: 468-475.

Schmidt, R. H., M. W. Brunson, and D. K. Reiter. 1997. National public attitudes
toward animal damage management and policy. A report prepared for the United
States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Shaw, W.W. 1977. A survey of hunting opponents. Wildlife Society Bulletin 5: 19-24.

Siemer, W. F. and T. L. Brown. 1992. Wildlife rehabilitators’ attitudes and motivations:
insights ﬁom New York. Wildlife Rehabilitation 10: 205-220.

Smith, D. C. 2001. Environmentalism, feminism, and gender. Sociological Inquiry 71:
314-334.

Sperling, S. 1988. Animal liberators: research and morality. University of California
Press: Berkeley, California, USA.

85

SPSS, Inc. 2000. SPSS for Windows, Release 10.0.7, standard version. SPSS, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, and L. Kalof. 1993. Value orientations, gender, and environmental
concern. Environment and Behavior 25: 322-348.

Tabachnick, B. G. and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Using multivariate statistics, 4th edition. Allyn
and Bacon: Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Teel, T. L., R. S. Krannich, and R. H. Schmidt. 2002. Utah stakeholders’ attitudes
toward selected cougar and black bear management practices. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 3022-15.

Tilt, W. and J. Spotila. 1991. Wildlife management or animal rights — lessons from the
harp seal. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. 56: 409-422.

US. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000. Accessed December 5, 2002.
<http://www.census.gov>

US. Department of Interior and US. Department of Commerce. 1998. 1996 National
survey of ﬁshing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. US. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Census Bureau Report FHW/96-MI.

Van Liere, K. D. and R. E. Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: a
review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion
Quarterly 44: 181-197.

Wenz, P. S. 1983. Ecology, morality and hunting. Pages 183-197 in Miller, H.B. and
W.H. Williams, editors. Ethics and Animals. Humana Press: Clifton, New
Jersey, USA.

Wittmann, K., J. J. Vaske, M. J. Manfredo, H. C. Zinn. 1998. Standards for lethal
response to problem urban wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 3: 29-48.

Zelezny, L. C., P. Chua, and C. Aldrich. 2000. Elaborating on gender differences in
environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues 56: 443-457.

Zinn, H. C. and C. L. Pierce. 2002. Values, gender, and concern about potentially
dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior 34: 239—256.

86

Chapter IV

CONCLUSION

In designing these two studies, it was believed that there would be large
differences between groups — between wildlife agency personnel and members of the
public in the ﬁrst study, and between men and women in the second study - in terms Of
support for lethal wildlife management. While differences did exist, the similarities
between groups may provide greater insight for managers wishing to implement lethal
wildlife management. In particular, it is interesting to note that in these two separate
studies, all groups were overwhelmingly supportive of using lethal wildlife management
to control wildlife diseases. This is of particular interest in Michigan, where managers
are attempting to eradicate bovine tuberculosis (BTB) from the white-tailed deer herds.
BTB is a complex problem with the potential to impact wildlife, livestock, and human
health, as well as the economy of Michigan. The BTB issue has been highly publicized,
heightening public awareness of the BTB problem, as well as the methods being used to
control BTB in Michigan’s deer herd. Certainly, the BTB situation in Michigan has not
been without controversy. However, the high level Of support seen in both studies for the
use of lethal wildlife management to control wildlife diseases bodes well for managers
promoting the use Of lethal methods to deal with BTB, and can likely be attributed to the
disease situation, which has become a major factor in deer management in Michigan.

The general support for lethal wildlife management found in these studies may
have greater signiﬁcance beyond Michigan in situations involving wildlife problems. If

people are highly concerned about a wildlife problem (e.g., the spread of wildlife

87

diseases, wildlife damage, threats to public safety), they may be more likely to support
management that will quickly deal with the problem — in many cases lethal wildlife
management may be the most effective and efﬁcient policy. People are likely to be
particularly supportive if, as in Michigan, the problem receives media attention, and if the
risks posed by wildlife are clear to people. In these cases, managers are likely to ﬁnd the
most public support for lethal wildlife management, and are less likely to encounter
conﬂict with their constituents.

There is a continued need to monitor public attitudes toward lethal wildlife
management, especially as both human and wildlife populations grow and
human/wildlife conﬂicts increase. By understanding the perspectives of their
constituents, wildlife managers may be able to identify potential opponents to lethal
management policies. The key to minimizing conﬂicts will be to work with affected

publics in developing management plans that are acceptable to all stakeholders.

88

APPENDICES

89

APPENDIX A:

UCRIHS Approval Letters

90

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

iinivereity Committee ee
iieeeeiel imieivin'
item Selieete
(UCRIHS)

Michigan State University
246 Administration Building
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1046

517/355-2180
FAX: 517/432-1171

The Michigan State University
IDEA is Institutional DiwrSity
Excellence in Action

MSU is an attiirmtive-artion.
cowl-opportunity institution

  

’0 Chair

 

February 6, 1998
Dr. Angela Mertig

IRB ll 98-080
ATTITUDES TOWARD NATURAL RESOURCES AND THEIR
MANAGEMENT: A SURVEY OF MICHIGAN RESIDENTS

Dear Dr. Mertig,

UCRIHS has reviewed this proposal and given it "Preliminary" approval. The
approval is "Preliminary" because it is not possible to fully evaluate the research
instruments or detailed procedures at this time. As you have indicated, one of the
purposes of the research project is to develop these instruments and procedures.
After you develop the instruments and detailed procedures and prior to any
data collection, you must seek "full" UCRIHS approval. When you submit your
full UCRIHS application please write in the IRB # listed above on the upper right
corner of the application.

Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. Please feel free to contact us,
if we can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

 
  
 

David E. Wright, Ph.D.

University Committee on b

Involving Human Subjects

DEW2mal

c. Julie Traver

91

 

OFFICE OF
RIEARCI'I
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

 

Michigan State University
246 Administration Budding
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1

517055-2180
FAX: 517/353-2976

the Michigan State Universin
[0H IS instilrdionat Drvemty
Excellence in Action

MSU is an affirmative-action.
cowl—opportunity institution

MICHIGAN STATE

U N I V E R SIT Y
February 5, 1999

 

TO; Dr. Angela Mertig

13 Natural Resources

APPROVAL DATE: February 8, 1999
RE: [RB # 98080 CATEGORY: l-C

TITLE: ATTITUDES TOWARD NATURAL RESOURCES AND THEIR
MANAGEMENT: A SURVEY OF MICHIGAN RESIDENTS

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and 1 am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects
appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form.
A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form.
To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include

in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

A PROBLEMS/CHANGEs: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify

UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human
subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to
the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@pilot.msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms and instruction are
located

Sincere

  
  
  

 
 
 

D d E. Wright, PhD.
CRIHS Chair

DEW: bd
CC! Melissa Koval

92

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

Michigan State University
202 Girls Hall

East Lansing. MI

48824

517/355-2180

FAX: 517/4324503

Web: mmsuedu/user/ucrihs
E-Mail: wihsOmsuedu

The Michigan State University
thA is Institutional DIVerSIty
Excellence in Action

MSU IS an affirmative—Mm,

equal-apportmuy institution

MICHIGAN STATE

U N I V E R SIT Y
June24,2002

 

TO: Angela MERTIG
13 NAT. RESOURCES

RE: lRBll 98-080 CATEGORY: i-C EXEMPT
RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: June 24. 2002

TITLE: ATTITUDES TOWARD NATURAL RESOURCES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT: A
SURVEY OF MICHIGAN RESIDENTS

The University Committee on Research involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and i am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to Obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT‘S RENEWAL.

This letter also notes approval of change in target population (include DNR
personnel).

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form. A
maximum of four such expedited renewal are possible. investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior to
initiation of the change. if this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's RM and title. include in
your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work. notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects
or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human
subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

it we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@pilot.msu.edu.

Ashir Kumar, M.D.
UCRIHS Chair

kb

cc: Melissa Koval
13 Natural Resources Building

93

 

GRADUATE

Michigan State University
246 Administration Building
East Lansmg. Michigan
48824-1046

517/355—2180

FAX: 517/353-2976

Web; M.W.edu/usernictihs
E-Mail, ucrihsOrnsuedu

the Michigan State University
i061 is institutional Diversriy
[mallard in Action

MSU is an MIIMIw-at‘lim.

mﬂaipoﬂunity institution.

MICHIGAN STATE

 

    

UNIVERSITY

March 20. 2000

TO: Angela MERTIG
13 Natural Resources

RE: IRB# 00-125 CATEGORYI1-C
APPROVAL DATE: March 20, 2000

TITLE: ATTITUDES TOWARD NATURAL RESOURCES AND THEIR MANAGMENT:
A SURVEY OF MICHIGAN RESIDENTS. 2000

The University Committee on Research involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and i am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green
renewal form. A maximum' of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to
continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior
to initiation of the change. if this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send Your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's lRB#
and title. include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments.
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 3552180 or via email:

UCRIHS@pilot.msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http://www.msu.edu/unit/vprgs/UCRIHS/

l3:

Sincerely,

  
 
 

avid E. Wright. PhD.
DEW: bd

CC: Melissa Koval
13 Natural Resources Building

94

APPENDIX B:

1999 RAM Survey Materials

95

Cover Letter for Public Mailing #1, MSU Sender

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING . MIG-{IGAN e 433241222
13 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

(517) 3554477

FAX (517) 432- 1699

February 16, 1999

The state of Michigan is blessed with a wonderful variety and abundance of natural resources.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been given the task of managing these natural
resources, but the DNR requires input from Michigan residents in order to manage these
resources in everyone's best interests. For this reason, we are asking for about 10 minutes of
your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire regarding the DNR and natural resource
issues.

As a public agency, the DNR is interested in serving you. Therefore your response to this survey
is very important. Only a relatively small number of Michigan residents are being sent this
questionnaire—your response is therefore essential to getting an accurate representation of all
residents. While your response to this questionnaire and any of the questions is completely
voluntary, the DNR needs this information in order to serve in the pubiic's best interest. You
indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently a resident of
Michigan. if the person to whom this is addressed does not ﬁt this description, please give this
survey to a person in your household who does. If more than one person ﬁts this description, the
person with the closest birthday should complete the survey. If no one in your household ﬁts this
description, please write on the survey that no one was eligible to complete it and send the
survey back to us. We would really appreciate it, and this way we can take you off our mailing list
and stop sending you reminders to complete the survey.

You may be assured of complete conﬁdentiality. The survey has identifying information for
mailing purposes only. This is so that we may check your name off of the mailing list when your
survey is returned. Your name and address will never be associated with your responses in any
way.

If you respond by March 5, 1999, your name will be entered into a prize drawing to receive a
$50 gift certificate to K-Mart. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Feel
free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. Thank you for your assistance. Your contribution to
the success of this study will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

96

Cover Letter for Public Mailing #1, DNR Sender

STATE OF MICHIGAN

NATURAL Resouaces “E“ W'LDL'FE SURVEYS
COMMISS|ON . MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT

KEITH J. CHARTERS. Chairman OF NATURAL RESOURCES

JERRY C. BARTNIK P.O. BOX 30030

NANCY A. DOUGLAS LANSING. MI 48909-9965

L. THORNTON EDWARDS, JR. JOHN ENGLER' Governor

PAUL E'SELE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

WILLIAM U. PARFET

LLOYD F. WEEKS STEVENS T MASON BUILDING. PO BOX 30028, LANSING Mi 48900-7528
WEBSITE: M.W.statemius

K. L. COOL. Director

February 16, 1999

The state of Michigan is blessed with a wonderful variety and abundance of natural resources.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been given the task of managing these natural
resources, but the DNR requires input from Michigan residents in order to manage these
resources in everyone’s best interests. For this reason, we are asking for about 10 minutes of
your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire regarding the DNR and natural resource
issues.

As a public agency, the DNR is interested in serving you. Therefore your response to this survey
is very important. Only a relatively small number of Michigan residents are being sent this
questionnaire—your response is therefore essential to getting an accurate representation of all
residents. While your response to this questionnaire and any of the questions is completely
voluntary, the DNR needs this information in order to serve in the public’s best interest. You
indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently a resident of
Michigan. If the person to whom this is addressed does not ﬁt this description, please give this
survey to a person in your household who does. If more than one person ﬁts this description, the
person with the closest birthday should complete the survey. If no one in your household ﬁts this
description, please write on the survey that no one was eligible to complete it and send the
survey back to us. We would really appreciate it, and this way we can take you off our mailing list
and stop sending you reminders to complete the survey.

You may be assured of complete conﬁdentiality. The survey has identifying information for
mailing purposes only. This is so that we may check your name off of the mailing list when your
survey is returned. Your name and address will never be associated with your responses in any
way.

if you respond by March 5, 1999, your name will be entered into a prize drawing to receive a
$50 gift certificate to K-Mart. i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Feel
free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. Thank you for your assistance. Your contribution to
the success of this study will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

97

Cover Letter for Public Mailing #2, MSU Sender

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVE RSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN . 43324. 1222
13 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

(517) 3554477

FAX (517) 432-1699

March 15, 1999

A few weeks ago you were mailed a survey on “Resource Attitudes in Michigan.” As of today, we
have not received your completed survey. if this letter and your completed survey have crossed
in the mail, we would like to thank you for returning your survey. If you have not yet ﬁlled out the
survey, we hope you will take the opportunity to do so now. We are sending another survey,
along with a stamped return envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

Michigan is blessed with a wonderful variety and abundance of natural resources. in order for the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to manage these resources for everyone’s beneﬁt, it is
essential that we hear from you. Because this survey is being sent to relatively few people within
the state of Michigan and because we need the results to represent all residents, it is very
important that each person respond to this survey.

We are interested in everyone’s opinion. It doesn’t matter how old you are—your opinions are
valued. You do not have to be a hunter or angler—we still want to know your thoughts on the
management of Michigan’s natural resources. If you truly have no opinion on an issue, feel free
to indicate that on the survey—but we still need your response in order to know this.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently a resident of
Michigan. If the person to whom this is addressed does not ﬁt this description, please forward
this survey to a person in your household who does. If more than one person ﬁts this description,
the person with the closest birthday should complete the survey. However, if no one ﬁts this
description, we would really appreciate it if you sent the survey back, indicating that no one was
eligible to complete it. This allows us to stop sending reminders.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this survey by completing and returning
this questionnaire. You may be assured of complete conﬁdentiality. The survey has an
identiﬁcation number that allows us to check your name off of the mailing list when your survey is
returned. Your name and address will never be associated with your responses in any way.

If you respond by March 31 , 1999, your name will be entered into a new prize drawing to
receive a $50 gift certificate to K-Mart. I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Feel free to call me at 1-800-206-4350. Thank you for your assistance—it is truly appreciated.
Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

98

Cover Letter for Public Mailing #2, DNR Sender

STATE OF MICHIGAN

NATURAL RESOURCES “a" W'LDL'FE SURVEYS
COMMISSION MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT

KEITH J. CHARTERS. Chainnan OF NATURAL RESOURCES

JERRY C. BARTNIK PO. BOX 30030

NANCY A. DOUGLAS LANSING, MI 48909-9965

L. THORNTON EDWARDS. JR. JOHN ENGLER' G°V°m°'

PAUL E'SELE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

WILLIAM U. PARFET

LLOYD F. WEEKS STEVENS T MASON BUILDING. PO BOX 30028. LANSING MI 48909-7528
WEBSITE: marlstaemtm

K. L. COOL, Director

March 15, 1999

A few weeks ago you were mailed a survey on “Resource Attitudes in Michigan.” As of today, we
have not received your completed survey. if this letter and your completed survey have crossed
in the mail. we would like to thank you for returning your survey. If you have not yet ﬁlled out the
survey, we hope you will take the opportunity to do so now. We are sending another survey,
along with a stamped return envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

Michigan is blessed with a wonderful variety and abundance of natural resources. in order for the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to manage these resources for everyone's beneﬁt, it is
essential that we hear from you. Because this survey is being sent to relatively few people within
the state of Michigan and because we need the results to represent all residents, it is very
important that each person respond to this survey.

We are interested in everyone’s opinion. It doesn’t matter how old you are—your opinions are
valued. You do not have to be a hunter or angler—we still want to know your thoughts on the
management of Michigan’s natural resources. If you truly have no opinion on an issue, feel free
to indicate that on the survey—but we still need your response in order to know this.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently a resident of
Michigan. If the person to whom this is addressed does not ﬁt this description, please forward
this survey to a person in your household who does. if more than one person ﬁts this description,
the person with the closest birthday should complete the survey. However, if no one ﬁts this
description, we would really appreciate it if you sent the survey back, indicating that no one was
eligible to complete it. This allows us to stop sending reminders.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this survey by completing and returning
this questionnaire. You may be assured of complete conﬁdentiality. The survey has an
identiﬁcation number that allows us to check your name off of the mailing list when your survey is
returned. Your name and address will never be associated with your responses in any way.

If you respond by March 31, 1999, your name will be entered into a new prize drawing to
receive a $50 gift certiﬁcate to K-Mart. i would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Feel free to call me at 1-800-206-4350. Thank you for your assistance—it is truly appreciated.
Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

99

Cover Letter for Public Mailing #3, MSU Sender

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Em LANSING . MICHIGAN . 48824-1222
13 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

(517) 3554477

FAx (517) 432-1699

April 7. 1999

Recently you were mailed a survey on “Resource Attitudes in Michigan.” As of today, we have
not received your completed survey. if this letter and your completed survey have crossed in the
mail, we would like to thank you for returning your survey. If you have not yet ﬁlled out the
survey, we hope you will take the opportunity to do so now. We are sending another survey,
along with a stamped return envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

Michigan is blessed with a wonderful variety and abundance of natural resources. in order for the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to manage these resources for everyone’s beneﬁt, it is
essential that we hear from you. Because this survey is being sent to relatively few people within
the state of Michigan and because we need the results to represent all residents, it is very
important that each person respond to this survey.

We are interested in everyone’s opinion. It doesn’t matter how old you are—your opinions are
valued. You do not have to be a hunter or angler—we still want to know your thoughts on the
management of Michigan’s natural resources. if you truly have no opinion on an issue, feel free
to indicate that on the survey—but we still need your response in order to know this.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently a resident of
Michigan. if the person to whom this is addressed does not ﬁt this description, please forward
this survey to a person in your household who does. if more than one person ﬁts this description,
the person with the closest birthday should complete the survey. However, if no one ﬁts this
description, we would really appreciate it if you sent the survey back, indicating that no one was
eligible to complete it. This allows us to stop sending reminders.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this survey by completing and returning
this questionnaire. You may be assured of complete conﬁdentiality. The survey has an
identiﬁcation number that allows us to check your name off of the mailing list when your survey is
returned. Your name and address will never be associated with your responses in any way.

if you have any questions regarding the survey, feel free to call me at 1-888-206-4350. Thank
you for your assistance—it is truly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

100

Cover Letter for Public Mailing #3, DNR Sender

STATE OF MICHIGAN

NATURAL RESOURCES ‘Té‘ W'LDL'FE suave”
M l N

COM '83 o @ MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
KEITH J. CHARTERS. Chairman OF NATURAL RESOURCES
JERRY C. BARTNIK P 0 BOX 30030
NANCY A. DOUGLAS LANSING, MI 48909~9965
L. THORNTON EDWARDS, JR. JOHN ENGLER' Governor
PAUL E'SELE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

WILLIAM U, PARFET

LLOYD F. WEEKS STEVENS T MASON BUILDING. PO BOX 30028. UNSING MI WHIZD
WEBSITE: mnnrﬂaanlll

K. L. COOL, Director

April 7, 1999

Recently you were mailed a survey on “Resource Attitudes in Michigan.” As of today, we have
not received your completed survey. If this letter and your completed survey have crossed in the
mail, we would like to thank you for returning your survey. if you have not yet ﬁlled out the
survey, we hope you will take the opportunity to do so now. We are sending another survey,
along with a stamped return envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

Michigan is blessed with a wonderful variety and abundance of natural resources. in order for the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to manage these resources for everyone's beneﬁt, it is
essential that we hear from you. Because this survey is being sent to relatively few people within
the state of Michigan and because we need the results to represent all residents, it is very
important that each person respond to this survey.

We are interested in everyone’s opinion. it doesn’t matter how old you are—your opinions are
valued. You do not have to be a hunter or angler—we still want to know your thoughts on the
management of Michigan’s natural resources. if you truly have no opinion on an issue, feel free
to indicate that on the survey—but we still need your response in order to know this.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently a resident of
Michigan. if the person to whom this is addressed does not ﬁt this description, please forward
this survey to a person in your household who does. If more than one person ﬁts this description,
the person with the closest birthday should complete the survey. However, if no one ﬁts this
description, we would really appreciate it if you sent the survey back, indicating that no one was
eligible to complete it. This allows us to stop sending reminders.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this survey by completing and returning
this questionnaire. You may be assured of complete conﬁdentiality. The survey has an
identiﬁcation number that allows us to check your name off of the mailing list when your survey is
returned. Your name and address will never be associated with your responses in any way.

If you have any questions regarding the survey, feel free to call me at 1-888-206-4350. Thank
you for your assistance—it is truly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

101

Postcard for Public Mailing

 

February 26. 1999

Recently you were mailed a questionnaire seeking your opinion about the
Department of Natural Resources and natural resource issues in the state of
Michigan.

If you have already completed and returned the survey, please accept our
sincere thanks! If not, please do so today. Because the DNR is interested in
serving the public of Michigan, it is very important that we receive your
feedback.

If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire, or it got misplaced.
please call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350 and I will get another one in the
mail to you.
Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

 

 

 

 

102

Public Non-response Survey

 

June 1, 1999

Recently you were mailed a questionnaire seeking your opinion about the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and Resource Attitudes in Michigan. Since our response rate to this survey was
lower than we had hoped, we would like to ask you a few questions so we can understand the nature
of this non-response.

We are not asking you to fill out anything like the survey we sent to you previously. Rather, we have
attached a stamped, addressed postcard for you to ﬁll out, detach, and drop in the mail. It should take
no more than a minute or two to ﬁll out the postcard. We would sincerely appreciate your taking the
time to get this back to us soon as it will provide valuable information for our study.

As before, your response to this is voluntary but we would not be asking you for this information if
we did not consider it important. You may be assured of complete conﬁdentiality. The postcard has
an identification number for mailing purposes only. Your name will never be linked to your
responses.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for taking the time to help us in this
matter.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

 

 

l. Was there a particular reason you did not respond to our survey on Resource Attitudes in Michigan? (Check all that

apply)
D I do not like answering surveys CI The survey looked too long and/or complicated
Cl 1 do not have time to answer surveys Cl I am unhappy with the DNR and/or its programs
CI 1 know very little about the DNR CI 1 am not interested in the issues in the survey
D I never received the survey 0 I would prefer being contacted by telephone

CI Another reason (please specify):

 

2. In a typical year, do you engage in any of the following activities? (Check all that apply.)
0 Hunting Cl Fishing 0 Bird Watching and/or Wildlife Viewing

 

For the following two statements, choose the response closest to your opinion.
3. I trust the DNR to fairly consider all interests when making natural resource decisions. (Check one.)
C] Always CI Usually 0 Sometimes CI Never CI Unsure

4. Hunting is an important part of our national heritage. (Check one.)
D Strongly Agree CI Mildly Agree 0 Unsure CI Mildly Disagree Cl Strongly Disagree

For the following situations, choose the response closest to your opinion. (Check one for each.)
5. As long as it is properly controlled, is it acceptable to kill individual wild animals in order to...

a. ...control wildlife damage D Yes D No D Unsure
b. ...ensure public safety 0 Yes D No CI Unsure
c. ...manage population levels of wild animals D Yes D No CI Unsure

6. Do you have a college degree? D Yes D No
7. Are you male or female? Cl Male CI Female
8. In what year were you born? 19

 

 

 

103

Cover Letter for Agency Mailing

STATE OF MICHIGAN

NATURAL RESOURCES ”If W'LDL'FE SURVEYS
COMMISSION -,

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
KEITH J. CHARTERS. Chairman OF NATURAL RESOURCES
JERRY C. BARTNIK PO BOX 30030
NANCYA DOUGLAS LANSING, MI 48909-9965
L. THORNTON EDWARDS. JR. JOHN ENGLER, Governor
PAUL E'SELE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

WILLIAM U. PARFET

LLOYD F. WEEKS STEVENS T MASON BUILDlm. PO BOX 30028. LANSING Mi 48000-7528
WEBSITE: M.W.mmim

K. L. COOL, Director

May 14, 1999

Dear DNR Employee:

For the last couple of months, the Wildlife Division and Michigan State University have been
working together on a survey to assess Michigan citizens’ attitudes toward the DNR and wildlife
issues in the state of Michigan. As the survey has progressed, we recognized the value in
comparing public responses to those of DNR personnel. For this reason, we are asking for about
10 minutes of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire regarding the DNR and natural
resource issues.

Your response to this survey is very important. Only a relatively small number of agency
personnel are being sent this questionnaire—your response is therefore essential to getting an
accurate representation of all personnel. While your response to this questionnaire and any of
the questions is completely voluntary, we need this information in order to compare agency and
public responses. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and
returning this questionnaire.

This survey is completely anonymous. The letter code on your survey tells us only your general
job classiﬁcation — we will not be able to Identify you by name.

Please take a few minutes to complete the enclosed survey and return it in the envelope provided
via usual agency protocol by Wednesday, June 2, 1999. if you have any questions about the

survey, please call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. Thank you for your assistance. Your
contribution to the success of this study is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

104

Postcard for Agency Mailing

 

May 26, 1999
Dear DNR Employee:

Recently you were asked to complete a questionnaire on Resource Attitudes
in Michigan.

If you have already completed and returned the survey, thank you! If not.
please do so today. It is very important that we receive your feedback in
order to compare agency responses to those of the public.

If you did not receive the questionnaire, or it got misplaced, please call me
toll free at 1-888-206-4350 and I will get another one in the mail to you.

Sincerely.

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

 

 

 

 

105

1999 RAM Survey Instrument

 

 

 

 

1999 Resource Attitudes in Michigan Survey

 

This survey deals with the Department of Natural Resources and natural

 

general environment in which these resources are located.

resource issues in the state of Michigan. For this survey, natural resources
include wildlife (game M non-game), fish, forests and parks as well as the

 

 

 

[The Department of Natural Resource;

First, we would like to ask you some questions about the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, also known as the DNR.

 

1. For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you believe the

statement to be true Always, Usually, Sometimes, or Never, or if you are

Unsure. (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Always Usually Sometimes Never Unsure

a. The DNR manages natural resources in

a scientifically sound manner. A US S N UN
b. The DNR provides accurate information

on natural resource issues. A US S N UN
0. I trust the DNR to fairly consider all

interests when making natural resource A US S N UN

decisions.
(1. The DNR adequately explains its

pmrams to the public. A US 8 N UN
e. DNR personnel provide high quality

service to the public. A US S N UN
f. The DNR provides adequate

opportunities for public participation in A US S N UN

natural resource decisions.

 

 

106

gram 33:45.. ~ era-.1

2. What issues or problems should the DNR focus on during the next 5 years?
Please list any issues or problems that are important to you that you think the
DNR should do something about.

 

 

 

3. Which of the following do you believe are current functions of the DNR?
(Check all that apply.)

Cl Establishing hunting regulations

Cl Removing litter on state highways

CI Managing ﬁsheries

CI Monitoring air quality

Cl Providing permits for draining and ﬁlling wetlands

CI Enforcing laws

Cl Protecting endangered species

CI Unsure

mVO'IUIJiOON—I

4. For each of the following goals of natural resource management, please
indicate which you think Should be given the highest priority by placing a “1"
next to it. Place a “2” next to the goal that should be given the next highest
priority, and so on until you have ranked all four goals.

eNatural resource management goals should be...

to provide recreational opportunities.
to actively promote the ecological health of Michigan.

.. to support resource development for greater economic growth.
to allow natural processes to take their course.

 

107

Wildlife Issues

 
  

/
U

0

“ﬂ

11110

The next set of questions is speciﬁcally related to wildlife resources in
Michigan.

5. Each of the following statements pertains to the management of wildlife
species in Michigan. For each, please indicate whether you Strongly Agree,
Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly Disagree. or Strongly Disagree. (Circle one
response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly
Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree
a. Whether or not I see wildlife, just
knowing that wildlife exist in Michigan is SA MA U MD SD
__ important.
b. Wildlife should be managed for the
benefit of future enerations. SA MA U MD SD
c It is more important to manage wildlife
for current human needs than to SA MA U MD SD
preserve wildlife for future generations.
d It is important to preserve habitat for rare
and endangered species. SA MA U MD SD
e It is the DNR’s responsibility to ensure
that individual wild animals remain SA MA U MD SD
_ healthy.
f. It is the DNR'S responsibility to ensure
that wildlife do not become a nuisance to SA MA U MD SD
land owners and farmers.
Tmumans should stop managing wildlife
1— populations and leave wildlife alone. SA MA U MD SD
3

 

6. For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly
Agree, Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly Disagree or Strongly Disagree. (Circle
one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly
_Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree
a. Hunting is an important part of our
national heritage. SA MA U MD SD
b. in general, hunters tend to be very
concerned about protecting the SA MA U MD SD
environment.
c. In general, hunters are socially
responsible individuals. SA MA U MD SD
l oppose all forms of recreational
d. hunting. SA MA U MD SD
e. Trappers are concerned about the
humane treatment of animals. SA MA U MD SD
f. I feel trapping animals for fur is
acceptable when it is properly regulated. SA MA U MD SD
9. i feel ﬁshing is acceptable when it is
properly regulated. SA MA U MD SD

 

 

 

7. For each of the following situations, please indicate whether you believe it is
acceptable to kill individual wild animals. (Circle one response for each.)

IDAs long as it is properly controlled, is it acceptable to kill
individual wild animals in order to...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. ...control wildlife diseases Yes No Unsure
b. ...ensure Species survival Yes No Unsure
c. ...preserve the ecological health of an area Yes No Unsure
d. ...control wildlife damage Yes No Unsure
e. ...ensure public safety Yes No Unsure
f. ...manage population levels of wild animals Yes No Unsure
9. ...provide opportunities to gather food Yes No Unsure
h. It is never acceptable to kill individual wild animals. Yes No Unsure
4

109

 

a? at it a?“

W__H_____ITE-TAILED DEER

This set of questions deals with one of the most popular wildlife species in
Michigan - the white-tailed deer.

 

8. What is your opinion of the current number of white-tailed deer in the area in
which you live? (Check one.)

C] Far too few

Cl Slightly too few

Cl About the right amount

CI Slightly too many

Cl Far too many

Cl Unsure

OiU'i«hODN—e

9. Have you or any members of your immediate family had any problems with
white-tailed deer mm state of Michiggﬂ within the last 5 years? (Check one.)

 

1““ 1 D Yes
< 2 D No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 11)

10. What type(s) of problem(s) have you or members of your family had
with white-tailed deer? (Check all that apply.)
1 Ci Property damage
2 C] Crop damage
3 Cl Deer-car accidents
4 D Other (please specify)

 

 

 

11. Do you feel that the number of deer/car accidents in Michigan in the past 5
years has: (Check one.)

Ci Decreased substantially

CI Decreased somewhat

Cl Stayed the same

Cl increased somewhat

CI Increased substantially

Cl Unsure

monsoon-s

110

 

12. if, at some time, you believe there are far too many white-tailed deer in the
area in which you live, which of the following deer management strategies
would you ﬁnd acceptable to control deer populations? (Circle one response

 

 

 

 

for each.)
a. Allow hunters to kill more deer Yes No Unsure
b. Hire sharpshooters to thin the herd Yes No Unsure
0. Trap and remove deer Yes No Unsure
(1. Do nothing — allow nature to take its course Yes No Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. Do you believe deer should be fed in order to survive an unusually harsh
winter? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 C] No
3 Cl Unsure

14. Have you heard about the incidence of bovine TB (tuberculosis) in white-
tailed deer in Michigan? (Check one.)

 

1 D Yes
Q 2 [J No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 16)

15. In your opinion, how serious is the issue of bovine TB in white-tailed
deer in Michigan? (Check one.)
1 Cl Not At All Serious
2 Cl Somewhat Serious
3 0 Very Serious
4 Cl Unsure

 

 

 

 

‘

52972;;

-A._- __ __,_ -. " J

$4

111

“—:I
h

CANADA GEESE
Another popular wildlife species in Michigan is the Canada Goose.

16. What is your opinion of the current number of Canada Geese in the area in
which you live? (Check one.)

CI Far too few

CI Slightly too few

Cl About the right amount

Cl Slightly too many

CI Far too many

Cl Unsure

GUI-#03104

17. Have you or any members of your immediate family had any problems with
Canada Geese in the state of Michigﬂ within the last 5 years? (Check one.)

 

1 Cl Yes
Q] 2 C] No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 19)

18. What type(s) of problem(s) have you or members of your family had
with Canada Geese? (Check all that apply.)

Cl Property or crop damage

Cl Bothered by noise

Cl Bothered by droppings

D Bothered by odor

Cl Attacked by goose

Cl Other (please specify)

 

 

ODO'I-kOON—e

 

 

19. If, at sometime, you believe there are far too many Canada Geese in the
area in which you live, which of the following strategies would you ﬁnd
acceptable to control goose populations? (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

a. Increase the number of geese taken by hunters Yes No Unsure
b. Destroy the eggs of problem geese Yes No Unsure
c. Destroy the nests of problem geese Yes No Unsure
(1. Kill problem geese and give the meat to charity Yes No Unsure
e. Trap and remove geese Yes No Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112

20. Have you or members of your immediate family had any problems with other
species of wildlife in the state of Michigan in the last 5 years? If so, please
list which wildlife species:

 

 

 

[Environmental Opinions]

 

The next set of questions deals with your environmental opinions.

21. The following statements talk about the relationship between humans and the
environment. For each statement, please indicate whether you Strongly
Agree, Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly Disagree, or Strongly Disagree.
(Circle one response for each.)

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly
Ang Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree

 

a. We are approaching the limit of the

 

 

 

 

number of people the earth can support. SA MA U MD SD
b. When humans interfere with nature it

often produces disastrous SA MA U MD SD

consequences.
c. The earth has plenty of natural resources

if we just learn how to develop them. SA MA U MD SD
d. Plants and animals have as much right

as humans to exist. SA MA U MD SD
9. The balance of nature is strong enough

to cope with the impacts of modern SA MA U MD SD

industrial nations.

f. Despite our special abilities humans are
still subject to the laws of nature. SA MA U MD SD
9. The so—called ‘ecologicai crisis’ facing
humankind has been greatly SA MA U MD SD
exaggerated.

h. Humans were meant to rule over the rest
of nature. SA MA U MD SD
i. Humans will eventually learn enough
about how nature works to be able to SA MA U MD SD
control it.

j. if things continue on their present
course, we will soon experience a major SA MA U MD SD
ecologﬂ catastrophe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

113

22. Which of these two statements is closer to your opinion? (Check one.)
1 CI We cannot have both economic growth and a high level of
environmental quality; we must sacriﬁce one or the other.

2 Cl We can have both economic growth and a high level of
environmental quality. (If you marked 2, please skip to questlon
24)

 

23. Which of these two statements is closer to your opinion? (Check
one.)
1 CI Protecting the environment should be given priority, even at
the risk of slowing down economic growth.

2 Cl Economic growth Should be given priority, even if the
environment suffers to some extent.

 

 

 

‘\_

\
\\\33 ~\

»'\

[Background Information) . \\

 

 

In order for us to more fully understand people ’s responses to the
previous questions, we need to know a few things about your
background. Remember that your responses are completely conﬁdential
and that neither your name nor your address will be directly linked to
your responses in any way.

24. About how often, in a typical year, do you engage in each of the following
natural resource activities? (Circle one response for each.)
1 2 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4
Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never

Hunting F S R N
Fishing F S R N
Bird Watching F S R N
Wildlife Viewing F S R N
Fur Trapping F S R N
Other: F S R N
Other: F S R N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

114

25. Please list any organizations, related to natural resources, that you have
been a member of or have contributed money to in the last 5 years.

 

 

 

26. How many years have you lived in the State of Michigan? YEARS
27. In what county do you currently live? COUNTY

28. In what type of area do you currently live? (Check one.)
CI Rural, Farm

Cl Rural, Non-Farm (2,500 people or fewer)

Ci Small Town (From 2,501 up to 25,000 people)
Cl Urban Area (From 25,001 up to 100,000 people)
Cl Metropolitan Area (More than 100,000 people)

(Tl-#00194

29. In what type of area did you spend all or most of your childhood? (Check
one.)

1 Cl Rural, Farm

2 CI Rural, Non-Farm (2,500 people or fewer)

3 Cl Small Town (Between 2,501 and 25,000 people)

4 Cl Urban Area (Between 25,001 and 100,000 people)

5 CI Metropolitan Area (More than 100,000 people)

30. Do you own property in Michigan? (Check one.)

 

1 Cl Yes
Q 2 C] No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 33)
31. Approximately how many acres do you own? ACRES

32. Which of the following uses do you make of this land? (Check all
that apply.)
1 Cl Residence
2 C] Agricultural production
3 Cl Recreation
4 CI Investment

 

 

 

10

115

33. How many children (under the age of 18) currently live in your household?

CHILDREN

34. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
(Check one.)

NODU'IRODN-‘i

Cl Less than high school graduate

Cl High school graduate or GED

Cl Vocational or Trade School

Cl Associate’s Degree (2 year degree)

Cl Some College

Cl College Graduate (Bachelor’s or 4 year degree)
Cl Graduate or Professional Degree

35. Are you male or female?

1
2

Cl Male
0 Female

36. In what year were you born? 19

37. What is your race or ethnicity? (Check all that apply.)

ODU'I-bODN-K

Cl American Indian or Alaska Native

CI Asian

Cl Black or African American

0 Hispanic or Latino

CI Native Hawaiian or Other Paciﬁc Islander
Cl White

38. What was your gross household income (before taxes) in 1998? (Check one.)

1
2

Cl Less than $20,000
Cl $20,000 to $39,999

3 Cl $40,000 to $59,999
4 0 $60,000 to $74,999
5 Cl $75,000 or more

 

 

8

11

 

g

116

Thank you for your participation!

If you have any other comments you would like to share with us, please
use the space below (or add additional Sheets if necessary).

 

Please use the enclosed addressed and stamped envelope or return this
survey to:

Wildlife Surveys

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
13 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1222

12

117

APPENDIX C:

2000 RAM Survey Materials

118

.. annual
a
_‘

chA._.

Cover Letter for Mailing #1

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVE RSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING e MICHIGAN . 433244222
13 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

(517) 3554477

FAX (517) 432-1699

April 3, 2000

Michigan is blessed with a wonderful variety and abundance of natural resources. The
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been given the task of managing these natural
resources, but the DNR requires input from Michigan residents in order to manage resources in
everyone’s best interests. For this reason, we are asking for about 10 minutes of your time to
complete the enclosed questionnaire regarding natural resource issues in Michigan. Only a
relatively small number of Michigan residents are being sent this questionnaire—your response is
therefore essential to getting an accurate representation of all residents.

We are interested in everyone’s opinion. It doesn't matter how old you are—your opinions are
valued. You do not have to be a hunter or angler—we still want to know your thoughts on the
management of Michigan’s natural resources. If you have no opinion on an issue, feel free to
indicate that on the survey—but we still need your response in order to know this.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently a resident of
Michigan. If the person to whom this is addressed does not ﬁt this description, please give this
survey to a person in your household who does. if more than one person ﬁts this description, the
person with the closest birthday should complete the survey. If no one in your household ﬁts this
description, please write on the survey that no one was eligible to complete it and send the
survey back .to us. We would really appreciate it, and this way we can take you off our mailing list
and stop sending you reminders to complete the survey.

While your response to this questionnaire and any of the questions is completely voluntary, the
DNR needs this information in order to serve in the public's best interest. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. You may be
assured of complete conﬁdentiality. The survey has identifying information for mailing purposes
only. This is so that we may check your name off of the mailing list when your survey is returned.
Your name and address will never be associated with your responses in any way.

If you respond by May 22, 2000, your name will be entered into a prize drawing to receive one
of two $50 gift certificates to K-Mart. I would be happy to answer any questions you might
have. Feel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. Thank you for your assistance. Your
contribution to the success of this study will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

A. Mertig
Project Manager

119

Cover Letter for Mailing #2

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVE RSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN . 433244222
13 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

(517) 355-4477

FAX (517) 432-1699

May 10, 2000

A few weeks ago you were mailed a survey on “Resource Attitudes in Michigan.” As of today, we
have not received your completed survey. If this letter and your completed survey have crossed
in the mail, we would like to thank you for returning your survey. if you have not yet filled out the
survey, we hope you will take the opportunity to do so now. We are sending another survey,
along with a stamped return envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

Michigan is blessed with a wonderful variety and abundance of natural resources. In order for the
Department of Natural Resources (DN R) to manage these resources for everyone's beneﬁt, it is
essential that we hear from you. For this reason, we are asking for about 10 minutes of your time
to complete the enclosed questionnaire regarding natural resource issues in Michigan. Because
this survey is being sent to relatively few people within the state of Michigan and because we
need the results to represent all residents, it is very important that each person respond to this
survey.

We are interested in everyone’s opinion. It doesn’t matter how old you are—your opinions are
valued. You do not have to be a hunter or angler—we still want to know your thoughts on the
management of Michigan's natural resources. If you truly have no opinion on an issue, feel free
to indicate that on the survey—but we still need your response in order to know this.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently a resident of
Michigan. If the person to whom this is addressed does not ﬁt this description, please fonivard
this survey to a person in your household who does. If more than one person ﬁts this description,
the person with the closest birthday should complete the survey. However, if no one ﬁts this
description, we would really appreciate it if you sent the survey back, indicating that no one was
eligible to complete it. This allows us to stop sending reminders.

While your response to this questionnaire and any of the questions is completely voluntary, the
DNR needs this information in order to serve in the public’s best interest. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate in this survey by completing and returning this questionnaire.
You may be assured of complete conﬁdentiality. The survey has an identiﬁcation number that
allows us to check your name off of the mailing list when your survey is returned. Your name and
address will never be associated with your responses in any way.

if you respond by May 29, 2000, your name will be entered into a new prize drawing to receive
one of two $50 gift certificates to K-Mart. I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

Feel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. Thank you for your assistance—it is truly
appreciated.

Sincerely,

A. Mertig
Project Manager

120

Postcard

 

April 13, 2000

Recently you were mailed a questionnaire seeking your opinion about natural
resource issues in the state of Michigan.

If you have already completed and returned the survey, please accept our
sincere thanks! If not, please do so today. Because the DNR is interested in
serving the public of Michigan, it is very important that we receive your
feedback.

If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire, or it got misplaced,
please call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350 and I will get another one in the
mail to you.
Sincerely,

A. Mertig
Project Manager

 

 

 

 

121

2000 RAM Survey Instrument

2000 Resource Attitudes
in Michigan Survey

   

 

This survey deals with natural resource issues in the state of Michigan. For this
survey, natural resources include wildlife (game EA! non-game), ﬁsh, forests and
parks as well as the general environment in which these resources are located.

 

 

 

[Natural Resource Activities]

First, we would like to ask you about your participation in natural resource related
activities. Remember that you do not have to participate in these activities in order to fill

out this survey. We are interested in evemone’s responses.

1. About how often, in a typical year, do you engage in each of the following natural
resource activities? (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4
Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently

Wildlife Viewing N R S F
Bird Watching N R S F
Hiking N R S F
Camping N R S F
Boating N R S F
Fishing N R S F
Hunting N R S F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Please list any organizations, related to natural resources, that you have been a
member of or have contributed money to in the last 5 years. Please write out full
organization name(s).

 

 

 

122

_ {Lash—5.3 as?” r‘l

_ 1F

 

 

[The Department of Natural Resources]
The next set of questions relates to the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, also known as the DNR.

3. For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you believe the
statement to be true Always, Usually, Sometimes, or Never, or if you are Unsure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 1 2 3 4 5
(C'rc'e one response for eaCh') Always Usually Sometimes Never Unsure

The DNR manages natural resources in

a. a scientiﬁcally sound manner. A US 8 N UN
The DNR provides accurate information

b' on natural resource issues. A US 8 N UN
I trust the DNR to fairly consider all

c. interests when making natural resource A US S N UN
decisions.
The DNR adequately explains its

d' programs to the public. A US S N UN
DNR personnel provide high quality

e. service to the public. A US 3 N UN
The DNR provides adequate

f. opportunities for public participation in A US S N UN
natural resource decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. What issues or problems Should the DNR focus on during the next 5 years? Please
list any issues or problems that are important to you that you think the DNR should
do something about.

 

 

 

 

123

5. Please indicate whether you believe each of the following are current functions of the
DNR. (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Establishing hunting regulations Yes No Unsure
b. Leasing mineral resources Yes No Unsure
c. Removing litter on state highways Yes No Unsure
d. Stocking lakes with ﬁsh Yes No Unsure
e. Monitoring air quality Yes No Unsure
f. Providing permits for draining and ﬁlling wetlands Yes No Unsure
9. Removing dead deer from roads Yes No Unsure
h. Enforcing laws Yes No Unsure
i. Protecting endangered species Yes No Unsure
j. Controlling forest fires Yes No Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. For each of the following goals of natural resource management, please indicate
which you think should be given the highest priority by placing a “1” next to it. Place
a “2" next to the goal that should be given the next highest priority, and so on until
you have ranked all four goals.

IDNatural resource management goals should be...

.. to provide recreational opportunities.

.. to actively promote the ecological health of Michigan.

to support resource development for greater economic growth.
.. to allow nature to take its course.

 

124

 

{Wildlife Issues]
The next set of questions is specifically related to wildlife resources in Michigan.

 

7. Each of the following statements pertains to the management of wildlife species in
Michigan. For each, please indicate whether you Strongly Agree, Mildly Agree, are
Unsure, Mildly Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. (Circle one response for each.)

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly
Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree

 

 

Whether or not I see wildlife, just
a. knowing that wildlife exist in Michigan is SA MA U MD SD
important.

Wildlife should be managed for the
beneﬁt of futtﬁgenerations.

It is more important to manage wildlife
c. for current human needs than to SA MA U MD SD
preserve wildlife for future generations.

It is important to preserve habitat for rare

 

SA MA U MD SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d' and endangered species. SA MA U MD SD
Development of rural areas is currently

e. one of the greatest threats to wildlife in SA MA U MD SD
Michigan.
The DNR should manage wildlife to

f. increase hunting opportunities in SA MA U MD SD
Michigan.
It is the DNR’s responsibility to ensure

9' that wild animals remain healthy. SA MA U MD SD
It is the DNR’s responsibility to ensure

h. that wildlife do not become a nuisance to SA MA U MD SD
land owners.

i. Humans should stop managing Wildlife SA MA U MD SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

populations and leave wildlife alone.

 

 

125

8. For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you Strongly Agree,

 

Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly Disagree or 1Strongly2 Disagree. (Circle one
3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 5
response for eaCh ) Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly
Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree
a. Hunting IS an important part of our SA MA U MD SD
national heritgge.
Hunters tend to be very concerned about
b' protecting the environment. SA MA U MD SD
0. Hunters are socrally responSIble SA MA U MD SD
indIViduals.
d. l oppose all forms of recreational SA MA U MD SD
hunhng.
Trappers are concerned about the
e. humane treatment of animals. SA MA U MD so
I feel trapping animals for fur is
f' acceptable when it is properly regulated. SA MA U MD so
I feel fishing is acceptable when it is
9' properly remilated. SA MA U MD SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Do you believe it is acceptable to kill individual wild animals in certain

circumstances? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 Cl Unsure
3 Cl No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 11)

 

response for each.)

individual wild animals in order to...

10. For each of the following situations, please indicate whether you
believe it is acceptable to kill individual wild animals. (Circle one

e As long as it is properly controlled, is it acceptable to kill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. ...control wildlife diseases Yes No Unsure
b. ...ensure species survival Yes No Unsure
c. ...preserve the ecological health of an area Yes No Unsure
d. ...control wildlife damage Yes No Unsure
e. ...ensure public safety Yes No Unsure
f. ...manage population levels of wild animals Yes No Unsure
9. ...provide opportunities to gather food Yes No Unsure
h. ...allow hunters to obtain trophy animals Yes No Unsure

 

 

 

 

126

 

 

White-tailed Deer

This set of questions deals with a popular wildlife species in Michigan — the white-
tailed deer.

11. What is your opinion of the current number of white-tailed deer in the area in which
you live? (Check one.)

CIUI&UM—l

Cl Far too few

Cl Slightly too few

Cl About the right amount
Cl Slightly too many

El Far too many

Cl Unsure

12. Have you or any members of your immediate family had any problems with white-

tailed deer in the state of Michigan within the last 5 years? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes

2 E] No (If ‘No', please skip to question 14)

 

13. What type(s) of problem(s) have you or members of your family had with

 

white-tailed deer? (Check all that apply.)
1 CI Property damage
2 III Crop damage
3 D Deer-car accidents
4 Cl Other (please specify)

 

 

14. Do you feel that the number of deer-car accidents in Michigan in the past 5 years

has:

mm‘wN-I

(Check one.)

Cl Decreased substantially
Cl Decreased somewhat
El Stayed the same

Cl Increased somewhat

Cl Increased substantially
Cl Unsure

 

127

15.

if, at some time, you believe there are far too many white-tailed deer in the area in
which you live, which of the following deer management strategies would you ﬁnd

acceptable to control deer populations? (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Allow hunters to kill more deer Yes No Unsure
b. Hire sharpshooters to thin the herd Yes No ‘ Unsure
c. Kill deer and give the meat to charity Yes No Unsure
d. Trap and remove deer Yes No Unsure
e. Do nothing — allow nature to take its course Yes No Unsure
16. Do you believe deer should be fed in order to survive an unusually harsh winter?
(Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 C] No
3 Ci Unsure
17. Have you heard about the incidence of bovine TB (tuberculosis) in white-tailed deer

in Michigan? (Check one.)
1 D Yes

2 Cl No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 20)

 

in Michigan? (Check one.)
1 Cl Not At All Serious
2 Cl Somewhat Serious
3 Cl Very Serious
4 Cl Unsure

18. In your opinion, how serious is the issue of bovine TB in white-tailed deer

19. For each of the following, please indicate whether you believe the threat of
bovine TB is Not At All Serious, Somewhat Serious, Very Serious, or you
are Unsure. (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ﬂ How serious do you believe the "at A: A" s 2 ' v3 4
0mm or!
threat of bovine TB is for... Sodom Serious Serious Unsure
a. ...wildlife populations NS SS VS U
D. ...human health NS SS VS U
c. ...the livestock industry NS SS VS U
7

128

 

 

 

 

Canada Geese

Another popular wildlife species in Michigan is the Canada Goose.

20. What is your opinion of the current number of Canada Geese in the area in

which you live? (Check one.)
1 Cl Far too few

[:1 Slightly too few

Cl About the right amount

Cl Slightly too many

Cl Far too many

Cl Unsure

(DUIthON

21. Have you or any members of your immediate family had any problems with
Canada Geese in the state of Michigan within the last 5 years? (Check one.)

23

1 Cl Yes
2 D No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 23)

 

Canada Geese? (Check all that apply.)
1 CI Property damage

Cl Crop damage

Ci Bothered by noise

Cl Bothered by droppings

Cl Attacked by goose

Cl Other (please specify)

03(31th

 

 

22. What type(s) of problem(s) have you or members of your family had with

 

. If, at some time, you believe there are far too many Canada Geese in the area in

which you live. which of the following strategies would you ﬁnd acceptable to control

1 oose populations? (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Increase the number of geese taken by hunters Yes No Unsure
b. Destroy the eggs of problem geese Yes No Unsure
c. Destroy the nests of problem geese Yes No Unsure
d. Kill problem geese and give the meat to charity Yes No Unsure
e. Trap and remove geese Yes No Unsure
f. Do nothing - allow nature to take its course Yes No Unsure

 

129

 

 

24. Have you or members of your immediate family had any problems with other
species of wildlife in the state of Michigan in the last 5 years? If so, please list
which wildlife species and brieﬂy explain the problem.

 

 

 

 

[Environmental Opinions]
The next set of questions deals with your environmental opinions.
25. The following statements talk about the relationship between humans and the

environment. For each statement, please indicate whether you Strongly Agree,
Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. (Circle one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
reSponse for eaCh ) Strongly Mllzdiy Mlltlly Strosngly
Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree

We are approaching the limit of the

a. number of people the earth can support. SA MA U MD SD
When humans interfere with nature it

b. often produces disastrous SA MA U MD SD
consequences.
The earth has plenty of natural

c. resources if we just learn how to SA MA U MD SD
develop them.
Plants and animals have as much right

d' as humans to exist. SA MA U MD SD
The balance of nature is strong enough

e. to cope with the impacts of modern SA MA U MD SD
industrial nations.
Despite our special abilities humans are

f' still subject to the laws of nature. SA MA U MD SD
The so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing

g. humankind has been greatly SA MA U MD SD
exaggerated.
Humans were meant to rule over the

h' rest of nature. SA MA U MD SD
Humans will eventually learn enough

i. about how nature works to be able to SA MA U MD SD
control it.
If things continue on their present

j. course, we will soon experience a major SA MA U MD SD
ecological catastrophe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

26. Which of these two statements is closer to your opinion? (Check one.)

1

2

Cl Protecting the environment Should be given priority, even at the risk of
slowing down economic growth.

Cl Economic growth Should be given priority, even if the environment suffers
to some extent.

 

I Background Information]
n or er or us a more ully understand peeple's responses to the previous

questions, we need to know a few things about your background. Remember
that your responses are completely conﬁdential and that neither your name nor
your address will be directly linked to your responses in any way.

27. How many years have you lived in the State of Michigan? YEARS

28. In what county do you currently live? COUNTY

29. In what type of area do you currently live? (Check one.)

1

014th

CI Rural, Farm

Cl Rural, Non-Farm

CI Small Town (25,000 people or fewer)

CI Urban Area (From 25,001 up to 100,000 people)
Cl Metropolitan Area (More than 100,000 people)

30. In what type of area did you spend all or most of your childhood? (Check one.)

1

011wa

CI Rural, Farm

Ci Rural, Non-Farm

Cl Small Town (25,000 people or fewer)

Cl Urban Area (From 25,001 up to 100,000 people)
C] Metropolitan Area (More than 100,000 people)

31. Do you own property in Michigan? (Check one.)

1
2

CI Yes
Cl No (If ‘No', please skip to question 34)

 

 

32. Approximately how many acres do you own? ACRES

33. Which of the following uses do you make of this land? (Check all

that apply.)
1 CI Residence
2 Ci Agricultural production
3 CI Recreation
4 Cl Investment

 

 

10

131

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

How many children (under the age of 18) currently live in your household?
CHILDREN

What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
(Check one.)
1 Cl Less than high school graduate
Cl High school graduate or GED
Cl Vocational or Trade School
CI Associate’s Degree (2 year degree)
Cl Some College
Cl College Graduate (Bachelor's or 4 year degree)
1:] Graduate or Professional Degree

NQQ¥OON

Are you male or female?
1 Cl Male
2 CI Female

In what year were you born? 19

What is your race or ethnicity? (Check all that apply.)
Cl American Indian or Alaska Native

D Asian

Cl Black or African American

Cl Hispanic or Latino

Cl Native Hawaiian or Other Paciﬁc Islander

Cl White

(DUI'BQN—I

What was your gross household income (before taxes) in 1999? (Check one.)
Cl Less than $20,000

13 $20,000 to $39,999

Cl $40,000 to $59,999

Cl $60,000 to $74,999

Cl $75,000 or more

(”RUN-I

 

g g

11

132

Thank you for your participation!

If you have any other comments you would like to share with us, please use the
space below (add additional sheets if necessary).

Please use the enclosed addressed and stamped
m envelope or return this survey to:
‘1 Wildlife Surveys
A

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
13 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1222

133