, : ‘12.}.

12‘» 3.219.:
r

5) "d in. a.»

a.
. .
If

r .5
A

Hmfln up i.

.wssvlfimfifl‘nak

 

 

h. z s
gnuuhomm..

:0: 3: 2‘)" u...
£115.: 1.. :53!
.r 519.243. . .

.21.
3‘an .135
., u ..

‘23“.

 

. . .1 . -. K, . 1%.. V4}...m.’.. »
mfifififl? afiw..fia;w§£.mnw£ :rw 145%“:

III.
‘

 

 

kms

9.00?

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ENABLING IMPACT-BASED MANAGEMENT OF
ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY FOR WHITE-TAILED DEER
IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN

presented by

Stacy A. Lischka

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree
Master of Science in Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

 

  
 

/

nature
5—- ll ~ 20ng

Date

 

Major Profe sor’s

MSU is an Afiinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

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

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/ClRC/Date0ue.indd-p.1

 

ENABLING IMPACT-BASED MANAGEMENT OF
ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY FOR WHITE-TAILED DEER
IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN

By

Stacy A. Lischka

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

2006

ABSTRACT

ENABLING IMPACT-BASED MANAGEMENT OF ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY
FOR WHITE-TAILED DEER IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN

By

Stacy A. Lischka

Stakeholders incur escalating frequency and variety of impacts (recognized, important
effects of interactions with wildlife) from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) as a
result of broader distribution and increased abundance of deer and people. The purpose
of this project was to enable the application of impact-based management of deer in
southern Michigan though study of causal links between wildlife-related experiences,
impacts incurred by stakeholders and acceptance capacity for deer. I report on findings
from 20 qualitative interviews and a mail-back questionnaire sent to 3,520 households.
Residents of southern Michigan frequently identify a visible deer herd, a perceptual cue
to the naturalness of the area in which they live, as a positive impact, and a concern about
deer-vehicle collisions as a negative impact of deer populations. Perception of impacts is
a primary factor affecting acceptance capacity for deer. Exploration of impact perception
and acceptance capacity among 3 stakeholder groups in deer management (farmers,
hunters and non-farming, non-hunting rural residents) indicated differences. I suggest
management focused on these impacts may increase stakeholder satisfaction and decrease

issue activity associated with deer populations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My completion of this thesis and degree would not have been possible without the
support and guidance of many remarkable people.

First, to those who offered technical assistance during the development and
administration of the mail survey and this project: Dr. Rique Campa, Dr. Kirk Heinze,
Dr. Jody Enck, Dr. Ben Peyton, Brian Frawley, Dr. Shelly DuBay, Shannon Hannah,
Jordan Pusateri, Lindsey Bock, Theresa Riebow, Becky Wilson, Rebecca Christoffel,
Tim Hiller and Dr. Sandra Herman. Your assistance, advice and review of my methods
improved the quality of this research significantly. Thank you to the Michigan DNR,
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan Chapter of the Rocky Mountain
Goats Foundation and Michigan Involvement Committee of the Safari Club International
for funding this research.

Several individuals at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Dr. Bill
Moritz, Dr. Pat Lederle, Brent Rudolph, Dave Freed, Rebecca Humphries and Patricia
Stewart, have served as role models and collaborators during my time at MSU, for which
I thank them. My time spent “embedded” within the MDNR has not only solidified my
desire to work within a state wildlife agency, but has provided me with a glimpse of a
motivated, inspired group of individuals working to create real change. The lessons
you’ve shared will be with me far into my own career.

To the people who helped keep me sane when statistics threatened my very
existence, my fellow PART—mates: Dan Linden, Andrea J aeger, Janice Siegford, Paul

Jenkins, Gretchen Anderson, Jon Hansen, Ty Wagner, Jon Deroba, Dr. Mike and Linda

iii

Jones, Dr. Mary Bremigan, Amy Derosier and Kevin Goodwin. Thank you all for your
unending ability to make me laugh and realize that all grad students feel dweeby, and
your willingness to wash it all away with a few cold beers.

To my advisor, Dr. Shawn Riley: Over the last 3 years you’ve been not only a
role model for a successful career in wildlife management, but also a friend and
confidant; a mentor in the truest sense of the word. The stimulating conversations we’ve
had about wildlife management, and life, have helped me feel confident that, someday, I
will follow your model to become an engaged, thinking, contributing member of both the
wildlife management community and society as a whole. Your unending patience for my
idiosyncrasies, toughness with an editing pen and friendship are included in the most
impressive lists of qualities I’ve known. Thank you, Shawn.

To the people who brought me into this world and supported me for the last 25
years (literally and figuratively!), my family: If I have learned one lesson as the sole
Lischka inhabitant of the east side of Lake Michigan, it is that home is not a place; it’s
the people there and their voices, hugs, cooking and love. Thank you all for reminding
me of that when I most needed it. Thank you, Jessie, for sometimes being the big sister
and for letting me be one on occasion. Thank you, mom and dad, for encouraging me to
make decisions like an adult, forgiving me when I couldn’t and giving me a boot when I
wouldn’t. I certainly could not have made it this far without your constant support, love
and understanding. I hope I’ve grown up to be a woman you’re proud of; an honor much
more important to me than the highest of degrees.

And, last, to the best thing to come out of my time at MSU, my Canadian, Andy.

Your sense of humour, remarkable ability to calm me and love are more than I could

iv

have ever asked for. You’ve helped me to realize that, while things may never turn out as
I planned, I’ll always have you around to help me get to where I should be. Here’s to our

future. .. together.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... x
ORGANIZATION OF THESIS .............................................................................. xi
PROBLEM STATEMENT ........................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 1: Enabling Impact-based Management of Wildlife Populations: a novel
method to identify and manage the effects of wildlife on stakeholders

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4
Value-focused Wildlife Management ................................................ 4
A Case Study: White-tailed deer in southern Michigan ................... 7
STUDY AREA .............................................................................................. 9
The Ecological Setting: the agro-forested landscape of southern
Michigan ............................................................................................ 9
The Human Setting: the changing social landscape of southern
Michigan .......................................................................................... 10
STUDY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................. 11
METHODS ............................................................................................... 11
In-depth Interviews .......................................................................... ll
Self-administered Survey ................................................................. 12
Impacts: Identification and Change ................................................. 14
Acceptance Capacity ........................................................................ 16
Statistical Methods ........................................................................... 16
RESULTS ............................................................................................... 17
Self-administered Survey Response ................................................ 17
Impacts: Identification and Change ................................................. 18
Effect of Impact Perception on Acceptance Capacity ..................... 20
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 21
Identification of Impacts .................................................................. 21
Managing Impacts of Wildlife Populations ..................................... 23
Impacts and Acceptance Capacity .................................................... 24
Future Research Needs ........................................................... 26
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................ 28
TABLES AND FIGURES ........................................................................... 34

vi

CHAPTER 2: Factors Affecting Acceptance Capacity for White-tailed Deer among
Residents of Southern Michigan

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 45
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................. 46
Managing Acceptance Capacity for Wildlife Species ..................... 46
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 49
Deer Management in Southern Michigan: a landscape
of change and opportunity ............................................................... 49
The Ecological Setting: the agro-forested landscape
of southern Michigan ....................................................................... 49
The Social Setting: rural rebound in southern Michigan ................ 50
The Stakeholders: intersection of the ecological
and social landscapes ....................................................................... 52
STUDY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 53
METHODS .................................................................................................. 54
In-depth Interviews .......................................................................... 54
Self-administered Survey ................................................................. 55
Impacts: Identification and Change ................................................. 56
Stakeholder Groups for White-tailed Deer Management ................ 58
Modeling Acceptance Capacity for White-tailed Deer .................... 58
RESULTS ............................................................................................... 59
Self-administered Survey Response ................................................ 59
Wildlife Related Activities .............................................................. 60
Impacts Identified ............................................................................ 61
Perception of Trends in Deer Numbers ........................................... 61
Stakeholder Groups for White-tailed Deer Management ................ 62
Modeling Acceptance Capacity for White-tailed Deer .................... 63
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 66
Influence of DVCs on Impact Perception ......................................... 66
Stakeholder Groups for White-tailed Deer Management ................ 67
Modeling Acceptance Capacity for White-tailed Deer .................... 70
Future Research Needs .................................................................... 71
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................ 73
TABLES AND FIGURES ........................................................................... 79

CHAPTER 3: Recommendations for the Management of White-tailed
Deer in southern Michigan ............................................................... 83

Justification for Impact-based Management and Consequences

of “No Action” ................................................................................. 84
Managing Impacts and Acceptance Capacity for

White-tailed Deer .............................................................................. 85
Engaging Stakeholders in White-tailed Deer Management ............. 87
Literature Cited ................................................................................. 91

vii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Consent Form and Question Guide for

In-depth Interviews ............................................................ 92
APPENDIX B: “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”
Survey Cover Letter 1 ........................................................ 97
APPENDIX C: “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”
Survey Instrument and Percent Response ............................ 99
APPENDIX D: “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”
Survey Reminder Postcard ................................................ 1 l 1
APPENDIX E: “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”
Survey Cover Letter 2 ....................................................... 1 13
APPENDIX F: “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”
Non-response Survey with Percent Response .................. 1 15

viii

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1: Enabling Impact-based Management of Wildlife Populations: a novel
method to identify and manage the effects of wildlife on stakeholders

Table 1. Impacts resulting from interactions with white-tailed deer .............. 41

CHAPTER 2: Factors Affecting Acceptance Capacity for White-tailed Deer among
Residents of Southern Michigan

Table 1. Rank-order list of impacts identified by respondents who have been in a
DVC and respondents who have not been in a DVC in the 3 years
previous to survey response. ............................................................. 79

Table 2. Chi square statistics comparing frequencies of impact perception among
stakeholder groups ............................................................................ 80

Table 3. Multiple linear regression of factors affecting acceptance capacity for
white-tailed deer ............................................................................... 82

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1: Enabling Impact-based Management of Wildlife Populations: a novel
method to identify and manage the effects of wildlife on stakeholders

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Interactions to impacts pathway. ..................................................... 34

Recognized effects of interactions with deer in southern
Michigan as reported by survey respondents in south-central
Michigan, 2005. .............................................................................. 35

Important effects of interactions with deer as reported by survey
respondents in south-central Michigan, 2005 .................................. 39

Mean number of impacts identified by survey respondents with varying
levels of desired change in deer numbers over the next 5 years in south-
central Michigan, 2005 .................................................................... 42

Desired change in impacts by varying levels of desired change in the

deer population as reported by survey respondents in south-central
Michigan, 2005. ............................................................................. 43

ORGANIZATION OF THESIS

This thesis is organized into 3 chapters. Throughout, this thesis follows the style
required for submission to the journal Wildlife Society Bulletin. Chapter 1 presents
research findings supporting the use of impacts and acceptance capacity to guide
management of wildlife species. Chapter 2 is the main focus of the thesis and explores
factors affecting acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
among residents of southern Michigan. Chapter 3 offers recommendations for
management of white-tailed deer based on the findings of this study. The appendices

present the data collection instruments and summary statistics.

xi

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Stakeholders throughout much of the United States are incurring increasing
effects from wildlife populations as a result of changes in the distribution and abundance
of both animals and people. The frequency and intensity of effects have increased to
such an extent that stakeholder efforts to intervene in management decisions are
increasing. Conventional wildlife management strategies, which primarily address a
limited suite of stakeholders (i.e. consumptive resource users) and focus on managing
population size through regulated harvest, are no longer fiilly adequate to address the
nature and frequency of impacts perceived by stakeholders. Impacts are defined as
effects arising from interactions with wildlife that are recognized by stakeholders and
deemed important enough to warrant management. Impact-based management of
wildlife populations focuses on managing the impacts to stakeholders rather than solely
numbers of animals. For impact-based management to assist in addressing the current
challenges to wildlife management, the causal links between specific wildlife-related
experiences and the impacts incurred by stakeholders must be identified. Additional
information about causal linkages between impact perception and acceptance capacity for
a wildlife population will allow management based on these measures at both the state
and local scales. To date, however, little empirical data exists that explores these
relationships.

This study aims to identify impacts perceived as a result of populations of white-
tailed deer in southern Michigan and how those impacts affect acceptance capacity for

deer. It focuses on a study area with increasing rural development and human

populations, decreasing agriculture and large deer herds, typical among white-tailed deer
range in the Midwestern United States, and targets rural residents, a population likely to
be affected by and capable of affecting deer management. Identification of impacts may
offer managers additional methods to achieve more effective management of white-tailed

deer for the benefit of all stakeholders.

CHAPTER 1

Enabling Impact-based Management of Wildlife Populations:
a novel method to identify the effects of wildlife on stakeholders

Enabling Impact-based Management of Wildlife Populations:

a novel method to identify the effects of wildlife on stakeholders

Introduction

Value-focused wildlife management

Structured decision making involves setting fundamental objectives and
establishing their link to enabling objectives (Hammond et al. 1999). Fundamental
objectives state the context-driven, value-based outcomes desired by decision-makers.
Enabling objectives are the means by which fundamental objectives can be achieved
(Keeney 1992). Identification of the desired end state and methods used to achieve it will
increase the likelihood of prescribed actions resulting in predicted outcomes.

Failure to establish detailed knowledge of the relationship between fundamental
and enabling objectives can lead to unexpected outcomes (Keeney 1992), making
achievement of fundamental objectives unlikely and reducing stakeholder satisfaction.
Despite this risk, when faced with challenging situations, it is human nature to focus on
defining and achieving enabling objectives to the exclusion of fundamental objectives
(Hammond et al. 1999). Decision makers in wildlife management behave no differently
when faced with complicated decisions, especially when they relate to stakeholder values
(Gill 1996).

Wildlife decision-making based on the active engagement of stakeholders may
enhance our ability to predictably achieve the objectives of managers and resource users

through joint, explicit identification of fundamental and enabling objectives (Gregory and

Keeney 1992). Strategies such as Adaptive Impact Management (AIM; Riley et al.
2003b, Enck et al. 2006), a structured methodology for the incorporation of stakeholders
in objectives setting, may provide several advantages over conventional wildlife
management, including increased relevance to society, greater stakeholder satisfaction,
ability of managers to adapt to change and uncertainty, and increasing societal and
agency-based learning (Decker et al. 1996).

A necessary condition for joint objective setting is a quantity by which to discuss
wildlife populations that is meaningful and acceptable to the 2 key groups in wildlife
management: managers and stakeholders. This quantity will allow objective setting and
measurement of socially-relevant outcomes by providing a common language with which
to discuss wildlife populations. Though they are unlikely to think in these terms,
stakeholders define fundamental and enabling objectives based on a population’s effects
on human land use, environment and interactions with other humans and wildlife (Riley
and Decker 2000). In contrast, wildlife managers have traditionally defined objectives
of management in terms of population size in relation to habitat availability (Miller and
Wentworth 2000). Riley et al. (2002) proposed impacts as an integrative quantity to
allow objective setting between these groups. Impacts are defined as effects arising from
interactions with wildlife that are recognized by stakeholders and deemed important
enough to warrant management (Figure 1). Wildlife-related interactions may occur when
stakeholders come into contact directly with wildlife species, with the land that supports
wildlife and human populations or with other humans as a result of wildlife populations
or management actions (Riley et al. 2002). All interactions with or resulting from

wildlife have outcomes, however, to be classified as an impact, outcomes must be both

(a) perceived by the human population and (b) valued by the human population.
Therefore, impacts are a subset of the full suite of outcomes of interactions with wildlife;
those deemed important enough to warrant attention and management action.

It is often useful or necessary for managers to judge the aggregated impacts of a
wildlife population for large-scale management. I propose that perception of the positive
and negative impacts resulting from interactions with a wildlife population will aggregate
to determine an individual’s overall judgment of a tolerable population size, or
acceptance capacity, for a species.

The concept of acceptance capacity has roots in the management of recreational
lands, where the desire to allow access to the greatest number of users is offset by the
desire to minimize the effect of users on one another (Graefe et al. 1984). In it’s
application to wildlife management, acceptance capacity has been applied under the
rubrics of wildlife acceptance capacity (WAC; Decker and Purdy 1988), a measure of the
maximum wildlife population size tolerable to humans, cultural carrying capacity (CCC,
Minnis and Peyton 1995), a measure of the issue activity resulting from the effects of
wildlife populations on humans, and wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC,
Carpenter et al. 2000), a measure of the acceptable maximum and minimum population
size for individual stakeholder groups. Although these concepts differ in their specifics,
the suggestion of a limit to a human population’s capacity to accept the effects of a
wildlife population is common among them. In this paper, I do not attempt to determine
which of these concepts is most appropriate to guide wildlife management; rather, I focus
on methods by which to identify and measure impacts resulting from wildlife

populations, thereby enabling the management of acceptance capacity for wildlife.

Because acceptance capacity is based on the perception of a wildlife population’s
effect on stakeholders and impacts quantify effects of individual interactions with
wildlife, these values are applicable to management decisions at the local and regional
scales of wildlife management. Providing managers with a reliable quantity which
incorporates stakeholder values, allows clarification of the fundamental and enabling
objectives of management and is relevant at the multiple scales of wildlife management
decision-making is a principle contribution of this research. Whereas the concepts of
acceptance capacity and impacts have been accepted into the vernacular of wildlife
researchers, there is significant need for the development of standard measures of both
quantities (Gigliotti et al. 2000, Riley et al. 2002), in particular, measures which are
applicable at the scale of agency wildlife management. The contribution of these
concepts to wildlife management is currently limited by this lack of standard measures
and knowledge of the impacts resulting from interactions with specific wildlife
populations (Riley et al. 2002). By testing new techniques for the measurement of
impacts and aggregation into a measure of acceptance capacity, this study will enable the
implementation of impact-based decision making in the management of white-tailed deer
in south central Michigan, providing a framework for further identification and

management of impacts in wildlife management.

A case study: White-tailed deer in southern Michigan
The tension between the negative effects of large deer herds and the positive
effects demanded by active segments of the public forms the basis for what may be one

of the most important wildlife management challenges faced by state agency biologists

today (Woolf and Roseberry 1998). Management of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) is an important and controversial activity (Swihart and DeNicola 1997),
demanding vast resources of state management agencies across the Midwest. White-
tailed deer are considered by some to be a keystone species (Waller and Alverson 1997)
with long and short-term effects on forest regeneration (Tilghman 1989), disease
prevalence in wild and domestic animal populations (Ostfield et al. 1996), agricultural
production (Conover 1997), songbird abundance (deCalesta 1994) and the frequency of
deer-vehicle collisions (DVCs; Romin and Bissonette 1996) in areas with high densities.
In addition, recreational and psychological benefits associated with deer populations form
significant economic and values contributions to society (Conover 1997). Deer numbers
which have recently exceeded record levels (Warren 1997) and changing human land use
in forested landscapes (Riiters et al. 2002) have increased the frequency and intensity of
deer-human interactions. Issue activity resulting from these interactions and directed at
local and state wildlife managers has undergone a concurrent increase in frequency and
intensity (Swihart and DeNicola 1997).

As suggested by Decker and Chase (1997), I believe that an inquisitive approach
to stakeholder involvement in white-tailed deer management will result in more
acceptable management decisions and reduce the issue activity resulting from
management actions. In addition, knowledge of the impacts resulting from interactions
with deer will allow decision-makers to set enabling objectives that provide for the
achievement of fundamental objectives desired by stakeholders. Management decisions
made on the basis of impacts and acceptance capacity may ensure greater relevancy of

wildlife management into the future.

Study area

The ecological setting: Agra-forested landscape of southern Michigan

This study was conducted Jackson, Washtenaw and Livingston counties,
Michigan, an area dominated by the mixed agricultural and deciduous forested landscape
commonly found across the range of white-tailed deer. The climate in this region is well
suited to agricultural production, with a long growing season (160 to 170 days), mild
winters (minimal temperatures -29° C) and high average precipitation (71 to 86
centimeters). The physical landscape, characterized as an interlobate and morainal
region, is dominated by glacial end and outwash moraines, small lakes and streams in a
hilly terrain formed when several lobes of the Laurentide ice sheet came together (Comer
et al. 1995).

Historically, oak (Quercus spp.) — hickory (Carya spp.) forests dominated the
landscape, however, most of the area was cleared for agriculture by the mid-nineteenth
century (Comer et a1. 1995). Increased human development and fire suppression have
intensified changes to the landscape and the remaining forested areas are relatively small
fragments of closed-canopy, beech (Fagus grandifolia) - sugar maple (Acer saccharum)
and oak-hickory dominated systems (Comer et al. 1995). Human land use has also
dramatically altered the wetland and aquatic ecosystems of this area through
eutrophication and degradation (Comer et al. 1995).

The expanse of publicly owned lands at the core of the study area remain
ecologically diverse, native forest due to a heterogeneous landscape and protection by

State ownership (Comer et al. 1995). The Pinckney and Waterloo State Recreation Areas

contain several of the largest remaining natural plant communities in the lower peninsula
of Michigan (Cooper et al. 2000). Kettle lakes and steep, gravelly and sandy kames are
common in the Pinckney and Waterloo Recreation Areas (Albert et al. 1986). The area
contains several rare natural communities in a diverse landscape of forest, open-land and
wetlands, providing habitat for a wide variety of plants and wildlife, including element
occurrences of several locally and globally rare species. The Recreation Areas,
combined, contain more rare plants and animals than any other state owned lands in
Michigan (Cooper et al 2000). By providing suitable habitat for a variety of rare and
common species, the Pinckney —-Waterloo Recreation Area makes a significant

contribution to the biodiversity of southern Michigan.

The human setting: Changing social landscape of southern Michigan

Changes in land use patterns in southern Michigan, specifically in the 3 county
study area of Jackson, Livingston and Washtenaw Counties, have created an ideal
landscape in which to study the impacts residents perceive from deer. From 1960-1990,
south central Michigan, west of Ann Arbor, experienced the greatest expansion in human
population and land development of the regions of lower Michigan (Madill and Rustem
2001). Between 1980 and 1990, rural populations in the 3 county study area also
increased by an average of 8.6% (US Census Bureau 1995), reversing historic trends of
increasing urban populations and decreasing rural populations. Coincidental with an
increase in rural residents, the number of housing units in rural areas in these counties
increased by an average of 12.4% (US Census Bureau 1995). Although all 3 counties

remain predominantly rural (over 90% of total land area) (US Census Bureau 1995),

10

continued increases in population and housing density may affect the character of these
areas (Dwyer and Childs 2004). The trend in human population grth and land use
during the last 30 years is predicted to continue, resulting in a 178% increase in the
amount of Michigan’s land base classified as “built” by the year 2040 (Madill and
Rustem 2001 ).

Study Objectives

The objectives of this study were to: (1) identify impacts resulting from interactions with
white-tailed deer among residents of 3 counties in southern Michigan and (2) determine
the relationship between stakeholder perceptions of impacts and acceptance capacity for
deer. Knowledge of the suite of impacts perceived and the effect of impacts on
acceptance capacity for deer should enable wildlife managers to develop novel
management actions that compliment existing programs which address stakeholder
values. In addition, methods I test to measure perceptions of impacts and effects on
acceptance capacity may contribute to further research in the human dimensions of
wildlife management.

Methods

In-depth interviews

To guide development of a mail questionnaire that would enable quantitative
description of stakeholders and an analysis of factors affecting perception of impacts and
acceptance capacity, 19 personal interviews were conducted with landowners in the

southern Michigan study area during the fall of 2004. These interviews were conducted

11

to explore the potential suite of impacts perceived from interactions with deer, values
assigned to those impacts by various residents, and general perceptions of deer and
wildlife management in the area (Appendix A). Interviewees were identified by MDNR
wildlife biologists and conservation officers, county agricultural extension agents, and
Michigan State University students and faculty. Interviewees had expressed some
experiences with or interest in deer management prior to their participation in the
interviews. Interviews occurred in participants’ homes with 1 or 2 interviewers and 1 or

2 participants present. Interviews were audio taped and later transcribed.

Self-administered survey

A self-administered, mail-back questionnaire aimed to quantify the type and
severity of deer-related impacts perceived by respondents, the interactions with deer that
caused those impacts, and overall acceptance capacity for deer. In addition, information
about respondents’ characteristics such as participation in hunting, farming and other
wildlife related activities, land ownership and management activities, locale of childhood
and current residence and tenure in the study area was gathered to help characterize
stakeholders. Prior to administration, the survey was peer reviewed by a panel of survey
experts from Michigan State and Cornell Universities and the MDNR. The survey was
pre-tested on graduate and undergraduate students at Michigan State University to ensure
reliability and validity of the survey design.

The target population of the survey was the adult (218 years) population of
selected zip codes within Jackson, Washtenaw and Livingston Counties. Zip codes were

selected to sample non-urban residents within the study area boundaries. A random

12

sample of 3,500 addresses from the study zip codes was purchased from Survey
Sampling, Inc. of Fairfield, Connecticut. The primary source of these addresses was
public records such as telephone directories, supplemented with additional proprietary
data sources. In addition to the random sample, all interview participants were added to
the sample for validation of interview analysis.

A modified version of Dillrnan’s Total Design Method (2000) was used to
administer the survey with 5 total mailings. The first mailing included a cover letter on
MDNR letterhead signed by the Wildlife Division Chief (Appendix B), an initial copy of
the survey (Appendix C), and 3 first-class (37¢) postage stamps as an incentive to return
completed questionnaires. It was mailed to subjects on 23 February 2005. The second
mailing, a reminder postcard (Appendix D), was mailed to subjects on 6 March 2005.
The third mailing on 21 March 2005 included a modified cover letter (Appendix E) and
replacement copy of the survey. As a result of a low response rate to the first 3 mailings
(<5 8%), a fourth mailing of the survey was added. The fourth wave, mailed to subjects
on 30 April 2005, consisted of an additional cover letter and copy of the survey. This
mailing also had the text “Your immediate response is requested” printed in red on the
envelope face to encourage recipients to open and complete the survey.

The fifth mailing, the non-response survey (Appendix F), was mailed on 1 June
2005. Non-respondents were asked a sample of 5 questions from the original survey for
comparison to the respondents. All questionnaires and correspondence were mailed from

and returned to MDNR central offices in Lansing, Michigan.

13

Impacts: Identification and change

To identify the subset of effects resulting from interactions with deer that were
both recognized and important to stakeholders, and could therefore be classified as
impacts, a weighted variable (IMPACT) was created. Recognition of effects
(RECOGNIZE) was measured by asking respondents to indicate whether they perceived
given effects as a result of specific interactions with deer. In a second question,
respondents were asked to assign a level of importance (IMPORTANCE) to the effects
from the previous question. The weighted variable IMPACT was calculated for each

respondent by the following formula:

IMPACT = RECOGNIZE >< IIVIPORTANCE

where RECOGNIZE was assigned a 2 point scale (-1 = no, 1 = yes) and IMPORTANCE
was assigned a 3 point scale (2 = very important, 1.5 = somewhat important, 1.0 = not at
all important). Based on our definition of impacts as recognized, important effects of
interactions with wildlife, 1 limited impacts to those with an IMPACT value of 2 (i.e.
RECOGNIZE = 1 and IMPORTANCE = 2). The total number of impacts identified by
each respondent was summed as the variable IMPACT(total).

The full suite of impacts explored in the survey (n = 24) was grouped into 4
categories: psychological, health and safety, economic and hunting-related impacts.
Psychological impacts (n = 11) were those that caused a psychological reaction in the
respondent. Health and safety impacts (n = 5) were those that posed a risk to the health

and/or safety of the respondent. Economic impacts (n = 5) were those that may cost the

14

respondent money. Hunt-related impacts (n = 3) were those associated with the ability to
or quality of a hunt. Each category was tested for internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha,
psychological: a = 0.632, health and safety: a = 0.767, economic: or = 0.851, hunt: a =
0.792).

Respondents were also asked to indicate their preference for a change in the
frequency at which they experience each of the impacts on a 5-point scale that ranged
from “increase greatly’ ’ to “decrease greatly,” with a midpoint of “stay the same.” Those
impacts for which a respondent desired a change (either increase or decrease) were
assumed to fall outside the individual’s acceptance capacity for the impact; a great
desired change indicated a current perceived level well outside the respondent’s
acceptance capacity, while a moderate desired change indicated a current level just
outside the respondent’s acceptance capacity. The number of impacts for which an
individual respondent desired a great and moderate degree of change was summed.

In addition, the variable IMPACT_EFFECT, reflecting the extent to which an

impact exceeded a respondent’s acceptance capacity, was calculated as follows:

IMPACT_EFFECT = VALENCE X DEGREE

where VALENCE was assigned by researchers on a 2 point scale (+1 = positive impact,
-1 = negative impact) and DEGREE was assigned on a 3 point scale (0 = no change
desired, 1 = moderate change desired, 2 = great change desired). IMPACT_EFFECT was
calculated only for those respondents who identified a given impact.

IMPACT_EFFECT(total) was calculated by summing IMPACT_EFFECT for all

15

identified impacts, reflecting the overall degree and direction of the respondent’s
perception of impacts from deer. IMPACT_EFFECT(total) = 0 indicated that the current
level of interactions with deer perceived by the respondent was within his/her acceptance
capacity. IMPACT_EFFECT(total) < 0 indicated the number of negative impacts had
exceeded the respondent’s acceptance capacity to the degree reflected by the
corresponding value. IMPACT_EFFECT(total) > 0 indicated the number of positive

impacts had exceeded the respondent’s acceptance capacity.

Acceptance capacity

I measured respondents’ perceptions of the current deer herd size
(CURRENTPOP) and desire for change in the herd size (FUTUREPOP) over the period
from 2005-2010 on a 5-point scale that ranged from “decrease(d) greatly” to “increase(d)
greatly,” with a midpoint of “stay the same.” I assumed that FUTUREPOP was an
accurate surrogate value for acceptance capacity, relative to CURRENTPOP.
Respondents who desired a great change in F UTUREPOP were assumed to have their

acceptance capacity exceeded by interactions with the deer herd.

Statistical methods

Linear regression (p S 0.05 cutoff level, SPSS Inc. 2003) was used to determine
the extent to which IMPACT(total) and number of impacts within each category
explained variation in acceptance capacity. In addition, linear regression was used to

determine the extent to which the IMPACT_EFFECT(total) reflected variation in

16

acceptance capacity among respondents. The Pearson’s correlations (r2) were compared

to determine the best fitting model of acceptance capacity.

Results

Self-administered survey response

Of 3,392 delivered surveys (127 questionnaires were undeliverable), 2,190
responses (65%) were received. Of these respondents, 74% were male, and 26% were
female. The average age was 54 years (range: 18-95). Most respondents had completed
at least some post-secondary education (80%). Slightly more respondents grew up in
rural (47%) than urbanized (41%) settings, however, more than 80% now reside in a rural
setting. In addition, 20% of respondents currently reside in a suburban area or small
town.

Of respondents, 36% had hunted in the past 3 years, and, of those hunters, 91%
hunted deer. Almost all respondents who had hunted in the previous 3 years were males
(95%). Whereas 18% had worked on a farm in the previous 3 years, less than 2% derived
their primary income from farming at any time since 1995. Respondents who farmed
were also predominantly male (63%). Nearly 50% of respondents had neither hunted nor
farmed in the previous 3 years. Of non-hunting, non-farming respondents, 63% were
male.

The non-respondent mail survey (n = 111) did not show statistical differences in

activities, demographics or desired change in deer numbers between respondents and

non-respondents (12 2 2 0.130, n 2 1944, p > 0.05). The non-respondent survey may not

17

have completely measured existing non-response bias, however, because of its method of
distribution. It is likely that survey recipients who did not respond to the initial mail

survey would also not respond to the secondary mail non-respondent survey.

Impacts: Identification and change

Most respondents reported feeling connected to nature when they saw deer around
home (92%; Figure 2a) or in farmer’s fields (86%; Figure 2b). Far fewer (60%),
however, indicated they felt connected to nature when they saw deer along the roadway
(Figure 2c). Deer seen along the roadway caused more respondents to worry about
hitting a deer with their vehicle (88%) than seeing deer around home (74%) or in farm
fields (74%). Few respondents worried about the cost personally (24%) or to farmers
(36%) when deer ate plants around home or in fields. Seeing deer in farm fields did
cause most respondents (90%) to feel deer in the area were healthy and well fed

Issues relating to deer hunting were also commonly perceived by respondents.
Most respondents felt that deer hunting in the area would be good when they saw deer
around their home (67%) or in farm fields (74%). In addition, 80% reported feeling the
deer herd was large enough to hunt when they saw hunters afield during deer hunting
season (Figure 2d). Yet, only 27% felt that interference from other hunters would affect
their hunt quality. Whereas 60% of respondents were concerned that a deer would be
killed when they saw a deer near the roadway, only 16% were concerned about a deer
being killed when they saw hunters. Seeing hunters during deer hunting season caused
concern about injury from stray shots (42%) and worry about trespass violations by

hunters (32%) in less than half of respondents.

18

When asked to indicated how important each effect was to them personally,
feeling connected to nature (57%), worrying about the risk of injury from (53%), hassle
of dealing with (44%), or cost (43%) of a DVC and feeling that deer are healthy and well
fed (41%) were most commonly cited as “very important” effects (Figure 3a).
Respondents indicated that lost income from crop damage (65 %), feeling other hunters
will interfere with a hunt (64%), feeling frustrated about time wasted planting plants
(59%), worrying about the cost of replacing ornamental plants (59%), worrying a deer
may be killed (52%) and the ability to hunt near home (52%) were “not at all important”
to them (Figure 3b).

Based on calculations of the variable IMPACT, positive impacts, such as feeling
connected to nature when deer were seen around home (58%) and near the road (56%),
were the most commonly identified impacts resulting from interactions with deer (Table
1). Concerns about negative impacts such as DVCs, including worry about the risk of
injury from a DVC when deer are seen along the roadway (52%), around home (50%)
and in farm fields (50%) and worrying about the hassle of dealing with a DVC when deer
are seen along the roadway (44%), around home (43%) and in farm fields (43%), were
the second most commonly identified suite of impacts. Concerns associated with deer
browsing, including worrying about farmers’ lost income when deer are seen in a
farmer’s field (9%) and worrying about the cost of replacing plants (10%) or the wasted
time planting plants (12%) when deer are seen around home, were the least commonly
identified impacts.

The mean number of impacts identified by each respondent was 7.1, with 9% of

respondents identifying no impacts. Psychological impacts were identified most

19

commonly (85% identified 21 impact) and hunting-related impacts were identified least
commonly (69% identified 0 impacts).

Of the most commonly identified impacts, respondents were satisfied with the
current level of positive impacts they perceive. Greater than 45% of respondents desired
no change in the frequency at which they see healthy, well fed deer in fields and feel
connected to nature when deer are seen around home, in fields or along the roadway.
Respondents were, however, highly unsatisfied with the current level of negative impacts
they perceive. Over 75% of respondents desired a great change in the frequency at which
they worry about the risk of injury from, hassle of dealing with and cost of a DVC when

they see deer around home, in fields and near roads.

Effect of impact perception on acceptance capacity

The mean desired change in deer numbers for all respondents was between “stay
the same” and “decrease somewhat” (f = 2.79, SE = 0.023, n = 1974). The highest
proportion of respondents wanted the deer herd to remain constant in the next 5 years
(38%), while 34% desired a decrease and 20% an increase in the size of the herd. Only
20% of respondents desired a drastic change in the current herd, while 39% desired a
moderate change in the size of the herd.

Those respondents who desired a great decrease in deer numbers over the next 5
years identified the greatest average number of impacts from deer (7: = 9.94 of 24, SE =
0.229, n = 247; Figure 4). As the degree and direction of change desired in deer numbers
moved toward a large increase, the average number of impacts identified decreased. In

addition, respondents who desired a great change in the total deer herd (FUTUREPOP =

20

increase or decrease greatly) were more likely to desire a higher average number of great
changes (55 (increase. greatly) = 4.95, SE = 0.282, n = 131; 36 (decrease greatly) = 6.39,
SE = 0.211, n = 258; Figure 5) and a lower average number of moderate changes in
individual impacts (J? (increase greatly) = 2.98, SE = 0.219, n = 131; )7 (decrease
greatly) = 1.26, SE = 0.104, n = 258). Respondents who desired no change in the total
deer herd also desired the highest average number of moderate changes (a? = 5.24, SE =
0.103, n = 821) and lowest average number of drastic changes (:7 = 2.15, SE = 0.080, n =
821)

The variable IMPACT(total) explained only 7% of the variation in an individual’s
acceptance capacity (linear regression, r2 1391: 0.070, p < 0.001). However,
IMPACT_EFFECT(total) explained nearly 32% of the variance in acceptance capacity

(linear regression, r2 1391: 0.317, p < 0.001). No other category of impacts explained

more variation in acceptance capacity.

Discussion

Identification of impacts

The most commonly identified impacts resulting from interactions with white-
tailed deer among residents of southern Michigan were feeling connected to nature when
deer are seen and worrying about the risk of injury from, cost of and hassle of dealing
with DVCs. In addition, respondents desired a large decrease in the frequency at which

they worry about DVCs, but were satisfied with their level of connectedness to nature.

21

Other researchers have found similar issues to be important to residents of Michigan
(Bull and Peyton 2001, Wallrno 2003) and other states (Stout et al. 1993, Christoffel and
Craven 2000), indicating similarity in the values related to deer management held by
rural residents. Similarity in residents’ perception of effects from deer populations
among areas with distinct ecological, but similar social landscapes may support
managers’ ability to apply management techniques successful in alleviating negative or
providing positive impacts to larger management areas.

Although deer managers commonly identify damage to agricultural crops fi'om
deer browsing as a major concern of stakeholders, our results showed relatively little
empathy for economic losses sustained by farmers. The concerns of the small proportion
of respondents that had participated in farming (<9%) were likely overwhelmed by the
concerns of non-farming respondents. This may contribute to contention surrounding
management decisions if either farming or non-farming stakeholders perceive a lack of
management action to address impacts important to them. Increases in rural development
will only exacerbate this contention as agricultural landowners find their property
surrounded by non-farmers who may hold differing values toward wildlife. Increased
development may also limit hunters’ ability to harvest deer (Riley et al. 2003a),
increasing farmers’ perception of crop damage and frustration with a lack of ability to
control damage. The contention surrounding this and other issues of population-level
management of deer necessitates methods of objective setting and decision-making that

address multiple, potentially conflicting impacts.

22

Managing impacts of wildlife populations

A significant challenge to managers aiming to achieve stakeholder-defined
fundamental objectives (i.e. impacts) is exemplified by the importance of both positive
and negative impacts to a majority of respondents. In addition, when possible solutions
are limited to methods conventionally used in wildlife management, it may seem
impossible to achieve acceptable frequencies of these groups of impacts simultaneously.
For example, management strategies focused on population manipulation through
increased harvest, aimed to decrease deer densities and the risk of DVCs to drivers, may
have unintended outcomes if residents began to see fewer deer around their homes and in
fields, failing to meet an equally important, if conflicting, fundamental objective.
Managers may begin to receive complaints, not about the frequency of DVCs, but rather,
about the infrequency of deer sightings in the area. Because feeling connected to nature
may reflect a core value among residents of rural areas (Kellert 1996), a reduction in this
impact will likely trigger responses similar in degree to an increase in the occurrence of
DVCs

However, when management options are considered that specifically address
impacts as fundamental objectives, a greater suite of options may be created. Knowledge
of the full suite of impacts valued by stakeholders can identify management actions that
will decrease the most important negative impacts and increase (or hold constant) the
most important positive impacts. Deer managers in southern Michigan may consider the
management of factors that directly affect the occurrence of DVCs apart from
manipulations of deer density. Driver education or law enforcement campaigns that

reduce driving speed and increase driver attentiveness may be more effective in reducing

23

the frequency of DVCs than reductions in deer densities (Marcoux 2005, Sudharsan
2005), while maintaining the frequency of deer sightings, better satisfying the desires of
stakeholders and managers. In addition, these altemative strategies for deer management
may more effectively than harvest management, due to reduced hunter capacity to harvest
deer in rural landscapes as a result of increasing parcelization (Riley et al. 2003a).
Through the application of actions which directly address stakeholder-defined
fundamental objectives, managers may be more able to achieve effective and socially

acceptable wildlife management.

Impacts and acceptance capacity

Whereas the management of individual impacts may be useful on small
geographic scales or in consideration of a single species, it is not practical for state
wildlife agencies to manage exclusively in this mode. New methods are needed to
address stakeholder desires at an aggregated scale. This study provides some insights for
methods by which to aggregate impacts into a measure of acceptance capacity for
wildlife populations.

Respondents who were satisfied with the number of white-tailed deer in the study
area were likely to also be satisfied with the current frequency at which they experience
the impacts from deer. In addition, individuals who were least satisfied with their
perception of the size of the deer herd (i.e. desired a large increase or decrease) were
likely to desire a large change in the frequency at which they experience many of the
impacts they perceive. These results indicate a link between impact perception and

acceptance capacity for deer.

24

All impacts are not equally important when considered against the value
orientations of stakeholders. A simple count of the impacts identified by an individual
respondent had limited predictive ability for acceptance capacity; it may be more
appropriate to weight identified impacts by some measure of their relative effect on the
individual. I weighted impacts by respondents’ desired degree of change in the frequency
of impacts, a proxy for acceptance capacity for individual impacts, and summed these
values for all impacts. The total effect of impacts was able to account for a much greater
degree of the variation in acceptance capacity among respondents. Based on these
results, I conclude that it is not sufficient to simply count the number of impacts a
stakeholder recognizes. Rather, it is an aggregation of the effect of those impacts that
determines an individual’s acceptance capacity for a population.

Whereas weighting impacts based on acceptance capacity for individual impacts
increased our ability to predict a respondent’s overall acceptance capacity, there are
likely to be additional influential factors. Previous research has shown that acceptance
capacity for other species is affected by attitude toward the species, experience with it
and perception of population trends for the species (Riley and Decker 2000, Bull and
Peyton 2001, Minnis and Peyton 1995). In addition, stakeholder demographic
characteristics, wildlife related activities and location of residence may be explanatory, as
they determine wildlife-related values (Manfredo and Zinn 1996, Vaske et al. 2001,
Clendennin et al. 2005). Perception of impacts may by correlated with some of these
factors, but further exploration of their relation to acceptance capacity is likely to
contribute to a complete picture of the determinants of acceptance capacity. Whereas

species-specific impacts may form the basis of an individual’s acceptance capacity,

25

additional factors will likely vary with the referent species (Peyton et al. 2001). Just as
the suite of impacts perceived by stakeholders requires exploration for each species to be
managed, so too do additional factors affecting acceptance capacity.

A clear understanding of stakeholders’ perception of impacts and their effect on
acceptance capacity for managed species will allow managers to address issues at the
local, or management unit, scale and the statewide, or population, scale. In addition, it
will allow congruent objective setting and clear communication among stakeholders and
managers, resulting in more predictable achievement of the fundamental objectives

wildlife management.

Future research needs

I suggest that management of the full suite of impacts perceived as a result of
interactions with a species will more reliably achieve goals of stakeholders and managers.
However, to effectively manipulate the levels of those impacts, managers must know
stakeholders’ threshold of acceptance of impacts. Whereas this study provided insights
into the suite of impacts resulting from interactions with deer, as perceived by residents
of southern Michigan, and a method by which to identify them, I did not explore the
location of this threshold or tradeoffs stakeholders may be willing to accept to provide a
reduction or increase in other impacts. Further research will be necessary to explore this
important factor enabling the application on impact-based management of wildlife
species.

Impacts identified by stakeholders in this study are likely to be important

elsewhere in the rural environments occupied by white-tailed deer. Yet, care should be

26

taken in application of these findings to deer management, generally. Local
characteristics of human and deer populations, such as presence of a zoonotic disease or
land use patterns, may intensify or reduce some impacts (Loker et al. 1999, Enck et al.
2004). Management decisions made with assumed knowledge of impacts perceived by
residents may be as likely to lead to unintended outcomes as management not based on
impacts at all. Sustained, effective management of impacts over time will require
monitoring of the effect of management actions on perceived levels of impacts and their
relative importance to stakeholders’ satisfaction with wildlife management. Secondary
impacts of management may be as much an issue as original impacts resulting from
interactions with deer (Decker et a1 2006). Exploration of locally important impacts and
monitoring over time may be facilitated through stakeholder engagement strategies

already employed by management agencies (i.e. harvest surveys, public meetings, etc.).

27

Literature cited

Albert, D.A., S.R. Denton and B.V. Barnes. 1986. Regional Landscape Ecosystems of
Michigan. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Bull, P. and B. Peyton. 2001. An Assessment of Possible Antler Restrictions and
Quality Deer Management by Michigan Deer Hunters. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources — Wildlife Division Report.

Carpenter, L.H., D]. Decker, and J .F. Lipscomb. 2000. Stakeholder Acceptance
Capacity in Wildlife Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5:5-19.

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

Clendenning, G., D.R. Field and K.J. Kapp. 2005. A Comparison of Seasonal
Homeowners and Permanent Residents on Their Attitudes Toward Wildlife
Management on Public Lands. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10:3-17.

Conover M. 1997. Monetary and intangible valuation of deer in the United States.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25:298-305.

Comer, P.J., D.A. Albert, H.A. Wells, B.L. Hart, J .B. Raab, D.L Price, D.M. Kashian,
R.A. Comer and D.W. Schuen. 1995. Michigan’s Native Landscape, as
Interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856. Report to the US.
EPA. Water Division and the Wildlife Division, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, Michigan.

Cooper, J .L., R]. Higman, J. Spieles, M.R. Penskar, D.L. Cuthreil, Y.M. Lee, D.A.
Albert and L. Pelz-Lewis. 2000. Inventory and Management Recommendations
for Pinckney and Waterloo State Recreation Areas’ Natural Communities, Rare
Plants and Rare Wildlife. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Parks and Recreation Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory,
Lansing, Michigan.

28

Decker, DJ. and LC. Chase. 1997. Human dimensions of living with wildlife - a
management challenge for the 21St century. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25:78 8-
795.

Decker, D.J., C.C. Krueger, R.A. Baer, Jr., B.A. Knuth and ME. Richmond. 1996.
From Clients to Stakeholders: A Philosophical Shift for Fish and Wildlife
Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1:70-82.

deCalesta, BS. 1994. Effects of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests
in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:711—718.

Decker, DJ. and KC. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in
wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 16:53-57.

Decker, D.J., M.A. Wild, S.J. Riley, W.F. Siemer, M.M. Miller, K.M. Leong, J .G.
Powers and IQ Rhyan. 2006. Wildlife Disease Management: A Manager’s
Model. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11: In press.

Dillrnan, DA. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, New York, USA.

Dwyer, J .F . and GM. Childs. 2004. Movement of people across the landscape: 3
blurring of distinctions between areas, interests and issues affecting natural
resource management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69:153-164.

Enck, J .W., T.L. Brown and D. Riehlman. 2004. Landowner and Hunter Response to
Implementation of a Quality Deer Management (QDM) Cooperative Near King
Ferry, NY. Cornell University Human Dimensions Research Unit, Series No. 03-
7. Ithaca, New York, USA.

Enck, J .W., D]. Decker, S.J. Riley, J. F. Organ, L.H. Carpenter and W.F. Siemer. 2006.
Integrating ecological and human dimensions in adaptive management of
wildlife-related impacts. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34: In press.

Gigliotti, L., D.J. Decker, and L.H. Carpenter. 2000. Developing the Wildlife
Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity Concept: Research Needed. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 5:76-82.

29

Gill, RB. 1996. The Wildlife Professional Subculture: The Case of the Crazy Aunt.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1:60-69.

Graefe, A.R., J .J . Vaske and FR. Kuss. 1984. Social carrying capacity: an integration
and synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Science, 62395-431.

Gregory, RS. and R.L. Keeney. 1992. Making Smarter Environmental Decisions.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38: 1601-1612.

Hammond, J .S., R.L. Keeney, H. Raiffa. 1999. Smart Choices. Broadway Books. New
York, New York, USA.

Keeney, R.L. 1992. Value Focused Thinking. Harvard University Press. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA.

Kellert, SR. 1996. The Value of Life: biological diversity and human society. Island
Press. Washington, DC, USA.

Loker, C. A., D. J. Decker, and S. J. Schwager. 1999. Social acceptability of wildlife
management actions in suburban areas: 3 cases from New York. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 27: 1 52-159.

Madill, H. and W. Rustem. 2001. Michigan Land Resource Project. Technical Report.
Public Sector Consultants, Inc., Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Manfredo, M.J. and H.C. Zinn. 1996. Population change and its implications for wildlife
management in the new west: A case study of Colorado. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 1:62-74.

Marcoux, A. 2005. Deer-vehicle collisions: an understanding of accident characteristics
and drivers' attitudes, awareness, and involvement. M.Sc. Thesis. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Miller, K.V. and J .M. Wentworth. 2000. Carrying Capacity. Pages 140-155 in Demarais,
S. and PR. Krausman, eds. Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in
North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.

30

Minnis, D.L. and RB. Peyton. 1995. Cultural Carrying Capacity: Modeling a Notion.
Pages 19-34 in Proceedings of the Urban Deer Symposium, Saint Louis, MO.,
December 1993.

Organ, J.F. and MR. Ellingwood. 2000. Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity for
Black Bears, Beavers and Other Beasts in the East. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 5:63-75.

Ostfield, R.S., C.G. Jones, and J .O. Wolff. 1996. Of mice and mast: ecological
connections in eastern deciduous forests. Bioscience 46:323-330.

Peyton, B. P. Bull, T. Reis and L. Visser. 2001. An Assessment of the Social Carrying
Capacity of Black Bears in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources - Wildlife Division Report.

Riiters, K.H., J .D. Wickham, R. V. O’Neill, K.B. Jones, E.R. Smith, J .W. Coulston, T. G.
Wade, and J .H. Smith. 2002. Fragmentation of Continental United States
Forests. Ecosystems, 5:815-822.

Riley, 8.]. and DJ. Decker. 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars
in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28:931-939.

Riley, S.J., D.J. Decker, L.H. Carpenter, J.F. Organ, W.F. Siemer, G.F. Mattfeld and G.
Parsons. 2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin,
30:585-593.

Riley, S.J., D]. Decker, J .W. Enck, P.D. Curtis, T.B. Lauber, and TL. Brown. 2003a.
Deer populations up, hunter populations down: Implications of interdependence

of deer and hunter population dynamics on management. Ecoscience, 10(4):455-
461.

Riley, S.J., Siemer, W.F., Decker, D.J., Carpenter, L.H., Organ, J.F and LT. Berchielli.
2003b. Adaptive Impact Management: An Integrative Approach to Wildlife
Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8:81-95.

31

Romin, LA. and J .A. Bissonette. 1996. Deer-vehicle collisions: Status of state

monitoring activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24:276-
283.

SPSS Inc. 2003. SPSS 12.0 for Windows. SPSS, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Stout, R.J., R.C. Stedman, D]. Decker and BA. Knuth. 1993. Perceptions of risk from
deer-related vehicle accidents: implications for public preferences for deer herd
size. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21 :237-249.

Sudharsan, K. 2005. Environmental factors affecting the frequency and rate of deer-
vehicle crashes (DVCs) in southern Michigan. M.Sc. Thesis. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Swihart, R. K., and A. J. DeNicola. 1997. Public involvement, science, management,
and the overabundance of deer: Can we avoid a hostage crisis? Wildlife Society
Bulletin 25:382-387.

Tilghman, NC. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest regeneration in
northwestern Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:524-532.

US. Census Bureau. 1995. 1990 Census of Population and Housing Unit Counts —
Michigan. Published January 1995.
<http ://www.census. gov/prod/cenl 990/cph2/cph-2-24.pdf>

Vaske, J .J ., M.P. Donnelly, D.R. Williams and S. Jonker. 2001. Demographic
Influences on Environmental Value Orientations and Normative Beliefs About
National Forest Management. Society and Natural Resources, 14:761-776.

Waller, D.M. and W8. Alverson. 1997. The white-tailed deer: a keystone herbivore.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25:217-226.

Wallrno, K. 2003. Economic Choice Modeling: The Use of Social Preference Data to
Inform White-tailed Deer Management in Michigan. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

32

Warren, R. J. (ed) 1997. Deer overabundance—special issue. Wildlife Society Bulletin
25:213-562.

Woolf, A. and J .L. Roseberry. 1998. Deer management: our profession’s symbol of
success or failure? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26:515-521.

Zinn, H.C., Manfredo, M.J. and J .J Vaske. 2000. Social Psychological Basis for
Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5:20-33.

33

Tables and figures

Figure 1. Interactions to impacts pathway.

' d
Events or / Recognize \Effects / Important\ IMPACTS

Interaction\‘~$ . ~33
Not recognized Not important

Impacts are a subset of effects, arising from recognized events or interactions pertaining
to wildlife, and evaluated by stakeholders as sufficiently important to warrant
management attention (Riley et al. 2002). This conceptual model guided interview and

survey development.

34

Figure 2. Recognized effects of interactions with deer in southern Michigan as

reported by survey respondents in south-central Michigan, 2005.

a) Seeing deer near my home makes me...

"i
.
1:1.- n.-e.~.:§‘.. L's-g 3 ‘ ..; .v'zi- .- -_ '3.- 1"": Vizi-«hi‘é-fi-txaz»; ‘3 -- 1.‘ ._3 r; ili‘.“i"’.’r‘i‘~$\‘='r"- w._-:-'_s~'_-i~f:ic.'~.~- :';.'-:... ~ vii-92'; 1' "

feel connected to nature j: _ -.. _

 

 

.1—

 

worry about DVC

   

 

confident deer hunting i
will be good

 

 

worry about cost of plants f __ __ __ _ - i-

0 25 50 75 100
Respondents (% yes)

35

b) Seeing deer in a farmer’s field makes me...

 

 

 

worry about DVC j i

   

feel deer are healthy
and well fed

 

 

confident deer hunting
will be good

WOTT)’ about lost income '-:-
from crop damage - - .1 . .

 

0 25 50 75 100
Respondents (% yes)

36

c) Seeing live deer along the roadway makes me...

feel connected to nature

 

 

worry a deer may be killed

 

J
r .
I

 

25 50 75 100
Respondents (% yes)

O

37

(1) Seeing hunters during deer hunting season makes me...

1

think other hunters will
interfere with my hunt

 

 

 

worry someone may ‘ 1‘" -'-":"3‘a.'n'-":‘:,--~.;.,',::;‘J’.;.-‘inns}
trespass on my land“: '- ~ =-- .

 

 

Confident deer populatiOn J: ‘ ' ' T, ' t .1,“ ,~ ...-‘ .
is large enough to hunt " ‘

I

'..,'_.:r. ,o'
a.

worry about being hurtE
by stray shots ! ,,_..._.._... ‘ _ ,

 

 

 

 

 

worry a deer may
be killed ‘ .

 

° 25 50 75 100
Respondents (% yes)

Results from “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan” mail survey,

conducted February — June, 2005 in Jackson, Livingston and Washtenaw counties,
Michigan. X-axis presents the percentage of survey respondents (mom; = 2190) who

recognized individual effects as arising from the given interactions with deer. Effects are

presented on the y-axis.

38

Figure 3. Important effects of interactions with deer as reported by survey

respondents in south-central Michigan, 2005.

a) It is very important to me to...
l
I

 

w {'12}; u_;.-.- '_'.'JJ'-.’_!- \. -..;;.-'-.-.r.:.'.'-.‘.'., -f .:.I.'.?.:.' ='-.~_-:--: "V. (.17.: -.-..‘ I-'. .'w_
feel connected to naturei: . , 1. . . , . g _ 3

A—m

 

WOIT)’ about injury *4. .-_. . M.J.. -.-.J_-_j
from Dvc,‘ ' -

_ _ o _

 

worry about hassle
of DVC

 

 

worry about cost .v“
of DVC 1. .

 

feel deer are healthy . ~ -« --
and well fed, ..-.

 

0 25 50 75 100
Respondents (% Very Important)

39

b) It is not at all important to me to...

,
worry about farmers’ ‘

 

 

 

 

 

' h.“ """ '1' 1 “”3..-
lost income from crop 1' , a .. ,r , _,, my .. 2 . j
damage
think other hunters will 1‘, -_~.r. as... :r. J.J...- u- .33-". n..- _.-_... .- ..._...._. “.43". ..-o u. . .. .,. .. .3 a:

interfere with my hunt "

 

feel frustrated about " __ fl -

, 1" .4»: Itti"-i.=."l:' -uner-nzvtz-nnvh-x.. .- -. 1741-. .
o .‘J
wasted time .‘r ,. _____ _ _ _- _ _ .,.. m...

planting plants ‘

 

i

WOIly about COSI OfE' " ' " ' " ' i' " ii:
I were: mgr-- '- 'fx'vt-‘vrtn-firearmsrest-m'rw-wz-zarwc-m
ornamental plants 1

 

 

worryadeermay 3 ' '
be killed ‘

 

 

 

0 25 50 75 100
Respondents (% Not At All Important)

Results from “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan” mail survey,

conducted February — June, 2005 in Jackson, Livingston and Washtenaw counties,
Michigan. X-axis represents the percentage of respondents (mom; = 2190) who identified

the given effects as a) very important or b) not at all important. Effects are presented on

the y-axis.

40

Table 1. Impacts resulting from interactions with white-tailed deer. Results from
“Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan” survey, conducted February —
June, 2005 in Jackson, Livingston and Washtenaw counties. Percentages reflect the

proportion of respondents who indicated the impact was recognized and very important.

 

 

IMPACTS %
Seeing deer around home makes me feel connected to nature 58
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me feel connected to nature 56
Seeing deer along the road makes me worry about injury from DVC 52
Seeing deer around home makes me worry about injury from DVC 50
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me worry about injury from DVC 50
Seeing deer along the road makes me worry about hassle of DVC 44
Seeing deer around home makes me worry about hassle of DVC 43
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me worry about hassle of DVC 43
Seeing deer along the road makes me worry about cost of DVC 43
Seeing deer along the road makes me feel connected to nature 43
Seeing deer around home makes me worry about cost of DVC 42
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me worry about cost of DVC 42
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me feel deer are healthy and well fed 41
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me confident deer hunting will be good 32
Seeing deer around home makes me confident deer hunting will be good 31
Seeing hunters during deer season makes me worry about being hurt by stray shots 24
Seeing hunters during deer season makes me worry someone may trespass on my land 23
Seeing hunters during deer season makes me confident pop. is large enough to hunt 20
Seeing deer along the road makes me worry a deer may be killed 18
Seeing hunters during deer season makes me worry about interfere with my hunt 12
Seeing deer around home makes me feel frustrated about wasted time planting plants 12
Seeing deer around home makes me worry about cost of ornamental plants 10
Seeing hunters during deer season makes me worry a deer may be killed 10
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me worry about lost income from crop damage 9

 

41

Figure 4. Mean number of impacts identified by survey respondents with varying
levels of desired change in deer numbers over the next 5 years in south-central

Michigan, 2005.

Impacts (Mean # Identified)

5 4 . — —— » . . ..____.___.-s_. - 3. , .._ _ ___- _. . ..Y_ W.
Increase Increase Stay the Same Decrease Decrease

Greatly Somewhat Somewhat Greatly

Desired Population Change

Results from “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan” mail survey,
conducted February — June, 2005 in Jackson, Livingston and Washtenaw counties,
Michigan. X-axis presents desired population change and y-axis presents the mean

number of impacts identified by respondents.

42

Figure 5. Desired change in impacts by varying levels of desired change in the deer

population as reported by survey respondents in south-central Michigan, 2005.

Impacts (Mean)

 

 

7
I I — Somewhat Change I
6‘; 1 f —GreatChange_r I /
5.
i
4,
3 .
21
1 .
1
0... Increase V Increase Y Staytlie Same - Decrease . DecIEase
Greatly Somewhat Somewhat Greatly

Desired Population Change

Results from “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan” mail survey,

conducted February — June, 2005 in Jackson, Livingston and Washtenaw counties,

Michigan. The dashed line indicates the average number of impacts in which

respondents desired a “great change” in the level of impact they currently perceive. The

solid line indicated the average number of impacts in which respondents desire

“somewhat of a change” in the level of impact they currently perceive. X-axis presents

desired population change and y-axis presents the mean number of impacts identified by

respondents.

43

CHAPTER 2

Factors Affecting Acceptance Capacity for White-Tailed Deer
Among Residents of Southern Michigan

44

Factors Affecting Acceptance Capacity for White-Tailed Deer

Among Residents of Southern Michigan

Introduction

Recovery of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginanus) populations from near
extinction is viewed by some as one of the most visible successes of wildlife management
in the US. (Warren 1997). However, changes in the distribution of humans across the
landscape resulting in increasingly developed landscapes (Iverson 2002) have
complicated deer herd management. Increasing rural development and decreasing parcel
size has limited the acres of land accessible by hunters and, therefore, their capacity to
harvest deer (Harden et a1. 2005). In addition, stakeholders involved in wildlife
management have diversified and are now demanding a more active role in the decision
making process (Decker et al. 1996). These factors, in combination with continued high
deer numbers across the Midwest (Waller and Alverson 1997), have increased the
frequency and intensity of human-deer interactions.

Changes to rural landscapes across the Midwest are not likely to reverse course in
the future (Potts et al. 2004). Contraction in agribusiness leading to the sale of family
farms (Daniels 1986), technological advances reducing commute time, thereby attracting
new residents to amenity-rich rural areas (Davis et al. 2005), and the relative affluence of
these newcomers, allowing residential development of former farmlands (Spain 1993),
will only heighten management challenges resulting from changing landscapes and the

need to understand and account for stakeholder values in deer management.

45

Notions of acceptance capacity have been proposed as a method to account for
values through conceptualization of society’s tolerance of negative and desire for positive
effects arising from human-wildlife interactions. I propose management that sets
objectives based on acceptance capacity for deer, through a clear understanding and
incorporation of stakeholder values, may reduce controversy surrounding management
decisions and produce more socially acceptable deer herds. Effective management of a
socially important species such as white-tailed deer requires such action to fulfill state

agencies’ trusteeship of wildlife resources (Swihart and DeNicola 1997).

Conceptual background

Managing acceptance capacity for wildlife species

The concept of acceptance capacity for a wildlife population has been referred to
as wildlife acceptance capacity (Decker and Purdy 1988), cultural carrying capacity
(Minnis and Peyton 1995) and wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (Carpenter et al.
2000). Whereas each of these incarnations adds to the concept of acceptance capacity,
each includes as its basis the upper and lower limits of tolerance for the effects of a
wildlife population on humans. By delineating a range of effects resulting from wildlife
populations, as desired by stakeholders, and identifying a maximum and minimum
tolerable population size, management of acceptance capacity may be applicable in such
varied situations as management of highly valued populations and management of pest

species.

46

Management objectives defined in terms of effects on humans may result in more
consistent achievement of management objectives and socially acceptable, sustainable
wildlife populations (Riley et al. 2003b). Yet, several challenges remain in the use of
acceptance capacity as a basis for management decision-making. Among these, limited
knowledge of factors affecting acceptance capacity for individual wildlife species is key
(Gigliotti et al. 2000). Riley and Decker (2000) and Peyton et al. (2001) found that
acceptance capacity for cougars and black bear, respectively, was affected by real and
perceived interactions with the species. I hypothesize, however, that impacts, defined as
the recognized, important effects arising from interactions with wildlife (Riley et al.
2002), are the primary determinant of acceptance capacity for a species. All interactions
with wildlife have effects. Impacts, however, are a subset of those effects deemed
important enough by stakeholders to warrant management attention. A focus on impacts
ensures management actions provide for the fundamental objectives of stakeholders,
rather than focusing on enabling objectives (Chapter 1). Whereas refinement from
interactions to impacts resulting from interactions may seem inconsequential, experience
with waterfowl harvest management on the Mississippi Flyway lends support to the idea
that impact-based management, which explores and provides for the important effects of
interactions with wildlife, may be an improvement over management of interactions with
wildlife (Enck et al. 2006).

Whereas impacts resulting from interactions with wildlife populations may
influence acceptance capacity (Chapter 1), other stakeholder characteristics will likely
also affect acceptance capacity for a species. Stakeholder values influence an

individual’s acceptance capacity for a wildlife species (Zinn et al. 2000), yet

47

characteristics such as age (Manfredo and Zinn 1996), tenure in area of residence, gender,
education (Vaske et al. 2001), experience with wildlife (Mankin et al. 1999), occupation
(Millbrath 1984), and location of current and childhood residence (Clendennin et al.
2005) have all been shown to affect these values relating to wildlife and, therefore,
acceptance capacity. I hypothesize that the most complete model of factors affecting
acceptance capacity will include a combination of stakeholder characteristics and impact
perception.

Decker and Purdy (1988) predict that a mismatch between management objectives
and acceptance capacity for key stakeholder groups will lead to conflict between
stakeholders and management agencies. If populations are managed below acceptance
capacity, potential benefits to society may be foregone. If populations surpass acceptance
capacity, thresholds for impacts perceived will be exceeded and managers will face
increased issue activity (Minnis and Peyton 1995). Although this conclusion may appear
logical, its application implies knowledge of stakeholder groups and their acceptance
capacities for wildlife species, for which empirical evidence is often lacking (Carpenter et
al. 2000).

Researchers and managers (Decker et al. 1996, Gill 1996, Gigliotti et al. 2000)
have issued calls for exploration of stakeholder groups in wildlife management. Recent
research has shown managers’ perceptions of stakeholder values may not be
representative of the values held by stakeholders (Mortenson 2001), yet, managers at the
local scale may make population management decisions based on their perceptions of
stakeholder groups and their desires (S. DuBay and S. Hanna, Michigan Department of

Natural Resources, personal communication).

48

Stakeholder groups may perceive differing levels of impacts and acceptance
capacities (Carpenter et al. 2000). Therefore, knowledge of the similarities and
differences among stakeholder groups is necessary for implementation of impact-based
management of acceptance capacity. In addition, knowledge of stakeholder groups
which are affected by or may affect management of specific wildlife populations allows
engagement of a complete and appropriate range of interests in decision-making (Decker
and Chase 1997).

If existing data collection techniques (i.e. harvest surveys, recreational use
surveys) are to enable management and monitoring of acceptance capacity at local scales,
knowledge of causal links between stakeholder characteristics, perception of impacts and
acceptance capacity is needed. This advance will affirm the applicability of literature
exploring the link between stakeholder characteristics and value orientations toward
wildlife, thus allowing managers to work within their means of data collection to
integrate human dimensions considerations with management decision-making, without
the need for extensive research.

Situational analysis

Deer management in southern Michigan: A landscape of change and opportunity

The Ecological Setting: the agro-forested landscape of southern Michigan.

Jackson, Washtenaw and Livingston counties, in southern Michigan, are dominated by

mixed agricultural and deciduous forested landscapes commonly found across the range

of white-tailed deer (Comer et al. 1995). Climate in this region is well suited to

49

agricultural production, with a long growing season (160 to 170 days), mild winters
(minimal temperatures -29° C) and high average precipitation (71 to 86 centimeters).

The physical landscape, characterized as an interlobate and morainal region, is dominated
by glacial end and outwash moraines, small lakes and streams in a hilly terrain (Albert et
al. 1986). Remaining forested areas not cleared for agriculture are small fragments of the
once contiguous, homogeneously forested areas. Changes in species composition
resulting from fire suppression have moved many of these areas to closed-canopy, beech
(Fagus grandifolia) — sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and oak (Quercus spp.) — hickory
(Carya spp.) dominated systems (Comer et al. 1995).

In contrast, the expanse of publicly owned lands at the core of the 3-county area
remains ecologically diverse, native forest due to a heterogeneous landscape and
protection by State ownership (Comer et al. 1995). The Pinckney and Waterloo State
Recreation Areas contain several of the largest remaining natural plant communities in
the lower peninsula of Michigan (Cooper et al. 2000), containing several rare natural

communities in a diverse landscape of forest, open-land and wetlands.

The Social Setting: rural rebound in southern Michigan. The natural amenities
and rural character of the area have contributed to changing trends in land ownership,
development and use, similar to those seen across the Midwest (Potts et al. 2004). From
1960-1990, south central Michigan, west of Ann Arbor, experienced the greatest
expansion in human population and land development of the regions of lower Michigan
(Madill and Rustem 2001). Between 1980 and 1990, the 3 counties experienced

increases in rural population (36 = 8.6%) and housing units (56 = 12.4%; US Census

50

Bureau 1995) reversing historic trends of increasing urban and decreasing rural
populations. Although all 3 counties remain predominantly rural (>90% of total land
area; US Census Bureau 1995), continued increases in population and housing density
may affect the character of these areas. The trend in human population grth and land
use during the last 30 years is predicted to continue, resulting in an estimated increase of
178% in the amount of Michigan’s land base classified as “built” by the year 2040
(Madill and Rustem 2001).

Once the most significant source of income for residents of this area, agricultural
production has undergone a shift in participation and function in these 3 counties.
Between 1997 and 2002, increases in the number of farms (:7 = +11%) were offset by
decreases in the amount of land dedicated to farming (i = -6%) and the average size of
farms (f = -14%; USDA Agricultural Statistic Service 2002). In addition, the majority
of farms in these counties (>60%) produce less than $5,000 in annual income (USDA
Agricultural Statistic Service 2002). These changes signal a shift from large-parcel
agricultural production to smaller, hobby-type farms. The type of farm most common in
Jackson, Livingston and Washtenaw counties is no longer intended to serve as a primary
source of income for the owner, rather as income to supplement off-farm employment or
simply as a recreational outlet. Farming in the area has shifted from a process by which
individuals “live off the land” to one which provides enjoyment and recreation while
living “on the land.” This shift has had significant impacts on the frequency and severity
of human-wildlife conflicts (Stout et al. 1993) by providing adequate habitat for a
growing deer population and refuge from hunting pressure on parcels of decreasing

acreage.

51

Deer hunting has long been an important part of the social landscape of the
Midwest and Michigan. During the past 40 years, deer numbers in southern Michigan
have increased dramatically in both absolute and relative terms, in relation to the rest of
the state (B. Rudolph, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data).
Yet, between 1998 and 2003, deer hunter numbers and effort in this region of the state
were constant or decreased slightly (B. Frawley, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, unpublished reports). Whereas high deer numbers have allowed hunters to
harvest at or above historic levels (B. Frawley, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, unpublished reports), the decreasing proportion of Michigan residents taking
part in deer hunting does not bode well for the future of hunting as a method to control
populations (Brown et al. 2000).

An additional limitation on the ability of hunters to control populations results
from changing land use in the area. Increasing rural development and decreasing parcel
size has limited the acres of land accessible by hunters and, therefore, their capacity to
harvest deer (Harden et al. 2005). In addition, the hunting-related values of long-time
rural residents sometimes conflict with those of newcomers to the rural landscape
(Mankin et al. 1999), potentially limiting the proportion of land open to hunting. If
hunters are no longer able to control the size of the deer herd, deer-human interactions
will likely increase, exacerbating impacts perceived by the residents of the area (Riley et

aL 2003a)

The Stakeholders: intersection of the ecological and social landscapes. Changes

in the human and deer populations of Jackson, Livingston and Washtenaw counties in the

52

past 20 years have brought deer and people into contact on a more frequent, sometimes
more intense, basis. As a result, area wildlife managers have experienced increasing
issue activity resulting from residents’ interactions with deer. Based on their perceptions
of this issue activity, managers commonly have assumed the stakeholder groups most
concerned with deer management to be hunters, farmers, and non-hunting, non-farming
rural landowners (S. DuBay and S. Hanna, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
personal communication). An implicit assumption is that within groups there is less
variation in attitudes about deer management than among these groups, where substantial
differences are assumed to exist. Management decisions at the local scale may be guided
by this perception, however, no empirical data exists to test this assumption

Challenges in the management of white-tailed deer will continue, and likely
intensify, due to changes in land use patterns and effects on the population dynamics of
deer. This area provides an ideal setting in which to research the effects of these changes
on perceived impacts from deer, as these trends are common elsewhere across the
Midwest (Potts et al. 2004). Patterns observed in southern Michigan, a microcosm of
northern white-tailed deer range, should be applicable across a large spatial scale,

allowing managers to anticipate challenges in areas undergoing similar land use changes.

Study objectives

The objectives of this study were to: (1) identify factors that have the greatest

effect on an individual’s acceptance capacity for deer through development of predictive

models, and (2) test whether individuals within 3 commonly identified stakeholder

53

groups (hunters, farmers and non-hunting, non-farming rural residents) perceive shared
suites of impacts and hold similar acceptance capacities for deer. Better understanding of
factors affecting acceptance capacity may lead to management interventions that
supplement conventional manipulations of deer habitat and populations, thus allowing for
successful deer management in the face of changing land use and stakeholder desires
across white-tailed deer range. The need for these supplemental management alternatives
is acute, as managers’ ability to control populations through harvest is diminishing (Riley

et al. 2003a) and options are limited for habitat management on private lands.

Methods

In-depth interviews

To guide development of a mail questionnaire that would enable quantitative
description of stakeholders and an analysis of factors affecting perception of impacts and
acceptance capacity, 19 personal interviews were conducted with landowners in the
southern Michigan study area during the fall 2004. These interviews were conducted to
explore: l) the potential suite of impacts perceived from interactions with deer, 2) values
assigned to these impacts by residents, and 3) general perceptions of deer and wildlife
management in the area (Appendix A). Interviewees were identified by MDNR wildlife
biologists and conservation officers, county agricultural extension agents, and Michigan
State University students and faculty. All interview participants had expressed some

experiences with or interest in deer management prior to their participation in the

54

interviews. Interviews occurred in participants’ homes with 1 or 2 interviewers and 1 or

2 participants present. Interviews were audio taped and later transcribed.

Self-administered survey

A self-administered, mail-back questionnaire was designed to quantify the type
and severity of deer-related impacts perceived by respondents, the interactions with deer
that caused those impacts and overall acceptance capacity for deer. In addition,
information about respondents’ characteristics such as participation in hunting, farming
and other wildlife related activities, land ownership and management activities, locale of
childhood and current residence and tenure in the study area was gathered to help
characterize stakeholders. Prior to administration, the questionnaire was peer reviewed
by a panel of survey experts from several Universities and the MDNR. The survey was
pre-tested on graduate and undergraduate students at Michigan State University.

The target population of the survey was the adult (218 years) population of
selected zip codes within Jackson, Washtenaw and Livingston Counties. Zip codes were
selected to sample non-urban residents within the study area boundaries. A random
sample of 3,500 addresses from the study zip codes was purchased from Survey
Sampling, Inc. of Fairfield, Connecticut. The primary source of these addresses was
public records such as telephone directories, supplemented with additional proprietary
data sources. In addition to the random sample, all interview participants were added to
the sample for validation of the interview analysis.

A modified version of Dillman’s Total Design Method (2000) was used to

administer the survey with 5 total mailings. The first mailing included a cover letter on

55

MDNR letterhead signed by the Wildlife Division Chief (Appendix B), an initial copy of
the survey (Appendix C), and 3 first-class (37¢) postage stamps as an incentive to return
completed questionnaires. It was mailed to subjects on 23 February, 2005. The second
mailing, a reminder postcard (Appendix D), was mailed to subjects on 6 March 2005.
The third mailing, on 21 March 2005, included a modified cover letter (Appendix E) and
replacement copy of the survey. As a result of a lower than desired response rate to the
first 3 mailings (<5 8%), a fourth mailing of the survey was added. The fourth wave,
mailed to subjects on 30 April 2005, consisted of an additional cover letter and copy of
the survey. This mailing also had the text “Your immediate response is requested”
printed in red on the envelope face to encourage recipients to open and complete the
survey.

The fifth mailing, a non-response survey, was mailed 1 June 2005. Non-
respondents were asked a sample of 5 questions from the original survey for comparison
to the respondents (Appendix F). All questionnaires and correspondence were mailed

from and returned to MDNR central offices in Lansing, Michigan.

Impacts: Identification and change

To identify the subset of effects resulting from interactions with deer that were
both recognized and important to stakeholders, a weighted variable (IMPACT) was
created. Recognition of effects (RECOGNIZE) was measured by asking respondents to
indicate whether they perceived given effects as a result of specific interactions with deer.
In a second question, respondents were asked to assign a level of importance

(IMPORTANCE) to the effects from the previous question. The weighted variable

56

IMPACT was calculated for each respondent. Based on our definition of impacts as
recognized, very important effects of interactions with wildlife, I limited impacts to those
with an IMPACT value of 2 (i.e. RECOGNIZE = yes and IMPORTANCE = very
important).

Respondents were also asked to indicate their preference for a change in the
frequency at which they experience each of the impacts on a 5-point scale that ranged
from “increase greatly” to “decrease greatly,” with a midpoint of “stay the same.” Those
impacts for which a respondent desired a change (either increase or decrease) were
assumed to fall outside the acceptance capacity for the individual impact; a large desired
change indicated a current perceived level well outside the respondent’s acceptance
capacity, while moderate desired change indicated a current level just outside the
respondent’s acceptance capacity.

Based on responses to this question, the variable IMPACT_EFFECT was
calculated. IMPACT_EFFECT was calculated only for those respondents who identified
a given impact, and measured the extent to which the current level of an impact exceeded
a respondent’s tolerance for that impact. IMPACT_EFFECT(total) was calculated by
summing IMPACT_EFFECT for all impacts, reflecting the overall degree and direction
of the respondent’s perception of impacts from deer. IMPACT_EFFECT(total) = 0
indicated that the current level of interactions with deer perceived by the respondent was
within his/her acceptance capacity. IMPACT_EFFECT(total) < 0 indicated the number
of negative impacts had exceeded the respondent’s acceptance capacity to the degree
reflected by the corresponding value. IMPACT_EFFECT(total) > 0 indicated the number

of positive impacts had exceeded the respondent’s acceptance capacity.

57

Stakeholder groups for white-tailed deer management

Respondents were classified into stakeholder groups based on their participation
in hunting and farming to test predictions of area wildlife managers. Respondents who
had hunted any species in the previous three years were classified as hunters.
Respondents who had worked on a farm in the previous 3 years or earned their primary
income from farming in any of the previous 10 years were classified as farmers. All
respondents who had not hunted or farmed in those time periods were classified as non-
hunting, non-farming individuals. Respondents who had participated in both hunting and
farming were excluded from this analysis. Frequencies of impact identification and
acceptance capacity for these groups were compared with chi-square statistics (p S 0.05

cutoff level, SPSS Inc. 2003).

Modeling acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer

I measured respondents’ perceptions of the current deer herd size
(CURRENTPOP) and desire for change in the herd size (FUTUREPOP) over the period
from 2005-2010 on a 5-point scale that ranged from “decrease(d) greatly” to “increase(d)
greatly,” with a midpoint of “stay the same.” I assumed that FUTUREPOP was an
accurate proxy for acceptance capacity relative to CURRENTPOP. Those respondents
who desired a great change in FUTUREPOP were assumed to have their acceptance
capacity exceeded by the current deer herd size.

Prior to statistical analysis, a series of a priori models of factors thought to affect

acceptance capacity were developed based on previous research. The models included

58

several reduced models and one global model, including all measured independent
variables with potential explanatory ability (Table 1). The a priori definition of models
to be tested, as opposed to statistical methods which define the best fit model from
existing data, ensured the models represented knowledge from past research on human
values toward wildlife and included only explanatory variables meaningfirl at the scale of
deer management. Linear regression models (p S 0.05 cutoff level, Statistica Version 7)
were compared with Pearson’s correlation (r2) and Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC)
to determine the most parsimonious, best fit model.

In addition, a stepwise linear regression was conducted on the global model. This
model was used to affirm that the a priori models included all critical explanatory
variables. Significant interaction terms among variables were explored to determine if

their existence signaled the influence of a latent variable.

Results

Self-administered survey response

Of 3,392 delivered surveys (127 questionnaires were undeliverable), 2,190
responses (65 %) were received. Of these respondents, 74% were male, and 26% were
female. The average age was 54 years (range: 18-95). Most respondents had completed
at least some post-secondary education (80%). Slightly more respondents grew up in
rural (47%) than urbanized (41%) settings, however, more than 80% now reside in a rural
setting. In addition, 20% of respondents indicated they currently reside in a suburban

area or small town.

59

Of respondents, 36% had hunted in the past 3 years, and, of those hunters, 91%
hunted deer. Almost all respondents who had hunted in the previous 3 years were males
(95%). Whereas 18% had worked on a farm in the previous 3 years, less than 2% derived
their primary income from farming at any time since 1995. Respondents who farmed
were also predominantly male (63 %). Nearly 50% of respondents had neither hunted nor
farmed in the previous 3 years. Of non-hunting, non-farming respondents, 63% were
male. These characteristics were used to define stakeholder groups for analysis.

The non-respondent mail survey (n = 111) did not show any statistically

significant differences in activities, demographics or desired change in the size of the
deer herd between respondents and non-respondents (x2 2 2 0.130, n 2 1944, p > 0.05).

Inferences from the non-respondent survey may be limited because it was also distributed
as a mail-back questionnaire. It is likely that survey recipients who did not respond to the
initial mail survey would also not respond to the secondary mail non-respondent survey.
As a result, I may not have completely measured existing non-response bias through

these methods.

Wildlife related activities

Most respondents participated in activities related to wildlife. The most common
wildlife-related activities were reading about wildlife (86%) and gardening (83%). Many
of the activities with high levels of participation, such as observing (78%), photographing
(61%) or feeding (75%) wildlife, are likely to increase individuals’ likelihood of having a
direct interaction with deer. Greater than 34% of respondents had been involved in a

DVC over the previous 3 years. Greater than 50% of respondents manage some portion

60

of their land for the benefit of wildlife, with songbirds (28%), deer (17%) and other

mammals (20%) the most common beneficiaries of these actions.

Impacts identified

The most commonly identified impacts were feeling connected to nature when
deer were seen around a respondent’s home (5 8%) or near the road (56%), and,
conversely, worry about risk of injury from a DVC when deer are seen along the roadway
(52%), around home (50%) or in farm fields (50%). Concerns associated with deer
browsing, including worry about farmers’ lost income when deer are seen in a farmer’s
field (9%) and worry about the cost of replacing plants (10%) or the wasted time planting
plants (12%) when deer are seen around home, were the least commonly identified
impacts.

As a result of the high reported rates of involvement in DVCs among respondents,
the rank-order of impacts identified by respondents who had been in a DVC were
compared with that of respondents who had not been in a DVC. Involvement in an auto
accident as the result of a deer in the previous 3 years increased the relative importance of

DVC-related impacts among respondents (Table l).

Perceptions of trends in deer numbers

Most respondents believed the deer herd had increased somewhat (26%) or stayed
the same (28%) over the 5 years previous to the questionnaire. Just over 15% of
respondents felt the herd had increased greatly over that time period. Only 17% of

respondents indicated the deer herd in southern Michigan had decreased.

61

The mean desired future trend in deer herd size for all respondents was between
“stay the same” and “decrease somewhat” (f = 2.79, SE = 0.023, n = 1974). More than
41% of respondents wanted the deer herd to remain constant in the next 5 years, while
37% desired a decrease and 22% desired an increase in the herd. Whether they desired
an increase or decrease in the herd, only 20% of respondents desired a large change in the
current herd size, while 39% desired a moderate change in the herd size. Almost all

respondents (95%) stated the occurrence of their desired change was important to them.

Stakeholder groups for white-tailed deer management
Respondents who indicated they had hunted or farmed in the previous 3 years had
different perception of impacts than those who had not (Table 1). Hunters were more

likely to identify positive, population-level impacts, such as feeling the deer herd was

large enough to hunt (x2 2 = 66.001 , n = 1173, p < 0.001) and deer were healthy and well
fed (x2 2 = 100.140, n = 1304, p < 0.001), than farmers or non-hunting, non-farming
respondents. Hunters were also more likely to interpret deer around home (x2 2 =

339.655, n = 1197, p < 0.001) and in fields (22 2 = 361.103, n = 1213, p < 0.001) as

indicators of future hunt quality.

Farmers, however, were more likely to identify negative impacts associated with

deer browsing on crops, such as worry about lost income from crop damage (x2 2 =
28.550, n = 1293, p < 0.001), worry about wasted time planting plants eaten by deer (x2 2

= 11.813, n = 1476, p = 0.003) and worry about hunters trespassing on their property (x2 2

= 26.107, n = 1494, p < 0.001).

62

Non-hunting, non-farming respondents were more concerned with the negative

impacts of deer hunting than were farmers or hunters. They were more likely than

hunters or farmers to worry about a deer being killed by hunters (x2 2 = 77.025, n = 1489,
p < 0.001) or a DVC (x2 2 = 79.055, n = 1465, p < 0.001), and their own potential to be
injured by a hunter’s stray shot (x2 2 = 95.929, n = 1495, p < 0.001).

Perceptions of CURRENTPOP were linked to hunting (x2 2 = 85.579, n = 1448, p

< 0.001 ). Non-hunting, non-farming and farming respondents were more likely than
hunters to believe the herd had increased in the previous 5 years (55%, Adjusted residual
= 7.2), whereas 30% of hunters believed the herd had decreased (Adjusted residual =
7.9).

Respondents’ stated desire for future population trends was also linked to whether

respondents were hunters (x2 2 = 100.467, n = 1559, p < 0.001). Among respondents,

hunters were most likely to desire an increase in the herd (12.4%, Adjusted residual =
9.6), while non-hunting, non-farming residents were least likely to desire an increase in
the herd (8.2%, Adjusted residual = -7.5). Non-hunting, non-farming respondents were

most likely to desire a decrease in the deer herd (26%, Adjusted residual = 5.1).

Modeling acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer

Three partial and 1 global model of factors affecting acceptance capacity were
tested using multiple linear regression (Table 2). Model A tested for the effect of being a
hunter or farmer on acceptance capacity for deer. Model B tested the ability of the
perceived effect of impacts to predict acceptance capacity. Number of impacts perceived

was not tested because previous research has shown it to be of little values when

63

predicting variation in acceptance capacity (Chapter 1). Model C tested the effect of all
measured stakeholder characteristics shown, through past research, to affect values
toward wildlife. The global model (D) included all measured variables predicted to affect
acceptance capacity, including the weighted effect of impacts and stakeholder
characteristics.

A reduced global model (B), containing only those variables from Model D that

were individually significant, was also tested. Although the reduced global and global

models had very similar explanatory power (linear regression, adjusted r20, 1363 = 0.362,
= 1392; adjusted r25, 1384 = 0.363, n = 1392), the AIC value associated with the global

model was higher than that of the reduced global model (AICD = 3573.8, AICE =

3518.5). Because a majority of the variables in Model D did not meaningfully contribute
to an explanation of the variation in acceptance capacity, their removal decreased the AIC
value, indicating a more parsimonious, better fitting model. The standardized model
parameters for the most parsimonious model (B) were (SE in parentheses):
Acceptance Capacity = 3.660 (0.103)
+ 0.140 (0.054) F EED___DEER
- 0.125 (0.002) AGE
- 0.078 (0.064) RESIDENCE_CHILD_FARM
- 0.040 (0.058) RESIDENCE_CHILD_RURAL
- 0.068 (0.072) RESIDENCE_CHILD_TOWN
+ 0.061 (0.064) EDUCATION_HS
+ 0.041 (0.073) EDUCATION_ASSOCIATE

+ 0.506 (0.003) IMPACT_EFFECT(total)

64

where FEED_DEER, RESIDENCE_CHILD and EDUCATION are all dichotomous
variables (with 0 = no and l = yes).

Total effect of impacts has a positive relationship with acceptance capacity,
indicating an individual with a more positive total value for impacts from deer would
have a higher acceptance capacity than someone with a more negative total. Feeding
deer has a positive relationship with acceptance capacity, suggesting an individual who
feeds deer is more likely to have a higher acceptance capacity than someone who does
not. Earning a high school diploma or an associate’s degree is also positively related to
acceptance capacity, indicating that residents with these levels of education would have
higher acceptance capacities than those who had achieved other levels of education.

In contrast, age has a negative relationship with acceptance capacity, indicating
older individuals tend to have lower acceptance capacities for deer. Childhood residence
on a farm, in a rural area or in town also has a negative relationship with acceptance
capacity. Individuals who lived in any 1 of these areas as a child are more likely to have
a lower acceptance capacity for deer than individuals who did not. A stepwise linear
regression did not reveal any significant interaction terms, signifying that the explanatory
power of this suite of variables is not moderated by a latent variable.

As a result of the strong effect of stakeholder group on perception of impacts and
acceptance capacity for deer, but its lack of explanatory power in regression modeling of
acceptance capacity, I hypothesized one or more of the significant independent variables
in Model E may be related to stakeholder group. I detected relationships between several

independent variables and stakeholder group. Respondents who fed deer were more

likely to be hunters (x2 2 = 182.346, n = 1657, p < 0.001, Adjusted residual hum = 13.4).

65

Respondents who grew up on a farm were more likely to be farmers (x2 2 = 120.842, n =
1703, p < 0.001, Adjusted residual farm = 11.0); those who grew up in a rural area were
more likely to be hunters (x2 2 = 16.172, n = 1703, p < 0.001, Adjusted residual mm =

3.9); those who grew up in a small town were more likely to be non-hunting, non-farming
residents (x2 2 = 9.576, n = 1703, p = 0.008, Adjusted residual nomhum, -fam, = 3.0). Results

indicate that FEED_DEER and CHILDHOOD_RESIDENCE may explain the same
variation in acceptance capacity as is explained by stakeholder group. Therefore, it may
be valid to substitute participation in farming and/or hunting for these variables in a

predictive model.

Discussion

Influence of DVCs on impact perception

Drivers in the 3 study counties reported higher rates of DVCs (34%) than
residents of central New York (28%; Stout et al. 1993) and other parts of Michigan (12%;
Marcoux 2005). Participation in DVCs appears to affect individuals’ perception of
impacts resulting from deer in the area in which they live. Comparison of the rank-order
of impacts perceived by respondents indicated those respondents involved in a DVC
identified DVC-related impacts as most important, while respondents who had not had a
DVC identified deer as a sign of a natural environment as most important. Stout et a1.
(1993) found that perceptions of risk related to DVCs were 1 of 4 key variables that
predicted preferences. My data affirm that the effects of DVCs are intense enough to

shifi perception of impacts and, potentially motivate an individual to increase their level

66

of issue activity. As a result, actions taken to reduce the frequency of DVCs in
predominantly rural areas with high deer densities, such as these 3 counties, may increase
acceptance capacity for deer to a disproportionately large extent. In addition, the
importance of a visible deer herd and perceptions of a healthy deer herd by respondents
who had not been in a DVC may provide insights into impacts which may gain in

importance if the rate of DVCs in the area were to decrease.

Stakeholder groups for white-tailed deer management

Hunters, farmers and non-hunting, non-farming rural residents appear to hold
differing attitudes toward deer management in southern Michigan. These 3 groups
identify distinct suites of impacts as important to them and desire different trends in deer
herd size in the firture. Hunters are more likely to identify deer population-level impacts
and those associated with quality deer hunts than non-hunters. Enck et al. (2004) and
Wallmo (2003) found similar results among hunters in New York and southwest
Michigan, respectively. Hunters are also more likely to desire an increase in the total
deer herd. Bull and Peyton (2001) also found that most hunters in southern Michigan
desired an increase in the deer herd where they hunted; hunters likely interpret an
increase in the total herd as a means to achieve the hunting-related impacts they
identified.

Farmers were more likely than non-farmers to identify impacts associated with
crop damage and resulting wastes of their time and money. Similar findings resulted
from a study of farmers in 7 counties around Michigan (Fritzell 1998), which emphasize

the continued importance of crop damage as a determinant of acceptance capacity for

67

deer among farmers. Surprisingly, farmers were the most evenly distributed of the 3
stakeholder groups across the 5 levels of desired change in the herd size. These results
may indicate that, while crop damage is of concern to farmers, the current level of
damage they perceive does not exceed their tolerance for damage and, therefore, the herd
does not exceed their acceptance capacity. Studies in Michigan (F ritzell 1998, McNeil
1962), Ohio (Stoll and Mountz 1983) and New York (Brown et al. 1978, Brown et al.
2004) found farmers to have similar concerns about crop damage, but a willingness to
accept damage up to self-defined tolerable levels. Whereas tolerance for crop damage is
likely the result of farmers’ desire to see deer, high rates of damage to crops can have
economic costs not realized by non-farmers. In addition, the predominance of hobby or
non-income generating farms within the study area (USDA Agricultural Statistics Service
2002) may firrther dilute the concerns of farmers who depend on agricultural income
exclusively. Management efforts to alleviate crop damage through increases in harvest
may lack support among non-farmers who may not prioritize these concerns and,
therefore, view see these methods as a threat to positive impacts they desire (i.e. a visible
deer herd).

Despite variables reflecting participation in hunting and farming not making
significant contributions to a predictive model of acceptance capacity, it is likely that
variation in acceptance capacity explained by hunting or farming is reflected in several of
the variables which did offer significant explanatory power. As a result, there is evidence
that substitution of hunting and farming for variables reflecting deer feeding and growing
up on a farm, respectively, are valid adjustments to the predictive model of acceptance

capacity for deer. These modifications are firrther justified by additional benefits to

68

management of the altered model. State wildlife agencies have ready access to the
prevalence of participation in hunting and farming around the state and, therefore, may be
able to calculate the relative proportion of the total human population likely to perceive
particular suites of impacts resulting from deer. This may allow deer managers to easily
and cost-effectively integrate this type of human dimensions data at multiple scales of
management.

In contrast to the impacts perceived by farmers and hunters, non-hunting, non-
farrning rural landowners were more likely to identify negative impacts associated with
hunting. They were concerned about their risk of injury from stray shots and deer being
killed by hunters or in DVCs. Rural landowners in New York also identified the risk of
injury from stray shots as impacts of their indirect interactions with deer (Enck et al.
2001). Few other studies of the effects of deer on non-hunting, non-farming rural
residents have been conducted, indicating the need for future research to corroborate
these findings in other study contexts.

Non-hunting, non-farming respondents were likely to desire a decrease in the total
size of the deer herd in the next 5 years, a trend also found among residents of southwest
Michigan (Wallmo 2003). A reliance on conventional management strategies
necessitates an increase in recreational harvest in order to achieve this desired decrease.
However, concurrent with a desire for a smaller deer herd, non-farming, non-hunting
rural residents express concern about negative effects of hunting. Management focused
on impacts may use non-harvest methods, aimed to decrease negative impacts (i.e. risk of
DVC), to raise acceptance capacity for deer among non-hunting, non-farming rural

residents without increasing perceived risk of injury resulting from high hunter densities

69

on the landscape. Non-harvest based management may increase satisfaction with
management among non-hunting, non-farming residents. In addition, information and
education campaigns that introduce non-hunting, non-farming rural residents to the
relative safety of hunting and its benefits as a management tool may mitigate this impact

by decreasing perception of risk of injury from stray shots.

Modeling acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer

Comparison of the a priori models of factors affecting acceptance capacity for
deer leads to an interesting conclusion. The models I tested explored the suite of factors
predicted to affect values toward wildlife and, therefore, acceptance capacity, found in
past research. Despite the suite of stakeholder characteristics encompassing a wide range
of wildlife related activities, the weighted effect of impacts perceived by respondents
alone (Model B) was a far better predictor of variation in acceptance capacity than the
full suite of stakeholder characteristics (Model C). The explanatory power of the model
considering both impacts and stakeholder characteristics (D) added little to the ability to
predict acceptance capacity over the impact variable alone, and increased the complexity
of the model tremendously, making it a less favorable model. In addition, even in the
best fit, most parsimonious model (E), the coefficient values of the non-impact variables,
reflecting the contribution of the variable to an individual’s acceptance capacity, were
low (range: 0.040 — 0.140) in comparison to the coefficient for the impact variable
(0.506). In essence, the primary factor affecting acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer
is the total effect of all impacts perceived by an individual. Stakeholder characteristics

have relatively little direct effect on acceptance capacity for deer.

70

These results suggest that past studies of acceptance capacity for cougars (Riley
and Decker 2000) and black bears (Peyton et al. 2001), which identified interactions with
the species as a primary driver of acceptance capacity, may have been improved by a
more in-depth exploration of the impacts resulting from those interactions. Management
that provides for desired interactions with wildlife species may not provide the full suite
of impacts desired by stakeholders, therefore resulting in less acceptable wildlife
populations than management which specifically addresses the impacts resulting from
interactions. I suggest exploration of impacts resulting from interactions with wildlife
species that have differing ratios of positive to negative impacts is necessary to fully
realize the potential benefits of acceptance capacity management within wildlife

management.

Future research needs

Whereas modeling of acceptance capacity for deer pointed out the importance of
impacts, it did not offer insight into the factors which may affect the perception of or
relative importance assigned to impacts resulting from interactions with deer. I believe
that many of the stakeholder characteristics I predicted to have a direct effect on
acceptance capacity more directly affect perception of impacts and affect acceptance
capacity only indirectly, through the moderating variable of perceived impacts. Because
stakeholder characteristics may affect an individuals’ probability of interacting with
wildlife in specific ways (i.e. a gardener is more likely than a non-gardener to note deer
damage in a flower or vegetable garden) and impacts result from interactions with

wildlife, the probability of perceiving such an impact is affected by participation in that

71

activity. Likelihood of interaction may be measured in proxy through many of the
stakeholder characteristics I predicted to affect acceptance capacity.

Knowledge of impacts desired by stakeholders and the ability to rank impacts
resulting from wildlife by their relative importance may allow novel approaches to
management which offset negative, less important effects with an increase in very
important, positive effects. Whereas this approach may not alleviate negative effects, it
may shift an individual’s acceptance capacity, therefore creating a broader range of
acceptable wildlife populations (Riley et al. 2002). This study has provided initial
insights into the impacts resulting from white-tailed deer as perceived by residents of
southern Michigan. Continued study of these impacts and management actions which
explicitly address them are warranted and may help to address many of the challenges
faced by wildlife managers in changing social and ecological landscapes such as this

across the United States.

72

Literature cited

Albert, D.A., S.R. Denton and B.V. Barnes. 1986. Regional Landscape Ecosystems of
Michigan. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker and PD. Curtis. 2004. Farmers’ Estimates of Economic
Damage from White-tailed Deer in New York State. Cornell University Human
Dimensions Research Unit Series, No. 04-3. Ithaca, New York, USA.

Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker and GP. Dawson. 1978. Willingness of New York farmers to
incur white-tailed deer damage. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 6:235-239.

Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker, S.J. Riley, J .W. Enck, T.B. Lauber, P.D. Curtis, and GP.
Mattfeld. 2000. The future of hunting as a mechanism to control white-tailed
deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28:797-807.

Bull, P. and B. Peyton. 2001. An Assessment of Possible Antler Restrictions and
Quality Deer Management by Michigan Deer Hunters. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources — Wildlife Division Report.

Carpenter, L.H., D.J. Decker, and J .F. Lipscomb. 2000. Stakeholder Acceptance
Capacity in Wildlife Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5:5-19.

Clendenning, 6., DR. Field and K.J. Kapp. 2005. A Comparison of Seasonal
Homeowners and Permanent Residents on Their Attitudes Toward Wildlife
Management on Public Lands. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10:3-17.

Comer, P.J., D.A. Albert, H.A. Wells, B.L. Hart, J .B. Raab, D.L Price, D.M. Kashian,
R.A. Comer and D.W. Schuen. 1995. Michigan’s Native Landscape, as
Interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856. Report to the US.
EPA. Water Division and the Wildlife Division, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, Michigan.

73

Cooper, J .L., R]. Higman, J. Spieles, M.R. Penskar, D.L. Cuthreil, Y.M. Lee, D.A.
Albert and L. Pelz-Lewis. 2000. Inventory and Management Recommendations
for Pinckney and Waterloo State Recreation Areas’ Natural Communities, Rare
Plants and Rare Wildlife. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Parks and Recreation Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory,
Lansing, Michigan.

Davis, J .S., A.C. Nelson and K.J. Duecker. 1994. The New ‘Burbs: The exurbs and their
implications for planning policy. Journal of the American Planning Association,
60: 45-59.

Daniels, TL. 1986. Hobby Farming in America: Rural Development or Threat to
Commercial Agriculture? Journal of Rural Studies, 2:31-40.

Decker, D]. and LC. Chase. 1997. Human dimensions of living with wildlife — a
management challenge for the 21St century. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25:788-
795.

Decker, D.J., C.C. Krueger, R.A. Baer, Jr., B.A. Knuth and ME. Richmond. 1996.
From Clients to Stakeholders: A Philosophical Shift for Fish and Wildlife
Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1:70-82.

Decker, DJ. and K.G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in
wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 16:53-57.

Dillman, DA. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, New York, USA.

Dwyer, J .F . and GM. Childs. 2004. Movement of people across the landscape: a
blurring of distinctions between areas, interests and issues affecting natural
resource management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69:153-164.

Enck, J .W., T.L. Brown and D. Riehlman. 2004. Landowner and Hunter Response to
Implementation of a Quality Deer Management (QDM) Cooperative Near King

Ferry, NY. Cornell University Human Dimensions Research Unit Series, No. 03-
7. Ithaca, New York, USA.

74

Enck, J.W., D]. Decker, S.J. Riley, J. F. Organ, L.H. Carpenter and W.F. Siemer. 2006.
Integrating ecological and human dimensions in adaptive management of
wildlife-related impacts. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34: In press.

Fritzell, PA. 1998. A Survey of Michigan Agricultural producers’ attitudes, perceptions
and behaviors regarding deer crop depredation to fi'uit, vegetables and filed crops.

Gigliotti, L., D]. Decker, and L.H. Carpenter. 2000. Developing the Wildlife
Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity Concept: Research Needed. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 5:76-82.

Gill, RB. 1996. The Wildlife Professional Subculture: The Case of the Crazy Aunt.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1:60-69.

Harden, CD, A. Woolf and J. Roseberry. 2005. Influence of exurban development on
hunting opportunity, hunter distribution, and harvest efficiency of white-tailed
deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33:233-242.

Iverson, LR. 2002. Biological trends in the United States: an annotated on-line review.
<http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/biotrends/biotrends.html>

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

Madill, H. and W. Rustem. 2001. Michigan Land Resource Project. Technical Report.
Public Sector Consultants, Inc., Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Manfredo, M.J. and H.C. Zinn. 1996. Population change and its implications for wildlife
management in the new west: A case study of Colorado. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 1:62-74.

Mankin, P.C., R.E. Warner and W.L. Anderson. 1999. Wildlife and the Illinois public: A
benchmark study of attitudes and perceptions. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27:465-
472.

75

McNeil, R]. 1962. Population dynamics and economic impact of deer in southern
Michigan. Michigan Department of Conservation, Game Division Report 2395.
Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Milbrath, L.W. 1984. Environmentalists: Vanguard for a new society. State University
of New York Press. Albany, New York, USA.

Minnis, D.L. and RB. Peyton. 1995. Cultural Carrying Capacity: Modeling a Notion.

Pages 19-34 in Proceedings of the Urban Deer Symposium, Saint Louis, MO.,
December 1993.

Mortenson, KG. 2001. The organizational culture of Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources managers and their acceptance of myriad public involvement
approaches in response to a diversifying constituency. M.Sc. Thesis. Utah State

University, Logan, Utah, USA.

Peyton, B. P. Bull, T. Reis and L. Visser. 2001. An Assessment of the Social Carrying
Capacity of Black Bears in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources - Wildlife Division Report.

Potts, R., E. Gustafson, S.I. Stewart, F.R. Thompson, K. Bergen, D.G. Brown, R.
Hammer, V. Redeloff, D. Bengston, J. Sauer and B. Sturtevant. 2004. The
Changing Midwest Assessment: land cover, natural resources, and people. Gen.
Tech. Rep. NC-250. St. Paul, MN: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, North Central Research Section.

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

Riley, S.J., D]. Decker, L.H. Carpenter, J .F. Organ, W.F. Siemer, G.F. Mattfeld and G.
Parsons. 2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin,
30:585-593.

Riley, S.J., D]. Decker, J.W. Enck, P.D. Curtis, T.B. Lauber, and TL. Brown. 2003a.
Deer populations up, hunter populations down: Implications of interdependence
of deer and hunter population dynamics on management. Ecoscience, 10:455-

461.

76

Riley, S.J., Siemer, W.F., Decker, D.J., Carpenter, L.H., Organ, J .F and LT. Berchielli.
2003b. Adaptive Impact Management: An Integrative Approach to Wildlife
Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8:81-95.

Spain, D. 1993. Been-Heres Versus Come-Heres: Negotiating conflicting community
identities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59:156-171.

SPSS Inc. 2003. SPSS 12.0 for Windows. SPSS, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, USA.

StatSoft Inc. 2004. Statistica, Version 7. StatSott Inc. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.

Stoll, R.J. and G.L. Mountz. 1983. Rural landowner attitudes toward deer and deer
populations in Ohio. Ohio Fish and Wildlife Report 10, Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Stout, R.J., R.C. Stedman, D.J. Decker and BA. Knuth. 1993. Perceptions of risk from
deer-related vehicle accidents: implications for public preferences for deer herd
size. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21:237-249.

Swihart, R. K., and A. J. DeNicola. 1997. Public involvement, science, management,
and the overabundance of deer: Can we avoid a hostage crisis? Wildlife Society
Bulletin 25:382-387.

US. Census Bureau. 1995. 1990 Census of Population and Housing Unit Counts —
Michigan. <http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cph2/cph-2-24.pdf>

US. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2002. 2002
Census of Agriculture County Profile, Livingston, Jackson and Washtenaw
Counties, Michigan.
<http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/censusOZ/profiles/mi/index.htm>

Vaske, J.J., M.P. Donnelly, D.R. Williams and S. Jonker. 2001. Demographic
Influences on Environmental Value Orientations and Normative Beliefs About
National Forest Management. Society and Natural Resources, 14:761-776.

Waller, D.M. and W.S. Alverson. 1997. The white-tailed deer: a keystone herbivore.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25:217-226.

77

Wallmo, K. 2003. Economic Choice Modeling: The Use of Social Preference Data to
Inform White-tailed Deer Management in Michigan. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Warren, R. J. (ed) 1997. Deer overabundance - special issue. Wildlife Society Bulletin
252213-562.

Zinn, H.C., Manfredo, M.J. and J .J Vaske. 2000. Social Psychological Basis for
Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5:20-33.

78

Tables and figures

Table 1. Rank-order list of impacts identified by respondents who have been in a

DVC and respondents who have not been in a DVC in the 3 years previous to survey

response. Results from “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan” survey,

conducted February — June, 2005 in Jackson, Livingston and Washtenaw counties,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan.
Rank
NO
IMPACT DVC DV C

Seeing deer along the road makes me worry about injury from DVC 1 3
Seeing deer around home makes me worry about injury from DVC 2 5
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me worry about injury from DVC 3 6
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me worry about cost of DVC 4 13
Seeing deer along the road makes me worry about cost of DVC 5 l 1
Seeing deer around home makes me worry about cost of DVC 6 12
Seeing deer around home makes me feel connected to nature 7 1
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me worry about hassle of DVC 8 9
Seeing deer along the road makes me worry about hassle of DVC 9 8
Seeing deer around home makes me worry about hassle of DVC 10 10
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me feel connected to nature 1 1 2
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me feel deer are healthy and well fed 12 7
Seeing deer along the road makes me feel connected to nature 13 4
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me confident deer hunting will be good 14 14
Seeing deer around home makes me confident deer hunting will be good 15 15
Seeing hunters during deer season makes me worry about being hurt by stray shots 16 16
Seeing hunters during deer season makes me worry someone may trespass on my land 17 17
Seeing hunters during deer season makes me confident pop. is large enough to hunt 18 18
Seeing deer along the road makes me worry a deer may be killed 19 19
Seeing deer around home makes me feel frustrated about wasted time planting plants 20 21
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me worry about lost income from crop damage 21 24
Seeing hunters during deer season makes me worry about interfere with my hunt 22 20
Seeing deer around home makes me worry about cost of ornamental plants 23 23
Seeing hunters during deer season makes me worry a deer may be killed 24 22

 

79

Table 2. Chi square statistics comparing frequencies of impact perception among
stakeholder groups. Results from “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern
Michigan” survey, conducted February — June, 2005 in Jackson, Livingston and

Washtenaw counties, Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adjusted Residual
IMPACT x’ vaiiire n Farm Hunt 1:322:11]:

3:31:80 1:363:33: hm" makes me {“1 6.521 0.038 1519 0.1 2.5 -24
:3? “(11:22:11 Sign“? field makes m 4.237 0.120 1480 -0.8 2.0 -1.4
36511331133121.1533?“ makes me “my 39.501 0.000 1580 1.0 -6.3 5.3
35333133223313? makes me “my 42.070 0.000 1518 1.5 -6.5 5.2
iffygagm'fiufiya’g'jfigfi makes me 47.017 0.000 1519 1.4 -6.9 5.6
353312;; 33%,}? ”3" makes me “my 55.420 0.000 1589 2.2 -74 5.7
ffigfighggfi‘gnggme makes "’6 “my 52.426 0.000 1529 2.2 -7.2 5.4
izegga121'tigazsfifiegg“ makes me 56.674 0.000 1526 2.3 -7.5 5.7
fgggigfgfgfighe mad makes me “my 48.770 0.000 1593 2.3 -6.9 5.2
fjmgctizefo’mf’réhe mad makes me “’61 13.496 0.001 1431 -0.7 3.7 .31
21:32:36??? h‘m makes me “my 51.051 0.000 1534 1.7 -71 5.3
3228,1323, ifoztfgrf’gefjgfie‘d makes me 51.808 0.000 1530 2.6 -7.1 5.1
$553553"; 12633333 3:}? 33"“ me 100.14 0.000 1304 -1.6 10.0 -8.6
fjjf'j’feflfffe: htifiiigzrwiflielblggmilbils “'6 361.10 0.000 1213 -3.5 19.0 -16.3
fjflf'j'fefiflziflfiigz";fingi‘egzg'; 339.66 0.000 1197 -33 18.4 -159
Ejecfig'gfgfggflg iii: Eifggyniiiéii 95.929 0.000 1495 3.5 -9.7 7.2
Seeing hunters during deer season makes 26.107 0.000 1494 4.8 0.7 35

me worry someone may trespass on my land

 

80

Table 2. (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adjusted Residual
2 p- Non-hunt,
IMPACT x value It Farm Hunt non-farm
Seeing hunters during deer season makes
me confident pop. is large enough to hunt 66‘001 0'000 1 173 '2'5 8’1 '6'4
Seeing deer along the road makes me worry
a deer may be killed 79.055 0.000 1465 2.8 -8.8 6.7
Seeing deer around home makes me worry
about cost of ornamental plants 6'991 0'030 1481 1‘7 '2'3 1'2
Seeing hunters during deer season makes
me worry a deer may be killed 77.025 0.000 1489 2.7 -8.7 6.7
Seeing deer in a farmer's field makes me
worry about lost income from crop damage 28.550 0.000 1293 5.3 -l.6 -l .6
Seeing hunters during deer season makes
me worry about interfere with my hunt 153.31 0.000 1196 -l .4 12.3 -1 1.0
Seeing deer around home makes me feel 11 813 0 003 1 47 6 3 0 _2 2 0 3

frustrated about wasted time planting plants

81

Table 3. Multiple linear regression of factors affecting acceptance capacity for

white-tailed deer. Results from “Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”

survey, conducted February — June, 2005 in Jackson, Livingston and Washtenaw

counties, Michigan. The dependent variable was the desired change in the deer

population in S. Michigan in the next 5 years, where 1 = decrease greatly, 5 = increase

greatly.

 

MODEL
A
B

VARIABLES
HUNT + FARM

IMPACT_EFFECT(total)

READ_WL + PHOTO_WL +
OBSERVE_WL + GARDEN +
FEED_WL + FEED_DEER +
DVC + HUNT + FARM +
RESIDENCE_CHILD +
RESIDENCE_CURRENT +
YEARS_CURRENT + GENDER
+ AGE + EDUCATION

READ_WL + PHOTO_WL +
OBSERVE_WL + GARDEN +
FEED_WL + FEED_DEER +
DVC + HUNT + FARM +
RESIDENCE_CHILD +
RESIDENCE_CURRENT +
YEARS_CURRENT + GENDER
+ AGE + EDUCATION+
IMPACT_EFFECT(total)

FEED_DEER + AGE +
RESIDENCE_CHILD_FARM +
RESIDENCE_CHILD_RURAL +
RESIDENCE_CHILD_TGWN +
IMPACT_EFFECT(total) +
EDUCATION_HS +
EDUCATION_ASSOCIATE

p-
value

0.000
0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.259
0.563

0.429

0.613

0.605

Adjusted
2

r
0.066
0.317

0.167

0.362

0.363

n
1392

1392

1392

1392

1392

AIC
4008.7
3571.6

3929.0

3573.8

3518.5

 

82

CHAPTER 3

Recommendations for the Management of
White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan

83

Recommendations for the Management of White-tailed

Deer in Southern Michigan

This project aimed to improve decision-making capacity among area wildlife
biologists, unit supervisors and statewide research biologists by testing methods to
identify and address stakeholder-defined impacts related to the management of white-
tailed deer in south central Michigan. Based on the results presented in the previous 2
chapters, the following recommendations are offered for consideration in developing

future management action and research.

Justification for impact-based management and consequences of “no action”

This research has shown that an individual’s perception of impacts, weighted by
the degree to which the frequency of that impact falls outside a desired level, is a major
factor affecting acceptance capacity for a species. Specifically, believing that a visible
deer herd is a signal of a natural area and concerns about the effects of DVCs are the
primary impacts driving acceptance capacity among residents of the study area. Because
conventional deer management has focused almost exclusively on herd management
through recreational harvest or manipulation of habitat, the ability to simultaneously
manage for these competing impacts becomes a challenge. An increase in harvest may
reduce the frequency of DVCs in some areas, however, it may also decrease the
frequency at which deer are seen and appreciated by residents. The outcome of increased

harvest would likely be decreased stakeholder satisfaction with management and

84

increased issue activity among stakeholders due to the collateral effects of management
actions on other important impacts.

In addition to the inability of harvest management to address competing impacts,
changes to the land use and ownership patterns in southern Michigan will make the
realization of harvest goals less certain than in the past. Local increases in deer density
may intensify the frequency of negative deer-human interactions such as DVCs and
decrease residents’ sense of their own ability to control or mitigate these negative effects.
As a result, continued and increased issue activity resulting from interactions with deer
can be expected. Issue activity is likely to come from currently recognized stakeholder
groups and individuals who may not have been concerned with deer management in the
past. Increases in political interference with deer management, including lawsuits and
referenda affecting managers’ ability to make decisions, can be expected.

These limitations of current management practices suggest a need for novel
approaches to management; I suggest the management of impacts and acceptance
capacity, which may achieve these multiple goals for deer management, as a modification

of conventional management.

Managing impacts and acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer

To address the most commonly identified types of impacts, deer as a signal of
nature and concerns about DVCs, I recommend the MDNR undertake an education and
outreach campaign aimed to increase driver awareness of DVCs and behaviors which
increase risk of DVCs. The residents of this study area are particularly vulnerable to

DVCs, as evidenced by >30% of respondents reporting involvement in a DVC in the past

85

3 years. In addition, the frequency of DVCs is an important factor affecting acceptance
capacity for deer. Research carried out in the vicinity of this study area (Marcoux 2005,
Sudharsan 2005) has identified driver and landscape level factors affecting the frequency
of DVCs. Engaging rural commuters with the aim of reducing the frequency of DVCs
through changes in driver behavior may reduce perception of DVC-related impacts
without the concurrent decrease in deer sightings likely through increased harvest,
providing for impacts this study identified as key determinants of acceptance capacity for
deer in southern Michigan. Methods such as this, aimed specifically to address impacts,
may supplement harvest to achieve sustainable deer populations in southern Michigan.

A significant need for the successful application of impact-based management yet
to be achieved is the application of impact-defined actions with monitoring of residents’
perception of impacts and acceptability of the actions taken. Experimental management
of impacts will allow managers to monitor changes in impact perception and acceptance
capacity, and also for unanticipated effects of management actions on non-target impacts.
In much the same way that management actions aimed to increase populations of 1
wildlife species can have deleterious effects on species requiring different habitats,
management for 1 group of impacts may affect other impacts, thus raising their frequency
to a level of concern and changing acceptance capacity for the species. It is only through
experimental management and continued, long-term monitoring that these unanticipated
effects may be uncovered. I recommend any actions taken by the MDNR to provide for
positive or minimize negative impacts resulting from interactions with deer include a plan
for the monitoring of impact perception and acceptance capacity among residents of the

management area.

86

In the absence of management which sets objectives based on the impacts
perceived by stakeholders, I suggest valuable information could be gleaned from
monitoring acceptance capacity for deer overtime and across the state. Michigan has a
diverse ecological and social landscape, creating a variety of deer management scenarios
from which much could be learned. The MDNR also employs several surveys of
residents (harvest surveys, park user surveys) that could serve as a useful medium to
measure and compare acceptance capacities for deer across the state. Inclusion of a few
additional questions about acceptance capacity on these surveys would offer great
insights for a relatively low investment. The resulting comparisons of acceptance
capacity around the state may provide managers with additional information on the
effects of the social and ecological factors which affect residents’ attitudes toward deer
and MDNR’s management actions. In addition, stakeholder engagement through such an

inquisitive process may increase agency credibility among diverse sectors of the public.

Engaging stakeholders in white-tailed deer management

I suggest that continued, even increased, engagement of stakeholders in deer
management is warranted. As evidenced by the large proportion of non-hunting, non-
farrning respondents to this survey about deer management (~50%, n = 1084 non-hunt,
non-farm of 2109 total), individuals who stretch managers’ traditional definitions of
stakeholders are interested in the outcomes of deer management in southern Michigan.
Yet, these stakeholders are rarely the target of managers’ outreach activities. If the
concerns of these stakeholders are not considered in concert with the desires of other

stakeholder groups, these individuals may increase their issue activity relating to deer

87

management. To avoid such potentially confrontational situations, managers would be
well served to have detailed knowledge of the full suite of stakeholders that may affect
management decisions.

Large group stakeholder engagement through workshops and roundtable
discussions are oft suggested methods to address conflict and create understanding
among stakeholders with disparate objectives. These group engagement techniques may
be of variable effectiveness and value in conflict resolution (Irvin and Stansbury 2004).
Yet, the simple act of bringing individuals together can serve as a springboard for
increased understanding and communication among groups and with the sponsoring
agency (Decker and Chase 1997). I suggest that the MDNR may benefit from such
workshops aimed to engage residents of southern Michigan in a dialogue about deer
management. The audience of these workshops should include both conventional
(farmers and hunters) and non-conventional stakeholders in an effort to bring all
individuals affected by deer management together. The objectives of these workshops
should be to encourage understanding and communication about deer management
options among groups of individuals who may not interact in other settings. These
workshops may increase awareness of impacts perceived among all stakeholders present
and increase agency credibility through their concerted efforts to engage a wide audience
of stakeholders for guidance of decision-making (Winter et al. 2004).

Whereas these workshops will serve to inform managers of issues relating to deer
management and foster new relationships among stakeholders, managers should not
abrogate decision making authority to workshop participants. Deer management has

been and will continue to be an important and sometimes emotional topic among

88

stakeholders. As such, managers should be cognizant of issues important to all
stakeholders affected by deer, however, managers should not manage to the benefit of
one group while harming another. Turning over decision-making authority to workshop
participants may results in such demands from well organized stakeholder groups
(Gregory 2000). In contrast, information gathered at these events should be used to guide
choices among management options based on sound scientific evidence. Managers will
need to alert all participants of this fact in advance of participation in the workshops to
avoid setting false expectations (Chess and Purcell 1999).

In addition to engagement of heterogeneous groups of stakeholders in deer
management, I recommend the MDNR specifically target non-hunting, non-farming rural
residents through an outreach campaign to familiarize these residents with hunting. The
purpose of this program should not be to recruit new hunters; rather, it should aim to
introduce hunting to residents who may never have been exposed to it. Many of the non-
hunting, non-farming residents of this study area grew up in suburban, urban or
metropolitan areas and may have little to no direct knowledge of hunting. Upon moving
to a rural area with a strong tradition of hunting, individuals with no familiarity with
hunting may have developed an exaggerated perception of the risk of injury from
hunting. Direct experience with the activity may decrease this perception, thus reducing
an important, negative impact perceived by this stakeholder group. Reduced perception
of this impact may increase the acceptability of hunting as a management tool and,

potentially, improve individual landowners’ willingness to allow hunting on their

property.

89

Knowledge and engagement of the full suite of stakeholder groups may help
managers to more completely realize the challenges and opportunities inherent in the
public trust management of natural resources through increased acceptance of
management actions and deer populations, thereby increasing stakeholder trust in the
agency. Although white-tailed deer management may be a pilot for this type of approach,
stakeholder engagement to enable management of impacts resulting from a wide array of
game and non-game species should be a goal. Through experimental management and
monitoring, the effectiveness of impact-based management will be verified and full

benefits to management will accrue.

9O

Literature Cited

Chess, C. and K. Purcell. 1999. Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know
What Works? Environmental Science and Technology, 33:2685-2691.

Decker, D]. and LC. Chase. 1997. Human dimensions of living with wildlife - a
management challenge for the 21St century. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25:788-
795.

Irvin, RA. and J. Stansbury. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It
Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review, 64:55-65.

Marcoux, A. 2005. Deer-vehicle collisions: an understanding of accident characteristics
and drivers' attitudes, awareness, and involvement. M.Sc. Thesis. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Sudharsan, K. 2005. Environmental factors affecting the frequency and rate of deer-
vehicle crashes (DVCs) in southern Michigan. M.Sc. Thesis. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Winter, G., C.A. Vogt and S. McCaffrey. 2004. Examining Social Trust in Fuels
Management Strategies. Journal of Forestry, 102:8-15.

91

APPENDIX A

Consent Form and Question Guide for In-depth Interviews

92

Factors Affecting Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity for
White-tailed Deer Among Residents of South Central Michigan

As a result of increasing populations of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) across
the northern United States, wildlife managers are faced with challenges of balancing desired
benefits to society with negative costs associated with deer herds. As a result, a need exists to
identify impacts resulting from human interactions with and resulting from deer that determine
attitudes about white-tailed deer. Identification of these impacts may increase decision making
capacity for deer management by providing management alternatives which are socially
responsive and effective. You are being asked to participate in this study because of your role as
a stakeholder in deer management concerns in south central Michigan.

The time that will be required of you to participate in the study will be no longer than one
and a half hours. By participating in this study, you do face a small risk of loss of confidentiality
and resulting discomfort if your peers disapprove of your participation; however, many
precautions have been taken to minimize that risk. You will never be identified by name, but will
be assigned a code that corresponds with your identity. Interviews will only be audio-taped with
your permission. Data will be stored on my computer in a locked office at Michigan State
University (MSU), Natural Resources Building. Hard copies of the data and list of codes and
participants will be stored in a locked file cabinet at MSU, Natural Resources Building. You
privacy will be protected to the fullest extent allowed by the law. You participation is voluntary.
You may refuse to answer questions or terminate the interview at any time. You may elect not to
participate at all. Discussion regarding interviews will be limited to exchanges between the two
co-investigators on this project for data analysis purposes.

Your cooperation in this study will provide you with an opportunity to express your
opinions of and desires for white-tailed deer management in south central Michigan. You may
also increase your knowledge of deer management issues. Data collected through these
interviews will be used to design a self-administered, mail questionnaire about impacts from
white-tailed deer in south central Michigan. This information may be used to guide management
decisions and design public outreach campaigns, both of which may increase the social
responsiveness of deer management.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the primary investigator, Dr.
Shawn J. Riley, or co-investigator, Stacy Lischka, 13 Natural Resources Building, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI 48824; phone: (517) 353-9456 or (517) 432-4943; email:
rileysh2@msu.edu or lischkas@msu.edu. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your
rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact — anonymously, if you wish — Dr. Peter Vasilenko, Chair of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517)355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503,
email: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI 48824.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

 

Signature Date

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to be audio-taped for this study.

 

 

Signature Date

93

QUESTIONS

Background information:

$999959?"

8.
9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

In what year were you born?

How long have you lived in this area?

Where did you grow up? Rural or urban?

What is your occupation?

What is your highest level of education?

Do you have children? Ages?

What sorts of outdoor activities do you regularly engage in? How frequently?

Do you feed deer?

Do you feed other species?

Do you hunt deer?

Do you hunt other species?

Where do you hunt?

Do you fish?

Do you have a garden in the study area? Vegetable or flower?

What are your hobbies?

How much land do you own or lease 1n the study area?

Do you sell any agricultural products rarsed/ grown on land in the study area?

a. How much of your land is dedicated to production agriculture?

Do you allow others to hunt on your property? Why/Why not?

a. How much of your land do you allow hunting on?

b. Who do you allow to hunt on your property?

c. What species are hunted on your property?

(I. Do you impose any harvest restrictions on your property?

Do you participate in any DNR or DOA land conservation programs?

a. How many acres of land are enrolled?

b. Do you allow public access to your lands as a result of the requirements of
these programs?

Do you belong to any organizations that deal with conservation, wildlife or

hunting?

a. Do you belong to any other local or community organizations?

What do you think are the most important wildlife issues right now?

.3019 cases?!»

Term definition: What does the term “wildlife management” mean to you? What does
the term “deer management” mean to you?

Follow-ups: If the respondent uses more terms in his/her answer, ask them
to define those terms (i.e. habitat, population, harvest, etc.).

* Definition for the purposes of this study is: Any action taken by a state
or federal governmental agency to affect the population of a specific
species of wildlife. Includes: harvest regulations, land management,
population estimates, stocking or re-introductions, education events, etc.

94

Impacts: I will explain the concept of impacts to the interviewee (Impacts are
interactions with animals or people that you think are important and aflect your
life.) and draw out the decision tree defining impacts (Impacts are perceived,
important events with wildlife or as a result of wildlife). I will then give a non-
deer example of positive and negative impacts. I will then ask the interviewee to
identify the impacts they perceive from deer in their lives. I will write down each
impact as it is stated. I will ask the interviewee to indicate if each impact has a
positive or negative affect on their lives. Finally, after all impacts have been
listed, I will ask the interviewee to rank their top 5 impacts with 1 being the
impact most important to them.

Follow-up: If only negative (positive) impacts are identified, I will
choose 3 impacts I think are negative (positive) and ask them to choose
which of those is most important to them.

Effects of deer management: How do other people (neighbors, hunters, managers, etc.)
affect your interactions with deer?

Prompts: How does deer management affect the number of deer in the
area? How do those actions affect your impacts? How do your neighbors
affect the number of deer in the area? Hunters? How do those actions
affect your impacts?

Follow-ups: Do management actions generally increase your positive
(negative) impacts? Do the actions of your neighbors generally increase
your positive (negative) impacts?

Satisfaction with management: How satisfied are you with current deer management in
the area? From 1 to 10, please tell me how satisfied you are with the current
management. 1 means you would like to change everything the DNR does
regarding deer in this area and 10 means you would like to keep it all the same.

Follow-ups: What makes you most satisfied? Least satisfied?

Desired changes in impacts: If you lived in a perfect world, what types of interactions
would you like to have with deer?

Prompts: What types of deer (age, sex, etc)? Where would you like to
interact with them? How often would you like to interact with them?

Follow-ups: If you could only choose one way to interact with deer,

which of these is the most important to you? How would you like to see
the total deer population in this area change in the next 5 years?

95

Acceptable means: In your mind, what should managers do to provide the kinds of
interactions you would like to have with deer? How would those changes affect
your satisfaction with management?

Follow-ups: How acceptable are these actions on a scale from 1 to 10? 1
is least acceptable and 10 is most acceptable.

96

APPENDIX B

“Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”
Survey Cover Letter 1

97

(originally printed on MDNR letterhead)

RECIPIENT NAME DATE
RECIPIENT ADDRESS
RECIPIENT ADDRESS

I am writing to ask for your help in a study of southern Michigan residents. This study,
conducted in cooperation with the Michigan State University Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife, is an effort to learn more about people’s views regarding the white-tailed
deer population. Results from the survey will be used to guide management decisions
about white-tailed deer in southern Michigan.

We are contacting a random sample of landowners in Jackson, Washtenaw and
Livingston counties to ask their opinions of and experiences with white-tailed deer.
While we realize many southern Michigan residents own property or recreate in northern
Michigan, we are particularly interested in your experiences here in southern Michigan.
As a result, please limit your responses to your experiences in Jackson, Washtenaw and
Livingston counties.

Your answers are completely confidential. The survey has identifying information so
that we may check your name off our mailing list when your survey is returned. Your
name and address will never be associated with your responses in any way and your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. While your
response to this survey and any of the questions is completely voluntary, you can help us
by taking a few minutes to share your views about white-tailed deer in your community.
By completing and returning this survey, you indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate in this study. As a way of saying thank you for participation, a small gift has
been included with your survey. The three postage stamps included with this survey are
for your personal use. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with
you. Feel free to call Stacy Lischka, Project Manager, at 1-888-290-0413 or write to her
at the address on the back of the survey. If you have questions or concerns regarding your
rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study,
you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Peter Vasilenko, Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 353-2976, email: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Old Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you very much for helping with this important study.

Sincerely,

WI

William E. Moritz, Chief
Wildlife Division

98

APPENDIX C

“Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”
Survey Instrument and Percent Response

99

Living with White-tailed Deer in
Southern Michigan:

A survey of your opinions

 

100

Living with White-Tailed Deer in

Southern Michigan:
A survey of your opinions

This questionnaire is part of a study to help wildlife professionals make better decisions
about the management of white-tailed deer in southern Michigan. Your views are
important and give a better understanding of how people feel about white-tailed deer.
Please keep in mind that we are interested in everyone’s responses, not just deer hunters!

Please complete this questionnaire at your earliest convenience, seal it and drop it in any
mailbox (postage is provided and no envelope is needed). There are 25 questions in the
survey. It should take about 15 minutes to complete. We realize that many Michiganders
visit other parts of the state, however, we are particularly interested in your views about
deer in southern Michigan. Therefore, please refer to your experiences in Jackson,
Livingston and Washtenaw counties only when answering these questions. The final
question provides you with an opportunity to share any other comments you may have
about white-tailed deer and their management in Michigan.

Your responses will remain confidential
and will never be associated with your name.

As a thank you for completing and returning this questionnaire, 3 complimentary postage
stamps have been included for your personal use. If you have any questions regarding

this survey, please write Stacy Lischka, Project Manager, at the address on the back
cover or call her toll free at 1-888-290-0413.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE!

If you choose not to complete the questionnaire, please return it with a note on Question
25 on the inside back cover. Simply seal it and drop it in a mailbox. Return postage is
provided.

101

Wildlife and You

1. The following are some ways that Michiganders interact with wildlife. Have you
participated in these activities in the past 3 years? (Please check Q_r_z_e box for each

item. ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n Yes No

a. Read about wildlife 2077 85.8% 14.2%
b. Photographed wildlife 2025 60. 7% 39.3%
c. Closely observed or tried to identify 0 0

birds or other wildlife 2064 78" /" 21'”
d. Grew food or flowers in a garden 2081 83.4% I 6.6%
e. Worked on a farm 1909 20.6% 79.4%
f. 11:; Sblrds or other wrldlrfe on a regular 2074 74.5% 25.5%
g. Fed deer specifically 1959 25.9% 74.1 %
h. Hunted wildlife other than deer 1992 28. 9% 71.1 %
i. Hunted deer 201 7 34.9% 65.1 %
j. Had an auto accident as a result of deer 2006 34.6% 65.4%

. P '
" O'he' ( lease 51’9“!” 165 58.2% 41.8%

 

 

 

personally? (Please circle gag letter.)

2. Which w of the activities listed in Question 1 above is most important to you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n =2128

a b c d e f g
3.2% 4.28% 17.86% 17.67% 2.07% 15.88% 1.27%
h i j k

2.87% 18.05% 13.44% 3.43%

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Please check one.) n =2142

71.3% Yes

28. 7% No (Skip to Question 8,

“Experiences with Deer. ”)

102

3. Do you own or make land use decisions about property in southern Michigan?

 

4. How many acres of your land in southern Michigan are used in the following ways?
(Please indicate the number of acres on each line.)

 

11 Ave.

 

1428 2.67 Home, Buildings (incl. barns, lawn, gardens, etc.)

 

534 5.69 Hay (incl. alfalfa, timothy, orchard grass, etc.)

 

550 3.24 Fallow fields

 

524 1 7.99 Active cropland (excluding hay and fallow fields)

 

771 7.91 Wood lots

 

501 2.69 Livestock pasture

 

708 5.26 Wetlands, Ponds

 

214 6.30 Other

 

 

1445 21.10 Total

 

 

 

 

5. Is your land in southern Michigan adjacent to land owned by the State of Michigan?
(Please check one.) n = 1648

18.1% Yes 81.9% No

6. Do you manage any of your land in southern Michigan specifically for wildlife? For
example: Feeding birds, planting plants for wildlife, letting trees grow, etc. (Please
check one.)

n = 1653

52.3% Yes 47. 7% No (Skip to Question 8.)

7. If yes, for which of the following species do you manage? (Please check gl_l that
apply.) n = 2557
28.12% Song birds (warblers, woodpeckers, etc.)
12.12% Upland game birds (wild turkey, pheasant, etc.)
7.59% Waterfowl (ducks and geese)
1 7.1 7% White-tailed deer
19.52% Other mammals (rabbits, squirrels, etc.)
4.69% Fish (bluegill, trout, etc.)
7.98% Reptiles and amphibians (snakes, frogs, etc.)
2.82% Other (Please specifi»)

 

103

Experiences with Deer
If you answered “NO” to Question 3, begin here.

8. Different people notice different kinds of impacts from their deer-related experiences
in southern Michigan. In the tables below, please check "yes, ” "no, ” or "not sure " to
indicate whether you personally experience each of the listed impacts.

 

 

Seeing deer around my home makes me... 11 Yes No Shite
a. feel connected to nature. 2046 87.8% 7. 7% 4.5%

 

b. worry about the cost of replacing plants

203 22. 7‘7 72.1 " 5.2V
and trees eaten by deer. 4 o A o

 

c. confident that deer hunting in the area

0 0 0
wherellive will be good. 2032 524/" 52'3/0 22'3/0

 

d. worry about hitting a deer with a vehicle. 2031 71.9% 25.1% 3.0%

 

 

 

Seeing deer in a farmer ’s field makes me.. . n Yes No 33.:
e. feel connected to nature. 2022 80.4% 13.6% 6.0%

 

I. worry about the farmer’s lost income from

. 2013 31.9% 56.8% 11.3%
deer eatlng crops.

 

g. feel deer in the area are healthy and well

2030 76.4% 8.4% 15.3%
fed

 

h. confident that deer hunting in the area

0 0 0
wherellive will be good. 2002 58'8”, 20'3/0 20"“

 

i. worry about hitting a deer with a vehicle. 2033 70.9% 25.6% 3.4%

 

 

Not

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seeing live deer near the road makes me. . . n Yes No Sure
j. feel connected to nature. 1989 55.1% 36.9% 8.1%
k. worry about hitting a deer with a vehicle. 2080 86.6% 12.1% 1.3%
I. wony that a deer may be killed. 2028 57.2% 37.8% 5.0%
Seeing hunters during deer hunting season Not
makes me... n Yes No Sure
m. worry about being hurt by stray shots. 2049 39.6% 55.0% 5.5%

 

n. confident that the deer population is large

0
CUOUghtohunt. 2049 67.6/6 16.8% 15.5%

 

 

o. worry that a deer may be killed. 2024 15.2% 81.5% 3.3%
p. 7:11? that someone may trespass on my 2011 30. 7% 65.1% 4.2%

 

 

q. think that other hunters may affect the

0 0 0
uali of deer hunting in the area. 2010 2“” 59'5/0 19'0/0

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

9. How important Mon personally are each of the following kinds of impacts you might

feel because of your deer-related experiences in southern Michigan?

VI= Very Important, SI= Somewhat Important,
NI= Not at all Important, NS= Not Sure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How important to you is... n W SI NI NS
a. feeling connected to nature? 2105 56.1% 35.9% 6.3% 1. 7%
b. worrying about the cost of replacing 2128 10 6°/ 28 9% 56 20/ 4 30/

ornamental plants eaten by deer? ' o ' a ' a ' o
c. feeling frustrated that your time and
efforts have been wasted when deer 2138 13.1% 25.8% 56.2% 5.0%
eatyour plants?
d. the ability to hunt deer near where 2134 30.3% 15.2% 49.8% 4.6%
you live?
e“ (1106:;m0me fmm mp5 eaten by 2110 8.3% 23.0% 59.0% 9.8%
f. feeling that deer in the area are a a o a
healthy and well fed? 2133 38.0/o 40.3/6 [5.1/6 6.6/6
g. worrying about the cost of vehicle
repair caused by a deer-vehicle 2146 42.0% 34.3% 21.6% 2.1%
collision?
I" “’ng aim“ ”559““ "‘1‘” fmm 2150 51.3% 30.2% 15. 7% 2.8%
a deer- vehicle colhsron?
i. worrying about the hassle of dealing 2152 43 2% 32 7y 21 6% 2 6%
with a deer-vehicle collision? ' ' a ' '
j. worrying that deer may be killed? 2113 16.6% 28.9% 50.0% 4.5%
k. worrying about being hurt by stray
gun shots during deer hunting 2145 25.5% 30. 7% 39.8% 3.9%
season?
1' fecung that the Ian." ca“ ”ppm 3 2128 23.4% 40.0% 20. 7% 15.9%
large deer population?
“gigflfigng‘th 3'0” deer hunt by 2108 1 7.1% 16.2% 58.5% 8.3%
n. worrying about someone trespassing
on the property where you live? 2137 26. 7% 24.2% 44.8% 4.3%
o. oth P1 '
6” ease 3pm)” 104 70.2% 7. 7% 10.6% 11.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

105

 

 

10. Think about how often you interact with deer in southern Michigan and how important
those experiences are to you. Please indicate how much of a change you want in the number

of times you experience each item listed below.
IG= Increase Greatly, IS= Increase Somewhat, S= Stay the Same,
DS= Decrease Somewhat, DG= Decrease Greatly, N0= N 0 Opinion

How much of a change
would you like in.. .

 

[G

E

S

IE

D0

A0

 

a. the # of deer you see
around your home?

2155

9.9%

18.4%

47.2%

14.1%

6.4%

3.9%

 

b. the # of deer you see in
farmers’ fields in your
area?

2151

7.9%

15.1%

47.8%

15.8%

7.0%

6.4%

 

c. the # of live deer you see
near roads in your area?

2147

5.5%

7.9%

34.0%

29.0%

20.3%

3.4%

 

d. the # of plants eaten by
deer around your home?

2141

2.3%

4.0%

36.2%

19.2%

12. 7%

25.6%

 

e. the amount of farmer’s
crops eaten by deer in
your area?

2134

1.9%

3.8%

25. 0%

23.0%

13.2%

33.1%

 

f. the deer hunting opp. in
your area?

2138

11.6%

12. 7%

34.4%

8.3 %

10.4%

22.6%

 

g. the # of deer-vehicle
collisions in your area?

2134

4.9%

4. 7%

10.6%

25.2%

45.6%

9.0%

 

h. the # of deer killed by
deer-vehicle collisions in
your area?

2133

4.9%

5.2%

10.4%

23. 7%

42. 9%

12.9%

 

i. the # of deer harvested by
hunters in your area?

2129

10.5%

20.2%

33.8%

7.6%

7.0%

21.0%

 

j. the # of healthy, well fed
deer you see in your area?

2128

11. 7%

18. 7%

45.4%

10.2%

5. 0%

8.9%

 

k. your risk of being injured
by stray gun shots during
deer hunting season?

2131

3.8%

3.4%

24.1%

15.5%

29.5%

23. 7%

 

l. the interference from other
hunters you feel while
deer hunting in your area?

2116

2.3%

3.2%

20.1%

12.8%

11.2%

50.4%

 

m. the amount of hunting-
related trespassing that
occurs in your area?

2129

2.4%

3.6%

18.0%

16.3%

23.1%

36.6%

 

 

n. other (Please specifiz)

 

 

85

 

41.2%

 

3.5%

 

2.4%

 

2.4%

 

18.8%

 

31.8%

 

106

 

11. Based on your experience, how has the number of deer in southern Michigan
changed over the last 5 years?

 

 

 

(Please circle only one.) n = 2163
Stayed
Increased Increased the Decreased Decreased Not No
Greatly Somewhat same Somewhat greatly sure opinion
15.2% 26.1% 27.9% 11.1% 5.4% 12.4% 1.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. How would you like to see the number of deer in southern Michigan change in the
next 5 years? (Please circle only one.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n = 21 61
Stayed
Increased Increased the Decreased Decreased Not No
Greatly Somewhat same Somewhat eatly sure opinion
6.1% 13. 7% 38.0% 21.6% 11.9% 5. 7% 2.9%

 

 

13. How important is it to you that the change you indicated in Question 12 occurs in

southern Michigan over the next 5 years? (Please circle only one.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Slightly Not at all Not No
important important important sure grinion
25.3% 25.0% 28.2% 7.2% 3.8% 6.0% 4.5 %

 

 

14. We are interested in your past experiences with white-tailed deer hunting in southern
Michigan. If you hunt white-tailed deer in southern Michigan, on what type of land
11 = 2223

do you hunt most often? (Please check M one.)

56.91 % I do not hunt white-tailed deer.

5.35% I do not hunt white-tailed deer in southern Michigan.

1 7.54% Private land owned by you or your family
13.45% Private land owned by others
6. 75 % Public land

107

n =2156

 

Attitudes About Deer Management

15. Your opinions about deer management in southern Michigan are important to
wildlife managers. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements by checking the box next to each item which best reflects your
beliefs.

SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree,
N= No Opinion, D= Disagree,
SD= Strongly Disagree, NS= Not Sure

n SA A N D SD AS

 

 

. I believe actions taken
by the MDNR reduce
the negative effects I 2125 8.2% 30.5% 19.6% 10.0% 5.5% 26.2%
experience from deer
in southern Ml.

. I believe the MDNR
could do more to
manage the negative
effects I experience
from deer in southern

 

6'

2129 14.6% 28.3% 23.3% 10.1% 1.9% 21.7%

 

. I believe the MDNR
does a good job of
communicating with 2130 6.4% 32.8% 18.2% 20.1% 7.2% 15.2%
the public about deer
issues in southern Ml.

. I believe the MDNR
does a good job of
providing the type of
deer hunting 2125 6.9% 35.8% 24.4% 8.4% 3.9% 20.5%
experience most
hunters desire in
southern MI.

0

 

D.

 

. I believe the MDNR
does a good job of
providing the type of
deer hunting 2100 4. 7% 20.6% 41.2% 8.8% 5.1% 19.6%
experience I
specifically desire in
southern MI.

G

 

f. I trust the MDNR to
make the proper
decisions about deer 2138 10.3% 42.6% 14.1% 11.1% 6.8% 15.0%
management in
southern MI.

 

 

 

g. Overall, I am very
satisfied with current
MDNR deer 2133 7.5% 34.7% 20.0% 14.9% 7.0% 15.8%
management in
southern MI.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108

Background Information

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

How many years have you lived in Michigan?
n = 2148 Ave. _46.6_ years

How many years have you lived at your current address?
n = 2142 Ave. _14.8_ years

How would you describe the area where you currently live? (Please check o_nl)g one.)
n = 2198

8.96% Rural setting, on a farm

44.86% Rural setting, n_ot on a farm

24.8% Rural subdivision

7. 78% Suburban area on the edge of a town or city

12.65% Within a small town (Population less than 25,000)

0.82% Within an urban area (Population between 25,000 and 100,000)

0.14% Within a metropolitan area (Population more than 100,000)

How would you describe the area where you lived during most or all of your
childhood? (Please check o_nly one.) n = 2165

1 7.04% Rural setting, on a farm

21.43% Rural setting, n_ot on a farm

8.41% Rural subdivision

11. 78% Suburban area on the edge of a town or city

13.35% Within a small town (Population less than 25,000)

14.41% Within an urban area (Population between 25,000 and 100,000)
13.58% Within a metropolitan area (Population more than 100,000)

Is your primary household income currently derived from farming? (Please check
one.) n = 2152

0.9% Yes 99.1% No

Was your primary household income derived from farming at any time between 1995
and 2005? (Please check one.) n = 2149

1.3% Yes 98.7% No

109

 

22. Are you 73.9% male or 26.1 % female? (Please check one.)
n = 2144

23. In what year were you born? 11 = 2113 Ave. 19_51_

24. What is your highest level of education? (Please check one.)
u = 2135
2.4 % Less than high school diploma
1 7.5 % High school graduate or GED
5.9% Vocational or trade school
22.4% Some college
10.4% Associate’s Degree (2 year)
22. 7% Bachelor’s Degree (4 year)
18. 7% Graduate/Professional Degree

25. Please use this space for any additional comments or questions that you would like to
share.

 

n=752

 

 

 

Thank you very much for your participation!

A summary of the study findings will be available at www.fw.msu.edu/deer.

llO

 

APPENDIX D

“Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”
Survey Reminder Postcard

111

(originally printed on 4x6” notecard)

RECIPIENT NAME DATE
RECIPIENT ADDRESS
RECIPIENT ADDRESS

Recently you were mailed a questionnaire seeking your views on the interactions you have
with deer in southern Michigan.

If you already completed and returned the survey, please accept our sincere thanks! If not,
please do so today. Because wildlife managers are interested in serving the public of
Michigan, it is vital that we receive your input.

If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire, or it got misplaced, please call me
toll free at 1-888-290-0413 and I will mail another one to you.

S'ncerely,

 

a
Pro ct Manager

112

 

APPENDIX E

“Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”
Survey Cover Letter 2

113

(originally printed on MDNR letterhead)

RECIPIENT NAME DATE
RECIPIENT ADDRESS
RECIPIENT ADDRESS

A few weeks ago we sent you a questionnaire asking you for your views about white-
tailed deer in southern Michigan. To the best of our knowledge, the questionnaire has not
yet been returned. If this letter and your completed survey have crossed in the mail,
please accept our sincere thanks for your participation in this study!

Your views are crucially important, regardless of how often you interact with deer in
this area. The comments of people who have already responded show that southern
Michigan residents hold a wide variety of opinions about white-tailed deer. The results
will be useful to wildlife managers who are trying to make more informed decisions
about how to manage deer in this area.

A few people have written to say that they should not have received the questionnaire
because they no longer live in Michigan or they are not at least 18 years of age. If either
of these concerns applies to you, please give the survey to an adult in your household
who is a Michigan resident. If no one in your household is eligible, please indicate this on
the survey and send it back to us. We would really appreciate it, and, with this
information, we can take you off our mailing list.

An identification code is written on the cover of the questionnaire so that we can check
your name off of the mailing list when it is returned. We do not use this number for any
other purpose, and we will not share your personal information with anyone else. Your
name will never be associated with your responses in any way and your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your response to the survey and any
of its questions is completely voluntary. We hope that you will fill out and return the
questionnaire soon. By completing and returning this survey, you indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate in this study. If, however, you prefer any reason not to answer it,
please let us know by returning a blank questionnaire with the postage provided on it.

If you have any questions about this survey, please feel free to contact Stacy Lischka,
Project Manager, toll-free at 1-888-290-0413. If you have any questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect
of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish — Peter Vasilenko, Chair of
the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone.
(517) 355 -,2180 fax: (517) 353 -,2976 email: ucrihs@msu. edu. or regular mail: 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Sincerely,

William E. Moritz, Chief
Wildlife Division

114

 

APPENDIX F

“Living with White-tailed Deer in Southern Michigan”
Non—response Survey with Percent Response

115

 

DATE

Recently you were mailed a questionnaire seeking your views about your interactions with deer in
southern Michigan. Our response rate to this survey was lower than we needed to be meaningful.
We would like to ask you a few questions so we can understand the nature of this non-response.

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

As before, your response to this is voluntary. Nevertheless, your input is important to ensuring
wildlife managers have the very best information on which to base decisions. You may be assured
of complete confidentiality. The postcard has an identification number for mailing purposes only.
Your name will never be linked to your responses. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to help us in this matter.

Sincerely,

.51....
S y is

P ojec Manager

116

1. Based on your experience, how has the number of deer in southern Michigan changed over

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the last 5 years? (Please circle only one.) u = 111
Stayed
Increased the Decreased No
greatly Same greatly Not sure opinion
16.2% 17.1% 27.9% 9.9% 9.0% 18% 1.8%

 

 

2. How would you like to see the number of deer in southern Michigan change in the next 5
years? (Please circle only one.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n = 110
Stayed
Increased the Decreased Not No
greatly Same greatly sure opinion
10% 10% 39.1% 15.5% 10.9% 7.3% 7.3%

 

3. How would you describe the area where you currently live? (Please check o_nly one.) n = 111

8.1%

Rural setting, on a farm

39.6%
31.5%
13.5%

Rural setting, not on a farm
Rural subdivision
Suburban area on the edge of a town or city

9.9%
0%
0%

Within a small town (Population less than 25,000)
Within an urban area (Population between 25,000 and 100,000)

Within a metropolitan area (Population more than 100,000)

4. Have you participated in the following activities in the last 3 years?
(Please check gig box for each item.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 Yes No
a. Worked on a farm 96 11.5% 88.5%
b' Grew f0?” 0’ 105 84.8% 15.2%
flowers in a garden
c. Fed birds or other
wildlife on a regular 104 71.2% 28.8%
basis
d' Fed ‘16“ 101 19.8% 80.2%
specrfically
e. Hunted wildlife
other than deer 102 19.6% 80.4%
f. Hunted deer 106 31.1 % 68.9%
5. Are you male or female? 11 = 109

67.9% Male 32.1% Female

117

 

lllllll lu'l ll

3028452

   

     

‘lll Ill ill

  

,— 2‘..." "r“ ‘