.. .J
.4. ... .. i.

.a \

:
2.3.2.”? Y Wan... .

. LEI 1.,
gang :

5.13..

37... rm.
1 x. .9 ~

. v .. Sun...

1... ..a.
(Inf! ..
is €34! ,

 

 

 

'5 , "5"!
-.' 3‘10th

 

.01
am / LIBRARY
\ - 4?:
545g Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN MICHIGAN: UNDERSTANDING

STAKEHOLDER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DISEASE AND ERADICATION
EFFORTS

presented by

Meegan Leah Dorn

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

 

Date (27421; (9’24 . 02005

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

—_..—— ___—_ H _

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 cJCIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN MICHIGAN: UNDERSTANDING
STAKEHOLDER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DISEASE AND
ERADICATION EFFORTS
By

Meegan Leah Dom

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

2003

ABSTRACT
BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN MICHIGAN: UNDERSTANDING
STAKEHOLDER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DISEASE AND
ERADICATION EFFORTS
By

Meegan Leah Dorn

Bovine tuberculosis has been discovered at unprecedented levels in Michigan
wildlife, especially white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Human behaviors,
particularly the use of bait and feed, have facilitated the spread of the disease into fi'ee-
ranging white-tailed deer populations. Policies aimed at eradicating bovine
tuberculosis in Michigan require public compliance and cooperation in order to be
successful. Because of the human contribution to the spread of bovine tuberculosis in
Michigan wildlife, and the social nature of subsequent bovine tuberculosis eradication
policies, we conducted a survey of bovine TB issue stakeholder groups in northeast
Michigan, including non-resident hunters, resident hunters, livestock producers,
business owners/managers, and the general public. Social data can help determine
public support for wildlife management policies, such as bovine TB eradication
strategies, as well as identify targets and messages for ongoing communication efforts.
We found differing attitudes, beliefs and levels of knowledge between stakeholder
groups. We also found that different beliefs predict hunter attitudes toward bovine TB
eradication in principle versus in practice. We use these results to make
recommendations for future communication efforts aimed at bolstering public support

for bovine tuberculosis eradication and eradication policies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“NO duty is as urgent as returning thanks.” — Author Unknown. I concur that this
duty is urgent, for no one can complete a graduate education endeavor without the help
of countless others. First, I would like to thank the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources Wildlife Division Management Team for funding this research, and the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Surveys Section for assistance with survey
samples.

Next, my utmost gratitude to those who helped with the arduous task of preparing
and mailing the surveys: David Mahan, Barbara Mahan, Abby Mahan, Melissa Koval,
Volga Koval, Fiona Koval, Heather VanDenBerg, Jason Koopman, Melissa Madajski,
Kristy Wallmo, Laura Cimo, and Laura Granack, Jennie Rader, A.J. Rader, Courtney
Chandler, Kit Hammond, Christin Kolarchick, Andrew Middlestead, Nicholas Minnaar,
Carissa Minnaar, Noah Minnaar, Caitlin Clements, and Michael Pleasure. Thank you
to my diligent data entry team: Jeffrey Cowdrey, Jesse Gabbard, Robert Granack, Jason
Koopman, Kimberly Large, Melissa Madaj ski, Abby Mahan, and Heather
VanDenBerg.

A special thanks to the students of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at
Michigan State University, and especially to the Human Dimensions students, faculty,
staff for their input into the design of this project, as well as for their friendship. Thank
you to Julie Traver and Jane Thompson for their patient help. Thank you to Dr. Bill
Taylor for his gracious mentorship. Thank you to Dr. Frank Lupi for his generous

service on my graduate committee. Special thanks to Dr. R. Ben Peyton for his time,

iii

his invaluable insight, and for allowing me to be his teaching assistant; it was one of my
most enjoyable experiences in graduate school.

Finally, thank you to Dr. Angela Mertig de Vasquez for being an outstanding
advisor and a treasured friend. Her countless hours of assistance, standards of
excellence, and priceless advice (on topics from survey design to parenting) will never
be forgotten. Thank you to Ruth Dom, the world’s best mother-in-law and child-care
provider. Thank you to my parents, David and Barbara Mahan, and sister, Abby
Mahan, for their tireless encouragement. To Adriana Dom, the most precious and
unexpected product of my years in graduate school, thank you for providing much-
needed perspective with your smiles. To Nathan Dom, my love and my best friend,
you have my deepest gratitude and, indeed, my very self. Finally, the grace of my
Savior Jesus allowed me to survive my daughter’s birth and gave me the motivation
and discipline to finish this degree. The reality of His daily provision has only grown

more vivid and amazing to me. Psalm 24:7

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
Objectives of the Research ..................................................................................... 4
Literature Cited ...................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER II
STUDY 1: BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN MICHIGAN: STAKEHOLDER
ATTITUDES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ERADICATION EFFORTS ................ 9
Abstract .................................................................................................................. 9
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 10
Methods ................................................................................................................ 14
Survey Groups and Study Area ....................................................................... 14
Survey Design and Implementation ................................................................ 17
Survey Content ................................................................................................ 18
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 21
Results .................................................................................................................. 22
Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding Bovine TB .................................................. 22
Knowledge of Bovine TB Issues .................................................................... 25
Attitudes Toward Deer-Based Bovine TB Eradication Strategies .................. 25
Communication Issues .................................................................................... 28
Discussion and Implications ................................................................................ 28
Literature Cited .................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER III
STUDY II: PREDICTING HUNTER ATTITUDES TOWARD BOVINE
TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION IN WHITE-TAILED DEER ......................... 48
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 48
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 49
The Bovine Tuberculosis Issue ....................................................................... 51
Problem Statement and Theoretical Framework ............................................. 53
Methods ................................................................................................................ 59
Questionnaire Development and Content ....................................................... 59
Questionnaire Administration ......................................................................... 63
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 64
Results .................................................................................................................. 65
Sample Background Characteristics ............................................................... 65
Beliefs and Evaluations Regarding Bovine TB-Related Risks ....................... 66
Beliefs and Evaluations Regarding the Cost of Bovine TB Risk Mitigation .66
Beliefs about the Bovine TB Eradication Goal and Strategies ....................... 67
Beliefs about State Agencies .......................................................................... 68

Attitude Toward Bovine TB Eradication in Principle and in Practice ............ 68

Predicting Eradication Support in Principle and in Practice ........................... 69
Discussion ............................................................................................................ 70
Literature Cited .................................................................................................... 79

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 98
Appendix A: Cover Letters .................................................................................. 98

Non-Resident Hunter Cover Letters ............................................................... 98

Resident Hunter Cover Letters ...................................................................... 100

Livestock Producer Cover Letters ................................................................ 102

Business Owner/Manager Cover Letters ...................................................... 104

General Public Cover Letters ........................................................................ 106
Appendix B: Follow-up Postcard ....................................................................... 108
Appendix C: Survey Instruments ....................................................................... 109

Non-Resident Hunter Survey Instrument ...................................................... 109

Resident Hunter Survey Instrument .............................................................. 125

Livestock Producer Survey Instrument ......................................................... 141

Business Owner/Manager Survey Instrument .............................................. 157

General Public Survey Instrument ................................................................ 173

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table II-l. Response rates by stakeholder group ..................................................... 38
Table II—2. Attitudes and beliefs regarding bovine TB ............................................ 39
Table II-3. Attitudes and beliefs regarding BTB-positive deer and livestock ......... 40
Table 11-4. Beliefs about bovine TB transmission by nose-to-nose contact ............ 41
Table II-5. Beliefs about bovine TB transmission on infected feed ........................ 42
Table II-6. Knowledge of bovine TB issues ............................................................ 43
Table II-7. Deer baiting and feeding behaviors and attitudes toward eradication
strategies ................................................................................................ 44
Table II-8. Hunter attitudes toward efforts to reduce deer numbers and intended
participation in eradication efforts ......................................................... 46
Table II-9. Communication topics ........................................................................... 47
Table 111-1. Variable coding for multivariate models ............................................... 83
Table 111-2. Hunter background characteristics ........................................................ 86
Table III-3. Hunter beliefs about bovine TB-related risks ........................................ 87
Table 111-4. Hunter feeding and baiting behavior ..................................................... 89
Table 111-5. Deer density-dependent components of hunter satisfaction and deer
numbers preferences ............................................................................. 90
Table 111-6. Hunter beliefs about bovine TB eradication and transmission .............. 91
Table 111-7. Hunter beliefs about state agencies ....................................................... 92
Table III-8. Attitude toward bovine TB eradication in principle and in practice ..... 94
Table III-9. Bivariate correlation coefficients and standardized multiple
correlation coefficients ........................................................................... 96
Table III-10. Attitudes toward the eradication goal and the feed ban ...................... 97

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure II-l. Map of northeast Michigan .................................................................. 10

Figure III-1. Proposed model of support for bovine tuberculosis eradication in
Michigan .............................................................................................. 82

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Emerging infectious zoonotic diseases in wildlife (i.e. those that can be
transmitted between wildlife and people) can have serious social and biological
consequences; human health, regional economies, wildlife health, species conservation,
and biodiversity have all suffered from such diseases (Daszak, Cunningham, and Hyatt
2000). Although zoonotic diseases spread through biological processes, they often
have direct or indirect anthropogenic causes (Daszak et a1. 2000). For example, human
colonization patterns, agricultural practices, management policies, and recreation
behaviors have all contributed to the incidence and prevalence of zoonoses (Daszak et
a1. 2000).

Daszak et a1. (2000) endorse a multidisciplinary approach to understanding the
underlying causes and factors that contribute to the spread of wildlife diseases. Once a
wildlife disease has spread, it often requires costly risk management efforts, efforts
which also involve interdisciplinary cOOperation (Knuth 1990). Traditionally, research
conducted in disciplines such as veterinary medicine, epidemiology, wildlife biology,
and ecology contribute to the management of zoonotic wildlife diseases. However,
when zoonotic diseases pose clear risks to human populations, or when controlling
wildlife diseases necessitates changes in human behavior, the social components Of
wildlife disease issues must be considered. Social data can aid in the development of
effective policies aimed at eliminating wildlife disease threats. Wildlife is a publicly

owned resource in the United States. Without public acceptance of management

policies, such policies can be, and have been, stymied by opposition groups (Zinn et a1.
1998)

The human dimensions of wildlife management discipline offers a valuable
framework within which the social aspects of wildlife disease issues can be examined
(Knuth et a1. 1992). Bright and Manfredo (1997) defined human dimensions as “an area
of investigation which attempts to describe, predict, understand, and affect human
thought and action toward natural environments and to acquire such understanding for
the primary purpose of improving stewardship of natural resources.” Human
dimensions information can assist managers in predicting public response to
management practices and quantify and predict future demands for wildlife resources.
Human dimensions research can also help managers understand wildlife resource user
groups (both consumptive and nonconsumptive), and influence public opinion toward
wildlife and wildlife management practices (Bright and Manfredo 1995). Finally,
human dimensions research can help managers identify latent or emerging issues, such
as conflicts between stakeholder groups, or between an agency and its constituents.
This can enable managers address wildlife management issues before these issues are
thrust into the legislative arena (Peyton 1984).

Each of these functions of the human dimensions discipline could provide critical
insight into wildlife disease control, yet to date relatively few studies have examined
public responses to wildlife disease issues. Seimer et al. (1992) studied public
response to Lyme disease in New York. They found public perceptions of the risk of
Lyme disease to be associated with beliefs about the likelihood of contracting Lyme

disease, perceived control over contracting the disease, and beliefs about the

seriousness of the disease. Siemer et al. also found that people living in areas that had a
longer history of Lyme disease tended to believe that controlling human health risks
should be a top priority driving deer management decisions. Siemer et a1. (1994)
studied public attitudes toward rabies and rabies control efforts in New York state.
They found Strong support for state-sponsored programs to control the spread of the
disease through oral bait vaccinations. McGuill et a1. (1997) studied public attitudes
toward rabies in raccoons in Massachusetts. They also found support for oral
vaccination programs and they found that residents of areas with high rabies prevalence
were highly aware of both the risk of rabies to public health, and of the efforts involved
in the vaccination program. McGuill et al. attributed these awareness levels to
education campaigns in the regions of Massachusetts with the highest prevalence of
rabies. White and Whiting (2000) investigated public attitudes toward bovine
tuberculosis eradication measures in badgers in the United Kingdom and found that
people tended to prefer that the government not cull tuberculous badgers. However,
White and Whiting also found that more knowledgeable individuals tended to support
the most invasive means of eradicating bovine TB in badgers (a widespread cull).

Each of the aforementioned studies has provided social information about a
specific wildlife disease issue that can be applied in other circumstances. However,
context is a critical consideration for social research on wildlife management topics
(Riley and Decker 2000), so managers will likely draw the strongest implications from
research that is region-specific and issue-specific. This principle provided the impetus
for social research on a wildlife disease issue raging in Michigan. Michigan is

currently facing epidemic levels of bovine tuberculosis (bovine TB) in white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus) (O’Brien et al 2001). Bovine tuberculosis began as a spill-
over disease from agriculture into wildlife populations worldwide. It is now a global
threat that will likely “spill back” more frequently into domestic livestock and
eventually into humans (Daszak 2000). In the United States, known wildlife reservoirs
of bovine TB are extremely rare. Previous to the finding of a tuberculous white-tailed
deer in Michigan in 1995, only 5 individuals in this species had ever been found with
bovine TB nationwide (Schmitt et a1. 1997). By February 2003, approximately 450
white—tailed deer and over 70 cattle from 27 individual operations had been found with
bovine TB in Michigan (Bovine TB Eradication Project 2003). In addition to white-
tailed deer and livestock, over 40 carnivores had been found with bovine TB in
Michigan, including bobcat (F eIis rufizs), coyote (Cam's latrans), black bear (Ursus
americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) (Bruning-Fann et a1.
2001).

Anthropogenic causes (e. g. deer baiting and feeding) have been cited as
contributions to the spread of bovine TB in Michigan white-tailed deer (Schmitt et a1.
1997). Efforts to eradicate bovine TB in Michigan wildlife are thereby largely
contingent upon public participation in or compliance with eradication policies. In
addition, bovine tuberculosis has resulted in substantial social costs, both directly from
the disease itself, and indirectly from the policies enacted to eradicate the disease, yet

public response to these costs has not been quantified.

Objectives of the Research

Our research arose from the recognition that there was a dearth of social data that
could inform bovine TB eradication efforts. We conducted a survey in the region of
Michigan with the highest prevalence of bovine tuberculosis. We surveyed five bovine
TB issue stakeholder groups: non-resident hunters, resident hunters, livestock
producers, business owners/managers, and the general public, a total of 4,449
individuals. Survey results are presented as two studies contained herein. In Chapter 2,
we address the first study. The objectives of this study were as follows: First, we
wanted to identify and compare stakeholder attitudes toward various components of the
bovine TB issue, such as the disease itself, risks of the disease to human health and
animal health, and community impacts of eradication efforts. Next, we wanted to
identify and compare stakeholder knowledge of the bovine TB disease and the bovine
TB issue in northeast Michigan. Third, we wanted to evaluate factors that may affect
stakeholder support for bovine TB eradication and eradication programs. We wanted to
determine support for eradication efforts and variables associated with such support.
Finally, we wanted to determine stakeholder interest in receiving new information, and
stakeholder preferences for information sources.

In Chapter 3, we focus on one critical stakeholder group in the bovine TB issue:
hunters who reside in northeast Michigan. We selected northeast Michigan hunters
because many of the policies aimed at eradicating bovine tuberculosis in white-tailed
deer relied specifically on hunter compliance and cooperation to be successful. As
residents of northeast Michigan, these hunters are clearly crucial partners in eradication

efforts. The first objective of this study was to compare hunter support for the bovine

 

TB eradication goal in principle, with support for bovine TB eradication in practice

(e. g. support for Specific bovine TB eradication policies). Second, we wanted to
determine the hunter beliefs, attitudes, and attributes that predict each type of support
(e. g. support in principle versus support in practice), in order to inform communication

efforts.

Literature cited

Bovine TB eradication project. 2003. Bovine Tuberculosis. Accessed February 21, 2003.
<http://www.bovinetb.com>.

Bright, A. and M. J. Manfredo. 1997. The quality of attitudinal information regarding
natural resource issues: the role of attitude strength, importance and information.
Society and Natural Resources 82399-414.

Bruning-Fann, C. S., S. M. Schmitt, S. D. Fitzgerald, J. S. Fierke, P. D. Friedrich, J. B,
Kaneene, K. A. Clarke, K. L. Butler, J. B. Payeur, D. L. Whipple, T. M. Cooley, J. M.

Miller, and D. P. Muzo. Bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging carnivores from
Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37(1):58-64.

Daszak, P., A. A. Cunningham, A. D. Hyatt. January 21, 2000. Emerging infectious
diseases of wildlife: threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287:443-
449.

Knuth, B. A. 1990. Risk communication: a new dimensions in sport-fisheries
management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 10:374-381.

Knuth, B.A., R.J Stout, W.F. Siemer, D.J. Decker, and RC. Stedman. 1992. Risk
management concepts for improving wildlife population decisions and public
communication strategies. Transactions of the 57th Annual Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. 63 -75.

McGuill, M. W., S. M. Kreindel, A. DeMaria, Jr., and C. Rupprech. August 1, 1997.
Knowledge and attitudes of residents in two areas of Massachusetts about rabies

and an oral vaccination program in wildlife. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association 21 1:305-309.

O’Brien, D. J ., S. D. Fitzgerald, T. J. Lyon, K. L. Butler, J. S. F ierke, K. R. Clark, S. M.
Schmitt, T. M. Cooley, and D. E. Berry. 2001. Tuberculosis lesions in free-ranging
white-tailed deer in Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37:608-613.

Peyton, R. B. 1984. A typology of natural resource issues with implications for
resource management and education. Michigan Adademician 17:49-58.

Riley and Decker. 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in
Montana. Wildlife society bulletin. 28(4):931-939.

Schmidt, S. M., S. D. Fitzgerald, T. M. Cooley, C. S. Bruning-Fann, L. Sullivan, D.
Berry, T. Carlson, R. B. Minnis, J. B. Payeur, and J. Sikarskie. 1997. Bovine

tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed deer from Michigan. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases 33:749-758.

Siemer, W. F., T. L. Brown, S. M. Stehman, L. L. Bigler, D. H. Lein. 1994. Public
perceptions of rabies and proposed oral bait vaccination trial. Human Dimensions
Research Unit Publication Number 94-7. Department of Natural Resources,
Cornell University. 46 pp.

Siemer, W. F ., B. A. Knuth, D. J. Decker, V. L. Alden. 1992. Human perceptions and
behaviors associated Lyme disease: Implications for land and wildlife management.
Human Dimensions Research Unit Publication Number 92-8. Department of
Natural Resources, Cornell University. 128 pp.

White, P. C. L., and S. J. Whiting. 2000. Public attitudes towards badger culling to
control bovine tuberculosis in cattle. Veterinary Record 147: 179-184.

Chapter II

STUDY 1: BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN MICHIGAN: STAKEHOLDER
ATTITUDES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ERADICATION EFFORTS

Abstract

Bovine tuberculosis (bovine TB) has been discovered in unprecedented levels in
Michigan’s white-tailed deer herd. Human practices have facilitated the spread of bovine
TB in white-tailed deer, and public cooperation and compliance are necessary to reduce the
spread Of the disease. Social data can determine public support for eradication strategies, as
well as identify targets and messages for ongoing communication efforts. We conducted a
survey of 5 bovine TB issue stakeholder groups in order to assess and compare their
attitudes toward bovine TB-related topics and their support for eradication and eradication
policies. We also identified their levels of knowledge and interest in future bovine TB issue
communications and preference for communication sources. Results indicate that
stakeholders support the bovine TB eradication goal, but are less supportive of Specific
eradication policies. Stakeholder groups hold different beliefs about the threats posed by
bovine tuberculosis, and about the means in which the disease is transmitted; stakeholder
groups also have different levels of bovine TB-related knowledge. A strong majority of
respondents (89%) were interested in being informed about new bovine TB issue-related

information.

 

Introduction

Bovine tuberculosis (TB) was once the most prevalent disease in livestock in the
United States (USDA 1995). When the US. began its bovine TB eradication program in
1917, approximately 1 cow in every 20 was bovine TB-positive (Roswurm and Ranney
1973). Bovine TB is caused by a bacterium called Mycobacterium bovis that can infect all
warm-blooded mammals, including humans (Diehl 1971, Farming and Edwards 1991 ).
Bovine TB chiefly affects the respiratory system of infected individuals. It spreads
primarily through tiny moisture droplets called aerosols that are expelled when infected
parties sneeze or cough and it can also be transmitted through infected saliva (Center for
Anim. Dis. Info. and Analysis 1996).

Despite a well-docurnented history of bovine TB in US cattle, there have been few
known cases of bovine TB in North American cervids (O’Brien et al. 2001). Prior to 1994
bovine TB had only been discovered in 5 flee-ranging white-tailed deer (Odocoileus

virginianus) in North America

 

(Schmitt et al. 1997). . . ,. j , Presque Isle

However, in 1994, a white- “Pena

Montmu rency

 

 

tailed deer harvested in the
Oscoda NCO“

northeastern Lower Peninsula

 

of Michigan contained
Figure 1: Map of Northeast Michigan
suspicious lung lesions that
were determined to be bovine tuberculosis upon bacterial culture (Schmitt et al. 1997).
Further testing in wildlife and livestock in the state of Michigan revealed more bovine TB-

positive deer, dairy cattle, beef cattle, and wild carnivores, including bobcat (Felis rufils),

coyote (Canis latrans), black bear (Ursus americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and red
fox (Vulpes vulpes) (Bruning-Fann et al. 2001 ). At the time of this writing, approximately
450 white-tailed deer, over 70 cattle from 27 individual operations and over 40 carnivores
had been found with bovine TB in Michigan (Bovine TB Eradication Project 2003).
Nearly all of these animals were discovered within a five-county area in Michigan’s
northeastern Lower Peninsulal (see Figure 1).

State veterinarians and wildlife biologists attributed the prevalence of bovine TB in
white-tailed deer in northeast Michigan, in part, to baiting and feeding practices2 of area
residents and hunters (Schmitt et al. 1997). These practices encouraged exceptionally high
densities of deer to encounter one another at close range at bait and feed piles (Schmitt et al.
1997). Such encounters increased the opportunity for bovine TB to spread through aerosols
or on half-eaten foodstuffs. In addition, when feeding supplemented deer diets, it enabled a
large number of deer to survive over winters, thereby sustaining an artificially high density
of white-tailed deer in northeast Michigan and creating conditions of crowding and stress,
conditions which are known to exacerbate bovine TB infection (Schmitt et al. 1997).
Authorities believed that bovine TB infection in livestock was related to the bovine TB
infection in white-tailed deer, although the means of transmission was unknown.
Restriction length fragment polymorphism (RF LP) sequencing has determined that the
strains of Mycobacterium bovis in infected deer and livestock are identical (Community

Health Laboratory, Michigan Department of Community Health, unpublished data). State

 

1 The term “northeast Michigan” specifically refers to the 5-counties shown in Figure 1. Any generalizations
made about “northeast Michigan” in the text pertain to this 5-county area

2 Baiting is defined in Michigan natural resource policy as “putting out food materials to attract, lure, or entice
[deer] as an aid in hunting” (MDNR 2003). Feeding, in contrast, is defined in Michigan natural resource policy
as “placing food materials out that attract deer for any reason other than for hunting” (MDNR 2003). Feeding
is further distinguished as either recreational feeding, for deer viewing, or supplemental feeding, to sustain deer
over the winter by supplementing their diet.

11

veterinarians posit that bovine TB infection in wild carnivores was a spill—over effect from
infected deer, possibly fi'om carnivores conSLuning infected deer carcasses (Brtming-Fann
et al. 2001); RFLP sequencing has also revealed that these are identical strains of M. bovis
(Bruning-Fann et al. 2001).

Citing risks to wildlife and domestic animal health, public health, wildlife-related
recreation, tourism, and USDA tuberculosis-free accreditation for Michigan cattle,
Michigan’s governor issued an executive directive in 1998 mandating that the Michigan
Departments of Natural Resources (MDNR), Agriculture (MDA), and Community Health
(MDCH) work together toward the goal of eradicating bovine tuberculosis in the state
(Engler 1998). In an attempt to eradicate bovine TB in Michigan white-tailed deer the
MDNR implemented strategies to 1) decrease the number of deer in northeast Michigan, 2)
decrease the opportunity for nose-to-nose contact3 , and 3) implement further surveillance of
harvested deer in order to assess bovine TB prevalence (Schmitt et al. 1997). In order to
reduce deer numbers the MDNR instituted unlimited antlerless deer pennits and extended
the length of the deer-hunting season in northeast Michigan. The Natural Resources
Commission, the policy-making authority over the MDNR Wildlife Division, instituted a
ban on deer baiting and deer feeding in northeast Michigan. The MDNR also established
voluntary deer check stations in many locations throughout Michigan where hunters could
bring harvested deer to be examined for gross bovine TB lesions. The MDA established
different risk zones within the state of Michigan and implemented zone-specific testing

requirements and movement restrictions for livestock.

 

3 Nose-to-nose contact is defined as deer coming within 15 cm or less of one another (Garner 2001).

12

Each of the bovine TB eradication policies that State of Michigan agencies
implemented in an effort to eradicate bovine TB has been aimed at curbing human behavior
and has relied on public support in order to be successful (e.g., bait and feed bans,
participation in the extended hunting season, antlerless deer permit purchases, deer check
stations, and cooperation with livestock testing and movement regulations). However,
evidence in the mass media has indicated that Michigan publics, especially hunters, have
been strongly opposed to many bovine TB eradication measures (Sharp 1999). Public
education has been cited as a critical factor in achieving bovine TB eradication in Michigan
(Bovine TB Eradication Project 2003, Schmitt et al. 2002) and nationwide (Nelson 1999).
The need to garner public support for bovine TB eradication policies and strengthen public
education campaigns necessitated more reliable, representative social data that could help

inform management actions and communication efforts. Information about stakeholder

.‘1m. P- In '- oc‘lnh- . 7

attitudes can help determine who will support management actions, as well as reveal the

o

a . , _

belief structure that underlies attitudes (Donnelly and Vaske 1997). Such information can

help agencies tailor communication efforts aimed at bolstering support for policy actions to

_ _'.Q_32_'n_l uni-ll.

Specific stakeholders (Tarrant et al. 1997). Reliable information about stakeholder attitudes

and perceptions is also critical in order to minimize management-related conflicts (Knuth et

 

.. .
- - ¢
9.1 thl‘._‘Ln

al. 1992). For these reasons we conducted a survey in the fall of 2000 that targeted multiple

bovine TB issue stakeholder groups. The objectives of the survey were: 1) to identify and
compare stakeholder attitudes toward various aspects of the bovine TB issue; 2) to identify
and compare stakeholder knowledge regarding the bovine TB disease and issue in
Michigan; 3) to evaluate factors that may affect support for bovine TB eradication and

eradication programs; and 4) to identify future communication channels and messages.

13

Methods

In order to develop valid survey instruments, we conducted individual in-depth
interviews with residents of northeast Michigan (N = 31) between March and June of 2000;
these interviews aided in identifying priority issues and clarifying terminology for the
surveys. Interviewees included hunters, livestock producers, and business
owners/managers in northeast Michigan. We obtained interviewee names through
recommendations by Michigan State University Extension employees and MDNR
personnel in northeast Michigan and from referrals made by other interviewees. Business

owners/managers were chosen by ad hoc selection in the telephone book.

Survey groups and study area

We targeted the following five stakeholder groups with our survey: 1) deer hunters
who hunt within northeast Michigan but who do not reside there (hereafter: nonresident
hunters), 2) deer hunters who reside and hunt in northeast Michigan (hereafter: resident
hunters), 3) livestock producers whose operation is located within northeast Michigan
(hereafter: livestock producers), 4) business owners or managers whose business is located
within northeast Michigan (hereafter: business owners), and 5) members of the general
public who reside in northeast Michigan (hereafter: the general public). We attempted to
create non-overlapping groups, to the degree possible, by using filter questions on the
survey. However, in some cases, it was not feasible to create truly non-overlapping groups
due to the low sample sizes that would have resulted (e.g., most livestock producers also
hunt, so removing hunters from this sample would have created an insufficient sample

Size).

14

Deer hunters

In sampling Michigan deer hunters, we distinguished between non-resident and
resident hunters. We defined non-resident hunters as individuals who have hunted in
northeast Michigan (see Figure 1) at least once, but who reside elsewhere in the state of
Michigan. Non-resident hunters were included in the survey because they constitute a
substantial portion of the hunting community in northeast Michigan and they contribute
greatly to the northeast Michigan tourism base. One thousand non-resident hunters, who
reported that they had hunted in the 5-county area in 1998, were sampled from respondents
to the MDNR’S 19984 deer harvest survey.5

We defined resident hunters as individuals who reside in northeast Michigan and
have hunted in one or more of these 5 counties since 1996. A simple random sample of
1,000 resident hunters was taken from the MDNR’S 19986 general deer hunting license
purchaser database, a list that contains the county of residence for each deer hunter, and the
county in which each license was purchased. To determine whether the hunters had
actually hunted in northeast Michigan, we asked respondents to indicate whether they had
hunted in the 5-county area Since 1996; we then removed those who indicated that they had
not for analysis (N = 15). To remove individuals whose interests overlapped with those of
our other survey groups, all resident hunter respondents who we could verify as people who

raise livestock based on a list provided by the MDA were removed for analysis (N = 3), as

 

’ The 1998 list was used for sampling because this was the last year that baiting and feeding were allowed in
the 5-county area

5 It must be noted that a potential bias was introduced by choosing to sample non-resident hunters in this
fashion. Because the sampling frame consisted entirely of MDNR hunting survey respondents, all non-
respondents to the DNR survey were not available to be selected. The 1998 harvest survey achieved a 64%
response rate.

15

were all individuals who claimed on the survey to own or manage their place of
employment (N = 80). Thus, the resident hunter respondents included in the analysis can
be summarized as non-livestock owning, non-business owning/managing individuals who

reside and hunt in northeast Michigan.

Livestock producers

We defined livestock producers as individuals who currently raise bovine TB-testable
livestock in the 5-county area of northeast Michigan and who have tested these animals for
bovine tuberculosis.7 The MDA provided a list of nearly all individuals in northeast
Michigan who met the above criteria, a total of 699. The MDA removed three households
from the list, as MDA officials felt that the issue was too sensitive to these households; all
remaining households were included in the survey. Although we attempted to reduce
overlap between samples, we did not remove hunters (since most livestock producers also
hunt) or business owners from the livestock producer sample (as many of the livestock

producers, by definition, also own or manage their livestock business).

Business owners/managers

We defined business owners/managers as individuals who own and/or manage a
business in northeast Michigan in one of the following economic sectors: 1) business
services (N = 275); 2) retail trade (N = 275); 3) wholesale trade (N = 100); and 4) finance,

insurance, and real estate (N = 100), for a total of 750 businesses. We chose these four

 

6 The 1998 list was used for sampling because this was the last year that baiting and feeding were allowed in
the 5-county area.

7 At the time the survey was administered, the MDA, to its knowledge, had successfully completed bovine TB
testing for all required livestock in the 5-county area.

16

 

sectors, emphasizing the business services and retail sectors, because businesses in these
sectors tend to have the most direct interaction with hunting-based business and tourism.
Businesses tend to respond poorly to surveys, so we chose to sample the business sectors to
which the bovine TB issue would be most salient. Thus, any generalization to “businesses”
or to the “business owners/managers” in this report actually refers to businesses/business
owners or managers in the four sectors that were sampled. We acquired this sample fi'om
Survey Sampling, Inc., a firm that randomly samples businesses in any US locale through
listings in the telephone book. All individuals who claimed on the survey to currently raise
livestock were removed for analysis (N = 80). We did not remove hunters from this sample

because most business owners also hunt.

General public

We defined the general public as all individuals who reside in northeast Michigan and
are 18 years of age or older. We took the general public sample of 1,000 individuals from
the list of registered drivers through the Michigan Secretary of State. All individuals with
overlapping interests were retained in the sample so that we could truly sample the “general

public.”

Survey design and implementation
We developed a different survey instrument for each of our survey groups, making 5
survey versions in all. The majority of questions on all of the surveys were the same, but
all surveys contained a small number of questions that were group-specific. We utilized

multiple contacts as outlined by Dillman (1978). The first mailing contained a personalized

l7

cover letter, a survey instrument, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. We mailed a
reminder postcard 10 days after the first surveys and we conducted a second mailing

approximately 3 weeks after we sent the initial surveys.8

Survey content

Our questionnaires consisted of items in 4 major topic areas. We asked stakeholders
about 1) bovine TB-related attitudes and beliefs, 2) bovine TB issue knowledge, 3) attitudes
toward bovine TB eradication strategies (we focus on attitudes toward deer-based bovine
TB eradication strategies in this paper), and 4) communication issues. We measured
stakeholder attitudes toward the overall goal to eradicate bovine tuberculosis with Likert-
type response questions ranging from “strongly support” (+2) to “strongly Oppose” (-2); we
scored “no Opinion” responses as missing. We evaluated whether people believed that it is
possible to eradicate bovine tuberculosis in northeast Michigan (strongly agree = 2, strongly
disagree = -2). We assessed public perceptions of local economic impact by asking
whether people agree or disagree that “the bovine TB issue has hurt the economy in
northeast Michigan” (strongly agree = 2, strongly disagree = -2). We also asked
stakeholders to agree or disagree that “beef and milk in northeast Michigan are safe to
consume” (strongly agree = 2, strongly disagree = -2). We evaluated stakeholder concern
about white-tailed deer and livestock having been found with bovine tuberculosis in
northeast Michigan by asking whether they “strongly agreed” (+2) to “strongly disagreed”
(-2) that they were concerned, and whether they believed that the bovine TB disease is a

serious threat to the health of the deer herd in Michigan (strongly agree = 2, strongly

 

8 Copies of all of the survey materials, including cover letters, the reminder postcard, and survey instruments,
are included as appendices beginning on page 98.

18

disagree = -2). We asked whether stakeholders believed that bovine TB in wild deer is a
serious threat to the health of livestock in Michigan (strongly agree = 2, suongly disagree =
-2). Finally, we detennined public beliefs about bovine TB transmission by asking whether
people believed that bovine TB spreads by nose-to-nose contact between deer, between
livestock, and between deer and livestock (definitely true = 2, definitely false = -2). We
asked whether people believed that bovine TB spreads on infected feed fi'om one deer to
other deer, from one livestock animal to other livestock animals, and from deer to livestock,
or from livestock to deer (definitely true = 2, definitely false = -2).

We asked stakeholders a number of factual questions regarding the bovine TB issue
so that we could ascertain their level of knowledge or awareness of the issue. Each of these
items had an answer that natural resource and agriculture professionals considered “true” or
“false” at the time the questionnaire was administered. We posed the following statements
and awarded one point each for the correct answer: 1) “There is a vaccine that can be used
to keep animals from getting bovine tuberculosis” (true = 0, false = 1, unsure = 0); 2) “Less
than 25 deer have been found with bovine TB in Michigan since 1995” (true = 0, false = 1,
unsure = 0); 3) “Animals that have bovine tuberculosis almost always Show visible signs of
the disease in their organs and lymph tissue” (true = 0, false = 1, unsure = 0); 4) “Most
states in the US have found bovine TB in their wildlife” (true = 0, false = l, unsure = O); 5)
“All dairy herds in the State of Michigan must now be tested for bovine TB every year until
Michigan regains its bovine TB-free status” (true = 1, false = 0, unsure = 0). Finally, we
asked, “Do you believe that humans can get bovine tuberculosis?” (yes = 1, no = 0, unsure

= 0).

19

We measured support for the bait ban and feed ban among all survey groups with a
Likert-type response question ranging from “strongly support” (+2) to “strongly oppose” (-
2) (“don’t care” responses were scored as missing). We provided definitions of baiting and
feeding in order to distinguish between the two practices on the survey. We asked hunters
whether they used bait before the bait ban in northeast Michigan (yes = 1, no = 0) and we
asked all groups whether they fed deer on property in northeast Michigan before the feed
ban (yes = 1, no = 0). We asked all groups whether they would support a “further reduction
in the number of deer in northeast Michigan in order to slow the spread of bovine TB
(strongly support = 2, strongly Oppose = -2).

We also asked the two hunter groups whether they supported the extended deer-
hunting season and unlimited antlerless deer permits with answer choices ranging from
“strongly support” (+2) to “strongly oppose” (-2) (“don’t care” responses were scored as
missing). We asked hunters whether they would bring harvested deer to a MDNR check
station (yes = 1, unsure = 0, no: -1) and whether they would report a deer to the MDNR
that they thought may have bovine TB (yes = 1, unsure = 0, no = -1).

We also addressed communication tOpics on the survey. We asked stakeholders
whether they were interested in being informed about new bovine TB issue-related findings
and about the different information sources (newsletter, mass media, etc.) that they would
prefer (yes = 1, no = 0 for each). We also asked stakeholders whether they had access to

the Internet at home or at work (yes = 1, no = 0).

20

Data analysis

We first calculated summary statistics and frequencies for each of the items on our
surveys. We tested for significant differences between stakeholder groups on ordinal
variables with analysis of variance and comparison of means tests. We tested for
relationships between two ordinal variables using correlation, and we used chi-square
analysis to test for differences between stakeholder groups on variables with two or three
response categories.

In order to determine the mean "knowledge level" among stakeholder groups, we first
calculated individual knowledge scores by summing answers to the six knowledge items
described above. We calculated individual knowledge scores by giving respondents a 1 for
each correctly answered question and a 0 for every question that was either answered
incorrectly or with an “unsure” response. We then summed these scores to calculate an
individual knowledge score. The highest score an individual could receive was 6,
indicating that the individual answered all 6 questions correctly; the lowest possible score
was 0, indicating that the individual was either unsure or incorrect in his/her answers to all
6 questions. We did not calculate a knowledge score for respondents who answered less
than four of the six knowledge questions on the survey. Other items with missing
responses (up to 2 questions) received a score of zero. After calculating individual
knowledge scores, we calculated mean knowledge scores for each of the stakeholder
groups. We tested the difference between stakeholder groups’ knowledge scores using a

difference of means test.

21

Results
We mailed the surveys to a total of 4449 people. After adjusting for ineligible
individuals and nondeliverable surveys, the overall response rate to the survey was 60%.
We calculated this response rate before we removed overlapping individuals for analysis.
Table II-l presents adjusted response rates for each stakeholder group.
We discuss general bovine TB-related attitudes, bovine TB issue-related knowledge,
attitudes toward deer-based bovine TB eradication strategies, and communication findings

below. Elsewhere (Dom and Mertig 2002) we present additional findings.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding bovine TB

Table lI-2 presents stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs regarding bovine TB in
general. A majority of stakeholders in all five of our survey groups supported or
strongly supported the overall goal of eradicating bovine tuberculosis in Michigan
(69% overall). Non-resident hunters were more likely to support the goal of bovine
TB eradication (with 79% support) than were any of the other survey groups (F =
16.92, p < 0.01). Respondents were evenly divided on their belief about whether it iS
possible to eradicate bovine TB in northeast Michigan; roughly equivalent proportions
(nearly one-third each) agreed, disagreed, or were unsure about whether bovine TB
eradication is possible. More non-resident hunters agreed that bovine TB eradication
is possible in northeast Michigan (37% agreed) than did members of any other
stakeholder group (F = 8.82, p < 0.01). The belief that it is possible to eradicate
bovine TB was Significantly correlated with support for the bovine TB eradication goal

(r = 0.385, p < 0.01 ). A majority of respondents in all groups agreed that bovine TB

22

has hurt the economy in northeast Michigan, but business owners (89%), livestock
producers (86%), and resident hunters (81%) agreed most with this statement.

Table II-3 presents stakeholder attitudes and beliefs regarding bovine TB-
positive deer and livestock. A strong majority of respondents in all groups were
concerned that tuberculous white-tailed deer had been found in northeast Michigan
(83% overall). Once again, non-resident hunters were the most likely to express
concern about bovine TB- positive deer (F = 10.14, p < 0.01). A majority of
respondents in all stakeholder groups, 60% overall, agreed that “the bovine TB disease
is a serious threat to the health of the deer herd in Michigan.” However,
approximately one-third of resident hunters, livestock producers, and business owners
disagreed with this statement. There was a fairly strong correlation between the belief
that bovine TB is a threat to the health of the deer herd and support for the goal to
eradicate bovine tuberculosis in Michigan (r = 0.458, p < 0.01).

Eighty-eight percent of livestock producers were concerned that bovine TB has
been found in northeast Michigan livestock, making them the stakeholder group most
likely to be concerned about bovine TB-positive livestock findings (F = 3.06, p =
0.02). Livestock producers were also more likely than other stakeholder groups to
believe that bovine TB in deer is a threat to livestock health (F = 20.36, p < 0.01).
Concern that bovine TB has been found in northeast Michigan livestock was related to
support for the bovine TB eradication goal (r = 0.444, p < 0.01), and the belief that
bovine TB in wild deer is a serious threat to livestock health was also related to
support for the bovine TB eradication goal (r = 0.441 , p < 0.01). Fifty-eight percent of

livestock producers agreed that bovine TB is a serious threat to livestock health,

23

l

whereas only 34% of resident hunters agreed that it is a serious threat. Finally,
livestock producers were also the most likely to agree that beef and milk from
northeast Michigan are safe to consume (F = 45.49, p < 0.01). Ninety-one percent of
livestock producers agreed with this statement, whereas only 62% of non-resident
hunters agreed with this statement. There was a slightly negative relationship between
the belief that beef and milk from northeast Michigan are safe to consume, and support
for the bovine TB eradication goal (r = -0.092, p < 0.01)

Tables II-4 and II-5 present stakeholder beliefs about bovine TB transmission via
nose-to-nose contact and on infected feed. We found strong differences between
stakeholder groups regarding beliefs about bovine TB transmission. F orty-four
percent of non-resident hunters believed that it was “definitely true” or “probably true”
that bovine TB spreads between deer and livestock (or vice versa) by nose-to-nose
contact, but only 29% of resident hunters believed that bovine TB spreads between
deer and livestock by nose-to-nose contact. Similarly, 49% of non-resident hunters
and 59% of livestock producers believed that bovine TB spreads between deer and
livestock on infected feed, but only 37% Of resident hunters believed that bovine TB is
transmitted by this means between deer and livestock. Sixty-seven percent of
livestock producers found the statement “bovine TB spreads from one deer to other
deer on infected feed” definitely or probably true, whereas only 42% of resident

hunters shared the same opinion.

24

Knowledge of bovine TB issues

Table II-6 presents stakeholder knowledge of bovine TB issues. A comparison
of means test showed that the mean knowledge scores for each stakeholder group were
significantly different from one another (F = 19.90, p < 0.01). The mean knowledge
scores were highest for livestock producers (3.20 out of 6) and lowest for business
owners/managers (2.34 out of 6). There was a slight but significant correlation
between knowledge and support for the overall goal to eradicate bovine tuberculosis (r
= 0.104, p < 0.01).

Less than half of the respondents in every stakeholder group, except livestock
producers, believed that human beings can contract bovine tuberculosis. Resident
hunters were least likely to believe that human beings can contract bovine tuberculosis,
with only 39% of these respondents answering this question correctly (X2 = 33.29, p <
0.01). Respondents who believed that humans can get bovine tuberculosis, or who
were unsure of whether or not humans can get bovine tuberculosis, were more likely to

support the goal of bovine TB eradication (F = 25.73, p < 0.01).

Attitudes toward deer-based bovine TB eradication strategies
Baiting and the bait ban

Table II-7 displays stakeholder bait and feed use and attitudes toward the bait and
feed bans. Seventy-two percent of non-resident hunters and 87% of resident hunters
reported that they used bait when hunting in northeast Michigan before the bait ban.
More respondents opposed than supported the bait ban among all survey groups except

non-resident hunters. Differences between hunter groups were especially evident, as

25

40% of non-resident hunters supported the bait ban, whereas only 26% of resident
hunters supported the bait ban. As one might expect, those who baited deer before the
bait ban in northeast Michigan were more likely to oppose the ban than those who did

not use bait when baiting was legal (F = 258.16, p < 0.01).

Feeding and the feed ban

Over half of the resident hunter (74%), business owner (59%), and general public
(54%) respondents reported that they fed deer on property in northeast Michigan
before the feed ban, whereas slightly less than half of the non-resident hunter and
livestock producer respondents reported that they had fed deer (49% and 48%
respectively). More respondents opposed than supported the feed ban in all groups
except non-resident hunters and livestock producers. Livestock producers were much
more likely to support the feed ban than they were to support the bait ban, with 48%
supporting the feed ban, and only 33% supporting the bait ban. Those who had fed
deer in northeast Michigan before the feed ban were more likely to oppose the ban

than those who had not fed deer (F = 313.77, p < 0.01).

Reduction in deer numbers

Table lI-7 presents stakeholder attitudes toward eradication strategies aimed at
reducing deer numbers, and hunters’ intended participation at DNR check stations.
There was strong contrast between the attitudes of different stakeholder groups toward
a “further reduction in the number of deer in northeast Michigan in order to slow the

spread of bovine TB.” Livestock producers were the only group in which a majority of

26

respondents supported the measure. Fifty-seven percent of livestock producers
supported a reduction in deer numbers; in contrast, 57% of resident hunters opposed a
reduction in deer numbers.

We asked the resident and non-resident hunter groups about their opinion on
unlimited antlerless deer permits and the extended hunting season in northeast
Michigan. A majority of hunters in both groups opposed unlimited antlerless deer
permits (67% resident hunters and 54% non-resident hunters). Although less than half
of the hunters supported the extended deer hunting season (3 8% resident hunters and
49% non-resident hunters), both hunter groups were more likely to support this policy
than the unlimited antlerless deer permits (21% resident hunters and 33% non-resident

hunters).

Deer checks

We found that 66% percent of non-resident hunter respondents and 56% of
resident hunter respondents who intended to hunt in northeast Michigan during 2000
reported that they planned to take harvested deer to a check station.9 Additionally, 1%
of the non-resident hunter respondents who intended to hunt in northeast Michigan
during 2000 and 7% of the resident hunter respondents would not report a harvested

white-tailed deer that they thought may have bovine TB to the MDNR.

 

9 We determined hunter intention to hunt in northeast Michigan in 2000 by asking the following question: “Do
you plan to hunt in northeast Michigan during the 2000 hunting season?” (Answer choices were “yes”, ‘ o”, or
“unsure.”)

27

Communication issues

An overwhelming majority of respondents reported that they would like to be
informed about bovine TB issue developments (89% overall). Table II-9 presents data
on bovine TB issue communication topics. Stakeholders who wanted to be informed
preferred direct contact through a newsletter. More than half of the respondents in all
groups except livestock producers also preferred to receive information through the
mass media. Those who indicated that they did not want new information held
statistically different attitudes from those who did want new information on many of
the bovine TB eradication strategies. However, although these differences were
statistically significant, they were not markedly different. For example, 94% of those
who strongly supported the feed ban wanted new bovine TB information, while 89%
of those who strongly opposed the feed ban also wanted new information. A website
had been designed for communication ptu'poses, so we also asked stakeholder to
indicate whether they had Internet access at home or at work. Only 51% of both
livestock producers and resident hunters and 52% of the general public reported that
they had access to the Internet, while 71% of non-resident hunters and 73% of business

owners reported having Internet access.

Discussion and implications
Our research found rather strong support for the goal of bovine TB eradication in
principle (69% overall), but there were strong differences between stakeholder groups in
support for this goal. For example, 79% of non-resident hunters and 70% of livestock

producers supported the bovine TB eradication goal, while only 60% of resident hunters

28

and business owners supported the goal. Such differences reveal a need to bolster
stakeholder support for the bovine TB eradication goal, particularly among resident hunters
and business owners. There was a correlation between support for the bovine TB
eradication goal and the belief that it is possible to eradicate bovine TB in northeast
Michigan (r = 0.385, p < 0.01). It follows then that evidence that eradication efforts are
working (i.e., evidence that eradication goals can be achieved) might be used to garner
more public support for the bovine TB eradication goal.

Stakeholders seemed highly concemed about bovine TB-positive animal
findings in northeast Michigan (over 75% of the respondents in every stakeholder group
were concerned about tuberculous deer and livestock findings). However, there were
strong differences between stakeholder groups regarding perceptions of the threat of bovine
TB to animal health. Sixty-eight percent of non-resident hunters agreed that bovine TB is a
serious threat to the health of the deer herd, but only 45% of business owners agreed that
bovine TB is a serious threat to deer herd health. Fifty-eight percent of livestock producers
agreed that bovine TB in wild deer is a serious threat to the health of livestock in Michigan,
but only 34% of resident hunters believed that bovine TB in wild deer is a serious threat to
livestock health. Such differences in stakeholder perceptions of the threat of bovine TB to
animal health could result in different levels of commitment between stakeholder groups
for bovine TB eradication efforts in the long run.

Although stakeholders supported the bovine TB eradication goal and were highly
concerned about bovine TB-positive animal findings, they were much less willing to
support specific strategies to achieve the eradication goal. For example, 60% of

resident hunters supported the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB in Michigan, but

29

only 26% of resident hunters supported the bait ban, and only 31% of resident hunters
supported the feed ban. Similarly, only 33% of livestock producers supported the bait
ban, and only 48% of livestock producers supported the feed ban (compared to 70%
who supported the bovine TB eradication goal). Less than half of resident and non-
resident hunter respondents supported the extended deer-hunting season (3 8% and
49%) and unlimited antlerless deer permits (21% and 33%). Stakeholder support for
bovine TB eradication in principle (i.e., support for the goal to eradicate bovine TB),
and in practice (i.e., support for specific eradication policies) is necessary for bovine
TB eradication success. The fact that stakeholders, especially hunters, are rather
unsupportive of practical eradication strategies could be a hindrance to eradication
goals.

When we compared the two hunter groups on all deer-based bovine TB
eradication policies, non-resident hunters were significantly more likely than resident
hunters to support the eradication policies (the bait and feed bans, unlimited antlerless
deer permits, and the extended deer hunting season). We suspect that more non-
resident hunters are able to support such policies for two main reasons. First, most
non-resident hunters do not have to live with the consequences of the policies as
clearly as do local stakeholder groups. Next, non-resident hunters may be more
supportive of eradication efforts because of the method in which we sampled them.
Recall that these individuals had all responded to a MDNR survey prior to responding
to our survey. Thus, our sampling method may have selected for individuals who are
more likely to support state government and state government policies. However,

general support for a state agency does not necessarily translate into support for

30

specific policies instituted by the agency (Donnelly and Vaske 1997). The tendency of
resident hunters to be more resistant to eradication policies means that state agency
officials might focus their efforts on northeast Michigan resident hunters in order to
increase support for eradication measures.

Stakeholders held some beliefs that might affect their support for specific
eradication strategies. First, relatively few resident hunters believed that bovine
tuberculosis spreads between deer (42%), or between deer and livestock (37%), on
infected feed, although state agency officials have contended that this is a highly
probable mechanism for bovine TB transmission. Next, only 36% of our respondents
overall believed that bovine TB spreads between deer and livestock by nose-to-nose
contact, another mechanism hypothesized by the state. Discrepancies between the
views of “experts” and stakeholders can injure agency credibility (Slovic 1993) and
result in conflict between agencies and constituents (Loker and Decker 1995). State
agencies might consider increasing efforts to persuade hunters that infected feed and
nose-to-nose contact provide probable means of bovine TB transmission in an effort to
garner support for eradication policies and protect agency credibility.

A majority of stakeholders who planned to hunt in northeast Michigan in 2000
believed that they would bring harvested deer to a check station (56% of resident
hunters and 66% of non-resident hunters). Check stations are the MDNR’S main
method of evaluating the prevalence of bovine TB so increased participation would
help the accuracy of eradication effort evaluation. ‘0 It is potentially problematic that

7% of resident hunters admitted that they would withhold information about a bovine

 

‘0 Recognizing the necessity for comprehensive surveillance, the MDNR made deer check stations mandatory
for those who harvested a deer in the northern half of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula in 2002.

31

TB-positive deer from the MDNR. Such admissions and the low commitment to
bringing harvested deer to MDNR check stations mean that bovine tuberculosis may
go under-detected, although the probability of a hostile individual finding a
tuberculous deer is very small (O’Brien et al. 2001).

Overall knowledge of the bovine TB issue was rather low; livestock producers
had the highest mean knowledge score (3.2 out of 6). This finding was expected in
northeast Michigan because much of the state's communication efforts have been
focused on the farming community in order to accomplish Federal bovine TB testing
requirements. In addition, producers have had contact with veterinary personnel
during bovine TB testing which could have enhanced their bovine TB disease and/or
issue knowledge. Increased issue-related knowledge was somewhat correlated with
increased support for the goal to eradicate bovine TB across all groups (r = 0.104, p <
0.01), so efforts to inform stakeholders, especially hunters, business owners, and the
general public, of facts about bovine tuberculosis and the bovine TB issue should be
enhanced. White and Whiting (2000) found that those who were more knowledgeable
about bovine tuberculosis in Britain were more likely to favor the most invasive
method proposed for eradicating bovine tuberculosis in badgers. Likewise, we found
moderate correlations between increased bovine TB issue-related knowledge and
support for the bait ban (r = 0.133, p < 0.01) and the feed ban (r = 0.117, p < 0.01).

It was especially surprising that so many stakeholder groups either did not
believe that humans can get bovine tuberculosis or were unsure about whether humans
can get bovine tuberculosis. For example, only 39% of resident hunters believed that

humans can get bovine tuberculosis. Public perception of the risk of wildlife disease

32

to human health has strongly influenced public support for government policies aimed
at reducing the prevalence of Lyme disease (Siemer et al. 1992, McGuill et al. 1997)
and rabies (Siemer et a1. 1994). However, Lyme disease and rabies both result in
higher human mortality and are more frequently transmitted to humans than bovine
tuberculosis. Still, the lack of acknowledgement that the bovine TB issue poses risks
to public health may deplete stakeholder support for bovine TB eradication and
eradication efforts.

Efforts to increase public support for wildlife disease eradication goals should
ideally be concentrated as an issue emerges (Gilmour and Munro 1991). This can
enable managers to keep an issue from becoming disruptive (Peyton 1984). However,
on-going communication efforts are beneficial, and our survey revealed that a strong
majority of stakeholders desired more bovine TB issue-related information. Even
stakeholders who strongly Opposed eradication efforts reported that they wanted new
bovine TB-related information. This demonstrates that those who are unsupportive of
eradication measures may not necessarily dismiss communication attempts.

Of the respondents who wanted new information (89% overall), a majority in
every stakeholder group preferred that news be distributed via a newsletter. Although
it may be impossible to disseminate information in newsletters to all stakeholders, this
method seems strongly preferred, so we advise agencies to utilize this method with
selected groups where feasible. A majority of these same respondents (those who
wanted new information) in all groups except livestock producers also preferred mass
media, such as the television, newspaper, or radio, as information sources. However,

regarding mass media, and the newspaper in particular, Bull and Peyton (1999) have

33

shown that although Michigan hunters get much of their information from newspapers,
they do not necessarily perceive this source to be credible. Mass media may therefore
be most appropriate for delivering non-contentious information, while other sources,
like newsletters, may be more effective venues for detailed persuasion communication.

An Internet site has been created by the State of Michigan for bovine TB issue
communication purposes (Bovine TB Eradication Project 2003). However, when we
asked stakeholders about their access to the lntemet, we found that only half of
resident hunters and livestock producers have Internet access at home or at work. This
means that the Internet is a viable medium for disseminating bovine TB issue-related
information, but in order to thoroughly reach these critical stakeholders, additional
channels must be emphasized.

We have demonstrated that Michigan stakeholders hold a high level of support
for bovine TB eradication in principle. There exist strong differences between
stakeholder groups regarding bovine TB issue-related attitudes, beliefs, and
knowledge. There is a high level of interest among stakeholders to be informed of
future developments in the bovine TB issue. We recommend that additional research
focus on examining specific perceptions of bovine TB-related risk among

stakeholders, and test communication messages.

34

Literature Cited

Bruning-Fann, C. S., S. M. Schmitt, S. D. Fitzgerald, J. S. Fierke, P. D. Friedrich, J. B,
Kaneene, K. A. Clarke, K. L. Butler, J. B. Payeur, D. L. Whipple, T. M. Cooley, J. M.
Miller, and D. P. Muzo. Bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging carnivores from
Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37(1):58-64.

Bovine TB eradication project. 2003. Bovine Tuberculosis. Accessed February 21, 2003.
<http://www.bovinetb.com>.

Bull, P. and R. B. Peyton. 1999. An assessment of possible antler restrictions and quality
deer management by Michigan deer hunters. Technical report submitted to the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division. Michigan State
University. East Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Center for Animal Disease Information and Analysis. September 1996. Assessing the
risks associated with M bovis in Michigan free-ranging white-tailed deer. United
States Department of Agriculture, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health,
CAIDA Technical Report No. 01-96, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Cox, M., E. B. Barbier, and P. C. L. White. August 23, 1999. Public preferences
regarding rabies-prevention policies in the UK. Preventative Veterinary Medicine
41(4): 257-270.

Diehl, K. E. 1971. An epizootic of bovine tuberculosis traced from slaughter. Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical Association 159: 1534-1537.

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

Donnelly, M. P., and J. J. Vaske. 1997. Predicting attitudes toward a moose hunt.
Society and Natural Resources 82307-319.

Dom, M. L., and A. G. Mertig. 2002. Bovine tuberculosis in Michigan: 2000-2001
stakeholder survey. Technical report submitted to the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources Wildlife Division. Michigan State University. East Lansing,
Michigan, USA.

Engler, J. Executive directive 1998-1. January 29, 1998. Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Fanning, A. and S. Edwards. 1991. Mycobacterium bovis infection in human beings

in contact with elk (Cervus elaphus) in Alberta, Canada. The Lancet 338: 1253-
1255.

35

Garner, Mark S. 2001. Movement patterns and behavior at winter feeding and fall
baiting stations in a population of white-tailed deer infected with bovine
tuberculosis in the northeastern lower peninsula of Michigan. Dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Gilmour, J. and R. Munro. 1991. Wildlife disease: management or masterly
inactivity? Journal of Natural History 25:53 7-541.

Knuth, B. A., R. J Stout, W. F. Siemer, D. J. Decker, and R C. Stedman. 1992. Risk
management concepts for improving wildlife population decisions and public
communication strategies. Transactions of the 57‘h Annual Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference 63-74.

Loker, C. A. and D. J. Decker. 1995. Colorado black bear hunting referendum: what was
behind the vote? Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:370-376.

McGuill, M. W., S. M. Kreindel, A. DeMaria, Jr., and C. Rupprech. August 1, 1997.
Knowledge and attitudes of residents in two areas of Massachusetts about rabies

and an oral vaccination program in wildlife. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association 211:305-309.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division. 2003. Baiting and
Feeding Publications. Accessed March 21, 2003.
<http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/O,l607,7-153-10363_10919_1 1748-31617--
,00.html>.

Nelson, A. M. 1999. The cost of disease eradication: small pox and bovine
tuberculosis. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 894:83-91.

O’Brien, D. J ., S. D. Fitzgerald, T. J. Lyon, K. L. Butler, J. S. F ierke, K. R. Clark, S.
M. Schmitt, T. M. Cooley, and D. E. Berry. 2001. Tuberculosis lesions in free-
ranging white-tailed deer in Michigan. Journal Of Wildlife Diseases 37:608-613.

Peyton, R. B. 1984. A typology of natural resource issues with implications for
resource management and education. Michigan Academician 17:49-58.

Roswurrn, J. D, and A. F. Ranney. 1973. Sharpening the attack on bovine
tuberculosis. American Journal of Public Health 63:884-886.

Schmitt, S. M., S. D. Fitzgerald, T. M. Cooley, C. S. Bruning-Fann, L. Sullivan, D.
Berry, T. Carlson, R. B. Minnis, J. B. Payeur, and J. Sikarskie. 1997. Bovine
tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed deer from Michigan. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases 33:749-758.

36

Schmitt, S. M., D. J. O’Brien, C. S. Bruning-Fann, and S. D. Fitzgerald. 2002. Bovine
tuberculosis in Michigan wildlife and livestock. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 969:262-268.

Sharp, E. 1999. Many hunters ignoring baiting ban in TB zone. Detroit Free Press. 4
November 1999; section D: 4.

Siemer, W. F., T. L. Brown, S. M. Stehman, L. L. Bigler, D. H. Lein. 1994. Public
perceptions of rabies and proposed oral bait vaccination trial. Human Dimensions
Research Unit Publication Number 94-7. Department of Natural Resources,

Cornell University. 46 pp.

Siemer, W. F., B. A. Knuth, D. J. Decker, V. L. Alden. 1992. Human perceptions and
behaviors associated Lyme disease: Implications for land and wildlife
management. Human Dimensions Research Unit Publication Number 92-8.
Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University. 128 pp.

Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13:675-682.
Tarrant, M. A., A. D. Bright, and H. K. Cordell. 1997. Attitudes toward wildlife
species protection: assessing moderating and mediating effects in the value-attitude

relationship. Human Dimensions Of Wildlife 2(2):1-20.

USDA Factsheet. September, 1995. Accessed February 21, 2003.
<http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/ah/tb_infor.htm>.

White, P. C. L., and S. J. Whiting. 2000. Public attitudes towards badger culling to
control bovine tuberculosis in cattle. Veterinary Record 147:179-184.

37

Table II-l. Response rates by stakeholder group

 

Stakeholder Group Response Number Of

 

rate respondents
Non-resident hunters 75% 734
Resident hunters 62% 592
Livestock producers 60% 399
Business owners 47% 313
General public 52% 465

 

38

Table 11-2. Attitudes and beliefs regarding bovine TB

 

 

Variable Statistic Stakeholder Group'
Total NRH RH LP BO GP
Support for BTB % Strongly support 34 42 25 36 30 32
eradication goal2 % Support 35 37 35 34 30 35
% Unsure l9 I3 25 I7 24 21
% Oppose 6 8 6 l l 5
% Strongly oppose 4 4 3 4
% NO opinion 3 3 2 3
n 2289 720 478 340 290 461
It is possible to % Strongly agree 8 9 7 10 7 8
eradicate BTB % Agree 24 28 19 23 20 24
in northeast % Unsure 34 36 32 33 30 37
Michigan. % Disagree 23 20 28 20 29 22
382:2?” l l 7 14 15 13 10
n 2283 719 475 342 290 457
The BTB issue % Strongly agree 36 26 37 51 49 33
has hurt the % Agree 41 44 44 35 40 40
economy in % Unsure l4 17 12 6 l8
northeast % Disagree 7 l l 6 3 4 7
Michigan. 3:532:23” 1 l l 2 l 2
n 2271 717 476 338 288 452

 

l

2

NRH = Non-resident Hunter, RH = Resident Hunter, LP = Livestock Producer, BO = Business Owner
or Manager, GP = General Public

Do you support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB in wildlife and domestic livestock in

Michigan?

39

Table II-3. Attitudes and beliefs regarding bovine TB-positive deer and livestock

 

 

Variable Statistic Stakeholder GroupI
Total NRH RH LP BO GP
1 am concerned % Strongly agree 24 27 21 30 16 23
that deer have % Agree 59 61 57 53 62 60
been found with % Unsure 7 6 9 5 8 8
BTB in northeast % Disagree 8 5 1 l 10 10
Michigan. % Strongly disagree 2 l 3 2 3
n 2283 715 478 336 291 463
The BTB disease % Strongly agree 21 26 15 24 14 20
is a serious threat % Agree 39 42 40 37 31 41
to the health of % Unsure l7 l7 l6 13 25 18
the deer herd in % Disagree 20 13 25 21 26 18
Michigan. % Strongly disagree 3 2 4 4 3 3
n 2282 714 478 336 291 463
I am concerned % Strongly agree 28 28 26 37 21 29
fifel'vesmd % Agree 57 58 57 SI 63 58
been found with % Unsure 7 8 8 4 8
BTB in northeast % Disagree 6 6 8 6 6
Michigan. % Strongly disagree I l 2 2 0
n 2295 721 481 340 290 463
BTB in wild deer % Strongly agree 15 ll 9 32 9 18
is a serious threat % Agree 28 34 25 26 26 26
to the health of % Unsure 25 29 24 16 26 26
livestock in % Disagree 24 2O 31 20 27 22
Michigan. % Strongly disagree 8 6 l l 7 l2 8
n 2294 719 481 341 290 463
Beef and milk % Strongly agree 24 12 22 53 24 22
from northeast % Agree 48 50 52 38 49 49
:gh‘ga“ are % Unsure 24 34 21 7 25 25
to consume. % Disagree 3 3 4 l 2 3
% Strongly disagree 1 l l 2 l 2
n 2290 719 480 341 288 462

 

' NRH = Non-resident Hunter, RH = Resident Hunter, LP = Livestock Producer, BO = Business
Owner or Manager, GP = General Public

40

Table II-4. Beliefs about bovine TB transmission by nose-to-nose contact

 

 

Variable Statistic Stakeholder Group'
Total NRH RH LP BO GP
BTB spreads...
...between deer % Definitely true 29 36 22 35 23 24
by nose-to-nose % Probably true 48 45 50 47 53 50
contact. % Unsure 15 13 17 l 1 l7 l7
% Probably false 6 4 8 5 8 7
% Definitely false 2 l 3 2 0 2
n 2283 721 478 334 289 461
...between % Definitely true 27 33 21 30 21 22
livestock by % Probably true 47 45 48 43 52 48
nose-to-nose % Unsure 18 15 20 15 20 21
contact. % Probably false 7 5 9 8 7 8
% Definitely false 2 2 3 4 l 1
n 2281 721 476 335 288 461
...between deer % Definitely true l4 18 10 14 12 13
and livestock % Probably true 22 26 19 20 22 23
by nose-to—nose % Unsure 25 25 25 22 29 25
contact. % Probably false 27 24 29 25 27 30
% Definitely false 12 7 17 19 10 8
n 2281 720 478 334 288 461

 

l NRH = Non-resident Hunter, RH = Resident Hunter, LP = Livestock Producer, BO = Business
Owner or Manager, GP = General Public

41

Table II-5. Beliefs about bovine TB transmission on infected feed

 

 

Variable Statistic Stakeholder Groupl
Total NRH RH LP BO GP
BTB spreads...
...from one deer % Definitely true 13 13 9 24 9 14
to other deer on % Probably true 38 38 33 43 39 38
infected feed. % Unsure 27 27 32 17 29 29
% Probably false 18 18 22 14 20 16
% Definitely false 4 5 5 4 4 3
n 2273 717 475 334 286 461
...from one % Definitely true l3 I3 10 20 10 14
livestock animal % Probably true 39 39 35 43 39 39
to other livestock % Unsure 28 26 33 19 30 30
animals on % Probably false l6 l6 18 13 19 15
infected feed. % Definitely false 4 5 4 5 3 3
n 2283 719 478 337 288 461
...from deer to % Definitely true 12 12 7 l9 8 13
livestock, or % Probably true 35 37 30 40 36 34
livestock to deer, % Unsure 29 28 34 21 29 31
on infected feed. % Probably false 19 18 22 15 23 18
% Definitely false 5 5 7 6 4 4
n 2284 719 479 336 289 461

 

l NRH = Non-resident Hunter, RH = Resident Hunter, LP = Livestock Producer, BO = Business

Owner or Manager, GP = General Public

42

Table II-6. Knowledge of bovine TB issues

 

 

 

Variable Statistic2 Stakeholder Group1
Total NRH RH LP BO GP
There is a vaccine that % True 16 18 18 8 16 15
can be used to keep % False 32 26 31 55 28 28
animals from getting % Unsure 52 56 51 37 55 56
BTB. n 2285 7 I 7 478 339 289 462
Less than 25 deer have % True 18 20 20 10 18 18
been found with BTB in % False 54 52 55 68 50 48
Michigan since 1995. % Unsure 29 29 26 23 33 34
n 2289 720 480 337 290 462
Animals that have BTB % True 47 50 49 41 38 49
3R0“ always “‘0‘” % False 37 35 38 47 4o 30
VISlble
3‘3: °f the d‘sease '" % Unsure 16 15 l3 13 22 20
organs and lymph tissue. n 2294 720 481 340 291 462
Most states in the US % True 33 23 38 39 41 33
have found BTB in their % False 26 28 24 29 20 24
wildlife. % Unsure 42 49 38 32 40 43
n 2276 712 479 337 289 459
All diary herds in the we 66 65 68 73 58 68
state of MI must now be % False l l 9 I3 12 13 10
tested for BTB every % Unsure 22 26 19 15 29 22
year until Ml regains its n 2288 719 480 338 288 463
BTB-free status.
Do you believe that m 43 42 39 54 4O 42
humans can get BTB? % No 34 3O 39 30 36 35
% Unsure 23 28 22 16 24 23
n 2262 716 472 336 290 448

 

l

2

NRH = Non-resident Hunter, RH = Resident Hunter, LP = Livestock Producer, BO = Business Owner
or Manager, GP = General Public
The answer considered correct at the time we administered the survey is underlined in the second

column of this table.

43

 

 

Table II-7. Deer baiting and feeding behaviors and attitudes toward eradication

 

._
‘-
.
,0
..
r
.,
$7
I;
F‘ l’
.5
LI
°.'
7 .
. .
n‘.
.1
‘ ,
.3.
I
.0
..
.2
».
..
‘1
l.
..
a
Q
..
x;
'c

 

 

     
  

 

strategies :-
Variable Statistic Stakeholder Group'
Total NRH RH LP BO GP ,.
Bait use2 % Yes 78 72 87 N/A N/A N/A -c
% No 22 28 13 J4
n 1 196 714 482
i -
Bait ban % Strongly support 19 22 l4 l7 13 26
opinion3 % Support 16 18 12 l6 16 17
% Unsure 1 1 14 13 9 9 7
% Oppose 24 21 26 21 28 24
% Strongly oppose 27 20 31 34 34 24
% Don't Care 3 4 3 3 l 2 _.
n 2293 718 477 341 294 463
Feed use“ % Yes 56 49 74 48 59 54 if.
°/o NO 44 51 26 52 41 46 :g}
n 2280 717 480 338 295 450 be
"3:11.
Feed ban % Strongly support 18 l9 12 27 ll 19 :g’
opinion5 % Support 21 25 19 21 l6 19 fig:
% Unsure 12 15 12 9 11 11 -§
% Oppose 23 22 28 16 29 23 1;
% Strongly oppose 24 18 27 22 32 25 ,fj'
% Don't Care 2 1 2 5 2 3 3
n 2303 719 483 344 294 463 gig.
Attitude toward % Strongly support 11 9 6 3O 5 9 {E
a reduction in % Support 22 26 18 27 18 21 ’3
deer numbers6 % Unsure 21 24 20 13 21 24 :‘l
% Oppose 21 23 24 12 21 22 ..
% Strongly oppose 24 18 33 17 33 23
% Don't Care 1 0 0 l l 0 it?
n 2282 713 477 342 290 460 ff

i.’

l NRH = Non-resident Hunter, RH = Resident Hunter, LP = Livestock Producer, BO = Business
Owner or Manager, GP = General Public
2 “Did you use bait when you hunted in northeast Michigan before the bait ban?”

yeti-..-

“'3 :

5:84-

,
.1
a

. :5?-

Q.

c_4 4. i .'
"4%.?th -‘
1.:— t‘“ “-
ant-Jud

. "1"“ ,..,_,;. Jag". egg-
Jfitilrxmuwi'w '. *, ' r.
._ - I-‘Ha‘l‘JH-HE .._.

44

3 “What is your opinion of the ban on baiting deer as defined above?” (Definition provided: “Baiting
deer is defined as putting out food materials for deer to lure, attract, or entice them as an aid in
hunting”)

4 “Before the feed ban, did you feed deer on property in northeast Michigan?”

5 “What is your opinion of the ban on feeding deer as defined above?” (Definition provided: “Feeding
deer is defined in Michigan policy as placing food materials out that attract deer for any reason other
than for hunting”)

6 “Please indicate how much you support or oppose the following action(s): further reduction in the
number of deer in northeast Michigan in order to slow the spread of bovine TB.”

45

 

Table II-8. Hunter attitudes toward efforts to reduce deer numbers and intended
participation in eradication efforts

 

 

Variable Statistic Stakeholder Groupl
NRH RH
Extended deer hunting % Strongly support 18 11
season opinion2 % Support 31 27
% Unsure 13 12
% Oppose 18 22
% Strongly oppose 20 27
% Don't Care I l
n 715 481
Unlimited antlerless % Strongly support 13 8
deer permit opinion3 % Support 20 13
% Unsure I3 12
% Oppose 26 28
% Strongly oppose 28 39
% Don't Care 1 l
n 714 478
Intention to participate % Yes 66 56
in a DNR check station4 % No 17 28
% Unsure I7 17
n 567 400
Intention to report % Yes 98 88
BTB-suspect deer to % No l 7
the DNR5 % Unsure 1 6
n 558 396

 

l NRH = Non-resident Hunter, RH = Resident Hunter, LP = Livestock Producer, B0 = Business Owner
or Manager, GP = General Public

2 “Please indicate you Opinion about the following DNR management decision(s) in northeast Michigan
for the 1998-2000 deer hunting seasons: extended deer hunting season.”

3 “Please indicate you opinion about the following DNR management decision(s) in northeast Michigan
for the 1998-2000 deer hunting seasons: unlimited antlerless deer permits.”

4 “If you harvest a deer in northeast Michigan this hunting season, do you intend to take it to a DNR
check station?” This question was only asked of hunters who indicated that they planned to hunt in
northeast Michigan in 2000.

5 “If you harvested a deer this hunting season and you thought it may have bovine TB, would you report
this to the DNR?” This question was only asked of hunters who indicated that they planned to hunt in
northeast Michigan in 2000.

46

Table II-9. Communication topics

 

 

Variable Statistic Stakeholder Group1
Total NRH RH LP BO GP

Desire new % Yes 89 95 9O 94 83 81
BTB-related % No 1 l 5 10 6 18 19
information2 71 2259 707 476 340 291 445
Information sources3
Newsletter % Preferred 69 71 68 89 58 58
Mass-media, such as % Preferred 53 55 54 37 58 57
TV, newspaper, radio
Internet % Preferred 19 27 17 9 17 14
Public meetings % Preferred 21 18 22 24 24 19
From professionals % Preferred 20 23 21 19 22 16
Local clubs or % Preferred 18 23 17 8 19 15
organizations
Family or friends % Preferred 5 6 7 3 4 4
Other % Preferred 3 5 3 2 3 2

n 2020 672 428 319 240 361
DO you have access % Yes 60 71 51 51 73 52
to the Internet at home °/o No 40 29 49 49 27 48
or at work? 71 2241 692 476 344 271 458

 

1 NRH = Non-resident Hunter, RH = Resident Hunter, LP = Livestock Producer, BO = Business Owner
or Manager, GP = General Public

“As new information is discovered about bovine TB in Michigan, would you like to be informed about
it?

3 “How would you prefer that new information be communicated to you?” This question was only asked
of those who indicated that they desire to be informed about new information about the bovine TB
issue. The information sources listed in the first column of Table 11-9 were provided on the survey.

47

Chapter III

STUDY 2: PREDICTIN G HUNTER ATTITUDES TOWARD BOVINE
TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION IN WHITE-TAILED DEER

Abstract

The bovine tuberculosis (TB) outbreak in white-tailed deer in northeast Michigan
has been facilitated by social practices, (e. g. deer baiting and feeding); eradication of
the disease therefore requires public support, especially from area hunters. Further, two
types of support are important: support for the eradication in principle and in practice.
However, state agencies did not have information about hunter support for bovine TB
eradication at either level, nor did they have information about the beliefs that underlied
hunter attitudes toward bovine TB eradication in principle and in practice. Results
Show that there is indeed a difference between hunter support for bovine TB eradication
in principle and in practice and that predominantly different beliefs underlie each type
of support. Beliefs about risks posed by bovine tuberculosis and the belief about the
achievability of bovine TB eradication are the strongest antecedents to hunter attitude
toward bovine TB eradication in principle. Beliefs about the costs of risk mitigation
efforts, beliefs about bovine TB transmission, and beliefs about state agencies involved
in bovine TB eradication efforts are the strongest antecedents to attitude toward bovine
TB eradication in practice. Results have implications for ongoing communications
with northeast Michigan hunters and implications for the management of zoonotic

disease issues in other contexts.

48

Introduction

Reliable information about stakeholder attitudes has become increasingly
recognized as a critical contribution to effective natural resource management (Decker,
Brown and Knuth 1996, Bright and Manfredo 1996). Such information can help
managers understand wildlife resource user groups, which is particularly important as
wildlife constituencies become increasingly diverse and as wildlife management
projects take place over larger scales (e. g. ecosystem management) (Tarrant, Bright,
and Cordell 1997). Information about stakeholder attitudes can also help managers
predict stakeholder responses to controversial management decisions (Donnelly and
Vaske 1995) and influence public opinion toward wildlife and wildlife management
practices (Bright and Manfredo 1995).

Attitudes are especially important constructs because they can influence behavior
(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). F ishbein and Ajzen (1975) argued that one’s behavior
depends, in part, on one’s attitudes (which are defined as evaluations of a behavior and
the object of a behavior), and that attitudes derive from beliefs about the attitude object.
Fishbein and Aj zen thus place attitudes as central in their construct hierarchy; beliefs
shape attitudes, and attitudes influence behavior. Others have qualified this hierarchy
by noting that important attitudes predict behavior better than unimportant attitudes
(Krosnick and Petty 1996, Bright and Manfredo 1996, Brooks et al. 1999). An
individual’s personal characteristics may also interact with his/her beliefs to influence
subsequent attitudes (Kellert and Berry 1987, Lauber, Anthony and Knuth 2001), but
specific attitudes (regarding a specific behavior) tend to be better than

sociodemographic characteristics at predicting specific behavior; this has been shown

49

particularly well with public response to wildlife management actions (Donnelly and
Vaske 1995, Riley and Decker 2000a).

In risk-based situations, beliefs about risk can have strong influences on public
attitudes (Slovic 1987). Research indicates that people are more willing to tolerate risk
from activities that they feel are beneficial, from activities in which they participate
voluntarily, and from hazards that are familiar, equitable, and have less catastrophic
potential (Slovic 1987). Further, risk assessments must consider not only risks
perceived from a Specific hazard, but also risks perceived to result from mitigating a
hazard (Knuth et al. 1992). Public trust in the individuals and institutions responsible
for managing risk has proven to be necessary for minimizing risk management-related
conflicts and promoting effective risk communication (Knuth 1990, Slovic 1993).

Studies of risk have only recently been conducted vis-a-vis wildlife management
(Riley and Decker 2000b). Such research has found that beliefs about risk have
implications for public response to wildlife policies, Specifically wildlife population
goals, due to perceived risks to property, such as crop damage (Knuth et al. 1992), or
human health and safety, such as human-animal interactions (Riley and Decker 2000b)
car-deer collisions and zoonotic diseases (Knuth et al. 1992). In order to communicate
with publics in wildlife management Situations that involve risk, managers need
information about the risks that people perceive from a potential hazard, as well as the
costs that people perceive to be associated with mitigating the hazard (Knuth et a1.
1992). Unless the benefit of policies designed to eliminate risks exceeds the costs of

eliminating risks, stakeholders may be resistant to such policies.

50

The bovine tuberculosis issue

Michigan is currently facing a wildlife disease issue that poses risk to wildlife,
agriculture, and public health, but also involves social cost in order to be eradicated.
Bovine tuberculosis has been discovered at unprecedented levels in Michigan’s white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) herd (O’Brien et al. 2001); the area of greatest
prevalence has been a five-county area in the northeastern portion of Michigan’s Lower
Peninsula. Baiting and feeding practices of hunters and area residents have likely
contributed to this situation (Schmidt et al. 1997). Baiting is defined in Michigan
policy as putting out food materials to attract, lure, or entice [deer] as an aid in hunting”
(MDNR 2003); in contrast, feeding is defined as “placing food materials out that attract
deer for any reason other than for hunting” (MDNR 2003). These practices likely
contributed to the spread of bovine tuberculosis by two main mechanisms. First, they
encouraged artificially high ntunbers of deer to congregate at bait and feed piles
(Schmidt et al 1997). This enabled bovine tuberculosis to spread via aerosols, or
infected moisture droplets that are expelled when a tuberculous animal sneezes or
coughs, and through saliva left on half-eaten foodstuffs. Second, by supplementing
deer diets, feeding allowed more deer to survive in northeast Michigan, which likely
facilitated the spread of bovine TB through density-dependent effects (Schmitt et al.
1997)

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has been given a
mandate to reduce the prevalence of bovine TB in Michigan wildlife to a non-detectible
level (hereafter referred to as “eradication”) (Engler 1999). The MDNR recognizes that

hunters are critical partners in accomplishing this effort in white-tailed deer; the MDNR

51

and their partner agencies have cited the need for continued hunter education and
communication efforts in order to elicit hunter cooperation and compliance with
eradication efforts (Bovine TB Eradication Project 2003). Indeed, many of the
eradication strategies that the MDNR has implemented are aimed at altering hunter
behavior and require hunter cooperation in order to be successful. For example, in
order to reduce deer numbers, the MDNR instituted unlimited antlerless deer permits
and extended the deer hunting season in northeast Michigan. The Natural Resources
Commission, the policy-making authority over the MDNR Wildlife Division, instituted
a ban on baiting white-tailed deer (for hunting purposes) and feeding white-tailed deer
(for recreational viewing or supplemental feeding purposes) in northeast Michigan in
order to reduce nose-to-nose contact between deer and, in the case of feeding, to
decrease deer numbers by eliminating an artificial nutrition source.

In order to realize the goal of bovine TB eradication, the MDNR needs support
from Michigan hunters. Two different, albeit related, types of hunter support are
critical for accomplishing bovine TB eradication. Hunters must support the bovine TB
eradication goal in principle because bovine TB eradication involves serious
commitment and resource allocation from agencies and the public to be achieved
(Nelson 1995). Roswurm and Raney (1973) cited lack of public commitment to the
goal of bovine TB eradication as the primary obstacle to bovine TB eradication
nationwide. Without support for the goal to eradicate bovine TB this initiative can be
stymied through public demands that resources be allocated elsewhere. In addition,
hunters must support bovine TB eradication in practice by cooperating and complying

with bovine TB eradication policies and regulations. Efforts to reduce deer numbers

52

and nose-to-nose contact between deer will not be achieved without hunter participation
in the extended deer hunting season and antlerless permit programs and compliance
with bait and feed bans. However, many hunters have responded with hostility toward
and noncompliance with the MDNR’s bovine TB eradication policies (Sharp 1999).
Qualitative research with hunters in northeast Michigan has suggested that hunters
conceptually distinguish between both types of eradication support (support in principle
and support in practice), further demonstrating the need for this distinction to be
understood before communication efforts can be adequately designed (M.L. Dom,

Michigan State University, unpublished data).

Problem statement and theoretical framework

Achieving bovine TB eradication in Michigan white-tailed deer requires support
from hunters, both in principle and in practice. However, state agencies had no
representative data on hunter attitudes toward the bovine TB eradication goal and
eradication strategies, nor had anyone determined the belief structures that serve as
antecedents to these attitudes. State agencies are best equipt to develop messages that
influence stakeholder positions if they understand the factors underlying stakholder
attitudes and behaviors (Fishbein and Manfredo 1992); such information could greatly
enhance the effectiveness of ongoing bovine TB issue communication efforts. For
these reasons, we conducted a survey of northeast Michigan hunters in order to assess
and compare their attitudes toward the bovine TB eradication goal and eradication

efforts, as well as to determine the variables that contribute to these attitudes.

53

The Theory of Reasoned Action provides a potentially useful model for
conceptualizing variables that contribute to one’s intention to support bovine TB
eradication. This theory is used to predict one’s behavioral intention from one’s
attitudes and subjective norms (i.e., the influence of “important others’” attitudes and
the relative importance a person places on the wishes of others) and the beliefs and
evaluations that precede them (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Bright and Manfredo (1996),
for instance, utilized the Theory of Reasoned Action to model public attitudes toward
the behavioral intention of supporting wolf reintroduction. As we mentioned above,
however, there are two behavioral intentions that can influence one’s overall intention
to support bovine TB eradication. These are the intention to support the goal of bovine
TB eradication in principle, and the intention to support bovine TB eradication efforts
in practice. These two behavioral intentions, according to the Theory of Reasoned
Action, will each be best predicted by the corresponding attitude toward the goal of
bovine TB eradication in principle, and attitude toward Specific eradication strategies in
practice. This paper focuses on understanding the beliefs that underlie these two sets of
attitudes. While we do not specifically examine other key components of the Theory of
Reasoned Action with regard to the bovine TB issue (primarily due to the lack of key
measures)- such as subjective norms and actual behavioral intentions/behavior- careful
attention to underlying beliefs constitutes an important contribution considering the
lacunae of studies in this area (i.e., risk analyses of wildlife management situations).

The Theory of Reasoned Action posits that specific belief structures will underlie
attitudes that predict behavioral intentions. We wanted to determine which belief

structures underlie hunter attitudes toward bovine TB eradication in principle versus in

54

practice in order to inform ongoing communication efforts. Because of the risk-related
nature of the bovine TB issue, we assessed hunter beliefs about the following topics.
First, we determined hunter beliefs about the risks posed by bovine tuberculosis in
northeast Michigan. We assessed beliefs about risk of bovine TB to animal health, as
this was the clearest risk relevant to the bovine TB issue. We evaluated beliefs about
the risk of bovine TB to human health, including beliefs about food safety, as such
beliefs have been found to influence public attitudes toward measures to reduce disease
prevalence in other zoonotic disease issues (McGuill et al. 1997). We asked deer
hunters whether their hunting satisfaction had been compromised by the presence of
bovine TB in northeast Michigan to assess whether bovine TB posed risks to deer
hunter satisfaction. Because the bovine TB issue could deter tomists from visiting or
hunting in northeast Michigan, we asked hunters whether the bovine TB issue has hurt,
and thereby posed risk to, the northeast Michigan economy.

Next, government efforts to mitigate risks from hazards (such as wildlife diseases)
often result in new risks, or costs, to communities or individuals. Beliefs about these
costs may also influence public attitudes. Therefore, we determined hunters’ beliefs
and evaluations of the costs that they might incur due to efforts aimed at mitigating
bovine TB risks, specifically due to the bait and feed bans and to the proposed
reduction in deer numbers (as accomplished through the extended deer hunting season
and unlimited antlerless deer permits). We did not quantify specific costs; we instead
inferred costs from the benefits that hunters had to forego due to bovine TB eradication
policies. We determined the frequency of bait and feed use among northeast Michigan

hunters, as well as the importance of each practice to those individuals who had baited

55

or fed deer. In order to infer the costs of reduced deer in northeast Michigan to deer
hunter satisfaction, we asked them how important it is to their deer hunting satisfaction
that they harvest a deer and see many deer (i.e., the deer density-dependent components
of their hunting satisfaction) and we asked about their preference for the size of the deer
herd in their county of residence.

Third, we asked hunters about their beliefs about the risk managers (or state
agencies) involved in the bovine TB issue, as these beliefs have been shown to be
important antecedents to attitudes in risk-related situations (Slovic 1993). Peters,
Covello, and McCallum (1997) found that public trust in government institutions, and
public perceptions of agency credibility, depended on the public’s beliefs about an
agency’s knowledge and expertise, openness and honesty, and concern and care;
therefore, we focused on hunter beliefs about these attributes of risk managers in the
bovine TB issue. Attitudes toward the state agencies involved in this Situation are also
of particular importance as there has traditionally been a great deal of mistrust of
government in this part of Michigan.

Next, we addressed beliefs about the bovine TB eradication goal and beliefs about
the reasoning that underlies bovine TB eradication strategies (e. g. beliefs about bovine
TB transmission). We asked hunters whether they believed that bovine TB eradication
is possible, because attitude toward a goal, or toward the strategies used to achieve a
goal, could certainly be influenced by one’s belief about whether a goal can be
achieved. We measured beliefs about bovine TB transmission in order to evaluate

whether hunters believed some of the basic tenets of bovine TB transmission

56

mechanisms (i.e., that bovine TB can be transmitted on infected feed and through close
contact) that provided impetus for the bait and feed bans.

Finally, we also identified potentially relevant hunter background variables to test
their influence on attitudes toward bovine TB eradication. We asked hunters about
their age and gender, as these are basic sociodemographic variables that have been
shown to influence public attitudes toward natural resource issues in the past (Kellert
1980, Kellert and Berry 1987, Kaltenborn, Bjerke and Vitterso 1999). We asked about
property ownership and the type of property on which individuals hunted because these
variables can influence the frequency and amount of past bait and feed use (i.e., those
who own property and hunt on private land tended, before the bait and feed bans, to be
more likely to consistently use bait and feed). We asked hunters about the implement
they typically used when deer hunting (i.e., bow, firearm, or both) because bow hunters
have reported higher bait use. Finally, we asked about the number of years an
individual has been a deer hunter in order to determine whether experience as a deer
hunter affected eradication attitudes.

Figure 1 presents the model that we use to evaluate stakeholder attitudes toward
the bovine TB eradication goal, and bovine TB eradication strategies, from which
hunter intention to support the bovine TB eradication goal and strategies may be
inferred. In order to explore the beliefs and background characteristics that might
contribute to hunter attitudes toward bovine TB eradication, our model uses the same
independent variables to predict two different dependent variables (hunter attitude
toward bovine TB eradication in principle and hunter attitude toward bovine TB

eradication in practice). We hypothesize that different beliefs will account for the

57

variance in a multiple regression model predicting hunter attitudes toward the bovine
TB eradication goal in principle, and bovine TB eradication strategies in practice.
More specifically, we hypothesize that beliefs and evaluations regarding bovine TB-
related risks will be significant predictors of attitude toward bovine TB eradication in
principle because it follows that those who perceive higher risk related to bovine TB
would be more willing to agree with the principle that it must be eradicated. In
contrast, we posit that beliefs and evaluations regarding the cost of bovine TB risk
mitigation will be Significant predictors of attitude toward bovine TB eradication in
practice because those who incur the most opportunity cost due to practical bovine TB
eradication policies will likely be less supportive of those policies. We hypothesize that
beliefs about the bovine TB eradication goal will predict attitude toward bovine TB
eradication in principle, while beliefs about bovine TB transmission will predict
attitude toward bovine TB eradication in practice because each set of beliefs is more
specific to one of the two eradication attitudes.

We further predict that beliefs about risk managers (the agencies involved in
bovine TB eradication) will have significant positive influences on respondent support
for bovine TB eradication in principle and in practice (i.e., respondents with more
favorable attitudes toward the relevant government agencies are expected to be more
supportive of the agency policies and rules with regard to bovine TB). Finally, we
expect that hunters’ background characteristics will play only a slight role in

determining their attitudes toward eradication in principle and in practice.

58

Methods
We began our research by interviewing hunters (N = 18) in the 5-county area of
northeast Lower Michigan that was most affected by bovine tuberculosis. Hunters were
chosen through purposive snowball sampling: MDNR personnel and hunter
interviewees identified additional hunters to be contacted for interviewing. We
conducted the interviews in order to identify stakeholder concerns and clarify

terminology to be used on the questionnaire.

Questionnaire development and content

Our questionnaire consisted of items in 6 major topic areas. We asked hunters
about 1) background characteristics, 2) beliefs and evaluations regarding bovine TB-
related risks, 3) beliefs and evaluations regarding the costs of bovine TB risk
mitigation, 4) beliefs about bovine TB eradication and eradication strategies, 5) beliefs
about state agencies, and 6) attitudes toward bovine TB eradication in principle and in
practice. A copy of the full questionnaire is available in Appendix C (beginning on

page 109).

Background characteristics

We asked hunters about the year in which they were born (which we then
converted to age), their gender, and their northeast Michigan property ownership
(“yes,” “no”). We asked hunters about the number of years they had been a deer

hunter, the hunting implement that they typically use (“firearm,” “bow,” or “both”), and

59

the type of land on which they primarily hunted in northeast Michigan (“private,”

“public,” or “equally on both”).

Beliefs and evaluations regarding bovine T B-related risks

We asked hunters about their beliefs regarding the risks of bovine tuberculosis to
animal health, human health, food safety, their hunting satisfaction and the northeast
Michigan economy. We asked whether they believed that bovine TB is a serious threat
to the health of the Michigan deer herd, and to the health of livestock in Michigan
(“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). We asked hunters whether they believed that

9, ‘6

humans can get bovine tuberculosis (“yes, no,” or “unsure”); we further asked those
who believed that humans can get bovine tuberculosis to evaluate the chance of
someone getting bovine TB in northeast Michigan if the disease is not eradicated
(“extremely high” to “extremely low”). We then added these two variables to create
one variable that described hunters’ perceived risk of bovine TB to humans (see Table
III-1 for a description of each value of this variable). We asked hunters whether they
believed that beef and milk from northeast Michigan are safe to consume, whether the
presence of bovine TB in northeast Michigan caused a decrease in their hunting

satisfaction, and whether they believed that the bovine TB issue has hurt the economy

in northeast Michigan (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”).

Beliefs and evaluations regarding the costs of bovine TB risk mitigation

We asked hunters if they had fed deer on property in northeast Michigan before

the feed ban, and if they had used bait when hunting in northeast Michigan before the

60

bait ban (“yes,” “no”). For those who had fed/baited deer, we further asked how
important feeding/baiting deer was to them (“very important” to “not important,” or
“unsure”). We then combined feed use and the importance of feeding deer to the
individual into one variable and bait use and the importance of baiting to the individual
into another variable (see Table 111-1 for a description of each value of these variables).
Next, we asked hunters how important it is to their hunting enjoyment to see
many deer (“very important” to “not important,” or “unsure”), and to harvest a deer
(“very important” to “not important,” or “unsure”). We then added answers to these
two variables (treating “unsure” responses as missing) in order to create a combined
variable that measured deer density-dependent components Of hunting satisfaction. We
also asked hunters to evaluate the number of deer that they believe would be a
reasonable management goal in the county in which they live in order to determine

preference for deer numbers (“no deer” to “at least twice as many deer” or “unsure”).

Beliefs about the bovine TB eradication goal and strategies

We also asked hunters about some specific beliefs regarding the bovine TB
eradication goal and transmission mechanisms that could affect their attitudes toward
the bovine TB eradication goal and eradication strategies. We asked hunters whether
they believed it is possible to eradicate bovine TB in northeast Michigan (“strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree”). We also asked about their beliefs regarding bovine TB
transmission between deer by nose-to-nose contact and on infected feed, as these
transmission mechanisms were the main reasons why the bait and feed bans were

implemented. We asked hunters to evaluate the statements, “bovine TB spreads

61

between deer by nose-to-nose contact” (“definitely true” to “definitely false”), and
“bovine TB spreads from one deer to other deer on infected feed” (“definitely true” to
“definitely false”). We then added respondent answers to these two questions about
bovine TB transmission and created one variable that measured hunters’ summative

transmission beliefs.

Beliefs about state agencies

We asked hunters a number of questions about their beliefs about the MDNR and
the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA), as these were two of the agencies
with primary responsibility for managing the bovine TB issue. We asked hunters to
evaluate statements about the accuracy of the information that each agency provides (to
assess beliefs about agency openness and honesty), whether each agency cares about
sportsmen’s concerns (to assess beliefs about agency concern and care), and the job
each agency has done dealing with the bovine TB issue. We also asked hunters about
their belief on whether the MDNR managing natural resources in a scientifically sound
manner (to assess beliefs about MDNR knowledge and expertise). We then created a
state agency beliefs scale. We removed any cases from this computation where the
respondent left three or more questions unanswered. Any remaining unanswered
questions (for respondents who only left one or two questions unanswered and were
therefore not removed from the analysis) were assigned the “unsure” category. The
highest possible score, indicating that the respondent strongly agreed with each of the
statements is 35. The lowest score, indicating that a respondent strongly disagreed with

all of the statements is 7, and the midpoint for the index is 21.

62

Attitude toward bovine TB eradication in principle and in practice

To determine hunter attitudes toward bovine TB eradication in principle, versus in
practice, we asked the following questions. First, we asked hunters whether or not they
support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB in wildlife and domestic livestock in
Michigan. Their responses ranged from “Yes, I strongly support the overall goal to
eradicate bovine TB,” to “No, I strongly oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine
TB.” Individuals who responded “don’t care” were coded 0 with “unsure” respondents.
Next, we asked hunters about their opinion on the bait ban, the feed ban, unlimited
antlerless deer permits, and the extended deer-hunting season (“strongly support” to
“strongly oppose”). We added hunter responses to these four questions about Specific
eradication strategies to create one variable measuring their summative attitude toward
the practical efforts aimed at achieving the goal of bovine TB eradication. Again, we
coded “don’t care” responses as “unsure” when creating this variable. In order to give
this variable the same range as bovine TB eradication support in principle (+2 to —2),

we divided it by 4.

Questionnaire administration

We administered the questionnaire using a multiple contact mailing method
(Dillman 1978). Our sample included adult individuals (18 years or older) who both
hunt and reside in the 5-county area of northeast Michigan with the greatest prevalence
of bovine tuberculosis. Our sample of hunters was taken from the Michigan Department

of Natural Resources 1998 general license purchasers list, a list which contains each

63

hunter’s county of residence and the county in which his/her deer hunting license was
purchased. To determine whether these individuals had actually hunted in northeast
Michigan (as Opposed to purchasing their license there but hunting elsewhere in the
state), we asked respondents to indicate whether they had hunted in the 5-county area
since 1996; we then removed those who indicated that they had not for analysis (N =
15). We used the 1998 license purchasers list because this was the last year that hunters
were allowed to use bait and feed in northeast Michigan. We did not want to bias the
sample by only querying individuals who continued to hunt in northeast Michigan in
1999 despite the bans. We sampled 1,000 individuals, and we sent the first mailing in
October 2000. We Offered a prize drawing of a $50 gift certificate to a hunting catalog
for all respondents who mailed their completed survey within two weeks. We then sent
a reminder postcard, and finally another mailing to those who had not yet responded.

All surveys received by April 2001 were included in analysis.

Data analysis

We used descriptive statistics to evaluate stakeholder demographics. We used
scale reliability analysis and principle component analysis to determine the reliability
and dimensionality of our state agency beliefs scale. We used bivariate correlation to
determine whether there was a relationship between bovine TB eradication support in
principle and bovine TB eradication support in practice, and a one-sample t-test to
determine if the mean values for each type of support were significantly different from
one another. We used multiple linear regression to predict bovine TB eradication

support in principle and bovine TB eradication support in practice using antecedent

64

beliefs and hunter background characteristics. Table 111-1 presents the coding for the
dependent and independent variables used in the models. Independent variables
included beliefs about the threat of bovine TB to deer herd health and livestock health,
perceived risk of bovine TB to humans, belief about the safety of beef and milk from
northeast Michigan for consumption, belief about the effect of bovine TB on hunting
satisfaction, belief that the bovine TB issue has hurt the northeast Michigan economy,
feed use and importance, bait use and importance, deer density-based components of
hunting satisfaction, deer numbers preference, the belief that it is possible to eradicate
bovine TB, transmission beliefs, beliefs about government agencies and hunter

background variables.

Results
We mailed our survey to a total of 1,000 individuals. After adjusting for

nondeliverable surveys and ineligible respondents, the survey achieved a response rate

of 62% (N = 592). The survey has a sampling error (at 95% confidence) of +/-4%.

Sample background characteristics

Table 111-2 presents respondent demographics and other background
characteristics. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 100 years (mean 52 years, s.d.
17.17). Eighty-nine percent of our respondents were male, while 11% were female;
this is largely due to the fact that men are more likely to hunt than women and
necessarily made up more Of the initial sample and the population from which the

sample was drawn. Approximately 86% of our respondents reported that they own

65

property in northeast Michigan. Respondents had hunted deer from 2 to 76 years (mean
= 31 years, s.d. = 15.5). A majority (53%) of respondents indicated that they hunted
with a firearm only. F orty-Six percent reported hunting with either firearm or bow,
while only 1% of respondents were solely bow hunters. Respondents were most likely

to report that they hunt on private land.

Beliefs and evaluations regarding bovine TB—related risks

Table 111-3 presents hunter attitudes about bovine TB-related risks. F ifty-four
percent of respondents believed that bovine TB is a serious threat to the health of the
deer herd and 33% believed that bovine TB in wild deer is a serious threat to livestock
health in Michigan. Only 42% Of respondents believed that humans can get bovine
tuberculosis. However, of those who believed that humans can contract bovine TB,
very few (9%) thought there was a high risk of someone contracting the disease in
northeast Michigan if the disease is not eradicated. Seventy-five percent of hunters
believed that beef and milk from northeast Michigan are safe to consume, and 46%
believed that the presence of bovine TB in northeast Michigan has caused their hunting
satisfaction to decrease. Finally, 81% agreed that the bovine TB issue has hurt the

economy in northeast Michigan.

Beliefs and evaluations regarding the cost of bovine TB risk mitigation
Table 111-4 presents hunter feeding and baiting information. Seventy-three
percent of our respondents fed deer on property in northeast Michigan before the feed

ban. Of those who had fed deer (n = 411), 67% percent reported that feeding deer

66

before the feed ban was very important/important to them. A majority of respondents
(86%) had used bait when hunting in northeast Michigan before the bait ban. Of those
who had used bait (n = 488), 64% reported that baiting was very important/important to
them. Table 111-5 presents hunter attitudes toward deer density-based attributes of
hunting satisfaction and preferences for deer numbers. When asked about some of the
deer density-based attributes of hunting satisfaction, 70% of hunters reported that it is
important or very important for their deer hunting enjoyment that they see many deer.
Fifty percent of hunters reported that it is important or very important for their deer
hunting enjoyment that they harvest a deer.

Hunters, on average, preferred slightly more deer in their county of residence than
were there at the time of the survey (mean = 0.471 , S. D. = 2.02; individuals who
marked “unsure” for this question were removed from this analysis). Nineteen percent
of hunters preferred the current number of deer in their county, while 3% preferred no

deer, and 9% preferred twice as many deer in their county as were currently there.

Beliefs about the bovine TB eradication goal and strategies

Table III-6 presents the hunter beliefs about the achievability of the bovine TB
eradication goal and about bovine TB transmission. Twenty-seven percent of
respondents believed that it is possible to eradicate bovine TB in northeast Michigan,
while 45% did not believe that such eradication is possible, and 30% were unsure.
Seventy-two percent of respondents believed that bovine TB spreads between deer by
nose-to-nose contact, while only 44% believed that bovine TB spreads between deer on

infected feed.

67

Beliefs about state agencies

Table 111—7 presents hunter attitudes toward the MDNR and the MDA. This scale
resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87, indicating that the scale items were highly
consistent and reliable. The scale was found to be bidimensional using principle
components analysis. Two factors accounted for 72% of the variance in the items of
our state agency beliefs scale. These two factors were beliefs about the MDA and
beliefs about the MDNR. However, despite there being two dimensions, for our
purposes it is sufficient to treat the scale as one measure, and we conducted analysis
this way for simplicity. The mean state agency beliefs scale score was 19.35 (SD. =
5.34) out of 35, so hunters, on average, held a slightly negative opinion of the MDNR
and the MDA and the way in which these agencies have handled the bovine TB issue.
For example, 26% of respondents believed that the MDNR provides accurate
information on natural resource issues, and 33% of respondents believed that the MDA
provides accurate information on agriculture issues. Few respondents believed that the
MDNR and the MDA have done a good job dealing with the bovine TB issue (19% and

17% respectively).

Attitude toward bovine TB eradication in principle and in practice

Table 111-8 presents hunter attitudes toward the eradication goal and eradication
strategies. The mean value for bovine TB eradication support in principle was 0.64
(SD. = 1.10), which shows that, on average, hunters were slightly supportive of the

goal to eradicate bovine TB in Michigan. Fifty-nine percent responded that they

68

support or strongly support the goal to eradicate bovine TB in “wildlife and domestic
livestock in Michigan.” However, hunters were not nearly as supportive of particular
eradication strategies. The mean bovine TB eradication support in practice response for
hunters was -0.48 (SD. = 1.01), indicating that, on average hunters opposed bovine TB
eradication strategies. Only 33% of hunters supported the feed ban, and 26% of hunters
supported the bait ban. Thirty-seven percent of hunters supported the extended deer
hunting season in northeast Michigan, and only 21% of hunters supported the unlimited
antlerless deer permit policy. Even so, there was a rather strong correlation between
bovine TB eradication support in principle and bovine TB eradication support in
practice (r = 0.453, p S 0.01). But, a one-sample t-test Showed that mean values for
bovine TB eradication support in principle and bovine TB eradication support in
practice were significantly different from one another (p S 0.01) (recall that the variable
measuring bovine TB eradication support in practice was divided by 4 so both variables

have the same range).

Predicting eradication support in principle and in practice

Table 111-9 presents the bivariate and multivariate regression coefficients between
the explanatory variables and dependent variables (bovine TB eradication support in
principle and bovine TB eradication support in practice). All explanatory variables
except 3 (the belief that bovine TB has decreased hunter satisfaction, the belief that
beef and milk from northeast Michigan are safe to consume, and the belief that the
bovine TB has hurt the northeast Michigan economy) were significantly correlated with

bovine TB eradication support in principle at the bivariate level. The variables that

69

were most strongly correlated with bovine TB eradication support in principle at the
bivariate level were perceived threat to deer health (r = 0.472, p s 0.01) and perceived
threat to livestock health (r = 0.437, p S 0.01). All explanatory variables except 2 (the
perceived risk of bovine TB to humans and the belief that beef and milk from northeast
Michigan are safe to consume) were significantly correlated with bovine TB eradication
support in practice at the bivariate level. The variables that were most strongly
correlated with bovine TB eradication support in practice at the bivariate level were the
perceived threat of bovine TB in wild deer to livestock health (r = 0.46, p S 0.01) and
transmission beliefs (r = 0.446, p S 0.01).

At the multivariate level, or when we controlled for all other variables, only 7
variables remained significant in predicting bovine TB eradication support in principle.
These variables were as follows: the belief that bovine TB is a threat to deer health, the
belief that bovine TB in wild deer is a threat to livestock health, feed use and
importance, deer-based components of hunting satisfaction, the belief that bovine TB
eradication is possible, transmission beliefs and gender. This model resulted in an R2
of 0.356. Ten variables were significant in predicting support for bovine TB
eradication in practice. These variables were as follows: the belief that bovine TB in
wild deer is a threat to livestock health, the belief that the bovine TB disease has caused
a decrease in one’s hunting satisfaction, feed use and importance, bait use and
importance, deer-based components of hunting satisfaction, numbers preference, the
belief that bovine TB eradication is possible, transmission beliefs, beliefs about the

government and property ownership. This model resulted in an R2 of 0.474.

70

Discussion

Our results showed that there was indeed a difference between hunter support for
bovine TB eradication in principle versus in practice. For example, 59% of hunters
supported the goal of bovine TB eradication in principle, but only 33% supported the
feed ban, a specific bovine TB eradication strategy. Table III-10 shows respondent
attitudes toward the goal of bovine TB eradication by attitudes toward the feed ban.
Twenty-seven percent Of those represented (N = 148) supported bovine TB eradication
in principle, but did not support the feed ban as a means to achieve bovine TB
eradication. Only 10% of hunters in the table opposed both the goal to eradicate bovine
TB and the feed ban. Thirty-six percent of hunters in this table (N = 201) were unsure
about their opinion on the goal of bovine TB eradication, the feed ban, or both. These
results suggest that there may be promising opportunities for agency officials to utilize
communication efforts to increase support for bovine TB eradication among northeast
Michigan hunters. A full 90% of hunters were either supportive or unsure of their
Opinion on the goal to eradicate bovine TB, the feed ban, or both. This means that
while there is certainly not full support of the bovine TB eradication goal and efforts
among northeast Michigan hunters, there is either sympathy or uncertainty among a
strong majority of them.

The Theory of Reasoned Action proved to be a usefiil tool for guiding our model,
as hunter beliefs and demographics accounted for a substantial amount of the variance
in hunter attitude toward bovine TB eradication in principle (R2 = 0.356) and in practice
(R2 = 0.474). Hunter beliefs were indeed strong antecedents to their attitudes. Similar

to previous research (Donnelly and Vaske 1997, Riley and Decker 2000a), we found

71

that background characteristics were not as successful at predicting hunter attitudes as
were specific beliefs; a different background variable was significant in each model, but
the effect of the coefficients was not strong for either variable. We did find that
different beliefs and background characteristics accounted for significant amounts of
the variance in attitude toward bovine TB eradication in principle versus in practice at
the multivariate level. However, there were beliefs that were significant in both
models.

We found partial support for our hypothesis that beliefs about risk will be
significant predictors of attitude toward bovine TB eradication in principle. Only two
of the six risk-related belief variables (the belief that bovine TB is a serious threat to
deer health (b = 0.228, p S 0.01), and the belief that bovine TB in wild deer is a serious
threat to livestock health (b = 0.138, p S 0.01)) were significant in predicting bovine TB
eradication support in principle. However, two of the risk-related belief variables were
also significant predictors of bovine TB eradication support in practice (the belief that
bovine TB in wild deer is a serious threat to livestock health (b = 0.180, p S 0.01), and
the belief that one’s hunting satisfaction has decreased due to the presence of bovine
TB in northeast Michigan (b = -0.099, p S 0.05)). We asked the question that addressed
risk of bovine TB to hunting satisfaction in order to prompt hunters to consider the
relationship between the bovine TB disease itself and their hunting satisfaction.
However, we suspect that hunters believed that bovine TB has affected their hunting
satisfaction via the eradication strategies, so this may be why this variable was
significant and negatively correlated with attitude toward bovine TB eradication in

practice at the multivariate level. Although the same number Of risk-related beliefs was

72

significant in both models, the effects of the coefficients in the model predicting
attitude toward bovine TB eradication in principle tended to be stronger than in the
model predicting attitude toward bovine TB eradication in practice; this demonstrates
that risk-related beliefs were more important in predicting attitude toward bovine TB
eradication in principle. These results suggest that beliefs about the risks posed by
bovine TB are better predictors of attitude toward bovine TB eradication in principle;
however, beliefs about the risk of bovine TB to livestock health may motivate hunter
support for both the eradication goal and eradication strategies. We suspect that beliefs
about risks posed to livestock health were Significant at the multivariate level in both
models because such concerns were not off-set by beliefs about personal costs (i.e.,
hunters do not perceive livestock health to threaten their recreation preferences).
Respondents were relatively unconcerned about the risk of bovine TB to human
health. We found a significant, but very small, correlation between the perceived risk
of bovine TB to humans and bovine TB eradication support in principle at the bivariate
level (0.09, p S 0.05), but no significant correlation between the perceived risk of
bovine TB to humans and bovine TB eradication support in practice at the bivariate
level. Perceptions of the risk of bovine TB to human health were not significant in
either model at the multivariate level. Hunters tended to agree that beef and milk from
northeast Michigan are safe to consmne, but this variable, another indicator of human
health concern, also was not related to attitude toward bovine TB eradication in
principle or in practice at either the bivariate or multivariate levels. As stated earlier,
people tend to accept risks that are equitable, voluntary, and non-catastrophic (Slovic

1987). Hunter exposure to bovine TB could be considered equitable and voluntary (i.e.,

73

all hunters are equally susceptible, and one volunteers to hunt and thereby to expose
himself/herself to deer-related bovine TB risks). Further bovine TB is non-catastrophic
in its effects, as it has a nearly 95% cure-rate for those who contract the illness;
immunocompetent adults rarely contract bovine TB (Nelson 1999). These results
demonstrate that perception of human health risk does not, and will not likely, serve as
a strong motivation for stakeholder support for bovine TB eradication goals or
strategies.

We found support for our hypothesis that beliefs and evaluations of the costs
related to bovine TB risk mitigation would predict hunter attitude toward bovine TB
eradication in practice at the multivariate level. All four of our cost-related variables
were significant in the model that predicted bovine TB eradication support in practice
(feed use and importance (b = -0. 187, p S 0.01) bait use and importance (b = -0.122, p S
0.05), deer density-based components of hunting satisfaction (b = -0.10, p S 0.05), and
deer numbers preference (b = -0.10, p S 0.05)). This means that those who did not use
bait or feed (or valued baiting and feeding less), those who placed less value on deer
density-based components of the hunting experience, and those who preferred fewer
deer in their county of residence were most likely to support bovine TB eradication in
practice.

Only 2 of our 4 variables measuring cost-related beliefs and evaluations were
significant in the model that predicted bovine TB eradication support in principle (feed
use and importance (b = -0.089, p S 0.05), and deer-based components of hunting
satisfaction (b = -0.088, p S 0.05)). However, though these effect coefficients were

significant, they were very small. This means that there was only a slight tendency for

74

those to who did not feed deer (or to whom feeding was less important) and those who
placed less value on deer density-dependent components for their hunting satisfaction
to be more supportive of bovine TB eradication in principle.

We found partial support for our hypothesis that belief about the bovine TB
eradication goal (i.e. the achievability of the goal) will be related to attitude toward
bovine TB eradication in principle. This belief was significant in both models, (attitude
toward bovine TB eradication in principle: b = 0.202, p S 0.01; attitude toward bovine
TB eradication in practice: b = 0.102, p S 0.05). Further, we only found partial support
for our hypothesis that beliefs about bovine TB transmission will be related to attitude
toward bovine TB eradication in practice. Once again, these beliefs (which were
combined into one variable) were significant in both models (attitude toward bovine TB
eradication in principle: b = 0.119, p S 0.05; attitude toward bovine TB eradication in
practice: b = 0.199, p S 0.01). In fact, transmission beliefs had the highest effect
coefficient of all of the significant variables used to predict bovine TB eradication
support in practice. These results suggest that hunter beliefs about the achievability of
the bovine TB eradication goal and about bovine TB transmission are not
inconsequential to their attitude toward bovine TB eradication in principle and in
practice. State agencies should consider enhancing communication efforts that provide
evidence that bovine TB eradication efforts are working, when such evidence becomes
available, as well as evidence supporting their claims about bovine TB transmission
mechanisms. Such efforts may enhance hunter support for bovine TB eradication goals

and efforts.

75

We also found partial support for our hypothesis that beliefs about risk managers
will have significant positive influence on hunter support for bovine TB eradication in
principle and in practice. Our results showed that beliefs about government agencies
were significant at the multivariate level only for the model that predicted bovine TB
eradication support in practice (b = 0.160, p S 0.01). Such results demonstrate that
agency credibility is an important factor in on-going bovine TB eradication efforts.
Recall that hunters had an overall slightly negative attitude toward the MDNR and the
MDA. This further suggests that these agencies should look for ways to maintain, and
even strengthen their credibility among northeast Michigan hunters. However, we must
caution that public trust in risk managers is tenuous and asymmetrical, or, more easily
destroyed than created (Slovic 1993). Therefore, an agency must be fully committed in
efforts to enhance its credibility. Public trust may not be attained in the short run, and
may require open, two-way communication with stakeholders in order to ever be
achieved (Slovic 1993).

Finally, previous research might predict women to be more sympathetic to bovine
TB eradication goals than men because women tend to be more sensitive to situations
involving risk (Boholm and LOfstedt 1999). However, we did not find support for this
notion. On the contrary, our research found a slight tendency for men to be more
supportive of the bovine TB eradication goal than women. Previous predictions about
gender and natural resource attitudes have typically been drawn about samples of
suburban women, and females in our sample population were entirely from rural areas.
We also surveyed only female hunters, who may tend to have different perspectives

than a sample of female non-hunters. We also found that hunters who owned property

76

in northeast Michigan were more supportive of bovine TB eradication in practice,
although this effect coefficient was rather small (b = 0.073, p S 0.05).

We have found that northeast Michigan hunters differentiate between bovine TB
eradication in principle and in practice when forming attitudes about bovine TB
eradication. State agencies must consider this distinction as they develop future
communication efforts. Future social research on wildlife disease issues should
recognize the difference between support for such efforts in principle and in practice as
well. Beliefs about the risks of bovine TB to animal health, and the belief that bovine
TB eradication is possible are the strongest antecedents to attitude toward bovine TB
eradication in principle. State agencies should clarify risks and emphasize that
eradication efforts can be successful in order to bolster support for bovine TB
eradication in principle. In contrast, beliefs and evaluations of the cost of bovine TB
eradication efforts to hunters, beliefs about bovine TB transmission, beliefs about the
government, and beliefs about the risk of bovine TB to livestock health are the
variables that most effectively predict support for bovine TB eradication in practice.
Efforts to enhance hunter support for bovine TB eradication strategies should attempt to
minimize perceived costs to of eradication strategies to hunters, clarify the evidence for
baiting and feeding as mechanisms of bovine TB spread, and enhance agency
credibility.

We believe that our work could have been strengthened by determining the
personal importance of the bovine TB issue to hunters (Bright and Manfredo 1996) and
investigating subjective norms that could influence hunter attitudes toward bovine TB

eradication and eradication strategies (F ishbein and Manfredo 1992), and we

77

recommend that future work address these topics. Future research should also elaborate
on risks and costs perceived by stakeholders by quantifying these perceived risks and
costs. Further, we recommend that future research test specific communication
messages among hunters to assess their effectiveness at shaping public attitudes to the

benefit of bovine TB eradication goals.

78

Literature cited

Boholm, A. and R. LOfstedt. 6 September 1999. Issues of risk, trust, and knowledge:
The Hallandsas tunnel case. Ambio 28:556-561.

Bovine TB eradication project. 2003. Bovine Tuberculosis. Accessed February 21, 2003.
<http://www.bovinetb.com>.

Bright, A. D. and M. J. Manfredo. 1995. The quality of attitudinal information regarding
natural resource issues: the role of attitude- strength, importance, and information.
Society and Natural Resources 82399-414.

Bright, A. D. and M. J. Manfredo. Spring 1996. A conceptual model of attitudes toward
natural resource issues: a case study of wolf reintroduction. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife l(l):1-2l.

Brooks, J. J ., R. J. Warren, M. G. Nelms, and M. A. Tarrant. 1999. Visitor attitudes
toward and knowledge of restored bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore,
Georgia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 1089-1097.

Center for Animal Disease Information and Analysis. September 1996. Assessing the
risks associated with M bovis in Michigan free-ranging white-tailed deer. United
States Department of Agriculture, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health,
CAIDA Technical Report No. 01-96, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Decker, D. J., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 1996. Human dimensions research: its
importance in natural resource management. Pages 29-47 in A. W. Ewert, editor.

Natural resource management: The human dimension. Westview Press, Inc.,
Boulder, Colorado, USA.

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

Donnelly, M. P., and J. J. Vaske. 1997. Predicting attitudes toward a moose hunt.
Society and Natural Resources 81307-319.

Engler, J. Executive directive 1998-1. January 29, 1998. Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1975. Beliefs, attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to the theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

F ishbein, M. and M. J. Manfredo. 1992. A theory of behavior change. Pages 29-50 in
M. J. Manfredo, editor. Influencing human behavior: Theory and applications in
recreation, tourism, and natural resource management. Sagamore Publishing,
Inc., Charnpaign, Illinois, USA.

79

Kaltenborn, 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. Americans’ attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An
update. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 1:87-119.

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

Knuth, B. A. 1990. Risk communication: A new dimension in Sport-fisheries
management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 10:374-381.

Knuth, B. A., R. J Stout, W. F. Siemer, D. J. Decker, and R. C. Stedman. 1992. Risk
management concepts for improving wildlife population decisions and public
communication strategies. Transactions of the 57th Annual Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference 63-75.

Krosnick, J. A., and R. E. Petty. 1996. Attitude strength: An overview. Pages 1-24 in R
E. Petty and J. A. Krosnick, editors. Attitude strength: Antecedents and
consequences. Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA.

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

McGuill, M. W., S. M. Kreindel, A. DeMaria, Jr., and C. Rupprech. August 1, 1997.
Knowledge and attitudes of residents in two areas of Massachusetts about rabies

and an oral vaccination program in wildlife. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association 21 1:305-309.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division. 2003. Baiting and
Feeding Publications. Accessed March 21, 2003.

Nelson, A. M. 1999. The cost of disease eradication: small pox and bovine
tuberculosis. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 894:83-91.

O’Brien, D. J ., S. D. Fitzgerald, T. J. Lyon, K. L. Butler, J. S. F ierke, K. R. Clark, S. M.
Schmitt, T. M. Cooley, and D. E. Berry. 2001. Tuberculosis lesions in free-
ranging white-tailed deer in Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37:608-613.

Peters, R. G., V. T. Covello, D. B. McCallum. 1997. The determinants of trust and
credibility in risk communication: An empirical study. Risk analysis 17(1):43-54.

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

80

Riley, S. J ., and D. J. Decker. 2000b. Risk perception as a factor in wildlife
stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 5:50-62.

Roswurm, J. D, and A. F. Ranney. 1973. Sharpening the attack on bovine tuberculosis.
American Journal of Public Health 63:884-886.

Schmidt, S. M., S. D. Fitzgerald, T. M. Cooley, C. S. Bruning-Fann, L. Sullivan, D.
Berry, T. Carlson, R. B. Minnis, J. B. Payeur, and J. Sikarskie. 1997. Bovine
tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed deer from Michigan. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases 33:749-758.

Sharp, E. 1999. Many hunters ignoring baiting ban in TB zone. Detroit Free Press. 4
November 1999; section D: 4.

Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science. 236:280-285.

Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13:675-682.

Tarrant, M. A., A. D. Bright, and H. K. Cordell. 1997. Attitudes toward wildlife
species protection: assessing moderating and mediating effects in the value-
attitude relationship. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2(2):1-20.

Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, and K. Wittmann. 1998. Using normative

beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society
and Natural Resources 11:649-662.

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

838.5
E 538580 PS
reggae. 9 c2825
838680 m... _
0:33 roan—8
9 .8258— i
0365.3.
5 5:868“. PS
ton—95 8 cornea:—

 

gwEOME E 558680 ammo—3.5%: cages no.“ toga we 3on @88on ._ 3E

 

8558320 “252385 Econ—om

 

 

 

8:33 5 cos—3680
mhm eBBQ ouBE<

 

 

 

_

_
_
_

 

$065? 883 Bowen—2: it Sena flozom
manage. =o_.8_vflo mhm Sena mtg—om
Bow cocaofiflo mhm 05 Sena mug—om

Seance. one Em
.8 $8 2: wEEmwB macros—go was muozom

mo—mt
uoaflourmhm wait—“woe 223290 was mug—om

 

 

 

 

392:5 E soc—86nd“.
mhm EaBS 025:2

 

 

 

 

A885? 383 Hummus: it Seen £23m
8&886 newsflash mhm Soon mmozom
Row :o:8€80 em 05 Soon flozom

Saunas be: Em
mo $8 05 macaw»: 3222.35 93 £33m

flat
pogo—ourmhm map—awe. 253335 28 £30m

 

 

 

 

8558830 2:09.03 financed

 

 

82

111!
AH

Pen:

 

Table 111-1. Variable coding for multivariate models

 

Variable

Coding

 

The bovine TB disease is a serious
threat to the health of the deer herd
in Michigan.

Bovine TB in wild deer is a serious
threat to the health of livestock in
Michigan.

Perceived risk of bovine TB to humansl

Beef and milk from northeast Michigan
are safe to consume.

My hunting satisfaction has decreased
because of the presence of bovine TB
in northeast Michigan.

The bovine TB issue has hurt the
economy in northeast Michigan.

5 Strongly agree

4 Agree

3 Unsure

2 Disagree

l Strongly disagree

5 Strongly agree

4 Agree

3 Unsure

2 Disagree

1 Strongly disagree

5 Yes, Extremely high
4 Yes, High

3 Yes, Low

2 Yes, Extremely low
1 Yes, Unsure

0 No or unsure

5 Strongly agree

4 Agree

3 Unsure

2 Disagree

1 Strongly disagree

5 Strongly agree

4 Agree

3 Unsure

2 Disagree

1 Strongly disagree

5 Strongly agree

4 Agree

3 Unsure

2 Disagree

1 Strongly disagree

 

83

Table III-1. Variable coding for multivariate models- continued

 

Feed use and importance2

Bait use and importance3

Deer-based components of hunting
satisfaction4

Preferred number of deer5

It is possible to eradicate bovine TB
in northeast Michigan

Transmission beliefs6
Beliefs about the government7

Bovine TB eradication support in
principle8

Bovine TB eradication support in
practice9

4 Fed deer, very important

3 Fed deer, important

2 Fed deer, somewhat important

1 Fed deer, not important or unsure
0 Did not feed deer

4 Baited deer, very important

3 Baited deer, important

2 Baited deer, somewhat important

1 Baited deer, not important or unsure
0 Did not bait deer

Continuous

Continuous

5 Strongly agree

4 Agree

3 Unsure

2 Disagree

1 Strongly disagree

Continuous

Continuous

5 Yes, I strongly support the goal to eradicate BTB

4 Yes, 1 support the goal to eradicate BTB

3 I am unsure/don‘t care about the goal to eradicate
BTB

2 No, I oppose the goal to eradicate BTB
1 No, I strongly oppose the goal to eradicate BTB

Continuous

 

I This variable was the respondent’s cumulative score on two questions. 1) Do you believe that
humans can get bovine tuberculosis? 2) In your opinion, what is the chance that some person will
get bovine TB in northeast Michigan if the disease is not eradicated? (This question was only asked
of those who answered “yes” to question number 1.)

84

2 This variable was the respondent’s cumulative score on two questions. 1) Before the feed ban, did
you feed deer on property in northeast Michigan? 2) How important was feeding deer to you before
the feed ban? (This question was only asked of those who answered “yes” to question number 1.)

3 This variable was the respondent’s cumulative score on two questions. 1) Did you use bait when you
hunted in northeast Michigan before the bait ban? 2) How important was baiting deer to you before
the bait ban? (This question was only asked of those who answered “yes” to question number 1.)

4 This variable was the respondent’s cumulative score on two questions. (How important is each of the
following for your deer hunting enjoyment?) .. 1) To see my deer. 2) To harvest a deer.

5 In the figure above, E represents the current number of deer in the county in which you live. Choose
the letter above the line which is closest to the number of deer you think would be a reasonable
management goal just before the 2001 deer hunting season in the county in which you live.

6 This variable was the respondent’s cumulative score on two questions. 1) Bovine TB spreads
between deer by nose-to-nose contact” (“definitely true” to “definitely false”). 2) “Bovine TB
spreads from one deer to other deer on infected feed” (“definitely true” to “definitely false”).

7 This variable was the respondent’s cumulative score on seven questions. (Answers: strongly agree to
strongly disagree). 1) The MDA provides accurate information on agriculture issues. 2) The MDA
cares about sportsmen’s concerns. 3) The MDA has done a good job dealing with the bovine TB
issue. 4) In general, the DNR manages natural resources in a scientifically sound manner. 5) The
DNR provides accurate information on natural resource issues. 6) The DNR cares about sportsmen’s
concerns. 7) The DNR has done a good job dealing with the bovine TB issue.

8 Do you support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB in wildlife and domestic livestock in
Michigan?

9 This variable was the respondent’s cumulative score on four questions. l)“What is your opinion of
the ban on feeding deer as defined above?” (Definition provided: “Feeding deer is defined in
Michigan policy as placing food materials out that attract deer for any reason other than for hunting”)
2) “What is your opinion of the ban on baiting deer as defined above?” (Definition provided:
“Baiting deer is defined as putting out food materials for deer to lure, attract, or entice them as an aid
in hunting”) 3) Please indicate your opinion about the following DNR management decision(s) in
northeast Michigan for the 1998-2000 deer hunting seasons: extended deer hunting season. 4) Please
indicate your opinion about the following DNR management decision(s) in northeast Michigan for
the 1998-2000 deer hunting seasons: unlimited antlerless deer permits.

85

Pr:

 

Table 111-2. Hunter background characteristics

 

 

Variable Statistic Result
Age1 Range 18-100 years

Mean 52.46 years

Std. Dev. 17.17

n 571
Gender2 % Male 89

% Female 1 1

n 561
Property ownership3 % Yes 86

% No 14

n 555
Years hunted deer4 Range 2-76 years

Mean 30.77 years

Std. Dev. 15.55

n 563
Hunting implement5 % Firearm 53

°/o BOW l

% Both firearm & bow 46

n 565
Type of land hunted6 % Private land 65

% Public land 18

% Equally on both 18

n 566

 

1 In what year were you born? (Age = (1999 — year bom))

2 Are you male or female?

3 Do you own property in northeast Michigan?

4 Approximately how many years have you hunted deer?

5 Which of the following do you normally use when you deer hunt?
6 On what type of land do you primarily hunt in northeast Michigan?

86

 

If

D0

get .

 

Table 111-3. Hunter beliefs about bovine TB-related risks

 

 

Variable Statistic Result
The bovine TB disease is a % Strongly agree 14
serious threat to the health of % Agree 40
the deer herd in Michigan % Unsure 16
% Disagree 25
% Strongly disagree 5
n 556
Bovine TB in wild deer is a serious % Strongly agree 9
threat to the health of livestock % Agree 24
in Michigan % Unsure 25
% Disagree 31
% Strongly disagree 1 I
n 564
Do you believe that humans can % Yes 42
get bovine tuberculosis? % No 37
% Unsure 21
n 553
Likelihood that someone will get % Extremely high 3
bovine TB in NE Michigan if the % High 6
disease is not eradicated % Low 34
% Extremely low 53
% Unsure 5
n 218
Beef and milk from northeast % Strongly agree 24
Michigan are safe to consume % Agree 51
% Unsure 20
% Disagree 4
% Strongly disagree 1
n 563
My hunting satisfaction has % Strongly agree 15
decreased because of the presence % Agree 29
of bovine TB in northeast Michigan % Unsure 10
% Disagree 36
% Strongly disagree 1 1
n 552

 

87

Table 111-3. Hunter beliefs about bovine TB-related risks — continued

 

The bovine TB issue has hurt the % Strongly agree 37

economy in northeast Michigan. % Agree 44
% Unsure ll
% Disagree 6
% Strongly disagree 1
n 557

 

88

in r.
bait

H0“
you 1

 

Table III-4. Hunter feeding and baiting behavior

 

 

Variable Statistic Result
Before the feed ban, did you feed "/0 Yes 73
deer on property in northeast % No 27
Michigan? n 562
How important was feeding deer to % Very important 35
you before the feed ban?l % Important 32
% Somewhat important 24
% Not important 8
% Unsure 1
n 391
Did you use bait when you hunted % Yes 86
in northeast Michigan before the % No 14
bait ban? n 565
How important was baiting deer to % Very important 33
you before the bait ban?2 % Important 31
% Somewhat important 25
"/0 Not important 1 l
% Unsure 0
n 470

 

1 This question was only asked of those who answered “yes” to the question, “before the feed ban, did

you feed deer on property in northeast Michigan?”

2 This question was only asked of those who answered “yes” to the question, “did you use bait when

you hunted in northeast Michigan before the bait ban?”

89

Table III-5. Deer density-dependent components of hunter satisfaction and deer

numbers preferences

 

 

Variable Statistic Result
How important is seeing many deer % Very important 34
to your deer hunting enjoyment? % Important 36
% Somewhat important 6
% Not important 0
% Unsure 24
n 550
How important is harvesting a deer to % Very important 20
your deer hunting enjoyment? % Important 30
% Somewhat important 16
% Not important 0
% Unsure 34
n 548
Preference for deer numbers in % A - At least 2X as many deer 9
respondent's county of residence1 % B 2
% C - 50 % more deer 20
% D 14
% E - Current number of deer 19
% F 7
% G - Half as many deer 11
% H 4
% I - No deer 3
% J - Not sure I l
n 556

 

1 In the figure above, E represents the current number of deer in the county in which you live. Choose
the letter above the line which is closest to the number of deer you think would be a reasonable
management goal just before the 2001 deer hunting season in the county in which you live.

90

Table 111-6. Hunter beliefs about bovine TB eradication and transmission

 

 

Variable Statistic Result
It is possible to eradicate bovine TB % Strongly agree 7
in northeast Michigan % Agree 20
% Unsure 30
% Disagree 30
% Strongly disagree 15
n 556
Bovine TB spreads between deer % Definitely true 22
by nose-to-nose contact % Probably true 50
% Unsure l7
% Probably false 8
% Definitely false 3
n 560
Bovine TB spreads from one deer to % Definitely true 10
other deer on infected feed % Probably true 34
% Unsure 31
% Probably false 21
% Definitely false 5
n 557

 

91

Table III-7. Hunter beliefs about state agencies

 

 

Variable Statistic Result
ligzrlrlggrprovrdes accurate % Strongly agree 4
on agriculture issues % Agree 29
% Unsure 47
% Disagree I6
% Strongly disagree 4
n 546
The MDA cares about sportsmen's % Strongly agree 2
concerns % Agree 15
% Unsure 36
% Disagree 33
% Strongly disagree 13
n 547
The MDA had done a good job dealing % Strongly agree 1
with the bovine TB issue % Agree l6
% Unsure 44
% Disagree 27
% Strongly disagree 13
n 543
In general, the DNR manages natural % Strongly agree 3
resources in a scientifically sound % Agree 30
manner % Unsure 30
% Disagree 25
% Strongly disagree 12
n 546
i113: rItz‘litlilogrovrdes accurate % Strongly agree 2
on natural resource issues % Agree 24
% Unsure 33
% Disagree 29
% Strongly disagree 12
n 545
The DNR cares about sportsmen's % Strongly agree 5
concerns % Agree 29
% Unsure 27
% Disagree 27
% Strongly disagree 13
n 543

 

92

Table 111-7. Hunter beliefs about state agencies — continued

 

The DNR has done a good job dealing % Strongly agree 1

with the bovine TB issue % Agree 18
% Unsure 30
% Disagree 31
% Strongly disagree 21
n 547

 

93

Table 111-8. Attitude toward bovine TB eradication in principle and in practice

 

 

Variable Statistic Result
Opinion on the goal to eradicate % Strongly support 24
bovine TB in principlel % Support 35
% Unsure 25
% Oppose 8
% Strongly oppose 5
% No opinion 3
n 560
Feed ban opinion2 % Strongly support 13
% Support 20
% Unsure 12
% Oppose 27
% Strongly oppose 28
% Don't care 2
n 566
Bait ban opinion3 % Strongly support 15
% Support I I
% Unsure I3
% Oppose 27
% Strongly oppose 32
% Don't care 3
n 560
Opinion on the extended deer % Strongly support 1 1
hunting season4 % Support 26
% Unsure 12
% Oppose 23
% Strongly oppose 27
% Don't care I
n 564
Opinion on unlimited antlerless deer % Strongly support 8
permitss % Support 13
% Unsure 12
% Oppose 28
% Strongly oppose 39
% Don't care I
n 561

 

I Do you support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB in wildlife and domestic livestock in Michigan?

2 “What is your opinion of the ban on feeding deer as defined above?” (Definition provided: “Feeding
deer is defined in Michigan policy as placing food materials out that attract deer for any reason other
than for hunting”)

94

3 “What is your opinion of the ban on baiting deer as defined above?” (Definition provided: “Baiting deer
is defined as putting out food materials for deer to lure, attract, or entice them as an aid in hunting”)

4 Please indicate your opinion about the following DNR management decision(s) in northeast Michigan
for the 1998—2000 deer hunting seasons: extended deer hunting season.

5 Please indicate your opinion about the following DNR management decision(s) in northeast Michigan
for the 1998-2000 deer hunting seasons: unlimited antlerless deer permits.

95

Table 111-9. Bivariate correlation coefficients and standardized multiple correlation

coefficients

 

Support for Bovine TB Eradication

 

 

 

. In principle In rinci Ie In ractice In ractice
Explanatory variable bivariate multivariate bizariate muliivariate
BTB is a threat to deer health 0.472" 0.228" 0.385" 0.071
BTB is a threat to livestock health 0.437" 0.138“ 0.460” 0.180“
Perceived risk of BTB to humans 0090* 0.019 0.062 0.012
NE MI beef and milk are safe to eat -0.029 0.054 -0.024 0.040
BTB has hurt hunting satisfaction -0.040 -0.039 -0.159"'* -0.099"'
BTB issue has hurt NE MI economy -0.026 0.020 -0.109"”" -0.005
Feed use and importance -0.I92** -0.089* -0.344"‘* -0.187*"'
Bait use and importance -0.152** 0.018 -0.3 19" -0.122"‘
Deer density and hunting satisfaction -0.153*"‘ -0.088* -0.226’Ml -0.100"'
Deer numbers preference -0.119** -0.009 -0. I 89” -0.100"'
BTB eradication is possible 0.378" 0.202" 0.299" 0102"
Transmission beliefs 0.351" 0.119" 0.446" 0.199"
Beliefs about the government 0.322" 0.083 0.393“ 0.160“
Age 0.07 I 0.040 -0.104"‘ —0.036
Gender 0.049 0088* -0.01 I 0.030
Property ownership -0.01 1 0.003 -0.008 0073"
Years hunting deer 0.015 -0.031 -0.053 -0.044
Hunting implement -0.061 0.003 ~0.046 0.020
Type of land hunted -0.065 -0.007 —0.105"' -0.023
n 501 505
R2 0.356 0.474

 

"‘ P5005 “‘ P500]

1 Male = 1, Female = 0

2 Yes = 1, N0 = 0

3 Bow or both =1, Firearm = 0
4 Private or both = 1, Public = 0

96

Table III-10 Attitudes toward the eradication goal and the feed ban

Attitude toward the BTB eradication goal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support Unsure Oppose
137 27 16 Support
42 27 5 Unsure
I48 100 56 Oppose

 

 

97

Attitude toward
the feed ban

Non-Resident Hunter Letter #1:
October 23, 2000

Dear (Personalized Name),

In the past few years, the people of Michigan have been presented with a particularly
challenging task: how to properly address bovine tuberculosis. Attempts to eradicate bovine
tuberculosis (TB) have received both criticism and support from Michigan residents. We are
very interested in your Opinions about this issue, and in your opinions about related topics, such
as wildlife and agriculture. Bovine TB has now been found in various places in the State of
Michigan; however, we are specifically interested in the perspectives of Michigan hunters who
have hunted in Northeast Michigan. We are asking for about 15 minutes of your time to
complete the enclosed questionnaire regarding bovine tuberculosis and related topics. Please
do not be concerned if you do not feel that you are very familiar with the issue. We are
interested in everyone ’s responses.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only so that we may check your name off of the
mailing list when your survey is returned. Information from the surveys we receive will be
summarized and reported to state agencies so that they have a better understanding of the
opinions and concerns of Michigan hunters. However, your name and address will never be
associated with your responses in any way. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is a hunter. If the
person to whom this letter is addressed does not fit this description, please give this survey to a
person in your household who does. 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 in the
enclosed stamped and self-addressed envelope. We would really appreciate it because this will
enable us to take you off of our list so that we don’t send you reminders to complete the survey.

If you respond by November 6, 2000, your name will be entered in a prize drawing to receive
a $50 gift certificate to the Cabelas Catalog. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have. Feel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. If you have any further concerns
about participating in this study, you may also write to Dr. David Wright, Chair of the
Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at 246
Administration Building, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, or call him at (517) 355-2180. Thank
you for your assistance. Your contribution to the success of this study is essential, and it will
be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

98

Non-Resident Hunter Letter #2:
November 17, 2000

Dear (Personalized Name),

A few weeks ago you were mailed 3 “Bovine Tuberculosis Issue Opinion Survey.” As of
today, we have not received your completed survey. If you have recently mailed us your
completed survey, we would like to thank you for returning it. If you have not yet filled out the
survey, we hope you will take the opportunity to do so now. We are sending you another
survey, along with a stamped return envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

The people of Michigan have been presented with a challenging task in recent years: how to
properly address bovine tuberculosis. Your opinions on this issue are particularly important to
us because you are a Michigan hunter. We are asking for about 15 minutes of your time to
complete the enclosed questionnaire. Whether or not you feel you are very familiar with the
issue, we encourage you to respond. We are interested in everyone ’3 opinions.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only so that we may check your name off of the
mailing list when your survey is returned. lnforrnation from the surveys we receive will be
summarized and reported to state agencies so that they have a better understanding of the
opinions and concerns of Michigan hunters. However, your name and address will never be
associated with your responses in any way. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age, is a hunter, and is a resident
of Michigan. If the person to whom this letter is addressed does not fit this description, please
give this survey to a person in your household who does. 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 in the enclosed stamped and self-addressed envelope.

If you respond by December 15, 2000, your name will be entered into a new prize drawing to
receive a $50 gift certificate to Wal—Mart. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have. Feel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. If you have any further concerns
about participating in this study, you may also write to Dr. David Wright, Chair of the MSU
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at 246 Administration Building, East
Lansing, Michigan, 48824, or call him at (517) 355-2180. Thank you for your assistance.
Your contribution is essential to the success of this study. We truly appreciate it!

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

99

Resident Hunter Letter #1:

October 23, 2000

Dear (Personalized Name),

In the past few years, the people of Michigan have been presented with a particularly
challenging task: how to properly address bovine tuberculosis. Attempts to eradicate bovine
tuberculosis (TB) have received both criticism and support fi'om Michigan residents. We are
very interested in your opinions about this issue, and in your opinions about related topics, such
as wildlife and agriculture. Bovine TB has now been found in various places in the State of
Michigan; however, we are specifically interested in the perspectives of hunters from Northeast
Michigan. We are asking for about 15 minutes of your time to complete the enclosed
questionnaire regarding bovine tuberculosis and related topics. Please do not be concerned if
you do not feel that you are very familiar with the issue. We are interested in everyone 's
responses.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only so that we may check your name off of the
mailing list when your survey is returned. Information from the surveys we receive will be
summarized and reported to state agencies so that they have a better understanding of the
opinions and concerns of Northeast Michigan hunters. However, your name and address will
never be associated with your responses in any way. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age, is a hunter, and is currently
a resident of Northeast Michigan. If the person to whom this letter is addressed does not fit this
description, please give this survey to a person in your household who does. 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 in the enclosed stamped and self—addressed envelope. We
would really appreciate it because this will enable us to take you off of our list so that we don’t
send you reminders to complete the survey.

If you respond by November 6, 2000, your name will be entered in a prize drawing to receive
a $50 gift certificate to the Cabelas Catalog. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have regarding this survey. F eel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. If you have
any further concerns about participating in this study, you may also write to Dr. David Wright,
Chair of the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at
246 Administration Building, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, or call him at (517) 355-2180.
Thank you for your assistance. Your contribution to the success of this study is essential, and it
will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

100

Resident Hunter Letter #2:
November 17, 2000

Dear (Personalized Name),

A few weeks ago you were mailed a “Bovine Tuberculosis Issue Opinion Survey.” As of
today, we have not received your completed survey. If you have recently mailed us your
completed survey, we would like to thank you for returning it. If you have not yet filled out the
survey, we hope you will take the opportunity to do so now. We are sending you another
survey, along with a stamped return envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

The people of Michigan have been presented with a challenging task in recent years: how to
properly address bovine tuberculosis. Your opinions on this issue are particularly important to
us because you are a Northeast Michigan hunter. We are asking for about 15 minutes of your
time to complete the enclosed questionnaire. Whether or not you feel you are very familiar
with the issue, we encourage you to respond. We are interested in everyone ’s opinions.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only so that we may check your name off of the
mailing list when your survey is returned. Information from the surveys we receive will be
summarized and reported to state agencies so that they have a better understanding of the
opinions and concerns of Northeast Michigan hunters. However, your name and address will
never be associated with your responses in any way. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age, is a hunter, and is currently
a resident of Northeast Michigan. If the person to whom this letter is addressed does not fit this
description, please give this survey to a person in your household who does. 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 in the enclosed stamped and self-addressed envelope.

If you respond by December 15, 2000, your name will be entered into a new prize drawing to
receive a $50 gift certificate to Wal-Mart. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have. Feel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. If you have any further concerns
about participating in this study, you may also write to Dr. David Wright, Chair of the MSU
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at 246 Administration Building, East
Lansing, Michigan, 48824, or call him at (517) 355-2180. Thank you for your assistance.
Your contribution is essential to the success of this study. We truly appreciate it!

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

101

Livestock Producer Letter #1:
October 23, 2000

Dear (Personalized Name),

In the past few years, the people of Michigan have been presented with a particularly
challenging task: how to properly address bovine tuberculosis. Attempts to eradicate bovine
tuberculosis (TB) have received both criticism and support from Michigan residents. We are
very interested in your opinions about this issue, and in your opinions about related topics, such
as agriculture and wildlife. Bovine TB has now been found in various places in the State of
Michigan; however, we are specifically interested in the perspectives of people who raise
livestock in Northeast Michigan. We are asking for about 15 minutes of your time to complete
the enclosed questionnaire regarding bovine tuberculosis and related topics. Please do not be
concerned if you do not feel that you are very familiar with the issue. We are interested in
everyone ’s responses.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only so that we may check your name off of the
mailing list when your survey is returned. Information from the surveys we receive will be
summarized and reported to state agencies so that they have a better understanding of the
opinions and concerns of Northeast Michigan livestock producers. However, your name and
address will never be associated with your responses in any way.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age, is a full-time or part-time
livestock producer, and is currently a resident of Northeast Michigan. If the person to whom
this letter is addressed does not fit this description, please give this survey to a person in your
household who does. 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 in the enclosed
stamped and self-addressed envelope. We would really appreciate it because this will enable us
to take you off of our list so that we don’t send you reminders to complete the survey.

If you respond by November 6, 2000, your name will be entered in a prize drawing to receive
a $50 gift certificate to Quality Farm & Fleet. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have. Feel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. If you have any further concerns
about participating in this study, you may also write to Dr. David Wright, Chair of the
Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at 246
Administration Building, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, or call him at (517) 355-2180. Thank
you for your assistance. Your contribution to the success of this study is essential, and it will
be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

102

Livestock Producer Letter #2:
November 17, 2000

Dear (Personalized Name),

A few weeks ago you were mailed a “Bovine Tuberculosis Issue Opinion Survey.” As of
today, we have not received your completed survey. If you have recently mailed us your
completed survey, we would like to thank you for returning it. If you have not yet filled out the
survey, we hope you will take the opportunity to do so now. We are sending you another
survey, along with a stamped return envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

The people of Michigan have been presented with a challenging task in recent years: how to
properly address bovine tuberculosis. Your opinions on this issue are particularly important to
us because you are a livestock producer from Northeast Michigan. We are asking for about 15
minutes of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire. Whether or not you feel that you
are very familiar with the issue, we encourage you to respond. We are interested in everyone ’s
opinions.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only so that we may check your name off of the
mailing list when your survey is returned. Information from the surveys we receive will be
summarized and reported to state agencies so that they have a better understanding of the
opinions and concerns of Northeast Michigan livestock producers. However, your name and
address will never be associated with your responses in any way. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and currently raises
livestock in Northeast Michigan. If the person to whom this letter is addressed does not fit this
description, please give this survey to a person in your household who does. 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 in the enclosed stamped and self-addressed envelope.

If you respond by December 15, 2000, your name will be entered into a new prize drawing to
receive a $50 gift certificate to Wal-Mart. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have. Feel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. If you have any further concerns
about participating in this study, you may also write to Dr. David Wright, Chair of the MSU
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at 246 Administration Building, East
Lansing, Michigan, 48824, or call him at (517) 355-2180. Thank you for your assistance.
Your contribution is essential to the success of this study. We truly appreciate it!

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

103

Business Ownfer/Manager Letter #1:

October 23, 2000

Dear Sir or Madam,

In the past few years, the people of Michigan have been presented with a particularly
challenging task: how to properly address bovine tuberculosis. Attempts to eradicate bovine
tuberculosis (TB) have received both criticism and support from Michigan residents. We are
very interested in your opinions about this issue, and in your opinions about related topics, such
as wildlife and agriculture. Bovine TB has now been found in various places in the State of
Michigan; however, we are interested in the opinions and perspectives of the owners/managers
of Northeast Michigan businesses. We are asking for about 15 minutes of your time to
complete the enclosed questionnaire regarding bovine tuberculosis and related topics. Please
do not be concerned if you do not feel that you are very familiar with the issue. We are
interested in everyone ’s responses.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only so that we may check your name off of the
mailing list when your survey is returned. Information from the surveys we receive will be
summarized and reported to state agencies so that they have a better understanding of the
opinions and concerns of Northeast Michigan business owners/managers. However, your
name and address will never be associated with your responses in any way. Your privacy
will be protected to the maximum amount allowable by law.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently the owner
or manager of a business in Northeast Michigan. If the person to whom this letter is addressed
does not fit this description, please give this survey to a person in your business who does. If
no one in your business fits this description, please write on the survey that no one was eligible
to complete it, and send the survey back to us in the enclosed stamped and self-addressed
envelope. We would really appreciate it because this will enable us to take you off of our list
so that we don’t send you reminders to complete the survey.

We ask that you kindly respond by November 6, 2000. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have. P eel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. If you have any
further concerns about participating in this study, you may also write to Dr. David Wright,
Chair of the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at
246 Administration Building, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, or call him at (517) 355-2180.
Thank you for your assistance. Your contribution to the success of this study is essential, and it
will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

104

Business Owner/Manager Letter #2:
November 17, 2000

Dear Sir or Madam,

A few weeks ago you were mailed a “Bovine Tuberculosis Issue Opinion Survey.” As of
today, we have not received your completed survey. If you have recently mailed us your
completed survey, we would like to thank you for returning it. If you have not yet filled out the
survey, we hope you will take the opportunity to do so now. We are sending you another
survey, along with a stamped return envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

The people of Michigan have been presented with a challenging task in recent years: how to
properly address bovine tuberculosis. Your opinions on this issue are particularly important to
us because you own or manage a business in Northeast Michigan. We are asking for about 15
minutes of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire. Whether or not you feel you are
very familiar with the issue, we encourage you to respond. We are interested in everyone ’s
Opinions.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only so that we may check your name off of the
mailing list when your survey is returned. Information from the surveys we receive will be
summarized and reported to state agencies so that they have a better understanding of the
opinions and concerns of Northeast Michigan business owners/managers. However, your
name and address will never be associated with your responses in any way. Your privacy
will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently the owner
or manager of a business in Northeast Michigan. If the person to whom this letter is addressed
does not fit this description, please give this survey to a person in your business who does. If
no one in your business fits this description, please write on the survey that no one was eligible
to complete it, and send the survey back to us in the enclosed stamped and self-addressed
envelope.

We ask that you kindly respond by December 15, 2000. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have. Feel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. If you have any
further concerns about participating in this study, you may also write to Dr. David Wright,
Chair of the MSU Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at 246 Administration
Building, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, or call him at (517) 355-2180. Thank you for your
assistance. Your contribution is essential to the success of this study. We truly appreciate it!

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

105

General Public Letter #1:
October 23, 2000

Dear (Personalized Name),

In the past few years, the people of Michigan have been presented with a particularly
challenging task: how to properly address bovine tuberculosis. Attempts to eradicate bovine
tuberculosis (TB) have received both criticism and support from Michigan residents. We are
very interested in your opinions about this issue, and in your opinions about related topics, such
as wildlife and agriculture. Bovine TB has now been found in various places in the State of
Michigan; however, we are specifically interested in the perspectives of Northeast Michigan
residents. We are asking for about 15 minutes of your time to complete the enclosed
questionnaire regarding bovine tuberculosis and related topics. Please do not be concerned if
you do not feel that you are very familiar with the issue. We are interested in everyone ’s
responses.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only so that we may check your name off of the
mailing list when your survey is returned. Information from the surveys we receive will be
summarized and reported to state agencies so that they have a better understanding of the
opinions and concerns of Northeast Michigan residents. However, your name and address
will never be associated with your responses in any way. Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by law.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently a resident
of Northeast Michigan. If the person to whom this letter is addressed does not fit this
description, please give this survey to a person in your household who does. 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 in the enclosed stamped and self-addressed envelope. We
would really appreciate it because this will enable us to take you off of our list so that we don’t
send you reminders to complete the survey.

If you respond by November 6, 2000, your name will be entered in a prize drawing to receive
a $50 gift certificate to Wal-Mart. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Feel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. If you have any further concerns about
participating in this study, you may also write to Dr. David Wright, Chair of the Michigan State
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at 246 Administration Building,
East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, or call him at (517) 355-2180. Thank you for your assistance.
Your contribution to the success of this study is essential, and it will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

106

General Public Letter #2:
November 17, 2000

Dear (Personalized Name),

A few weeks ago you were mailed a “Bovine Tuberculosis Issue Opinion Survey.” As of
today, we have not received your completed survey. If you have recently mailed us your
completed survey, we would like to thank you for returning it. If you have not yet filled out the
survey, we hope you will take the opportunity to do so now. We are sending you another
survey, along with a stamped return envelope, to make it easier for you to respond.

The people of Michigan have been presented with a challenging task in recent years: how to
properly address bovine tuberculosis. Your opinions on this issue are particularly important to
us because you are a resident of Northeast Michigan. We are asking for about 15 minutes of
your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire. Whether or not you feel you are very
familiar with the issue, we encourage you to respond. We are interested in everyone ’s opinions.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality when filling out this survey. The survey has
identifying information for mailing purposes only so that we may check your name off of the
mailing list when your survey is returned. Information from the surveys we receive will be
summarized and reported to state agencies so that they have a better understanding of the
opinions and concerns of Northeast Michigan residents. However, your name and address
will never be associated with your responses in any way. Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by law.

This survey is intended for someone who is at least 18 years of age and is currently a resident
of Northeast Michigan. If the person to whom this letter is addressed does not fit this
description, please give this survey to a person in your household who does. 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 in the enclosed stamped and self—addressed envelope.

If you respond by December 15, 2000, your name will be entered into a new prize drawing to
receive a $50 gift certificate to Wal-Mart. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have. Feel free to call me toll free at 1-888-206-4350. If you have any further concerns
about participating in this study, you may also write to Dr. David Wright, Chair of the MSU
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at 246 Administration Building, East
Lansing, Michigan, 48824, or call him at (517) 355-2180. Thank you for your assistance.
Your contribution is essential to the success of this study. We truly appreciate it!

Sincerely,

Angela G. Mertig
Project Manager

107

Follow-29 Postcard

November 3, 2000

Recently you were mailed a questionnaire seeking your opinion about the
bovine tuberculosis issue in Michigan.

If you have already completed and returned the survey, please accept
our sincere thanks! If not, please do so today. Because this has been a
critical issue in 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 mail another one to you.

Sincerely,

A. Mertig
Project Coordinator

 

108

 

 

This survey deals with the bovine tuberculosis (TB) issue in Michigan and
related topics such as wildlife and agriculture. Remember, you don ’t have to
be very familiar with the bovine TB issue in order to answer the survey. _W_e
are interested in everyone ’3 responses.

 

 

 

l HUNTING .

This set of questions deals with different aspects of deer hunting.

 

1. Approximately how many years have you hunted deer? YEARS
2. In how many years of the last 10 years have you hunted deer in Michigan?
YEARS
3. Which of the following do you normally use when you deer hunt? (Check one.)
1 D Firearm
2 Cl Bow

3 CI Both firearm and bow

4. As a recreational activity, how important is deer hunting for you compared to
your other recreational activities? (Check one.)
1 D My most important recreational activity.
2 Cl One of the more important recreational activities I participate in.
3 D No more important than any other recreational activity.
4 Cl Less important than most of my other recreational activities.
5 Cl Not at all important to me as a recreational activity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. How important is each of the following for your deer hunting enjoyment?
(Circle one response for each.)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Important Unsure Somewhat Not
Important Important Important
a. To see many deer VI | U 81 N|
To see a diversity of
wildlife V' ' U S' N' A
c. To spend time in VI 1 U SI NI
nature 7
To harvest a deer VI 1 U 81 Nl
e. To see large bucks VI 1 U 81 Nl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

109

6. In how many years of the last 10 years have you hunted in any of these 5 counties:
Alpena, Alcona, Oscoda, Montmorency, or Presque Isle? YEARS

7. On what type of land do you primarily hunt in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)
1 [:1 Private land
2 CI Public land
3 CI Equally on private and public land

8. Do you plan to hunt in Northeast Michigan during the 2000 hunting season?
(Check one.)
1 Cl Yes (If ‘Yes', please skip to question 9)
2 [:1 No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 10)
3 Cl Unsure (If ‘Unsure’, please skip to question 10)

 

9. For the following statements about deer hunting, please circle Yes, No,
or Unsure.

 

 

a. If you harvest a deer in Northeast Michigan this hunting Y N U
season, do you intend to take it to a DNR check station?
b. If you harvested a deer this hunting season and you

thought it may have bovine TB, would you report this to Y N U
the DNR?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Please skip to question 11)

 

 

 

10. If you do not plan to hunt in Northeast Michigan in 2000, which of the
following is the most important reason why? (Check one.)

I don’t want to hunt in Northeast Michigan because of the bait ban.

I don’t believe there are adequate deer numbers in Northeast

Michigan.

I am concerned about bovine tuberculosis in Northeast Michigan.

I have plans to hunt elsewhere.

I don’t plan to hunt at all in 2000.

Other (please specify)

Na

QU§C¢
DDDCI CID

 

 

 

110

“Baiting” deer is defined in Michigan as puninflut food materials for deer to attract
lgre, or entice them as an aid in hunting. The Natural Resources Commission voted to
ban baiting for the 2000 hunting season in all Michigan counties where a deer has
been found with bovine TB.

 

11. What is your opinion of the ban on baiting deer as defined above? (Check
one.)

1 Cl Strongly support (Please skip to question 12)

2 Cl Support (Please skip to question 12)

3 Cl Unsure (Please skip to question 14)

4 CI Oppose (Please skip to question 13)

5 CI Strongly oppose (Please skip to question 13)

6 CI Don't care (Please skip to question 14)

 

12. Which of the following are reasons why you support the bait ban?

(Check all that apply.) 3’
1 D Baiting increases interference and/or competition among m
deer hunters.
2 CI Baiting brings deer closer together, which could spread bovine TB.
3 CI Baiting deer gives an unfair or unethical advantage to the hunter.
4 D I think baiting results in an overharvest of bucks.
5 Cl Other (please specify)

 

Which one of the reason(s) that you checked above is the most important
reason to you? (Check one and skip to Question 14.)
1 Cl 2 CI 3 CI 4 Cl 5 CI

 

 

(Check all that apply.)
1 CI 1 hunt more effectively with bait.
2 CI I don’t think the government should restrict anyone’s way of hunting.
3 CI I don’t have time to hunt without using bait.
4 Cl Baiting allows me to see more wildlife when I hunt.
5 D Other (please specify)

13. Which of the following are reasons why you oppose the bait ban? -
‘1 J

 

Which one of the reason(s) that you checked above is the most important

reason to you? (Check one.)
1 CI 2 CI 3 CI 4 CI 5 CI

 

 

Ill

14. Would you support a statewide ban on baiting deer? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 C] No
3 Cl Unsure

15. Did you use bait when you hunted in Northeast Michigan before the bait ban?
(Check one.)
CI Yes
2 CI No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 18)

16. How important was baiting deer to you before the bait ban?
(Check one.)
1 D Very Important
2 Cl Important
3 CI Somewhat Important
4 CI Not Important
5 CI Unsure

 

17. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following
statements. (Circle one response for each)

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Even with the bait ban... 51mm” ‘9'“ ”mm mam” Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. ...I am confident In my SA A U D SD

 

 

 

 

 

abiit to arvst a deer.

      
 
 

, I ,. Mt
c. ...mosthuntersl

 
   

k ow
enjoy hunting in Northeast
Michigan as much as they
used to.

 

 

     

112

 

18. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements. (Circle one response for each.)
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

a. Most DNR biologists feel that
baiting is an acceptable SA A
huntin ractice.
i ” NR ConservatIon O Icers

-«' l,‘z-Daflllhfllerzooodeerhummg ‘ .1 ,1...1Ii.""‘

 

.‘ * ‘tfj"l.;l‘l
WIII strqulyenforce the bait SA ' ‘ VA.” 1 1. V..-

 

 

 

 

 

 

.i‘sé Ill" “355‘

 

 

. Please indicate your opinion about the following DNR management decisions in

Northeast Michigan for the 1998-2000 deer hunting seasons.
(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 s
Strongly Support Unsure Oppose Strongly Don't
Support Oppose Care
a. Extended deer
hunting season SS S U 0 SO DC
b. Unlimited i
antlerless deer SS 8 U 0 SO DC
permits ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20.

21.

22.

How effective do you think the extended deer hunting season is at reducing deer
numbers in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)

1 Cl Highly effective

2 CI Effective

3 Cl Slightly effective

4 CI Not at all effective

5 D Unsure

How many antlerless deer permits did you purchase for the 1999 hunting season

in Northeast Michigan? PERMITS
How many antlerless deer permits do you intend to purchase for the 2000 hunting
season in Northeast Michigan? PERMITS

5

113

 

I WHITE-TAILED DEER I

Next, we would like to know about some of your opinions on white-tailed deer
and deer management.

23. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements. (Circle one response for each.)

Deer management in Northeast Michgfli should...
1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Agzree Unjure Dis:gree Strosngly
Agree Dlsagree
a. ...minimize crop losses due to
deer. SA A U D SD
b. ...prevent deer from disturbing or
destroying natural plant SA A U D SD
communities.
c. ...maintain the highest possible
deer harvest (success) rate for SA A U D SD
hunters. .2 _ _ - fl
d. ...ensure car-deer accident rates
are as low as possible. SA A U D SD
e. ...keep deer as physically healthy
as possible. SA A U D SD
f. ...maximize the money that deer
hunters bring to Northeast SA A U D SD
Michigan’s economy.

 

 

 

“Feeding” deer is defined in Michigan as placing food materials out that attract
dear for any reason other than for hunting. The Natural Resources Commission
voted to ban deer feeding in 2000 for all Michigan counties where a deer has
been found with bovine TB. (This is not the same as “baiting”.)

24. What is your opinion of the ban on feeding deer as defined above? (Check one.)
1 CI Strongly support
2 CI Support
3 CI Unsure
4 CI Oppose
5 Cl Strongly oppose
6 D Don’t care

 
    

114

25. Before the feed ban, did you feed deer on property in Northeast Michigan?
(Check one.)
Yes
2 CI No (it ‘No ', please skip to question 27)

26. How important was feeding deer to you before the feed
ban? (Check one.)
1 CI Very important
2 CI Important
3 CI Somewhat important
4 1:) Not important
5 Cl Unsure

 

 

 

 

27. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements. (Circle one response for each.)
1

 

 

2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
, A9709 Disagree
a. It is important for people to
feed deer in order to keep
deer alive through winters in SA A U D so

 

 

 

 

 

g Northeast Mic .

    
     

I

c. The government has unfairly
restricted people's rights by SA
banning deer baiting and deer
feeding.

 

 

115

 

[ BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS ]

The following set of questions deals with bovine tuberculosis (TB) and the
attempts to eradicate the bovine TB disease in Michigan.

28. Do you support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB in wildlife and
domestic livestock in Michigan? (Check one.)
1 D Yes, I strongly support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
2 D Yes, | support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
3 CI i am unsure of my opinion about the overall goal to eradicate
bovine TB.
4 [I No, I oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
5 Cl No. I strongly oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
6 Cl l have no opinion about the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.

29. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.
(Circle one response for each.)

 

1 2 3 4 5

 

 

Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. it is possible to eradicate
bovine TB in Northeast SA A U D SD
Michigan.
b. The bovine TB issue has . . - , ..
. hurt the economy in SA A U :D i . SDI;

Northeast Michigan. : ..2 _. .
c. My hunting satisfaction has
decreased because of the SA A U D SD
presence of bowne T8 In
Northeast Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H6

30. For the following statements about bovine TB, please indicate whether

you think the statement is True or False, or whether you are Unsure.
(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3
True False Unsure
a. There is a vaccine that can be used to keep
. . . . T F U
animals from get’Lng bovrne tuberculosrs.
Eb. Less than 25 deer have been found with bovine T F U
TBkin Michigan since 1995.
c. Animals that have bovine TB almost always
show visible signs of the disease in their T F U
. orgflis and lymph tissue. _
Pd. Most states in the US have found bovine TB in
. . . T F U
their Wildlife.
e. All dairy herds in the State of Michigan must
now be tested for bovine TB every year until T F U
Michigan regains its bovine TB-free status.

 

 

 

 

 

 

31. Do you believe that humans can get bovine tuberculosis? (Check one.)

1 D Yes
2 D No (If ‘No ', please skip to question 34)

3 Cl Unsure (If ‘Unsure’, please skip to question 34)

 

 

32. In your opinion, what is the chance that some person will get bovine TB in

Northeast Michigan if the disease is not eradicated? (Check one.)

 

1 Cl Extremely high 33 H .
. },m . ow much does this concern
2 D H'gh ' you? (Check one.)

1 Cl Very much

2 Cl Somewhat

3 Cl Not very much
4 Cl Not at all

5 CI Unsure

3 Cl Low
4 Cl Extremely low
5 Cl Unsure

 

117

 

[.|’L

ilk

34. These next statements deal with the finding of bovine TB in
some Michigan white-tailed deer. Please indicate how much
you agree or disagree with the following statements. (Circle
one response for each.)

 

 
   
 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
A Dlsagree

 

I am concerned that deer have
been found with bovine TB in
Northeast Michio an.

    
  

 

D

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

It is important for hunters in
Northeast Michigan to have the
deer they harvest checked for
si- ns of bovine TB.

i 1

 
   
  

' ‘ i ,4, , . , . ,
The bovrne TB issue has
discouraged a large number of
people who live in Northeast
Michi-an from hunting.

  
   
   

  

 

 

 

35. These next statements deal with the finding of bovine TB in
some Michigan livestock. Please indicate how much you
agree or disagree with the following statements. (Circle
one response for each.)

 

 

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

 

a. I am concerned that livestock
have been found with bovine TB SA A U D SD
Northeast Mihi-an.

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

It is appop te th
required to have their livestock
tested for bovine TB.
WW“ .1!

and milkfrom Northeast
Michi-an are safe to consume.

 

 

 

118

In a
iox
Mir

36

In addition to livestock and deer, small numbers of other animals, including bear,
fox, coyote, raccoon, and bobcat, have been found with bovine TB in Northeast
Michigan.

36. Before this survey, were you aware that any animals besides livestock and deer
have been found with bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 CI Yes
2 C] No

37. How much does it concern you that these animals have also been found with
bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 Cl Very much
2 Cl Somewhat
3 Cl Not very much
4 Cl Not at all
5 Cl Unsure

 

38. Some people have said that bovine TB spreads in the ways described below.
Please indicate whether you think these proposed means of bovine TB spread
are true or false. (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 1 2 3 4 5
BOVII‘IB TB spreads... Deflnltely Probably Unsure Probably Definitely
True True False False
a. ...between deer by nose-
to-nose contact. DT PT U PF DF
b. ...between livestock by
nose-to-nose contact. DT PT U PF OF
C. ...between deer and
livestock by nose-to-nose DT PT U PF DF
contact.
d. .Tffrom one deer to other' _,, - 2....
deer on infected feed. DT PT U PF DF
e. ...from one livestock
animal to other livestock DT PT U PF DF
animals onlnfected feed.
f. ...from deer to livestock,
or livestock to deer, on DT PT U PF DF
infected feed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

119

39. Please indicate how much you support or oppose the following actions:

 

(Circle one response for each.)
1 2 3 4 5 6

Strongly Support Unsure Oppose Strongly Don't

Support Oppose Care

 

Further reduction in the
number of deer in
Northeast Michigan in SS 8 U 0 80 DC
order to slow the
spread of bovine TB

 

 

Destruction of livestock

animals that are found
to be bovine TB- SS 5 U 0 30 DC

positive in the future

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40. Which, if any, of the activities currently used to eradicate bovine TB would you

41.

42.

NOT support, EVEN lF you were convinced that the action(s) made an essential

contribution to bovine TB eradication? (Check all that apply.)

1 Cl A ban on baiting deer

2 Cl A ban on feeding deer

3 Cl A reduction in white-tailed deer numbers

4 Cl Destruction of any livestock animal found to be bovine TB-positive

5 Cl Destruction of an entire herd of livestock if one or more animals were
found to be bovine TB-positive

Are there actions that you believe should be taken to eradicate bovine TB other
than those listed in question number 40 above? Please describe them here.

 

 

 

 

Have you or has anyone in your immediate family been hurt financially
due to the bovine TB issue or eradication strategies in Northeast
Michigan? (Check one.)

1 Cl Yes

2 C] No (If 'No’, please skip to question 44)

 

43. To what degree would you say you/they have been hurt
financially? (Check one.)
1 Cl Agreat deal
2 Cl Somewhat
3 Cl Slightly
4 D Unsure

 

 

12

120

44. As new information is discovered about bovine TB in Michigan, would you
like to be informed about it? (Check one.)
1 CI Yes
2 C] No (If ‘No', please skip to question 46)

 

45. How would you prefer that new information be communicated to you?
(Check all that apply.)
1 D Directly through a newsletter
2 Cl Over mass-media, such as the television, newspaper or radio
3 Cl Over the internet
4 Cl Through public meetings
5 Cl Through wildlife, agriculture, or medical professionals
6 Cl Through local clubs or organizations
7 C] From friends or family
a Cl Other (please specify)

 

 

 

46. Please answer the following questions by circling one response for each.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2
Yes No
a. Have you ever personally talked to someone from a
state agency about a bovine TB-related issue? Y N
b. Have you ever attended a bovine TB-related public Y N
meeting?

 

 

 

47. There is already some information available about each of the following topics on
bovine TB and related issues. Which of these topics would you like to know more
about? (Check all that apply.)

1 C] General information about the bovine TB issue in Michigan

2 Cl Research on bovine TB transmission

3 D Information about the bovine TB testing process for livestock

4 Cl Methods to attract wildlife to your property without supplemental feed
5 Cl lnforrnation on how to identify bovine TB lesions in deer

13

121

This next set of questions deals with two of the State Agencies that have been involved
with eradicating bovine TB, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the
Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA).

48. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements. (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Dlsagree Strongly
A9?” Dlsagree
a. The MDA provides accurate
information on agriculture issues. SA A U D SD
, b. The MDA cares about farmers’
, concerns. SA A U D SD
0. The MDA cares about
sportsmen's concerns. SA A U D so
d. The MDA has done a good 101) SA A U D SD

dealing with the bovine TB issue.
e. In general, the DNR manages
natural resources in a SA A U D SD
scientifically sound manner.
f. The DNR provides accurate
information on natural resource SA A U D SD
. issues.
9. The DNR cares about
sportsmen's concerns.

h. The DNR cares about farmers D SD

concerns. SA A U
i. The DNR has done a good job

dealing with the bovine TB issue.

 

 

 

 

 

SA A U D SD

 

 

SA A U D SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

122

 

I BACKGROUND INFORMATION '

In order for us to more fully understand people ’3 responses to the previous
questions, we need to know a few things about your background. Remember
that your responses are comgletelz confidential and that neither your name nor
your address will be directly linked to your responses in any way.

49. How many years have you lived in Michigan? YEARS
50. In what county do you currently live? COUNTY

51. Do you own property in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 Cl No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 54)

 

52. Approximately how many acres do you own? ACRES

53. Which of the following uses do you make of this land?
(Check all that apply.)
1 Cl Residence
2 Cl Agricultural Production
3 Cl Recreation
4 Cl Investment
5 Cl Other (please specify)

 

 

 

54. Do you have access to the internet at home or at work? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 D No

55. Are you male or female?
1 Cl Male
2 Cl Female

56. In what year were you born? 19

15

123

Thank you for your participation!
If you have any other comments that 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:

Bovine TB Opinion Survey

13 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1222

 

124

 

This survey deals with the bovine tuberculosis (TB) issue in Michigan and
related topics such as wildlife and agriculture. Remember, you don 't have to
be very familiar with the bovine TB issue in order to answer the survey. M

are interested in everyone ’5 responses.

HUNTING

This set of questions deals with different aspects of deer hunting.

 

 

4. Approximately how many years have you hunted deer? YEARS
2. In how many years of the last 10 years have you hunted in Michigan? YEARS

3. Which of the following do you normally use when you deer hunt? (Check one.)
1 CI Firearm
2 D Bow
3 CI Both firearm and bow

U!

. As a recreational activity, how important is deer hunting for you compared to your
other recreational activities? (Check one.)
1 Cl My most important recreational activity.
2 Cl One of the more important recreational activities I participate in.
3 D No more important than any other recreational activity.
4 [:1 Less important than most of my other recreational activities.
5 Cl Not at all important to me as a recreational activity.

01

. How important is each of the following for your deer hunting enjoyment?
(Circle one response for

    

Important Somewhat Not

0 see many I SI NI

125

6. In the past four years, have you hunted deer in any of the following counties:

Alpena, Alcona, Montmorency, Oscoda, or Presque Isle? (Check one.)

1 D Yes
2 Cl No (If 'No', please skip to question 8)

 

1 C1 1999
2 C1 1998
3 C1 1997
4 C1 1996

 

7. In what year did you last hunt in any of these counties? (Check one.)

 

8. On what type of land do you primarily hunt in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)

1 Cl Private land
2 CI Public land
3 Cl Equally on private and public land

9. Do you plan to hunt in Northeast Michigan during the 2000 hunting season? (Check

one.)
1 CI Yes (If ‘Yes’, please skip to question 10)
2 D No (If 'No’, please skip to question 11)

3 Cl Unsure (If ‘Unsure’, please skip to question 11)

 

10. For the following statements about deer hunting, please circle Yes, No, or

 

 

 

 

 

report this to the DNR?

 

 

 

Unsure.
1 2 3
Yes No Unsure
a. If you harvest a deer in Northeast Michigan this
hunting season, do you intend to take it to a DNR Y N U
check station?
b. If you harvested a deer this hunting season and
you thought it may have bovine TB, would you Y N U

 

 

 

 

126

 

 

“Baiting” deer is defined in Michigan as gutting out food materials for deer to attract,
lure, or entice them as an aid in hunting. The Natural Resources Commission voted to
ban baiting for the 2000 hunting season in all Michigan counties where a deer has
been found with bovine TB.

11. What is your opinion of the ban on baiting deer as defined above? (Check one.)
1 CI Strongly support (Please skip to question 12)
2 CI Support (Please skip to question 12)
3 CI Unsure (Please skip to question 14)
4 CI Oppose (Please skip to question 13)
5 Cl Strongly oppose (Please skip to question 13)
6 Cl Don’t care (Please skip to question 14) E

 

:1
12. Which of the following are reasons why you support the bait ban? ‘11
(Check all that apply.)
1 III Baiting increases interference and/or competition among deer
hunters.
2 CI Baiting brings deer closer together, which could spread bovine TB. r
3 Cl Baiting deer gives an unfair or unethical advantage to the hunter.
4 Cl I think baiting results in an overharvest of bucks.
5 D Other (please specify)

 

 

Which one of the reason(s) that you checked above is the most important
reason to you? (Check one and skip to Question 14.)
1 Cl 2 CI 3 CI 4 Cl 5 Cl

 

 

13. Which of the following are reasons why you oppose the bait ban? E3
(Check all that apply.) 1‘13?
1 C] l hunt more effectively with bait.
2 C] I don’t think the government should restrict anyone’s way of hunting.
3 CI I don’t have time to hunt without using bait.
4 CI Baiting allows me to see more wildlife when l hunt.
5 D Other (please specify)

 

Which one of the reason(s) that you chose above is the most important
reason to you? (Check one.)
1 Cl 2 CI 3 CI 4 CI 5 Cl

 

 

14. Would you support a statewide ban on baiting deer? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 D No
3 CI Unsure

127

15. Did you use bait when you hunted in Northeast Michigan before the bait ban?
(Check one.)

1ClYes

2 Cl No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 18)

 

1 Cl Very Important

2 Cl Important

3 Cl Somewhat Important
4 Cl Not Important

5 CI Unsure

statements. (Circle one response for each.)
1 2

16. How important was baiting deer to you before the bait ban? (Check one).

17. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 4 5
Even with the bait ban... 3:331)! Mm Unsure Dlsaom 3:23:13
a. ...I am confident in my
abilit to harvest a deer. SA A U D SD
I:‘j;1,iwnflil,il}imrwé¥hl:i11:9; ‘ _ = 1.11 .1111?” ”1,11" ‘11}; 111111.,"
as SA A 1 1.111111. 111.11.111.11 "EH11 .51 1111113131"
.1..: : 22 '~""’ ' 111' " ‘ 131.111.1111
...most hunters I know
enjoy hunting in Northeast
Michigan as much as they SA A U D SD
used to.

 

 

 

 

 

18. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

 

 

 

statements. (Circle one response for each.
Stro1ngly Agiee Ungure Dlsa4gree Strosngly
Agree Dlsagree
a. Most DNR biologists feel that
baiting is an acceptable hunting SA A U D SD
practice.
b. DNR Conservation Officers will
strongly enforce the bait ban in SA A U D SD
P the 200.0 deer hunting season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. Please indicate your opinion about the following DNR management decisions in
Northeast Michigan for the 1998-2000 deer hunting seasons. (Circle one

response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Support Unsure Oppose Strongly Don't
Support Oppose Care
a. Extended deer hunting
season SS 8 U 0
deer érm'its - . ‘ ‘ .91., :1.

 

128

20. How effective do you think the extended deer hunting season is at reducing deer
numbers in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)
1 Cl Highly effective
2 CI Effective
3 CI Slightly effective
4 Cl Not at all effective
5 CI Unsure

21. How many antlerless deer permits did you purchase for the 1999 hunting
season in Northeast Michigan? PERMITS

22. How many antlerless deer permits do you intend to purchase for the 2000
hunting season in Northeast Michigan? PERMITS

I WHITE-TAILED DEER I

Next, we would like to know about some of your opinions on white-tailed deer
and deer management.

 

23. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements. (Circle one response for each.)

 

Deer management in Northeast Michigan should...
1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Dlsagree Strongly
Agree Dlsagree
a. ...minimize crop losses due to
deer. SA A U D SD
b. ...prevent deer from disturbing
or destroying natural plant SA A U D SD
communities.
c. ...maintain the highest possible
deer harvest (success) rate for SA A U D SD
hunters.
d. ..Tensure car-deer accident rates
are as low as possible. SA A U D SD
e. ...keep deer as physically
healthy as possible. SA A U 0 SD
f. ...maximize the money that deer
hunters bring to Northeast SA A U D SD
Michifin's economy.
5

129

 

“1111111111
(1111111;11,“

“1111’ ..~

 

 

 

24. In the figure above, g represents the current number of deer in the county in
Which you live. Choose the letter above the line which is closest to the number
of deer you think would be a reasonable goal just before the 2001 deer hunting
season in the county in which you live. (Circle one letter or check not sure.)

AEQQEEQEL _NOTSURE

 

“Feeding” deer is defined in Michigan as placing food materials out that attract deer for
any reason other than for hunting. The Natural Resources Commission voted to ban
deer feeding in 2000 for all Michigan counties where a deer has been found with
bovine TB. (This is not the same as “baiting”.)

25. What is your opinion of the ban on feeding deer as defined above? (Check one.)
1 CI Strongly support
2 Cl Support
3 Cl Unsure
4 CI Oppose
5 CI Strongly oppose
a Cl Don’t care

130

26. Before the feed ban, did you feed deer on property in Northeast Michigan?
(Check one.)
1 CI Yes
2 C] No (If 'No’, please skip to question 28)

 

27. How important was feeding deer to you before the feed
ban? (Check one.)
1 CI Very important
2 Cl Important
3 Cl Somewhat important
4 CI Not important
5 CI Unsure

 

 

28. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

 

statements. (Circle one response for each.)
1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree

 

a. It is important for people to
feed deer in order to keep
deer alive through winters in
Northeast Michigan.

SA A U D SD

 

b. DNR Conservation Officers
will strongly enforce the feed SA A U D ’ SD
ban in 2000.

 

c. The government has unfairly
restricted people’s rights by

banning deer baiting and SA A U D SD
deer feeding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS )

The following set of questions deals with bovine tuberculosis (TB) and the
attempts to eradicate the bovine TB disease in Michigan.

29. Do you support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB in wildlife and
domestic livestock in Michigan? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes, I strongly support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
2 Cl Yes, I support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
3 Cl I am unsure of my opinion about the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
4 CI No, I oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
5 D No, I strongly oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
6 CI l have no opinion about the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.

131

30. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.

(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
‘9'” D's-m
a. It is possible to eradicate bovine
TB in Northeast Michigan. SA A D so
b. The bovine TB issue has hurt the
economy in Northeast Michigan. SA A D SD
c. My hunting satisfaction has
decreased because of the
presence of bovine TB in SA A D SD
Northeast Michigan.

 

31. For the following statements about bovine TB, please indicate whether you think
the statement is True or False, or whether you are Unsure. (Circle one response

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for each.)
1 2 3
True False Unsure
a. There is a vaccine that can be used to keep animals T F U
from getting bovine tuberculosis.
b. Less than 25 deer have been found with bovine TB in
Michigan since 1995. T F U
c. Animals that have bovine TB almost always show
visible signs of the disease in their organs and lymph T F U
fissue.
d. Most states in the US have found bovine TB in their
wildlife. T F U
e. All dairy herds in the State of Michigan must now be
tested for bovine TB every year until Michigan regains T F U
_it_s bovine TB-free status.

 

 

 

 

132

 

 

32. Do you believe that humans can get bovine tuberculosis? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 Cl No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 35)
3 Cl Unsure (If ‘Unsure’, please skip to question 35)

33. In your opinion, what is the chance that some person will get bovine TB
in Northeast Michigan if the disease is not eradicated? (Check one.)

 

 

1 Cl Extremely high
2 D ngh 34. How much does this
3 Cl LOW concern you? (Check one.)
4 Cl Extremely low 1 Cl Very much
5 D Unsure 2 1:] Somewhat
3 Cl Not very much
4 CI Not at all
5 Cl Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

35. These next statements deal with the finding of bovine TB in some
Michigan white-tailed deer. Please indicate how much you agree
or disagree with the following statements.

(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. I am concerned that deer have
been found with bovine TB in SA A U D SD
Northeast Michig_n. ,
b. The bovine TB disease“ is a ' 1 " ‘ ‘ '11:?“ :11" 1 Mil”:
serious threat to the health of SA, A , . U11.in?1.1m
Lthe deer. herd' in Michigan. . . 1 ., -~ ‘11I:l “1' 1Itli - .1" 1111111
c. It is important for hunters in
Northeast Michigan to have the SA A U D SD

deer they harvest checked for
7 signs___ of bovine TB. .. . . . | .
d. Theibowne T B issue has . .' I, 31,. ".=1i:""fi’_111,,,,, 1111 "“111! " ’11 I11

' discouragedalarge number of 1 ' . ,_, I'ir', 111.111, '51 l-I
. people from coming to ‘ SA- A ‘U '1 “11111113,," 11111.13. 1'11
Northeast Michi an to hunt. ”111...,11" 1141.. ."2‘11

e. The bovine TB issue has
discouraged a large number of SA A U D SD
people who live in Northeast
Michigan from hunting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

133

36. These next statements deal with the finding of bovine TB in some
Michigan livestock. Please indicate how much you agree or
disagree with the following statements. (Circle one response
for each.)

 

Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly

am
have been found with bovine TB SA D SD

be
required to have their livestock

 

In addition to livestock and deer, small numbers of other animals, including bear, fox,
coyote. raccoon, and bobcat have been found with bovine TB in Northeast Michigan.

37. Before this survey, were you aware that any animals besides livestock and
deer have been found with bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 D No

38. How much does it concern you that these animals have also been found with
bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 CI Very much
2 [1'] Somewhat
3 Cl Not very much
4 CI Not at all
5 D Unsure

 

134

39. Some people have said that bovine TB spreads in the ways described below.
Please indicate whether you think these proposed means of bovine TB spread are
true or false. (Circle one response for each.)

Bovine TB spreads...

 

1
Definitely
True

2
Probably
True

Unsure

4
Probably
False

6
Definitely
False

 

...between deer by nose-to-
nose contact.

DT

PT

PF

DF

 

...between livestock by
nose-to-nose contact.

DT

PT

PF

DF

 

...between deer and
livestock by nose-to-nose
contact.

DT

PT

PF

DF

 

...from one deer to other
deer on infected fegd.

DT

PT

PF

DF

 

...from one livestock animal
to other livestock animals
on infected feed.

DT

PT

PF

DF

 

 

...from deer to livestock, or
livestock to deer, on
infected feed.

 

 

DT

 

PT

 

 

PF

 

DF

 

 

40. Please indicate how much you support or oppose the following actions:
(Circle one response for each.)

 

1

Strongly
Support

2

Support

3
Unsure

4
Oppose

5

Oppose

Strongly

Don't
Care

 

Further reduction in the
number of deer in
Northeast Michigan in
order to slow the
spread of bovine TB

88

SO

DC

 

 

Destruction of livestock
'a'n'imal's‘that'are found
to be bovin'e TB-

 

 

positive in the future

35'

 

 

 

erI: .(Hi

. 1"," .2. ii iii": 2'.
an, y‘viiinmhmt‘m . l.“ .
. so 2 3

 

 

AD» ‘

l

 

 

 

11

135

41. Which, if any, of the activities currently used to eradicate bovine TB would you
NOT support, EVEN IF you were convinced that the action(s) made an essential
contribution to bovine TB eradication? (Check all that apply.)

1 Cl A ban on baiting deer

2 D A ban on feeding deer

3 Cl A reduction in white-tailed deer numbers

4 C1 Destruction of any livestock animal found to be bovine TB-positive

5 E] Destruction of an entire herd of livestock if one or more animals were
found to be bovine TB-positive

42. Are there actions that you believe should be taken to eradicate bovine TB other
than those listed in question number 41 above? Please describe them here. _

 

 

 

43. Have you or has anyone in your immediate family been hurt financially due to the
bovine TB issue or eradication strategies in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 C] No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 45)

 

44. To what degree would you say you/they have been hurt financially?
(Check one.)
1 Cl A great deal
2 Cl Somewhat
3 Cl Slightly
4 Cl Unsure

 

 

136

45. As new information is discovered about bovine TB in Michigan, would you
like to be informed about it? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 D No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 47)

 

46. How would you prefer that new information be communicated to you?
(Check all that apply.)
1 Cl Directly through a newsletter
2 Cl Over mass-media, such as the television, newspaper or radio
3 Cl Over the internet
4 Cl Through public meetings
5 Cl Through wildlife, agriculture, or medical professionals
6 Cl Through local clubs or organizations
7 Cl From friends or family
a Cl Other (please specify)

 

 

   

47. Please answer the following questions by circling one response for each.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2
Yes No
a. Have you ever personally talked to someone
from a state agency about a bovine TB-related Y N
issue? .
b. Have you ever attended a bovine TB-related public Y N
meetingq?

 

 

 

48. There is already some information available about each of the following topics on

bovine TB and related issues. Which of these topics would you like to know
more about? (Check all that apply.)

1 Cl General information about the bovine TB issue in Michigan

2 Cl Research on bovine TB transmission

3 CI Information about the bovine TB testing process for livestock

4 Cl Methods to attract wildlife to your property without supplemental feed

5 Cl lnforrnation on how to identify bovine TB lesions in deer

13

137

This next set of questions deals with two of the State Agencies that have been involved
with eradicating bovine T8, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the
Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA).

49. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. The MDA provides accurate
information on agriculture SA A U D SD
issues. .,
b. The MDA cares about farmers’ '
concerns. SA A U D SD -
c. The MDA cares about
sportsmen’s concerns. SA A U D SD
d. The MDA has done a good job
dealing with the bovine TB SA A U D SD
issue.
e. In general, the DNR manages
natural resources in a SA A U D SD
scientifically sound manner.
f. The DNR provides accurate
information on natural resource SA A U D SD
issues.
9. The DNR cares about
sportsmen’s concerns. SA A U D SD
h. The DNR cares about farmers’ ‘
concerns. SA A U D SD
i. The DNR has done a good job
dealing with the bovine TB SA A U D SD
issue.

 

 

 

 

I BACKGROUND INFORMATION I

In order for us to more fully understand people ’8 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.

50. How many years have you lived in Northeast Michigan? YEARS

51. In what county do you currently live? COUNTY

14

138

 

52. Do you own property in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 D No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 55)

 

53. Approximately how many acres do you own? ACRES

54. Which of the following uses do you make of this land?
(Check all that apply.)
1 Cl Residence
2 Cl Agricultural Production
3 Cl Recreation
4 Cl Investment
5 D Other (please specify)

 

 

   

55. Do you currently raise any livestock? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 D No

56. Are you employed for pay? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 Cl No (If ‘No’, skip to question 59)

 

57. Please indicate the economic sector that best describes the one in
which you work: (Check one.)
1 Service (Hotels, Restaurants, etc.)
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Manufacturing/Construction
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
Agriculture Services, Forestry, Fishing
Government (Local, State, Federal)
Transportation and Public Utilities
Other (please specify)

(Dmflaioi-wa
DDDDDDCICICI

 

58. Are you the owner or general manager of your place of employment?
(Check one.)
1 Cl Yes

2ClNo

 

 

15

I39

59. Do you have access to the internet at home or at work? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 Cl No

60. Are you male or female?
1 Cl Male
2 Cl Female

61. In what year were you born? 19

Thank you for your participationl
If you have any other comments that 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:

Bovine TB Opinion Survey

13 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1222

 

140

 

This survey deals with the bovine tuberculosis (TB) issue in Michigan and
related topics such as agriculture and wildlife. Remember, you don’t have to
be very familiar with the bovine TB issue in order to answer the survey. We are

interested in everyone’s responses.

 

 

 

l YOUR OPERATION I

First, we would like to know a little about your farming operation.

1. Which of the following best describes you? (Check one.)
1 Cl Full-time farmer- farming is my primary occupation (Please skip to
Question 4)
2 Cl Part-time farmer- farming is not my primary occupation
3 Cl Retired farmer/Not a farmer (Please skip to Question 7)

 

2. In which economic sector are you otherwise employed? (Check one.)
1 E] Service (Hotels, Restaurants, etc.)
2 Cl Retail Trade
3 El Wholesale Trade
4 Cl Manufacturing/Construction
5 [J Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
6 Cl Agriculture Services, Forestry, Fishing
7 Cl Government (Local, State, Federal)
a Cl Transportation and Public Utilities
9 C] Other (please specify)

3. Are you the owner or general manager of your place of employment?
(Check one.)
1 CI Yes
2 C] No

 

 

 

 

I41

4. How would you characterize your operation? (Check one.)
1 Cl Beef Operation
2 Cl Dairy Operation
3 (3 Poultry Operation
4 CI Swine Operation
5 Cl Grain/Produce Operation
6 D Other (please specify)

 

5. How long have you been a producer in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)
1 Cl Less than 1 year
2 Cl 1-5 years
3 Cl 6-10 years
4 CI 11-20 years
5 CI 21-30 years
6 C] More than 30 years

6. Which of the following items do you grow for cash crops (crops sold for profit)?
(Check all that apply.)
1 CI Wheat and/or rye
2 Cl Corn
3 Cl Beans
4 Cl Hay
5 Cl Other (please specify)

 

-

   

5‘? t?
M V
v ./ \. l
l t. f v
v M . V V
M 5 -- . V
\|/ “‘5“ . \l/

 

 

 

I42

 

[ WHITE-TAILED DEER ]

Next, we would like to know about some of your opinions on white-tailed deer
and deer management.

7. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements. (Circle one response for each.)

    

Deer management in Northeast Michi an should...
1

 

 

 

 

 

..maintain the highest poss1ble -
deer harvest (success) rate for
hunters.

..keep deer as physically
health as oossible

 

I43

 

A B C D E F E H I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no ‘y2 as T 50% At least
deer many more twice as
deer current deer many
number de
A of deer eL
V 7
Fewer Deer More Deer

8. In the figure above, _E_ represents the current number of deer in the county in which
you live. Choose the letter above the line which is closest to the number of deer
you think would be a reasonable goal just before the 2001 deer hunting season in
the county in which you live. (Circle one letter or check not sure.)

AEEQEEQUI _NOTSURE

9. Please check all who are allowed to hunt deer on your farm. (Check all that apply.)
1 C] No one (including myself)
2 Cl Me and/or my immediate family
3 Cl Friends and neighbors
4 Cl Non-aquaintances who ask permission
5 Cl My land is open to anyone who wants to hunt, they need not ask permission
6 CI Friends and neighbors who pay a fee or lease my land
7 Cl Non-aquaintances who pay a fee or lease my land

10. Has your operation experienced an cro dama e caused b deer? Check one.)

1 D Yes —> 11. How would you describe this crop damage?

2 D N0 (Check one.)

3 D Unsure 1 Cl Not a problem

2 CI A problem, but I do not to intend to put forth
efforts to reduce the losses

3 D A problem and I intend to increase my efforts
to reduce the losses

 

 

 

144

 

“Feeding" deer is defined in Michigan as placing food materials out that attract deer
for any reason other than for hunting. The Natural Resources Commission voted to
ban deer feeding in 2000 for all Michigan counties where a deer has been found with
bovine TB. (This is not the same as “baiting”.)

12. What is your opinion of the ban on feeding deer as defined above? (Check one.)
1 CI Strongly support
2 Cl Support
3 D Unsure
4 D Oppose
5 CI Strongly oppose
6 Cl Don't care

13. Before the feed ban, did you feed deer on property in Northeast Michigan?
(Check one.)

F 1 CI Yes
2 C] No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 15)

 

\ 14. How important was feeding deer to you before the feed ban?
(Check one.)
1 Cl Very important
2 CI Important
3 Cl Somewhat important
4 Cl Not important
5 Cl Unsure

 

 

15. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.
(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. It is important for people to feed
deer in order to keep deer alive
through winters in Northeast SA A U D SD
Michigan.
b. DNR Conservation Officers will
strongly enforce the feed ban in SA A U D SD
2000.
5

145

 

“Baiting" deer is defined in Michigan as putting out food m

aterials for deer to attract

 

lure, or entice them as an ayfln hunting. The Natural Resources Commission also
voted to ban baiting for the 2000 hunting season in all Michigan counties where a

deer has been found with bovine TB.

16. What is your opinion of the ban on baiting deer as defined above? (Check one.)

1 Cl Strongly support
2 Cl Support

3 Cl Unsure

4 Cl Oppose

5 Cl Strongly oppose
6 Cl Don’t care

17. Would you support a statewide ban on baiting deer? (Check one.)

1 Cl Yes
2 CI No
3 CI Unsure

18. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements about baiting. (Circle one response for each.)
1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
A9700 Disagree
a. Baiting deer is an acceptable
hunting practice. SA A U D so
b. Even with bait ban, most hunters
I know enjoy hunting in
Northeast Michigan as much as SA A U D so
they used to.
c. DNR Conservation Officers will
strongly enforce the bait ban in SA A U D SD
the 2000 deer huntingseason.
d. The government has unfairly
restricted people’s rights by
banning deer baiting and deer SA A U D SD
feedirLcL
6

 

 

 

 

[ BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS j

 

The following set of questions deals with bovine tuberculosis (TB) and the

attempts to eradicate the bovine TB disease in Michigan.

19. Do you support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB in wildlife and

20.

domestic livestock in Michigan? (Check one.)

1 D Yes, I strongly support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
2 Cl Yes, I support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
3 D I am unsure of my opinion about the overall goal to eradicate bovine

TB.

4 C] No, I oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
5 C] No, I strongly oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
6 CI I have no opinion about the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.

(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. It is possible to eradicate bovine
TB in Northeast Michigan. SA A D SD
b. The bovine TB issue has hurt the
economy in Northeast Michigan. SA A D SD
21. For the following statements about bovine TB, please indicate whether you think
the statement is True or False, or whether you are Unsure. (Circle one response
for each.)
1
True False Unsure
a. There is a vaccine that can be used to keep animals
. . . T F U
from getting bovrne tuberculosus.
b. Less than 25 deer have been found with bovine TB in T F U
Michigan since 1995.
c. Animals that have bovine TB almost always show
visible signs of the disease in their organs and lymph T F U
fissue.
d. Most states in the US have found bovine TB in their T F U
wildlife.
e. All dairy herds in the State of Michigan must now be
tested for bovine TB every year until Michigan regains T F U
_its bovine TB-free status.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I47

22. Do you believe that humans can get bovine tuberculosis? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes .
2 C] No (If 'No’, please skip to question 25)
3 Cl Unsure (If ‘Unsure’, please skip to question 25)

23. In your opinion, what is the chance that some person will get bovine TB
in Northeast Michigan if the disease is not eradicated? (Check one.)

1 Cl Extremely high _
2 13 High 24. How much does this
3 Cl Low concern you? (Check

4 Cl Extremely low one.)

5 Cl Unsure 1 '3 Very much

2 CI Somewhat

3 Cl Not very much
4 Cl Not at all

5 Cl Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25. These next statements deal with the finding of bovine TB in
some Michigan white-tailed deer. Please indicate how much
you agree or disagree with the following statements.

(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

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

 

a. I am concerned that deer have
been found with bovine TB in SA A U D SD
Northeast Michigan.

b. The bovine TB disease is a ._ i w._. ,',"""”i»»‘iii
.serious threat to the health of SA A , . U 1; up‘ “"Wsufng
the deer herd in Michigan. - " ‘l; ,. ' l"~i....;"“
c. It is important for hunters in
Northeast Michigan to have the

 

 

 

 

deer they harvest checked for SA A U D SD
signs of bovine TB. '
5d. The bovine TB issue has ..lwiiiiiiz {eriiihi‘iliI-‘ T3553 - i213 I
- . “5'33: ‘. {A [91,). .1 ,

discouraged a large number of . 1 , “1,3; . 1‘ - ‘

people from coming to SA A ' U '5. (“pi“)? SD. .1
Northeast Michigan to hunt. ~ "

e. The bovine TB issue has

discouraged a large number of

people who live in Northeast SA A U D SD

Michigan from huntim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

148

26. These next statements deal with the finding of bovine TB in
some Michigan livestock. Please indicate how much you
agree or disagree with the following statements.

(Circle one response for each.)

 

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

 

a. I am concerned that livestock
have been found with bovine SA A U D SD
TB in Northeast Michigan.
D. Bovine TB in wild deer is a
serious threat to the health of SA A U D SD
livestock in Michigan.
c. It is appropriate that farmers be
required to have their livestock SA A U D SD
tested for bovine TB.

cl. The bovine TB issue has

 

 

 

 

 

caused too much hardship for SA A U D SD
farmers in Northeast Michigan.
e. Beef and milk from Northeast SA A U D SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan are safe to consume.

 

In addition to livestock and deer, small numbers of other animals, including bear,
fox, coyote, raccoon, and bobcat, have been found with bovine TB in Northeast
Michigan.

27. Before this survey, were you aware that any animals besides livestock and deer
have been found with bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 C] No

28. How much does it concern you that these animals have also been found with
bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 CI Very much
2 Cl Somewhat
3 D Not very much
4 Cl Not at all
5 Cl Unsure

 

I49

 

29. Some people have said that bovine TB spreads in the ways described below.
Please indicate whether you think these proposed means of bovine TB spread are
true or false. (Circle one response for each.)

 

Bovine TB 3 reads... 1 2 3 4 5
p Definitely Probably Unsure Probably Definitely
True True False False

 

a. ...between deer by nose-
to-nose contact. DT PT U PF DF
b. ...between livestock by
nose—to-nose contact. DT PT U PF _ __ DF

c. ...between deer and
livestock by nose-to-nose DT PT U PF DF
contact.
d. ...from one deer to other
_ deer on infected feed. DT PT U PF DA
e. ...from one livestock
animal to other livestock DT PT U PF DF
animals on infected feed.
f. ...from deer to livestock,
or livestock to deer, on DT PT U PF DF
# infected feed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30. Please indicate how much you support or oppose the following actions:
(Circle one response for each.)
1

 

2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Support Unsure Oppose Strongly Don't
Support Oppose Care

 

a. Further reduction in

the number of deer in

Northeast Michigan in 88 S U 0 SO DC

order to slow the

5 read of bovine TB ‘

,b. Destruction of ‘ - ,f‘, .- 1

livestock animals‘tha't ‘ 1 fl.“ ,-

, are‘fognd'to be bovine) SS S ' U 1 ‘
.‘IJTBI-ffidsitiite in ‘the 5 '1” . ‘ j , , 5 -

..Kifutu‘e ‘ 1 :1." 1‘ ”1'1“: ”5111.”; My “-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

150

 

31. Which, if any, of the activities currently used to eradicate bovine TB would you NOT
support, EVEN IF you were convinced that the action(s) made an essential
contribution to bovine TB eradication? (Check all that apply.)

1 CI A ban on baiting deer

2 Cl A ban on feeding deer

3 CI A reduction in white-tailed deer numbers

4 D Destruction of any livestock animal found to be bovine TB-positive

5 Cl Destruction of an entire herd of livestock if one or more animals were
found to be bovine TB-positive

32. Are there actions that you believe should be taken to eradicate bovine TB other
than those listed in question number 31 above? Please describe them here.

 

 

 

33. Have you or has anyone in your immediate family been hurt financially due
to the bovine TB issue or eradication strategies in Northeast Michigan?
(Check one.)

1 Cl Yes

2 D No (If ‘No’, please sky) to question 35)

34. To what degree would you say you/they have been hurt
financially? (Check one.)

1 Cl Agreat deal

2 Cl Somewhat

3 C] Slightly

4 Cl Unsure

 

 

   

   

11

151

35. Do you currently raise any livestock? (Check one.)
1 D

Yes

2 Cl No (If 'No', please skip to question 41)

 

36. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

statements. (Circle one response for each.)
Stro1ngly Agiee Unsure Dls:gree Strosngly
Agree Disagree
a. I believe it is
important to have SA MA U D SD
my livestock tested
for bovine TB.
b. I be'liévethat the sooner . ”-1111; "”‘M 1
."Michigahf3livestozk are q p .. ‘-' 1 .11.,“ AW ‘I-‘II IIIl1l1liIl1
. tested for boyiheWQBjthé ‘- SA ‘ MA," A'Ullillu ‘ ADAM "mm.”
.‘q MdgérMichiganvim ,fi‘ ' ...‘.;‘?r=111.1,,{mu“,
. .regainits. bovmelB—free' ‘ 91.11””; “III; “Wit
L'Status'111nf “AAAAA‘ AHAiA.
c. I am concerned about
whether veterinarians will SA MA U D SD
be available to test my
animals. Y
d. I am confused by the ‘:~1..;';";' fat I ”Tl
bovine TB testing process . SA 'MA, ' - 1U; .. ”1,19; (’Alllfiwhll
Wand how test results are , ‘ ..._.,,;,b,‘ ‘I M.,,” (“.2 W;
__.7inter reted. 1,,;""II1,I‘,“‘API.II,_Il1ll
e. | feel I understand my
options if one of my SA MA U D SD
animals tests positive for
bovine TB.

 

 

 

 

 

12

152

 

 

 

 

37. Have any of your livestock been tested for bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 Cl No (If ‘No', please skip to question 41)

 

38. Do you believe that you have been adequately reimbursed for your
testing costs? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 C] No

39. Did you have any animals injured while they were being tested for
bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 Cl No

40. How would you describe the professionalism of the people who
tested your animals? (Check one.)
1 Cl Extremely professional
2 CI Professional
3 Cl Somewhat professional
4 Cl Not at all professional
5 CI Unsure

 

 

41. In past years have you sold produce that other people used for deer bait
and/or deer feed? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 Cl No

42. As new information is discovered about bovine TB in Michigan, would you
like to be informed about it? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 D No (If ‘No’, skip to question 44)

 

43. How would you prefer that new information be communicated to you?
(Check all that apply.)
1 Cl Directly through a newsletter
2 Cl Over mass-media, such as the television, newspaper or radio
3 D Over the internet
4 Cl Through public meetings
5 Cl Through wildlife, agriculture, or medical professionals
6 0 Through local clubs or organizations
7 CI From friends or family
8 Cl Other (please specify)

 

 

 

153

 

 

 

44. Please answer the following questions by circling one response for each.
1

Yes No

 

a. Have you ever personally talked to someone from a
state agency about a bovine TB— rel§_ted issue?

. AK'AAAA1AAA Aver AAAAAAA AA AAA ABA—AAAAA AMA. 1 III‘ {1'11er 111111 Iii 111

Y N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45. There is already some information available about each of the following topics on
bovine TB and related issues. Which of these topics would you like to know more
about? (Check all that apply.)

1 C] General information about the bovine TB issue in Michigan

2 Cl Research on bovine TB transmission

3 Cl Information about the bovine TB testing process for livestock

4 Cl Methods to attract wildlife to your property without supplemental feed
5 Cl Information on how to identify bovine TB lesions in deer

This next set of questions deals with two of the State Agencies that have been involved
with eradicating bovine TB, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the
Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA).

46. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. The MDA provides accurate
information on agriculture issues. SA A U D SD
b. The MDA cares about farmers SA A U D SD
concerns.
c. The MDA cares about
sportsmen’s concerns. SA A U D SD
d. The MDA has done a good job SA A U D SD

dealing with the bovine TB issue.
e. In general, the DNR manages

natural resources in a SA A U D SD
scientifically sound manner.
f. The DNR provides accurate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

information on natural resource SA A U D SD
, Issues.
9. The DNR cares about
sportsmen’s concerns. SA A U D SD
h. The DNR cares about farmers’ SA A U D SD
concerns. ,
i. The DNR has done a good job SA A U D SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dealing with the bovine TB issue.

 

154

 

I BACKGROUND INFORMATION .

In order for us to more fully understand people ’3 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.

47. How many years have you lived in Northeast Michigan? YEARS
48. In what county do you currently live? COUNTY
49. Do you own property in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)

1 Cl Yes
2 Cl No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 52)

 

50. Approximately how many acres do you own? ACRES

51. Which of the following uses do you make of this land?
(Check all that apply.)
1 Cl Residence
2 Cl Agricultural Production
3 Cl Recreation
4 Cl Investment
5 D Other (please specify)

 

 

 

52. Do you regularly hunt deer in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)

 

 

1 CI Yes .
, , . 53. Approxnmately how many years
2 D No (If No ’ 5km. to have you been a deer hunter?
question 54) YEARS

 

 

54. Is anyone in your immediate family a deer hunter? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 D No

15

155

 

 

55. Do you have access to the internet at home or at work? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 Cl No

56. Are you male or female?
1 Cl Male
2 D Female

57. In what year were you born? 19

Thank you for your participationl
If you have any other comments that 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:

Bovine TB Opinion Survey

13 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1222

 

16

156

 

This survey deals with the bovine tuberculosis (TB) issue in Michigan and
related topics such as wildlife and agriculture. Remember, you don ’t have to
be very familiar with the bovine TB issue in order to answer the survey. _W_e

are interested in everyone’s responses.

YOUR BUSINESS

First, we would like to know a little about the business that you own/manage.

 

1. In what economic sector would you classify the business that you own/manage?
(Check one.)
1 E] Service (Hotels, restaurants. etc.) .
2 CI Retail trade
3 El Wholesale trade
Manufacturing/Construction
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
Agriculture Services, Forestry, and Fishing
Mining
Transportation and Public Utilities
Other (please specify)

 

(OQVCDUIA
DDDCIDCI

2. How important are non-resident deer hunters (people who come from outside of
Northeast Michigan to hunt) and those who travel with them to the success of your
business? (Check one.)

1 Cl Very important

2 Cl Important

3 CI Somewhat important
4 CI Not important

5 CI Unsure

3. How important are hunting-related activities/purchases from M hunters to the
success of your business? (Check one.)
1 Cl Very important
2 CI Important
3 Cl Somewhat important
4 D Not important
5 CI Unsure

157

4. In the past 2 years, has the number of resident and non-resident deer hunters in
your area... (Check one.)
1 Cl ...increased? (If ‘Increased', please skip to question 8)
2 Cl ...stayed the same? (If ‘Stayed the same’, please skip to question 8)
3 E] ...decreased?

 

5. How much, if at all, has this affected the success of your business?
(Check one.)
1 Cl Very much
2 Cl Somewhat
3 Cl Not very much
4 Cl Not at all
5 CI Unsure

6. Why do you think you have seen a decrease in hunters in your area?
(Check all that apply.)
1 Cl Hunters believe there are less deer in the area.
2 CI People in general are less interested in hunting.
3 Cl Hunters are concerned about bovine TB.
4 Cl Hunters don’t like the bait ban.
5 CI Other (please specify)

 

7. Check the number of the reason above that you believe is the most
important reason why there has been a decline in hunters in your
area. (Check one.)

1 CI 3 Cl 4 Cl 5 D

 

 

 

For the remaining survey questions, please answer with your personal opinion
rather than on behalf of your business.

 

158

 

 

[ WHITE-TAILED DEER ]

Next, we would like to know about some of your opinions on white-tailed deer
and deer management.

8. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements. (Circle one response for each.)

  
    
    

 

Deer management in Northeast Michi an should:
1

4
Unsure Disagree Strongly

 

 

 

 

A U D SD

.maintain the highest
possible deer harvest
success rate for hunters

a ..keep deer as physically -
health as oossible
‘ L 1 . 1 ; "

 

159

 

. y .1
«3:53;: I
3 1.9in 9'1"

.' HL'
'V’!;‘:\.V:'

 

 

 

 

 

Fawnr Dar-1r Mnre hear

9. In the figure above, g represents the current number of deer in the county in which
you live. Choose the letter above the line which is closest to the number of deer you
think would be a reasonable goal just before the 2001 deer hunting season in the
county in which you live. (Circle one letter or check not sure.)
ABQQEEQEI _NOTSURE

“Feeding” deer is defined in Michigan as placing food materials out that attract
deer for any reason other than for hunting. The Natural Resources Commission
voted to ban deer feeding in 2000 for all Michigan counties where a deer has
been found with bovine TB. (This is not the same as “baiting'.)

10. What is your opinion of the ban on feeding deer as defined above? (Check one.)
1 Cl Strongly support
2 Cl Support
3 CI Unsure
4 Cl Oppose
5 CI Strongly oppose
6 Cl Don't care

 

I60

 

11. Before the feed ban, did you feed deer on property in Northeast Michigan?

(Check one.)
1 D Yes

2 D No (If ‘No', skip to question 13)

 

 

12. How important was feeding deer to you before the feed
ban? (Check one.)
1 CI Very important
2 Cl Important
3 Cl Somewhat important
4 CI Not important
5 Cl Unsure

 

13. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following

statements. (Circle one response for each.‘

l

 

 

 

 

 

2000.

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. It is important for people to feed
deer in order to keep deer alive
through winters in Northeast SA A U D so
Michigan. _ fi T W i
b. DNR Conservation Officers will F '
strongly enforce the feed ban in SA A U D SD

 

“Baiting” deer is defined in Michigan as putting out food materials for deer to attract.

Lur_e. or entice them as an aid in hunting. The Natural Resources Commission voted to

ban baiting for the 2000 hunting season in all Michigan counties where a deer has

been found with bovine TB.

14. What is your opinion of the ban on baiting deer as defined above? (Check one.)

1 Cl Strongly support
2 Cl Support

3 Cl Unsure

4 D Oppose

5 CI Strongly oppose
6 Cl Don’t care

15. Would you support a statewide ban on baiting deer? (Check one.)

1 D Yes
2 D No
3 Cl Unsure

161

 

16. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

statements about baiting. (Circle one response for each.)
1 2 3 4 s
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. Baiting deer is an acceptable
hunting practice. SA A U D so
. ll. ll -
-1. ‘ WWI
’2: I r 9‘“ P HIP It“ I'IP‘PI ' I . . ‘ '
P u MP‘.'.....I.I-II l ' P . ' """“‘P”"P..i't....
c. DNR Conservation Off cers will
strongly enforce the bait ban In SA A U D SD
the 2000 deer huntin season . ‘ .
, .99 merit-$1 .' ', ' 2.... .inIlIIIgi"
VLLXPPPgfim g .P‘ P“ PPI.I...l,,.-I.nr1‘r(;;§ 1:9
lP‘ 6195",": ”l .1 ,r I“ P >
..PPPI‘ gwfllfi‘ fifiw PM». '%P (lPlP *‘PIP.:PPPIPPP' I, W . .l

 

 

 

[ BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS ]

The following set of questions deals with bovine tuberculosis (TB) and the attempts to
eradicate the bovine TB disease in Michigan.

17. Do you support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB in wildlife and
domestic livestock in Michigan? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes, I strongly support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
2 Cl Yes, | support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
3 CI I am unsure of my opinion about the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
4 D No, I oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
5 Cl No, I strongly oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
6 Cl I have no opinion about the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.

162

 

_L

8. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following
statements. (Circle one response for each.)
1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Agree Uniure Dls:gm Strosngly
Agree Dlsagree
a. It is possible to eradicate
bovine TB in Northeast SA A U D SD
Michi an.
, b. The bovine TB issue has
hurt the economy in SA A U D SD
Northeast Michigan. '

 

 

 

 

_L

9. For the following statements about bovine TB, please indicate whether you think
the statement is True or False, or whether you are Unsure. (Circle one response
for each.)

True False U nsure

can to T F U

bovine tuberculosis.

have bovine TB almost always

visible signs of the disease in their organs and lymph T

must now
tested bovine TB every year until Michigan

 

20. Do you believe that humans can get bovine tuberculosis? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes

2 CI No (If 'No’, please skip to question 23)

3 CI Unsure (If 'Unsure’, please skip to question 23)

 

21. In your opinion, what is the chance that some person will get
bovine TB in Northeast Michigan if the disease is not eradicated?

 

(Check one.)
1 CI Extremely high .
2 0 High }(:> 22. How much does this
3 5 Low concern you? (Check one.)
4 0 Extremely low 1 CI Very much
5 CI Unsure 2 Cl Somewhat
3 Cl Not very much
4 CI Not at all
5 CI Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

163

23. These next statements deal with the finding of bovine TB in some
Michigan white-tailed deer. Please indicate how much you agree
or disagree with the following statements.

(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. I am concerned that deer
have been found with bovine SA A U D SD
TB in Northeast Michigan
,5. The bevine TB disease Isa Pf ...I...IIIIl‘l"'”‘P'P II IIIIiIlIII'PIPIEIIIII
. .senous threat-101th? health - -$A; .. ,. ...I.i.l.....IIII.IIIIIIIlIi PPP '
lie.“1denmherdfinn.MMiehi n. "...‘L... llIll .
c. It Is important for hunters In
Northeast Michigan to have
the deer they harvest SA A U D SD
checked for signs of bovine
TB.
Id. ‘ ‘Th’ebovineali’B issue has ' .1 . . ,jTPPP’ fig" '93:" !I‘ ”m .
. .. discoui'age alar en‘umber ..P ""‘P ‘
' 19f people from co?ningto " SA. . ;_‘PA" “ II'MIIIII IIII ,3 .
. Northeast MichIgan to hunt. I... .. . “"l ""‘PInI II'IIIIIIIEI I"
The bovine TB Issue has
discouraged a large number
of people who live in SA A U D SD
Northeast Michigan from
hunfing.

 

 

 

     

24. These next statements deal with the finding of bovine TB
in some Michigan livestock. Please indicate how much
you agree or disagree with the following statements.

(Circle one response for each.)

 

    

Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly

a. I am
have been found with bovine TB SA SD

a
health- of' ' SA

required to have their livestock SA

. , .4. .
for farmersin ' ‘ SA“

SA

In addition to livestock and deer, small numbers of other animals, including bear. fox,
coyote, raccoon, and bobcat. have been found with bovine TB in Northeast Michigan.

25. Before this survey, were you aware that any animals besides livestock and deer
have been found with bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 CI No

26. How much does it concern you that these animals have also been found
with bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 CI Very much
2 Cl Somewhat
3 D Not very much
4 [3 Not at all
5 Cl Unsure

 

I
I
165

27. Some people have said that bovine TB spreads in the ways described below.

Please indicate whether you think these proposed means of bovine TB spread
are true or false. (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  

 

   
 

  

- 1 2 3 4 5
Bovme TB spreads... Definitely Probably Unsure Probably Definitely
True True False False
...between deer by nose-to-
nose contact. DT PT U PF DF
...between livestock by 7 7
nose-to-nose contact. DT PT U PF DF
...between deer and
livestock by nose-to-nose DT PT U PF DF
cow-
...from one deer to other P
deer on infected feed. DT PT U PF DF
...from one livestock animal
to other livestock animals DT PT U PF DF
on infetled feed.
...from deer to livestock, or
livestock to deer, on DT PT U PF DF
infected feed.
28. Please indicate how much you support or oppose the following actions:
(Circle one response for each.)
1 2 3 4 s e
Strongly Support Unsure Oppose Strongly Don't
Support Oppose Care
Further reduction in the
number of deer in
Northeast Michigan in SS S U 0 SO DC
order to slow the
Soread of bovine TB ' .
aw j; oI o‘ag‘f’ljvethFk ., -. I'PIP,PP"IIP.P. j. ' .
. mews” WI! .« ; .er , 's, ' .
PP "OSltlvalmt e.futuré . P ’

 

 

 

 

 

166

10

 

 

 

 

 

29. Which, if any, of the activities currently used to eradicate bovine TB would you
NOT support, EVEN IF you were convinced that the action(s) made an essential
contribution to bovine TB eradication? (Check all that apply.)

1 Cl A ban on baiting deer

2 D A ban on feeding deer

3 CI A reduction in white-tailed deer numbers

4 Cl Destruction of any livestock animal found to be bovine TB-positive

5 Cl Destruction of an entire herd of livestock if one or more animals were
found to be bovine TB—positive

30. Are there actions that you believe should be taken to eradicate bovine TB other
than those listed in question number 29 above? Please describe them here. _

 

 

 

31. Have you or has anyone in your immediate family, been hurt financially due to the
bovine TB issue or eradication strategies in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 Cl No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 33)

 

32. To what degree would you say you/they have been
hurt financially? (Check one.)
1 Cl Agreat deal
2 Cl Somewhat
3 Cl Slightly
4 Cl Unsure

 

 

167

33. As new information is discovered about bovine TB in Michigan, would you
like to be informed about it? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes

2 Cl No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 35)

 

34. How would you prefer that new information be communicated to you?
(Check all that apply.)

1 Cl Directly through a newsletter

2 Cl Over mass-media, such as the television, newspaper or radio
3 Cl Over the internet

4 Cl Through public meetings

5 Cl Through wildlife. agriculture, or medical professionals

6 Cl Through local clubs or organizations

7 III From friends or family
3 Cl Other (please specify)

 

 

35. Please answer the following questions by circling one response for each.

 

 

 

 

1 2

Yes No

a. Have you ever personally talked to someone from a Y N
state agency about a bovine TB-related issue?

b. Have you ever attended a bovine TB-related public meeting? Y N

 

 

 

 

 

36. There is already some information available about each of the following topics on
bovine TB and related issues. Which of these topics would you like to know
more about? (Check all that apply.)

1 Cl General information about the bovine TB issue in Michigan

2 Cl Research on bovine TB transmission

3 Cl Information about the bovine TB testing process for livestock

4 Cl Methods to attract wildlife to your property without supplemental feed
5 Cl Information on how to identify bovine T8 lesions in deer

12

I68

 

This next set of questions deals with two of the State Agencies that have been
involved with eradicating bovine T8, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), and the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA).

37. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. The MDA provides accurate
information on agriculture SA A U D SD
issues.
b. The MDA cares about
farmers’ concerns. SA A U D so
c. The MDA cares about
sportsmen’s concerns. SA A U D so
d. The MDA has done a good P m P
job dealing with the bovine SA A U D SD
TB issue.
e. In general, the DNR manages
natural resources in 3 SA A U D SD

scientifically sound manner.
f. The DNR provides accurate
information on natural SA A U D SD
resource issues.

9. The DNR cares about
sportsmen’s concerns.

h. The DNR cares about
farmers’ SA A U D SD
concerns

i. The DNR has done a good
job dealing with the bovine SA A U D SD
TB issue.

I BACKGROUND INFORMATION .

In order for us to more fully understand people ’3 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.

 

 

SA A U D SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38. How many years have you lived in Northeast Michigan? YEARS
39. In what county do you currently live? COUNTY

13

169

 

40. Do you own property in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)
1 CI Yes
2 Cl No (If ‘No', please skip to question 43)

 

41. Approximately how many acres do you own? ACRES

42. Which of the following uses do you make of this land?
(Check all that apply.)
1 Cl Residence
2 Cl Agricultural Production
3 CI Recreation
4 Cl Investment
5 Cl Other (please specify)

 

 

 

43. Do you currently raise any livestock? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 C] No

 

 

44. Do you regularly hunt deer in N>ortheast Michigan? (Check one.)

1 Cl Yes
2 g No (If ‘No’, skip to 45. Approximately how many years have

question 46) you been a deer hunter?
YEARS

 

46. Is anyone in your immediate family a deer hunter? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 Cl No

47. Do you have access to the internet at home or at work? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 D No
48. Are you male or female?
1 Cl Male
2 C] Female

49. In what year were you born? 19

14

170

 

 

Thank you for your participation!
If you have any other comments that 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:

Bovine TB Opinion Survey

13 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1222

 

15

171

 

 

This survey deals with the bovine tuberculosis (TB) issue in Michigan and

related topics such as wildlife and agriculture. Remember, you don’t have
to be very familiar with the bovine TB issue in order to answer the survey.
We are interested in evemone’s responses.

 

 

[WHITE-TAILED DEER :I

 

First, we would like to know about some of your opinions on white-tailed deer

and

1. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

deer management.

statements. (Circle one response for each.)

an should...
1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deer management in Northeast Michir
Strongly Agree Unzure Dis:gm Strosngly
Agree Disagree
a. ...minimize crop losses due to
deer. SA A U D SD
b. ...prevent deer from disturbing or
destroying natural plant SA A U D SD
communities.
0. ...maintain the highest possible
deer harvest (success) rate for SA A U D SD
hunters.
d. ...ensure car-deer accident rates
are as low as possible. SA A U D SD
e ...keep deer as physically healthy SA A U D SD
as possible.
f. ...maximize the money that deer
SA A U D SD

 

 

I—

 

hunters bring to Northeast
Michi an's economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lir‘“ "PP

‘W‘P'q

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rt UPI-E ' -
Fewer Deer More Deer

 

N

In the figure above, g represents the current number of deer in the county in which
you live. Choose the letter above the line which is closest to the number of deer you
think would be a reasonable goal just before the 2001 deer hunting season in the
county in which you live. (Circle one letter or check not sure.)

AEQQEEQEL _NOTSURE

“Feeding” deer is defined in Michigan as placing food materials out that attract
deer for any reason other than for hunting. The Natural Resources Commission
voted to ban deer feeding in 2000 for all Michigan counties where a deer has
been found with bovine TB. (This is not the same as “baiting'.)

3. What' Is your opinion of the ban on feeding deer as defined above? (Check one.)
1 CI Strongly support ..
2 EJ Support
3 CI Unsure
4 CI Oppose
5 D Strongly oppose
6 [3 Don't Care

 

174

 

4. Before the feed ban, did you feed deer on property in Northeast Michigan? (Check
one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 C] No (If ’No’, please skip to question 6)

 

5. How important was feeding deer to you before the feed ban?
(Check one.)
ICI Very important
2 Cl Important
3 ['3 Somewhat important
4 Cl Not important
5 D Unsure

 

 

6. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.
(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. It is important for people to
feed deer in order to kee
'0 SA A u D so

deer alive through winters
in Northeast Michigan.

b. DNR Conservation Officers ,
will strongly enforce the SA A U ‘ ‘ D SD
feed ban in 2000. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Baiting” deer is defined in Michigan as gutting out food materials for deer to attract,
lure, or entice them as an aid in hunting. The Natural Resources Commission voted to
ban baiting for the 2000 hunting season in all Michigan counties where a deer has
been found with bovine TB.

7. What is your opinion of the ban on baiting deer as defined above? (Check one.)
1 Cl Strongly support
2 Cl Support
3 El Unsure
4 Cl Oppose
5 Cl Strongly oppose
a Cl Don’t care

8. Would you support a statewide ban on baiting deer? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 C] No
3 D Unsure

I75

9. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements about baiting.

 

(Circle one response for each.)
1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS )

4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
a. Baiting deer is an acceptable
hunting practicea“. SA A U D SD
III: , ‘ {five with meg! . .. ‘P.’ III;- ' ‘ ‘9
E'P'P‘P» :PPh P WWWWWIW inP PI PPSA: PP'PP PAR! IPP‘PH PM: P ,PPP
" . PNoI eastIMichIganIas much as. ‘ I )II'IIIII . ‘I
. they us‘edto. “ IIII‘ PII‘IIIIIII‘...' . .Il '
c. DNR Conservation Officers will
strongly enforce the bait ban In SA A U D SD
the 2000 deer hunting season.
,d. The pvernment has unfairly - =5".’." full? '9'" ”(III III»
' ,- restricted peeple’srigiits by 'S’A ‘AP‘;PPPIIII ”PP“ “FM IIII'IIP IIII
’, .- ' panning deer baiting and deer , w .. I ‘ ’ .I IIIHIIIPII I! It
.I I f .I lIP" I.“ ‘11:";
» .__g e_e__gdin'. ., ...IIII'EI' “Pam. PII II

The following set of questions deals with bovine tuberculosis (TB) and the
attempts to eradicate the bovine TB disease in Michigan.

10. Do you support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB in wildlife and
domestic livestock in Michigan? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes, I strongly support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.

2
3
TB.

5
6

I76

Yes, I support the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
I am unsure about my opinion about the overall goal to eradicate bovine

Cl
Cl

4 Cl No, I oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
Cl No, I strongly oppose the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.
III l have no opinion about the overall goal to eradicate bovine TB.

 

11. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.
(Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
Agree Dlsagree
a. it is possible to eradicate
bovine TB in Northeast SA A U D SD
Michigan.
b. The bovine TB issue has hurt ‘ . ' ,..~II ',,..I“.,.I,l.l?I"‘II:;f;iz‘
the economy in Northeast SA A U “ ”"f , E3 '.
___M_|°h|9fl , Inn I‘IMIMII‘I'I

 

 

12. For the following statements about bovine TB, please indicate whether you think
the statement is True or False, or whether you are Unsure. (Circle one response

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for each.)
1 2 3
True False Unsure
a. There is a vaccine that can be used to keep T F U
animals from getting bovine tuberculosis.
b. Less than 25 deer have been found with bovine
TB In Michigan since 1995. T F U
c. Animals that have bovine TB almost always show
visible signs of the disease in their organs and T F U
lymph tissue.
d. Most states in the US have found bovine TB in T F U
their wildlife.
e. All dairy herds in the State of Michigan must now
be tested for bovine TB every year until Michigan T F U
regains its bovine TB-free status.

 

 

 

 

13. Do you believe that humans can get bovine tuberculosis? (Check one.)

_ 1 es
”Id 2 Cl No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 16)
3 Cl Unsure If ‘Unsure’ lease ski to uestion 16

14. In your opinion, what is the chance that some person will get bovine TB
in Northeast Michigan if the disease is not eradicated? (Check one.)

1 Cl Extremely high
2 C] High 15. How much does this
3 Cl Low concern you? (Check

   

 

 

4 D Extremely low one.)

5 Cl Unsure 1 5 Very much
2 Cl Somewhat
3 Cl Not very much
4 Cl Not at all

C] Unsure

OI

 

 

 

 

 

 

I77

16. These next statements deal with the finding of bovine TB in
Michigan white-tailed deer. Please indicate how much you

agree or disagree with the following statements.

response for each.)

(Circle one

 

1
Strongly
Agree

2
Agree

Unsure

4
Dlsagree

5
Strongly
Disagree

 

I am concerned that deer have
been found with bovine TB in
Northeast Michigan.

 

__ .meueerherclImMIchigan-

SA

U

 

 

. . The’bO’IIine'TB-dise'ase:isa

seriousvthr'eatito the health of

SA

‘
I;

'II ..Il:

Ull'

f'rln :ihigic.

SD

 

 

' i t‘lI.
u ’

Iflglnlitll

. ,..
u’I‘OII'.‘

 

It is important for hunters in
Northeast Michigan to have the
deer they harvest checked for
signs of bovine TB

SA

 

 

_._ Michigan to hunt.

;Thebevine TBissuelhas .

discouraged a large number of
people frOm coming 10 Northeast

SA:

'9- “II:.~I.IIII.3,3.,
‘uliu. , ,,
‘1llll""‘I
‘ xi: IHIII‘I‘} : .

 

The bovine TB issue has
discouraged a large number of
people who live in Northeast

 

Michigan from hunting.

 

SA

 

U

 

 

 

 

 

17. These next statements deal with the finding of bovine TB in some
Michigan livestock. Please indicate how much you agree or

disagree with the following stateme

Strongly
Agree

Agree

nts. gCircle one re
1 2

Unsure

 

asgonse for each.)
3 4

Dlsagree

5
Strongly
Disagree

 

I am concerned that livestock
have been found with bovine TB
in Northeast Michigan.

SA

A

U

D

SD

 

Bovine TB in wild deer is a
serious threat to the health of
livestock in Michigan.

 

SA

SD

 

It is appropriate that farmers be
required to have their livestock
tested for bovine TB.

SA

 

The bovine TB issue has caused
too much hardship for farmers in

Northeast Michigan.

 

 

SA

 

Beef and milk from Northeast
Michigan are safe to consume.

 

 

SA

 

 

 

 

 

 

178

 

In addition to livestock and deer, small numbers of other animals, including bear, fox,
coyote, raccoon, and bobcat, have been found with bovine TB in Northeast Michigan.

18. Before this survey, were you aware that any animals besides livestock and deer
have been found with bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 C] No

19. How much does it concern you that these animals have also been found with
bovine TB? (Check one.)
1 El Very much

Cl Somewhat

Cl Not very much

CI Not at all

Cl Unsure

 

01wa

20. Some people have said that bovine TB spreads in the ways described below.
Please indicate whether you think these proposed means of bovine TB spread
are true or false. (Circle one response for each.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 1 2 3 4 5
Bovme TB spreads... Definitely Probably Unsure Probably Definitely
True True False False
a. ...between deer by nose-to—
nose contact. DT PT U PF DF
b. ...between livestock by V D W Wfi
nose-to-nose contact. DT PT U PF OF
C. ...between deer and
livestock by nose-to-nose DT PT U PF DF
contact. 3 7 ._
d. ...from one deer to other
deer on infected feed. DT . PT U PF DF
e. ...from one livestock animal
to other livestock animals DT PT U PF DF
on infected feed.
f. ...from deer to livestock, or
livestock to deer, on DT PT U PF DF
infected feed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

179

21. Please indicate how much you support or oppose the following actions:

 

(Circle one response for each.)
1

2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Support Unsure Oppose Strongly Don't
Support Oppose Care

 

a. Further reduction in
the number of deer in
Northeast Michigan in SS 8 U 0 80 DC
order to slow the
spread of bovine TB

 

b. Destruction of
livestock animals that
are found to be bovine SS S U 0 80 DC
TB—positive in the
future

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22. Which, if any, of the activities currently used to eradicate bovine TB would you
NOT suppon, EVEN lF you were convinced that the action(s) made an essential
contribution to bovine TB eradication? (Check all that apply.)

1 D A ban on baiting deer

2 Cl A ban on feeding deer

3 D A reduction in white-tailed deer numbers

4 El Destruction of any livestock animal found to be bovine TB—positive

5 Cl Destruction of an entire herd of livestock if one or more animals were
found to be bovine TB-positive

23. Are there actions that you believe should be taken to eradicate bovine TB other
than those listed in question number 22 above? Please describe them here.

 

 

 

 

180

24. Have you or has anyone in your immediate family been hurt financially due to
the bovine TB issue or eradication strategies in Northeast Michigan? (Check
one.)

1 CI Yes
2 C] No (If ‘No', please skip to question 26)

 

25. To what degree would you say you/they have been hurt
financially? (Check one.)
1 Cl A great deal
2 Cl Somewhat
3 CI Slightly
4 Cl Unsure

 

 

 

26. As new information is discovered about bovine TB in Michigan, would you
like to be informed about it? (Check one.)
1 CI Yes
2 Cl No (If ‘No’, skip to question 28)

 

 

27. How would you prefer that new information be communicated to
you? (Check all that apply.)
1 Cl Directly through a newsletter
2 Cl Over mass-media, such as the television, newspaper or radio
3 Cl Over the internet
4 Cl Through public meetings
5 Cl Through wildlife, agriculture, or medical professionals
6 Cl Through local clubs or organizations
7 Cl From friends or family
a C] Other (please specify)

 

 

28. Please answer the following questions by circling one response for each.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2
Yes No
a. Have you ever personally talked to someone from Y N
a state ggency about a bovine TB-related issue?
b. Have you ever attended a bovine TB-related public Y ' N
meeting?
9

l8]

29. There is already some information available about each of the following topics on
bovine TB and related issues. Which of these topics would you like to know more
about? (Check all that apply.)

1 Cl General information about the bovine TB issue in Michigan

2 Cl Research on bovine TB transmission

3 D Information about the bovine TB testing process for livestock

4 CI Methods to attract wildlife to your property without supplemental feed
5 Cl Information on how to identify bovine TB lesions in deer

These next few questions deal with two of the State Agencies that have been involved with
eradicating bovine TB, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the
Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA).

 

30. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Unsure Dlsagree Strongly
Agree Dlsagree
a. The MDA provides accurate
information on agriculture SA A U D SD
issues.
b. The MDA has done a good job
dealing with the bovine TB SA A U D SD
issue.
c. In general, the DNR manages
natural resources in a SA A U D SD
scientifically sound manner.
d. The DNR provides accurate
information on natural resource SA A U D SD
issues.
e. The DNR has done a good job
dealing with the bovine TB SA A U D SD
issue.

 

 

 

 

I82

 

I BACKGROUND INFORMATION I

In order for us to more fully understand people ’5 responses to the previous questions,
we need to know a few things about your background. Remember that your
responses are comgletely confidential and that neither your name nor your address
will be directly linked to your responses in any way.

31. How many years have you lived in Northeast Michigan? YEARS
32. In what county do you currently live? COUNTY
33. Do you own property in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)

1 D Yes
2 Cl No (If ‘No’, please skip to question 36)

 

34. Approximately how many acres do you own? ACRES

35. Which of the following uses do you make of this land?
(Check all that apply.)
1 Cl Residence
[3 Agricultural Production
CI Recreation
Cl Investment
Cl Other (please specify)

0|wa

 

 

 

36. Do you currently raise any livestock? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 Cl No

37. Do you regularly hunt deer in Northeast Michigan? (Check one.)

1 D Yes 38. Approximately how many years have

2 Cl NO (If ‘No', SHE ‘0 you been a deer hunter?
question 39) YEARS

 

 

 

39. Is anyone in your immediate family a deer hunter? (Check one.)
1 Cl Yes
2 C] No

40. Do you have access to the internet at home or at work? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 Cl No

11

183

 

 

-‘

 

41. Are you employed for pay? (Check one.)
1 D Yes
2 Cl No (If ‘No’, Llease skip to question 44)

42. Please indicate the economic sector that best describes the one in
which you work: (Check one.)
1 Cl Service (Hotels, Restaurants, etc.)
2 Cl Retail Trade
3 CI Wholesale Trade
4 Cl Manufacturing/Construction
5 0 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
6 Cl Agriculture Services, Forestry, Fishing
7 Cl Government (Local, State, Federal)
8 [3 Transportation and Public Utilities
9 Cl Other (please specify)

 

43. Are you the owner or general manager of your place of
employment? (Check one)
1 Cl Yes
2 C] No

 

 

 

44. Are you male or female?
1 B Male
2 Cl Female

45. In what year were you born? 19

Thank you for your participationl
If you have any other comments that you would like to share with us, please use
additional sheets and mail them with your completed suvey.

Please use the enclosed addressed
and stamped envelope or return this

 

Bovine TB Opinion Survey

13 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1222

12

184

IIlil‘iijjllilllllllllilllil