4/
dice“; LIBRARY
M'Chlgan State
University

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

USING HUMAN DIMENSIONS INSIGHTS TO IMPROVE
CONSERVATION EFFORTS FOR THE EASTERN MASSASAUGA
RATTLESNAKE (SISTRURUS CA TENA TUS CA TENA TUS) IN
MICHIGAN AND THE TIMBER RATTLESNAKE (CROTALUS
HORRIDUS HORRIDUS) IN MINNESOTA

presented by

REBECCA ANN CHRISTOFFEL

has been accepted towards fulfiliment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

‘- ' 1%
fl /~
Major Professor’sfinature
A1]; L a,“ I ?C() ‘7
(J T

Date

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

—-—n—-n-n-n-n-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-n—a—n-u-u-.-a-n-I—----o—-—¢-u-n—u--o—a-o—o---—q—-—-n-u-p—o-.-c-n—o-c—u-u—.-.--o-o—-—-u—o—-—

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

 

MWMZCIE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p'lCIRC/DateDueindd-p 1

USING HUMAN DIMENSIONS INSIGHTS TO IMPROVE CONSERVATION
EFFORTS FOR THE EASTERN MASSASAUGA RATTLESNAKE (SISTRURUS
CA TENATUS CATENATUS) IN MICHIGAN AND THE TIMBER RATTLESNAKE
(CROTALUS HORRIDUS HORRID US) IN MINNESOTA
By

Rebecca Ann Christoffel

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment Of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

2007

ABSTRACT
USING HUMAN DIMENSIONS INSIGHTS TO IMPROVE CONSERVATION
EFFORTS FOR THE EASTERN MASSASAUGA RATTLESNAKE (SISTRURUS
CATENATUS CATENATUS) IN MICHIGAN AND THE TIMBER RATTLESNAKE
(CROTALUS HORRIDUS HORRIDUS) IN MINNESOTA
By
Rebecca Ann Christoffel
Human-wildlife interactions, whether positive or negative, are driving forces for
stakeholder desires for wildlife populations. Thus, wildlife managers must integrate both
ecological and sociological information to formulate wildlife management decisions.
The overall goal Of this dissertation research was to enhance reptile conservation efforts
through discovery and dissemination Of human dimensions insights on which
management decisions could be made, particularly those that pertain to development and
maintenance Of social acceptance capacity for reptiles. In the case of snakes, human-
wildlife encounters frequently have resulted in the death Of the animal and research to
determine specific human beliefs and attitudes that resulted in lethal behaviors toward
snakes was lacking. The eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)
is a candidate for listing and the timber rattlesnake ( C roralus horridus horridus) is under
consideration for listing as a candidate species under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Michigan is the stronghold for eastern massasauga populations and one large tract of
extant habitat coincides with rapidly increasing human development pressures in the Ann
Arbor and Detroit metropolitan areas. Minnesota paid bounties on the timber rattlesnake
until 1989, and subsequently listed the species as threatened in 1996. Four counties in

southeastern Minnesota still support populations Of this Species. To determine social

carrying capacity for snakes in these two areas, I conducted semi-structured interviews to

learn how people felt about the reptilies and amphibians found in their areas. Results
were then used in the development of a mail questionnaire that was administered to 1,092
stakeholders in Michigan and 1,198 stakeholders in Minnesota. People who lived in the
presence of rattlesnakes had more positive attitudes toward both non-venomous snakes
and rattlesnakes than people who were unsure of their presence or people living in their
absence. Social acceptance capacity was determined using two existing frameworks,
cultural carrying capacity and wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity. The variable that
explained the greatest degree Of variation in social acceptance capacities toward
rattlesnakes was the rattlesnake stewardship score, a series of six items that were used to
determine respondents’ level of Obligation toward the well-being Of rattlesnakes. Risk
perceptions were the most important determinants Of whether or not a respondent would
engage in a potentially lethal behavior toward a snake. Results of this study indicate a
great need for education and communication efforts to correct mistaken beliefs and
reduce heightened risk perceptions about snakes. An experiment was designed to test
outreach methods for their efficacy in increasing knowledge and influencing attitudes
toward snakes. Results indicate that face-to-face contact programs are most effective at
changing attitudes toward snakes, but that any treatment can be used to increase
knowledge. Information gained through this research can be used as the foundation for
snake management efforts in Michigan and Minnesota. However, the process should be
tested in other areas of the country where more than one rattlesnake currently exists and

where rattlesnakes are more abundant on the landscape.

Copyright by
REBECCA ANN CHRISTOFFEL

2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

'?9
O

A Special “thank you goes out to all the individuals and organizations that were
critical tO the development, implementation and administration Of this dissertation
research process: Gel Alvarado, Joann Beckwith, Cynthia Blamire, Mary Bogush,
Rachel Bricklin, TsaO-Fang Bristor, Caroline Brock, Anne Brown, Chez‘ Bull — Peter,
Mandy, Ronan, Cormac and Floyd, Chicago Herpetological Society, Kurt Christoffel,
Mary and Bert Christoffel, Kelley Cormier, Jill Cruth, Jaime Edwards, Tamara Felden,
Ali Felix, Ken Frank, Harry Greene, Jim Harding, Dan Hayes, Teresa Herbowicz, Bob
Hoeteling, Daria Hyde, Bob Johnson, Stan Kaplowitz, Nikki Lamp, Yuman Lee, Chris,
Jean and Olivia Lepczyk, Nancy Mathews, Paul McCormack, Jim and Carol McGrath,
Angie Merti g, Michigan State University (MSU) Dissertation Support Group members,
MSU Graduate School, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Dave Moilanen, Anita Morzillo, Katrina Mueller, Brad
Naghtin, Julie Oakes, R. Ben Peyton, Shawn Riley, Safari Club International - Novi
Chapter, Saginaw Bay Walleye Club, Carol Saunders, Jim Schneider, Kim Sherwin, Rose
and Jim Sime, Mary Sisock, Kelley Smith, Andy Snider, Julie Traver, United States
Environmental Protection Agency - Environmental Education Grants program, Barb

Walkington, Andrew Williams, Mary Witchell, Joanne Zych, and the folks at Zuzu’s

Cafe.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. xv
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION, STUDY AREAS AND DISSERTATION ORGANIZATION ........... l

1.1. Introduction2

1.1.1. ..Values and Conservation Status of Snakes ...................................... 3

1.1.2. Study Species and Conservation Threats ......................................... 5

1.1.3. Human—snake Interactions ............................................................... 8

1.1.4. Study Goals and Objectives ............................................................. 9

1.2. Study Areas .................................................................................................... 10

1.2.1. Michigan Demographic Information ............................................. 10

1.2.2. Michigan Ecoregion Description ................................................... 1 1

1.2.3. Minneosta Demographic Information ........................................... 12

1.2.4. Minnesota Ecoregion Description ................................................. 12

1.3. Dissertation Organization ............................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2

CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF HUMAN-RATTLESNAKE INTERACTIONS ............. 18

2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 19

2.2. Methods .......................................................................................................... 23

2.2.1. Explanation of Existing Models .................................................... 23

2.2.2. Individual Acceptance Capacities and Behavior Components ...... 24

2.3. Results and Discussion of Literature Review.................................' ................ 25

2.3.1. Model Components ........................................................................ 25

2.3.1.1.Effects Of Influential Others .............................................. 25

2.3.1.2.Direct Experiences ............................................................. 27

2.3.1.3.Indirect Experiences .......................................................... 28

2.3.1.4.Knowledge ......................................................................... 34

2.3.1.5.Emotions and Attitudes About Snakes .............................. 34

2.3.2. Proposed Conceptual Models of Human-rattlesnake Interactions 40

2.4. Suggestions for Model Testing ....................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 3

SURVEY OF HUMAN BELIEFS, ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS

TOWARDS NON-VENOMOUS SNAKES AND RATTLESNAKES ............................ 53

3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 54

3.2. Study Areas .................................................................................................... 59

3.3. Methods .......................................................................................................... 59

3.4. Results ............................................................................................................ 65

vi

3.4.1. Wildlife and Outdoor Activities and Interests ............................... 66

3.4.2. Knowledge about Snakes ............................................................... 66
3.4.3. Snake Experiences ......................................................................... 68
3.4.4. Attitudes toward Snakes ................................................................ 70
3.4.5. Behavioral Intentions toward Snakes ............................................ 74
3.5. Discussion ...................................................................................................... 76
3.6. Management Implications .............................................................................. 81
CHAPTER 4
SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY: SUGGESTIONS FOR SNAKES .................... 1 19
4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 120
4.2. Study Areas .................................................................................................. 125
4.3. Methods ........................................................................................................ 126
4.4. Results .......................................................................................................... 130
4.4.1. Cultural Carrying Capacity — Latitudes of Acceptance ............... 130
4.4.2. Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity — Desire for Future
Rattlesnake Populations ............................................................... 131
4.4.3. Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity — Desire for Future
Non-Venomous Snake Populations ............................................. 132
4.4.4. Comparisons of Cultural Carrying Capacity and Wildlife
Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity Measures ............................... 133
4.4.5. Explanatory Factors for Latitudes Of Acceptance ....................... 134
4.4.6. Explanatory Factors for Future Snake Population Desires .......... 134
4.4.7. Relationship Of Risk tO Capacity Measures ................................. 135
4.5. Discussion .................................................................................................... 136
4.6. Management Implications ............................................................................ 140
CHAPTER 5
OUTREACH TO INCREASE KNOWLEDGE AND INFLUENCE STAKEHOLDER
ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY FOR SNAKES ................................................................. 162
5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 163
5.2. Study Area .................................................................................................... 168
5.3. Methods ........................................................................................................ 168
5.4. Results .......................................................................................................... 175
5.4.1. Self-assessed Changes in Beliefs and Attitudes toward Snakes. 175
5.4.2. Changes in Knowledge about Snakes .......................................... 177
5.4.3. Changes in Attitudes about Snakes ............................................. 178
5.4.4. Changes in Social Acceptance Capacity Measures for Snakes 186
5.4.5. Changes in Behavioral Intentions toward Snakes ....................... 190
5.5. Discussion .................................................................................................... 192
5.6. Conclusions .................................................................................................. 195
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 212
6.1. Summary of Findings ................................................................................... 213

vii

6.2. Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................... 221

6.3. Management Recommendations .................................................................. 224
APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................... 229
A.1.SURVEY PRENOTICE ............................................................................... 230
A.2.SURVEY MAILING#1 COVER LETTER .................................................. 231
A.3.SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............................................................................ 232
A.4.MICHIGAN MAIL SURVEY “THANK YOU!” POSTCARD .................. 240
A.5.SURVEY MAILING#2 COVER LETTER .................................................. 241
A.6.SURVEY MAILING#3 COVER LETTER .................................................. 242
A.7.SURVEY NON-RESPONSE INSTRUMENT ............................................. 243
A.8.MICHIGAN AND MINNESOTA MAIL SURVEY CHRONOLOGIES ...245
A.9.0UTREACH EXPERIMENT PROTOCOL ................................................ 246
A. lO.POST-PROGRAM ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT ................................ 248
A.11.LONG-TERM ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT ....................................... 254
A.12.SNAKE OUTREACH EXPERIMENT CHRONOLOGY ......................... 260

A. l3.a.SCRIPT FOR FIRST HALF OF SNAKE OUTREACH PROGRAMS..261
A.13.b.SCRIPT FOR SECOND HALF OF SNAKE OUTREACH PROGRAMS ..
............................................................................................................................. 263

LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 268

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Land area, human population estimates and housing unit estimates for four
study area counties in southeastern Michigan (2000). (Source: US. Census Bureau, State
and County QuickFacts website, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states ......................... 16

Table 1.2. Land area, human population estimates and housing unit estimates for four
study area counties in southeastern Minnesota (2000). (Source: US. Census Bureau,
State and County QuickFacts website, http://quickfacts.censusgov/qfd/states) ............... l6

 

Table 3.1. Eigenvalues, Cronbach’s alphas and factor loadings for each Of two factors
underlying NV and RS snake belief statements used to construct NV and RS attitude
scales for M1 and MN snake mail surveys (2005) ............................................................. 84

Table 3.2. A comparison of characteristics of MI and MN respondents to snake mail
surveys conducted in spring 2005. Chi-squared and independent samples t-tests were
used to test for differences between states ......................................................................... 86

Table 3.3. Wildlife and outdoor activities scores for 2005 M1 and MN mail survey RS
snake stakeholder groups ................................................................................................... 87

Table.3.4. Frequency of wrong responses in MI and MN to each of seven questionnaire
items included in snake knowledge scores (n = 2,067) ......... ' ............................................ 88

Table 3.5. Analysis Of variance table illustrating mean snake knowledge scores for 2005
M1 and MN snake survey respondents after being classified into stakeholder groups based
on geographic proximity to RS snakes .............................................................................. 89

Table 3.6. Regression table for variation in snake knowledge for 2005 M1 snake survey
respondents (n = 778) ........................................................................................................ 90

Table 3.7. Regression table explaining variation in snake knowledge scores for MN
survey respondents (n = 891) ............................................................................................. 92

Table 3.8. Eleven statements used to measure survey respondents’ (n = 2,067)
experiences with NV snakes and RS snakes in MI and MN (2005). Percentages Of
respondents who listed having experiences are reported ................................................... 94

Table 3.9. ANOVA table showing differences between MI and MN stakeholder groups’
experience scores ............................................................................................................... 95

Table 3.10. ANOVA table showing differences in snake interest among five age groups
of snake survey respondents .............................................................................................. 96

ix

Table 3.1 1. ANOVA table illustrating differences among M1 respondents’ interest levels
toward snakes and NV and RS snake experience scores ................................................... 97

Table 3.12. ANOVA table illustrating differences among MN respondents’ interest levels
toward snakes and NV and RS snake experience scores ................................................... 98

Table 3.13. ANOVA table illustrating differences among M1 and MN respondents’
interest levels toward snakes and snake knowledge scores ............................................... 99

Table 3.14. ANOVA table illustrating differences among Ml respondents’ interest levels
toward snakes and NV and RS snake attitude scores ...................................................... 100

Table 3.15. ANOVA table illustrating differences among MN respondents’ interest levels
toward snakes and NV and RS snake attitude scores ...................................................... 101

Table 3.16. ANOVA table illustrating differences among MI respondents’ interest levels
toward snakes and behavioral intentions toward NV and RS snakes .............................. 102

Table 3.17. ANOVA table illustrating differences among MN respondents’ interest levels
toward snakes and behavioral intentions toward NV and RS snakes .............................. 103

Table 3.18. Mean attitude scores of M1 (M1) and MN (MN) 2005 mail questionnaire
respondents toward NV snakes (NV) and RS snakes (RS) ............................................. 104

Table 3.19. NV snake attitude scores of five age classes of MI and MN mail survey
respondents (2005) .......................................................................................................... 105

Table 3.20. ANOVA table showing differences between 2005 M1 and MN mail survey
respondent stakeholder groups’ NV snake attitude scores .............................................. 106

Table 3.21. RS attitude scores Of five age classes of MI and MN mail survey respondents
(2005) ............................................................................................................................... 107

Table 3.22. ANOVA table showing differences between 2005 M1 and MN mail survey
respondent stakeholder groups’ RS snake attitude scores ............................................... 108

Table 3.23. NV and RS attitude scores among MI and MN snake mail survey stakeholder
groups (2005) ................................................................................................................... 109

Table 3.24. Regression table for explanation of variation in the dependent variable, NV
snake attitude score, for 2005 M1 snake survey respondents (n = 612) .......................... 1 10

Table 3.25. Regression table for NV snake attitude scores of 2005 MN snake survey
respondents (n = 943) ...................................................................................................... l 1 1

Table 3.26. Regression table for RS snake attitude scores for 2005 M1 snake survey
respondents (n = 597) ...................................................................................................... 1 12

Table 3.27. Regression table for RS snake attitude scores of 2005 MN snake survey
respondents (n = 282) ...................................................................................................... l 13

Table 3.28. Regression table for moving a NV snake regardless of its fate for 2005 M1
survey respondents (n = 767) ........................................................................................... 1 14

Table 3.29. Regression table for moving a NV snake for 2005 MN snake survey
respondents (n = 543) ...................................................................................................... l 14

Table 3.30. Regression table for moving a RS snake for 2005 M1 snake survey
respondents (n = 497) ...................................................................................................... l 15

Table 3.31. Regression table for moving a RS snake for 2005 MN snake survey
respondents (n = 783) ...................................................................................................... 1 16

Table 4.1. Three existing frameworks used for incorporating social acceptance capacity
in wildlife management decisions. (WAC = wildlife acceptance capacity, CCC = cultural
carrying capacity, WSAC = wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity) .......................... 142

Table 4.2. A comparison of species and their characteristic traits for which social
acceptance capacity frameworks have been applied (i.e. huggables) vs. those for which
social acceptance capacity frameworks have not been applied (i.e., unhuggables). (+) =
trait present, (-) = trait absent .......................................................................................... 143

Table 4.3. Six hypothetical scenarios and their associated characteristics and frequencies
that were used to measure cultural carrying capacities for rattlesnakes in mail surveys
about snakes conducted in Michigan and Minnesota (2005) .......................................... 144

Table 4.4. Regression table for explanation of variation in the dependent variable,
preferred Situation for rattlesnakes for 2005 Michigan snake mail survey respondents (n =
865). (** significant at the p=0.01 level, * significant at the p=0.05 level) .................. 145

Table 4.5. Regression table for explanation of variation in the dependent variable,
maximum tolerable situation for rattlesnakes, for 2005 Michigan snake mail survey
respondents (n = 838) ...................................................................................................... 146

Table 4.6. Regression table for explanation of variation in the dependent variable,
preferred situation for rattlesnakes, for 2005 Minnesota snake mail survey respondents (n
= 821) ............................................................................................................................... 147

xi

Table 4.7. Regression table for explanation of variation in the dependent variable,
maximum tolerable situation for rattlesnakes, for 2005 Minnesota snake mail survey
respondents (n = 444). (** significant at the p=0.01 level, * significant at the p=0.05
level) ................................................................................................................................ 148

Table 4.8. Regression table for desire for future rattlesnake populations, for 2005
Michigan snake mail survey respondents (n = 613) ........................................................ 149

Table 4.9. Regression table for explanation of variation in the dependent variable, desire
for future rattlesnake populations, for Minnesota respondents (n = 565) ....................... 150

Table 4.10. Regression table for desire for future NV snake populations, for 2005
Michigan snake mail survey respondents (n = 520) ........................................................ 151

Table 4.1 1. Regression table for desire for future NV snake populations for MN mail
questionnaire respondents (2005) (n = 634) .................................................................... 152

Table 4.12. Comparison of personal risk scores and mean capacity measures for
Michigan and Minnesota snake mail survey respondents (2005) .................................... 153

Table 4.13. Relationships between Michigan and Minnesota mail survey respondents’

ratings of personal risk posed by rattlesnakes and social acceptance capacity measures
(2005) ............................................................................................................................... 154

Table 4.14. Relationships between impersonal risk scores and capacity measures for
Michigan and Minnesota 2005 mail survey respondents ................................................ 155

Table 4.15. Relationships between rattlesnake stewardship scores and capacity measures
for Michigan and Minnesota 2005 snake mail survey respondents ................................. 156

Table 5.1. Midwestern Great Lakes states and numbers of reptiles listed as threatened,
endangered or Of Special concern by each state ............................................................... 197

Table 5.2. Twenty-three snake species listed as endangered or threatened in Six
Midwestern Great Lakes states. (Scientific names from Ernst and Ernst 2003) ............. 198

Table 5.3. Mean scores for changes in interest levels toward learning about snakes for
three treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted
in Michigan in 2005 ......................................................................................................... 200

Table 5.4. Mean scores for reduction in negative feelings toward snakes for three
treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in
Michigan in 2005 ............................................................................................................. 200

xii

Table 5.5. Mean scores for change in time spent looking for Opportunities to learn more
about snakes for three treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach
experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005 .................................................................... 201

Table 5.6. Mean scores for changes in levels of fear toward snakes for three treatment
groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in
2005 ................................................................................................................................. 201

Table 5.7. Mean scores for changes in interest in having a snake as a pet for three
treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in
Michigan in 2005 ............................................................................................................. 202

Table 5.8. Mean scores for changes in perceived personal risk from rattlesnakes for three
treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in
Michigan in 2005 ............................................................................................................. 202

Table 5.9. Mean scores for changes in positive feelings toward snakes for three treatment
groups and a control group as part Of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in
2005 ................................................................................................................................. 203

Table 5.10. Mean scores for changes in attention paid to snakes for three treatment

groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted In Michigan In
2005 ................................................................................................................................. 203

Table 5.11. Mean changes in feelings for program (Treatments 1 and 2) and non-program
(Treatments 3 and 4) participants in southeastern Michigan snake outreach experiment

(2005) ............................................................................................................................... 204

Table 5.12. Mean changes in feelings for treatment (Treatments 1, 2 and 3) and non-
treatment (Control Group 4) participants in southeastern Michigan snake outreach
experiment (2005) ............................................................................................................ 205

Table 5.13. Mean post-treatment knowledge scores about snakes for three treatment
groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in
2005 ................................................................................................................................. 206

Table 5.14. Mean long-term interest scores about snakes for three treatment groups and a
control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005 .......... 207

Table 5.15. Mean post-treatment scores for knowledge about snakes for three treatment

groups and a control group as part Of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in
2005 ................................................................................................................................. 207

xiii

Table 5.16. Mean post-treatment scores for NV stewardship for three treatment groups
and a control group as part Of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005 .......
......................................................................................................................................... 208

Table 5.17. Mean post-treatment scores for RS snake attitudes for three treatment groups
and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005 .......
......................................................................................................................................... 208

Table 5.18. Mean post-treatment scores for RS impersonal risk for three treatment
groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in
2005 ................................................................................................................................. 209

Table 5.19. Mean post-treatment scores for RS stewardship for three treatment groups
and a control group as part Of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005 .......
......................................................................................................................................... 209

Table 5.20. Mean pre-treatment scores for NV SAC for three treatment groups and a
control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005 .......... 210

Table 5.21. Mean pre-treatment selections for maximum tolerable situations involving
rattlesnakes for three treatment groups and a control group as part Of an outreach
experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005 .................................................................... 210

Table 5.22. Mean post-treatment gain scores for maximum tolerable situation involving
rattlesnakes for three treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach
experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005 .................................................................... 21 1

Table 5.23. Mean post-treatment scores for level of agreement with the statement “I
would be le_ss likely to have a rattlesnake removed from my property if I knew that it
would likely die as a result” for three treatment groups and a control group as part of an
outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005 ..................................................... 211

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Cognitive hierarchy, adapted from Pierce et. al, in Decker et al. 2001 .......... 45

Figure 2.2. Factors determining a person’s behavior according to the Theory Of Reasoned
Action (adapted from Azjen and Fishbein 1980) .............................................................. 46

Figure 2.3. Theory of planned behavior (TPB) adapted from Ajzen 1991 ....................... 47

Figure 2.4. A conceptual model Of wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC) for
cougars (adapted from Riley and Decker 2000) ................................................................ 48

Figure 2.5. Average fear and like scores for M1 and MN semi-structured interviewees (n
= 60). (Sal = Salamander, NV Snake = non-venomous snake, and V Snake = venomous
snake) For like scores, a “0” represents the sentiment, “The only good one is a dead
one”, a “5” represents neutrality and the sentiment, “I can take them or leave them”, and
a “10” represents the sentiment, “This is one Of my favorite groups. I would do whatever
I could to help this group, such as managing habitat or donating money.” For fear scores,
a “0” represents being phobic and the sentiment, “If there is a TV program on in the room
that features this group, I am unable to stay in the room,” while a “10” represents a total
lack of fear, and the sentiment, “I feel perfectly comfortable around this group, and

would not hesitate to pick one up and move it should that be necessary.” ....................... 49

Figure 2.6. An attitude-tO—behavior process diagram, modeled after Fazio (1986) ......... 50

Figure 2.7a. Conceptual model (per Christoffel) of human behavior toward rattlesnakes
in a planned encounter ....................................................................................................... 51

Figure 2.7b. Conceptual model (as conceived by Christoffel) of human behavior toward
rattlesnakes when an encounter is unplanned, i.e. a surprise ............................................ 52

Figure 3.1 Proportion of MI and MN respondents who marked “unsure” to each of twelve
belief statements constituting a NV attitude scale on snake mail questionnaires (2005) ......

......................................................................................................................................... l 17
Figure 3.2. Proportion Of MI and MN respondents who marked “unsure” to each of
twelve belief statements constituting a RS snake attitude scale on mail questionnaires
(2005) ............................................................................................................................... 118

XV

Figure 4.1. Latitude of acceptance (LOA) for three Stakeholder groups in southeastern
Michigan (No RS = Stakeholders who believed rattlesnakes were absent from the areas in
which they lived and recreated, Yes RS = respondents who believed that they lived and
recreated in areas where rattlesnakes were present, and Unsure RS = respondents who
were unsure whether rattlesnakes existed in areas where they lived and recreated) n =
915. The lower line represents the mean preferred situation and the upper line represents
the mean maximum tolerable situation for each of the three stakeholder groups. The
LOA consists of that area on the graph that is tolerable for all stakeholder groups
(designated by dashed lines between 2.75 and 3.71) ....................................................... 157

Figure 4.2. Latitude Of acceptance (LOA) for three stakeholder groups in southeastern
Minnesota (No RS = stakeholders who believed rattlesnakes were absent from the areas
in which they lived and recreated, Yes RS = respondents who believed that they lived and
recreated in areas where rattlesnakes were present, and Unsure 2 respondents who were
unsure whether rattlesnakes existed in areas where they lived and recreated) n = 1,089.
The lower line represents the mean preferred situation and the upper line represents the
mean maximum tolerable Situation for each of the three stakeholder groups. The LOA
consists of that area on the graph that is tolerable for all stakeholder groups (designated
by dashed lines between 2.69 and 3.42) .......................................................................... 158

Figure 4. 3. Relationship between mail survey respondents’ desires for future rattlesnake

populations and preferred and maximum tolerable situations for rattlesnakes In Michigan
(2005) ............................................................................................................................... 159

Figure 4.4. Relationship between mail survey respondents’ desires for future rattlesnake
population and preferred and maximum tolerable situations for rattlesnakes in Minnesota
(2005) ............................................................................................................................... 160

Figure 4.5. Relationship between Michigan and Minnesota snake mail survey
respondents’ personal risk ratings and desires for future rattlesnake populations, i.e.,
WSAC (2005) .................................................................................................................. 161

xvi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION, STUDY AREAS AND DISSERTATION ORGANIZATION

1.1 Introduction

This dissertation research was undertaken to enhance reptile conservation efforts
through discovery and dissemination of human dimensions insights on which
management decisions could be made, particularly those that pertain to development and
maintenance of social carrying capacity for reptiles. Integration of insights from the
human dimensions Of wildlife management was a key motivation for the research because
of 1) recent changes in societal values pertaining to wildlife conservation and
management (Decker and Enck 1996), and 2) its use in resolving human—wildlife
conflicts (Decker and Chase 1997). In the case of snakes, human-wildlife encounters
frequently resulted in the death of the animal (Whitaker and Shine 2000) and research to
determine specific human beliefs and attitudes that resulted in lethal behaviors toward
snakes was lacking.

Reptile populations were declining globally due to habitat degradation and loss,
invasive species, environmental pollution, disease, unsustainable human use, and climate
change (Gibbons et al. 2000). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN 2000) estimated that 25% of reptile species were
threatened with extinction. DOdd (1987) reported that snake populations were declining
globally due to habitat degradation, intentional killing, rattlesnake roundups, biocides and
trade for fashion and pets. It was estimated that >50% of pit viper species were
vulnerable to extinction (Greene and Campbell 1992). Most known conservation threats
to reptile populations were anthropogenic in origin, yet the beliefs and attitudes of people

toward reptiles seldom were considered in conservation planning.

Human dimensions insights gained through research reported herein may be used
by wildlife managers to: 1) increase stakeholders’ knowledge and familiarity with snakes,
2) modify risk perceptions among stakeholders regarding snakes to more closely reflect
numerical risk, and 3) motivate stakeholders to co-exist amicably with, and manage for,
sustainable snake populations.

1.1.1 Values and Conservation Status of Snakes

Globally, snake populations have had important economic, cultural, medicinal and
ecological values to humans. Snakes and their eggs have been important sources Of
protein, especially in tropical areas (Morris and Morris 1965). Snakes have gained
increasing popularity as pets and the pet market has been reported as the most significant
segment of the live reptile market (Hoover 1998). Snake skins have provided leather for
boots, belts and wallets; annual international trade in snake skins has involved millions Of
skins and vast monetary amounts (Klauber 1982; Dodd 1986, Morris and Morris 1965).
Snakes have played important mythological roles for rnillennia in human cultures around
the world (Menez 2003, Brown and McDonald 2000, Schwartz 1999, Klauber 1982,
Nissenson and Jonas 1995, Burton 1993, LaBarre 1969, Morris and Morris 1965) and
were used as symbols Of power by ancient cultures (Stutesman 2005). In the United
States’ (US) colonies, timber rattlesnakes were pictured on flags carried into battle by
revolutionary armies and on the masts of warships; rattlesnake images were used as
symbols Of power by the US military during World War 11 (Morris and Morris 1965) and
as symbols of the enemy (Stutesman 2005). Snakes have frequently been the subject
matter of folklore (LaBarre 1969, Morris and Morris 1965). Eastern cultures have used

many parts of snakes for traditional medicinal purposes and aphrodisiacs (Morris and

Morris 1965). Western physicians have used snakes extensively as anatomical and
physiological models, and used snake venoms and saliva to manufacture pharmaceuticals
that have treated a plethora of diseases (Grenard 1994). Snakes have also served
important roles in ecosystems as predators and prey (Shine and Webb 1990, Diller and
Johnson 1988, Fitch and Bare 1978, Fitch 1974, Zug et al. 2001).

Snakes within the US have presented the same set Of values discussed above. The
American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) reported that > 3.9 million
(~4%) US households contained one or more pet reptiles or amphibians and the retail
trade in live reptiles, amphibians and related products was worth a minimum of two
billion dollars annually (Franke and Telecky 2001). It was estimated that the US trade in
certain CITES-listed live reptiles increased from 28% of the world total to 81.5%, 1983-
1993 (Hoover 1998). Vogt (1981) reported an estimated value of 2 $400 annually for
rodent control services per bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucus) on agricultural properties
in Wisconsin; rodent control by snakes in agricultural settings has also been asserted
elsewhere (Mattison 1996). Local amphibian and reptile populations have been exploited
for use in medical and toxicological research projects (Vogt 1981). Presumably, adult
and hatchling snakes have also served as important predators and, along with snake eggs,
as prey items within Great Lakes ecosystems (Harding 1997, Vogt 1981).

Humans have made repeated efforts to exterminate rattlesnakes, despite their
values, since colonial times in the US (Klauber 1982). Bounties were paid on
rattlesnakes in several states in the Great Lakes region including Iowa (IA) and
Wisconsin (WI), and persisted in Minnesota (MN) until 1989 (Oldfield and Moriarty

1994). Prior to 1997, most reptiles were neither granted legal protection nor regulated in

thirty-seven of fifty states (Levell 1997). As Of this writing, twenty-three species and
subspecies Of snakes were listed as threatened or endangered in at least one of six
Midwestern Great Lakes states (i.e. Illinois (IL), Indiana (IN), Michigan (MI), MN, Ohio
(OH), and W1) (Table 5.2). In United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Region
3, five snake species or subspecies were listed as Regional Conservation Priorities
(USFW S 2002). Researchers have concluded repeatedly that rattlesnake survivorship is
reduced when humans encroach on snake habitat (Galligan and Dunson, 1979, Seigel
1986, Dodd 1993, Rosen and Lowe 1994). Szymanski (1998) identified the top two
causes of eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) population declines as
habitat loss and persecution and reported that the magnitude Of known population
declines varied from 33% in M1 to 100% in MN. Brown (1993) identified habitat
degradation and human exploitation as being major threats to timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus horridus) conservation. Though causes for these declines were
anthropogenic, little research has been conducted on how to influence human beliefs,
attitudes and lethal human behaviors toward rattlesnakes.
1.1.2 Study Species and Conservation Threats

Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes and timber rattlesnakes were selected for study
based on immediate conservation threat to the species, legal status and important life
history characteristics. The eastern massasauga was a candidate for federal listing under
the Endangered Species Act (Johnson et al. 2000), a Region 3 USFWS regional
conservation priority (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002), and one of two MI
snakes to be listed as a species of special concern (Michigan Natural Features Inventory,

2007). Eastern massasaugas have been documented in forty-nine of sixty-eight counties

in the lower peninsula of MI (Legge 1996). One of the areas believed to contain
concentrated populations of eastern massasaugas consisted Of Jackson, Livingston,
Oakland and Washtenaw counties in southeastern MI (Legge and Rabe 1994). This area
experienced a human population growth rate of ~12% and a household growth rate
almost twice (21%) as great, particularly in the Ann Arbor area, southeastern Livingston
County and western and northern Oakland County during the 19905 (Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments 2001). The eastern massasauga was the focus of a Candidate
Conservation Agreement with Assurances that the state of MI was entering into with the
USFWS (L. Sargent, 2003, M1 DNR, personal communication). However, more than
90% of the land base in the southern half of the lower peninsula Of MI was held privately
(MI DNR 2000); thus, it was imperative to consider humans and private lands in
conservation efforts for this species. The timber rattlesnake was a Region 3 USFW S
regional conservation priority, and in 1996 was listed as threatened in MN (Levell 1997).
The eastern massasauga was listed as endangered in MN (Levell 1997), but there were no
known extant populations (Szymanski 1998), though concerted searches were made
(Naber et al. 2004). Several timber rattlesnake populations were found on publicly held
lands, and known overwintering dens, i.e. hibemacula, had been vandalized and snakes
poached (Abraham 2004, Keyler and Wilzbacher 2002).

Particularly in the northern latitudes in which this research occurred, these two
rattlesnakes demonstrated pronounced k-selected survival strategies and were thus,
unable to withstand great rates of adult mortality (Johnson et al. 2000, Congdon et al.
1995, Brown 1993). Ambush foraging snakes, such as eastern massasaugas and timber

rattlesnakes, have experienced rapid declines in the presence of anthropogenic

disturbance because Of their dependence on particular microhabitat features for foraging
and associated life history traits such as low rates of feeding, growth and reproduction
(Reed and Shine 2002). Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes give birth to an average litter
size Of eight to eleven, and do not reach sexual maturity until they are three to four years
of age (Ernst and Ernst 2003, Keenlyne 1978). It was thought that a number Of extant
populations were so small as to be at great risk of local extinctions (Seigel and Shiel
1999, Szymanski 1998, Johnson et al. 2000). Consistently removing even a low rate Of
individuals from a small population may result in the extirpation Of an eastern
massasauga population (Kingsbury 2002, Johnson et al. 2000). Female timber
rattlesnakes do not reach sexual maturity in the more northern parts Of their range until
they are from seven to eleven years old (Brown 1991) and may not breed more than once
every three years due to prey availability (Ernst and Ernst 2003) and low fat reserves
(Gibbons 1972). Clutch size averaged just eight to ten in MN (Oldfield and Moriarty
1994) and eight in WI (Keenlyne 1978).

Eastern massasaugas are among the smallest pit vipers, measuring on average 47-
76 cm overall length (Conant and Collins 1991, Ernst 1992). They are cryptically
colored, having a gray dorsal background with a series of large blotches outlined in white
or yellow down their back and two or three rows of smaller blotches running along each
side, and a black belly with gray or yellow mottling (Harding 1997). The diet of the
eastern massasauga typically consisted of small mammals, but also included other snakes,
eggs, and nestling birds (Ernst 1992). Young garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) are
reported to be important food items to eastern massasau gas during their first year of life,

but warm-blooded prey, such as meadow voles (Microtus pensylvanicus) are most often

consumed by Older snakes (Keenlyne and Beer 1973). The eastern massasauga
rattlesnake is reported tO use a variety of habitat types; preferred habitats have an open
vegetation structure relative to surrounding areas and are close to water (Johnson et al.
2000).

The timber rattlesnake measures 90-152 cm in overall length (Conant and Collins
1991). In MN, timber rattlesnakes are generally yellow-brown in dorsal coloration, with
a set Of dark cross bands, an auburn mid-dorsal stripe, an unpatterned head, and a velvet-
black tail (Oldfield and Moriarty 1994). Their diet consisted primarily of small mammals
(Reinert et al. 1984), but also included small birds, lizards, snakes, frogs and insects
(Ernst 1992). Timber rattlesnakes usually overwinter communally in rocky dens with a
southern exposure (Klauber 1982). Timber rattlers existed in six southeastern MN
counties (Henderson 1980), which included an area along the Mississippi River bluffs
where human development pressures had increased (McMurry 2003).
1.1.3 Human—snake Interactions

An average Of six bites to humans from eastern massasau gas occurred annually
1999-2005 in MI (Susan Smolinske, MI Poison Control Center, pers. communication and
unpublished data, 2006). Data provided by Dr. Smolinske did not provide gender
information, but the average age of snakebite recipients was twenty-nine. Of the forty
snakebites reported to the Michigan Poison Control Center, thirty-two incidents involved
adults and eight involved children.

Though timber rattlesnakes are larger than eastern massasau gas and are known to
frequent open areas for basking, Keyler (2005) reported only fifteen bites from timber

rattlesnakes to humans in MN, 1982-2002. Of those bites, only five were natural

occurrences, for an average Of one timber rattlesnake bite to a human every four years.
Amateur herpetologists were involved in most (81%) snakebite incidents and four such
individuals had a history Of previous venomous snakebite. Keyler reported the average
age for venomous snakebite recipient as 29 i 10 years, and 94% as adult males. A
quarter of recipients were intoxicated at the time of the incident.
1.1.4 Study Goal and Objectives

Because each Of the more local conservation threats faced by eastem massasaugas
and timber rattlesnakes was human in origin, it was thought that they may best be
addressed through efforts to influence human traits such as beliefs, attitudes and
behaviors, an aspect discussed in the following chapters.

The goal of this dissertation research was to provide human dimensions insights
in reptile conservation. Of particular interest was how these insights could Operate to

develop and maintain a social acceptance capacity for rattlesnakes.

Specific research objectives included:

1.) TO specify a mental model Of social acceptance capacity for rattlesnakes that could be
used as a foundation for this dissertation research.

2.) To characterize (SE MI and SE MN) stakeholder beliefs, attitudes and intentions
toward non-venomous snakes and rattlesnakes.

3.) To compare and contrast MI and MN stakeholder beliefs, attitudes and intentions
toward non-venomous snakes and rattlesnakes, especially as they pertained to social
carrying capacity.

4.) To better understand social acceptance capacity and its applicability to conservation

of snakes.

5.) To offer suggestions for management interventions directed toward influencing social
acceptance capacity for snakes by testing different outreach delivery methods and their

efficacy in influencing stakeholder attitudes toward snakes.

1.2 Study Area Descriptions

Two areas were selected for this research, one in southeastern MI and the other in
southeastern MN. Areas were selected based on many factors, including: 1) experience,
ongoing working relationship, and potential for funding through MN DNR, 2) familiarity
with the natural history, ecology, conservation threats, and outreach activities of
herptiles, 3) ability to procure research support, 4) the federal conservation status Of the
eastern massasauga and 5) the immediate needs of the MI DNR to address conservation
of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake in an area of prime habitat that faced increasing
human development pressures. Study areas also allowed for a comparison of stakeholder
beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions between states using two Similar, but
importantly different, rattlesnake species. Each study area consisted of four counties in
which one of two rattlesnake species (i.e., the timber rattlesnake in MN, and the eastern
massasauga in MI) existed. Ecoregion descriptions were excerpted from Albert (1995).
All county-level demographic data were obtained from the US. Census Bureau (State
and County QuickF acts website, http://quickfacts.censungv/qfd/states).
1.2.1 Michigan Demographic Information

Statewide, the MI land base consisted Of 21% publicly held lands and 79%
privately owned lands (M1 DNR 2000). In the southern half of MI’s IOWer peninsula,

only 4% of the land base was publicly held, while 96% was privately owned. The four

10

counties included in the study area were Jackson, Livingston, Oakland and Washtenaw.
These counties contained a cluster of eastern massasauga populations (Legge and Rabe
1994). They were also near enough to the metropolitan Detroit and Ann Arbor areas that
they were undergoing intense human development pressures (Table 1.1; Southeast MI
Council Of Governments 200]).

1.2.2. Michigan Ecoregion Description

Jackson, Livingston, Oakland and Washtenaw counties were located within the
southern lower MI ecoregion, an area characterized by relatively warm conditions and a
rather uniform climate as compared with the rest of the state. The entire state was
glaciated and the southeastern portion consisted of a flat lake plain that transitioned in the
west to a low plateau of moraines and outwash plains.

Pre-European settlement plant communities included beech-sugar maple forests,
oak-hickory forests, swamps and some prairie. The region was home to a diversity Of
plant communities as compared to other parts of the state, due to the presence Of many
southern species not found elsewhere in the state.

Current land uses consisted of farming, woodlots, metropolitan areas, and rural
residential. This area has experienced the greatest urban, industrial and residential
development in MI. Almost all of the original tall grass and wet prairies were converted
to agricultural use. Some poorly drained sites still contained swamps and some marshes
and wet prairie. Fire suppression led to the development of more closed-canopy oak-
hickory forests, and decreased more open habitats such as prairie.

1.2.3. Minnesota Demographic Information

11

The MN land base was 23% publicly owned and 77% privately owned (MN State
Planning Agency, 1983). The four study-area counties included Fillmore, Houston,
Wabasha and Winona. They contained some of the last known extant populations of
timber rattlesnakes, many Of which existed on public lands frequented by recreational
users. Some areas along the Mississippi River bluffs Of southeastern MN were
experiencing intense human development (McMurry 2003). Until recently, this area had
consisted Of large unbroken tracts Of suitable habitat for wildlife, such as timber
rattlesnakes. Table 1.2 provides a brief description of each county and its human growth
rate during the last decade Of the twentieth century.

1.2.4. Minnesota Ecoregion Description

Fillmore, Houston, Wabasha and Winona counties were located within the
Driftless area of southwestern WI and southeastern MN. This area showed no signs of
ever having been glaciated and exhibited highly dissected topography. In southeastern
MN, this area was also known as the Blufflands (Kratz and Jensen 1983). Differences in
elevation Of up to 600 feet occurred along the Mississippi River. Other major rivers in
the area were the Root, Whitewater and Zumbro. There were few natural lakes and the
water table was Often more than twenty feet below the surface (University of MN et al.
1973).

Finely (1976) and Lange (1990) provided detailed descriptions of the plant
communities that were encountered by settlers Of the area. They reported that pre-
European settlement vegetation of this region consisted of bur oak savanna and tallgrass
and midgrass prairies on ridge tops and steep slopes with south or southwest aspects.

Sugar maple-basswood forests predominated in protected valleys and on north-facing

12

slopes; oak forests were also common on the moister slopes. Wet prairies were found
along the many rivers. Some tallgrass and midgrass prairie was present on the floodplain,
as well as marsh and floodplain forests. Important natural disturbances in the area were
fire, tomados, ice storms, and wind throws.

More recently, human disturbances, such as logging, farming, drainage, and fire
prevention significantly altered the vegetation. 1n MN’s western portion of the Driftless
area, more than 90% of the land was in crops and pasture, and the remainder was in
woodland and residential development. In the more easterly portion, about 50-60% of
the land was in crops and pasture, and the remainder was in woodlands and residential
development. Albert (1995) reported that development pressure was increasing on the

Blufflands, especially along the Mississippi River.

1.3 Dissertation Organization

The dissertation consists of an introductory chapter that includes a description of
study areas and this organizational piece, followed by four chapters designed to “stand
alone” as manuscripts; and ends with a summary that ties together previous chapters and
discusses management implications of the research. Because the middle four chapters
were written as manuscripts, there is some redundancy in the descriptions of methods,

introductions and study areas.

In Chapter 2, two conceptual models to depict people’s behaviors toward snakes
are presented. Models were built to identify research questions and testable hypotheses.
Antecedents to behaviors and factors contributing to those antecedents were investigated.

This chapter examines relationships between individual beliefs and attitudes, including

13

risk perceptions, particularly in terms Of social acceptance capacity for snakes. The
chapter concludes with a subset Of recommendations for research based on the models.
Chapter 3 examines human traits toward snakes in light of the conceptual models
presented in Chapter 2 and a series of semi-structured interviews that were conducted in
MI and MN. Data for chapter 3 were collected via self—administered mail questionnaires.
Goals of Chapter 3 were (1) to characterize stakeholder beliefs, attitudes and behavioral
intentions toward non-venomous (NV) snakes and (RS) rattlesnakes, and (2) to examine
whether stakeholders were more likely to support NV snake conservation efforts than RS

conservation efforts. The three research questions investigated in Chapter 3 included:

1) Do stakeholders know more about NV snakes than RS?

2) DO stakeholders hold more negative attitudes toward RS than NV
snakes?

3) Are stakeholders more likely to intend to engage in negative behaviors

toward RS than NV snakes?

Chapter 4 examines stakeholders’ desires for future snake populations. The
Chapter goal was to better understand factors affecting social acceptance capacity for
snakes. The hypothesis being tested in this chapter stated that stakeholders who believed
they were living in areas with extant RS populations would demonstrate a desire for
reduced RS populations more Often than stakeholders who did not live in such areas.
Data were analyzed to illuminate the relationship between an individual’s tolerance of
and desires for RS and his or her perception of risk from a RS. Desire for future
populations for RS and NV snakes were compared and contrasted for three stakeholder

groups i.e., respondents who believed they lived in the same area as RS, respondents who

14

believed that RS were absent and respondents who were unsure Of RS presence.
Information from this chapter was used to identify the status of stakeholders’ risk
perceptions of RS and NV snakes for use in educational outreach efforts aimed at

influencing social acceptance capacity.

Chapter 5 builds on Chapter 4 by presenting results Of an outreach experiment to
test delivery methods for their efficacies in increasing knowledge and changing attitudes
about snakes. The chapter goal was to Offer suggestions for influencing social acceptance
capacity for reptiles, particularly snakes. Data were collected from individuals initially
via the self—administered mail questionnaires used in chapters 3 and 4; subsequent data
were collected either at the conclusion Of an outreach program, or approximately six
months after initial mail questionnaire response for individuals who did not attend
outreach programs (control and written materials treatment groups). A final data
collection using a brief, self-administered assessment instrument was sent out
approximately Six months after the series of outreach programs. It was hypothesized that
stakeholders who attended a snake workshop would have greater knowledge than
stakeholders who were mailed written outreach materials and a control group. It was also
hypothesized that stakeholders who attended a snake workshop that included behavioral
modeling would have greater tolerance of snakes than stakeholders who did not attend a

workshop or stakeholders who attended a workshop without behavioral modeling.

Chapter 6 is a summary, which presents conclusions and management
recommendations. This chapter focuses on the two questions: 1) What did the author
find out? and, 2) What are the implications for fisheries and wildlife management

(generally and specifically)?

15

Table 1.1. Land area, human population estimates and housing unit estimates for four

study area counties in southeastern Michigan (2000). (Source: US. Census Bureau, State

and County QuickFacts website, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/statcs).

 

 

 

 

 

 

County Area Estimate Of Estimate of Average Percent change in
(miz) Housing Human human human population

units population density (mil) (1990-2000)
Jackson 707 63 ,000 158,422 224 5 .8
Livingston 568 59,000 156,951 276 35.7
Oakland 873 492,000 1,194,156 1,369 10.2
Washtenaw 710 131,000 322,895 455 14. 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1.2. Land area, human population estimates and housing unit estimates for four

study area counties in southeastern Minnesota (2000). (Source: US. Census Bureau,

State and County QuickF acts website, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states).

 

 

 

 

 

 

County Area Estimate of Estimate of Average Percent change in
(miz) Housing Human human human population

units population density (miz) (1990-2000)
Fillmore 861 8,908 21,122 24.5 1.7
Houston 558 8,168 19,718 35.3 6.6
Wabasha 525 2,000 21,610 41.0 9.5
Winona 626 19,600 49,985 80.0 4.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

l6

 

 

CHAPTER 2

CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF HUMAN-RATTLESNAKE INTERACTIONS

l7

2.1 Introduction

Reptile populations are declining globally due to habitat degradation and loss,
invasive species, environmental pollution, disease, unsustainable human use, and climate
change (Gibbons et a1. 2000). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN 2000) estimated that 25% of reptile species were
threatened with extinction. Reptile declines are believed at least as severe as global
amphibian declines, but reptiles have not received the same public attention and funding
(Gibbons et al. 2000). It does not appear that this lack Of funding and attention is
connected to the global importance Of reptiles. For example, snakes hold a multitude of
values to people, including aesthetic, spiritual, economic, pharmaceutical, ecologic, and
dietary (Morris and Morris 1965, Dodd 1986, Grenard 1994, Nissenson and Jonas 1995,
Hoover 1998, Franke and Telecky 2001, Zug et al. 2001, Menez 2003). Despite this
multitude Of values, the causes for snake population declines are solely human-induced,
and include habitat degradation, direct population losses from humans killing snakes in
real or perceived self-defense, malicious killings, rattlesnake roundups, biocides, and
trade for fashion and pets (Dodd 1987). Furthermore, it is estimated that > 50% of pit
vipers, including rattlesnakes, are vulnerable to extinction (Greene and Campbell 1992).

Humans have made repeated efforts to exterminate rattlesnakes, despite their
values, since colonial times in the United States (Klauber 1982). Prior to 1997, most
reptiles were not granted legal protection or even regulated in thirty-seven of fifty states
(Levell 1997). Bounties were paid on rattlesnakes in several states and rattlesnake
roundups still occurred in 2000 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas (Fitzgerald and Painter 2000).

18

One species of rattlesnake Of particular concern in the eastern
United States is the eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus), a
candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1999). Its range
extends from southern Ontario and central New York in the east to Iowa and eastern
Missouri in the west (Ernst and Ernst 2003). Massasau gas are considered rare, threatened
or endangered in every state east of the Mississippi River (Ashton 1976). They receive
some form of legal protection in every state and province in which they occur, and
Michigan is considered this species’ last stronghold in the United States (Szymanski
1998). Legge (1996) identified human persecution as an important source of eastern
massasauga mortality in Michigan and emphasized the importance of public cooperation
in state efforts to manage and conserve this species.

One area of research that is focused on integrating human traits, such as beliefs,
Opinions and associated behaviors into natural resources management, is human
dimensions. Insights from human dimensions research are increasingly incorporated into
natural resources management (Decker et al. 2001), but little such research has been
related to reptile conservation. However, one national survey to assess the public’s
attitudes toward wildlife species included snakes (Kellert and Berry 1979, 1980). In that
survey, public willingness tO sacrifice a variety of personal benefits to assure the well
being of several endangered species was examined. Notably, respondents expressed little
desire to make sacrifices to protect the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais
couperi), a large non-venomous snake that was listed early in the 20lh century under the
federal Endangered Species Act. Rattlesnakes were disliked by 78% of respondents, and

ranked as the fifth most disliked species of thirty-three included in the survey’s list

19

(Kellert and Berry 1980). Only wasp, rat, mosquito, and cockroach were disliked to a
greater degree. Snakes have consistently ranked among the most disliked animals around
the globe (Surinova 1971, Morris 1960), particularly among female children (Surinova
1971). Boys, on the other hand, appear to have positive attitudes toward a wider diversity
of animals than females, particularly predators (Collins 1976).

Regardless of species, there are costs involved in sharing one’s land with wildlife
that may include damage tO personal property, disease, human injury, loss Of life, and
crop damage (Conover et al. 1995). Therefore, wildlife species are ideally managed for
desired population levels as determined by wildlife agencies in conjunction with the
public (Decker et al. 2001). When determining the desired population level for a wildlife
species, managers must consider public benefits as well as costs in maintaining species’
populations. One such measure Of public acceptance for a wildlife species population
level is wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC), a blend of stakeholder
tolerance Of problems and desires for wildlife benefits (Carpenter et al. 2000).
Calculating WSAC for a species is complex and includes psychological variables such as
value orientations and Specific beliefs, behavioral variables such as past experience with
wildlife, and situational specifics, such as wildlife encounter frequency and wildlife
management actions (Zinn et. a1 2000).

Acceptance capacity can vary a great deal, depending upon the species and
stakeholder group in question. For example, acceptance capacity is generally high for
species, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and Canada geese (Branta
canadensis), which are used on a recreational basis (Minnis 1997, West and Parkhurst

2002, Coluccy et al. 2001). Conversely, it appears that acceptance capacity may be quite

20

low for snakes, especially venomous snakes. In a survey of visitors to an eastern national
park, strong support was indicated for all “wildlife.” Respondents were not as supportive
toward snakes as a group when asked whether snakes in the park should be killed
(Greene 1997). Likewise, a survey of college students in Kansas indicated that
individuals chose to deliberately hit a snake when crossing a road with their automobiles
more Often than any other animal (Langley et al. 1989). More recently, work conducted
in Australia indicates that a low public tolerance for snakes persists. Whitaker and Shine
(2000) surveyed residents in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area in southern inland New
South Wales, and found that about half Of the snakes Observed by people were
approached and about one-third killed. Reasons given for killing snakes included
concern for animal and human safety, fear and hate. Despite the need to incorporate
humans in conservation efforts, little specific information exists regarding the factors that
affect stakeholder values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors toward snakes, which could aid
in their conservation.

The goal of this paper is to examine antecedents to acceptance capacity for snakes
and associated human behaviors, particularly toward eastern massasauga rattlesnakes in
Michigan, and to build a conceptual model or models to explain acceptance capacity and
lethal or potentially lethal human behaviors toward snakes. The following sections
describe the theoretical and conceptual framework for human-snake interaction models,
actual and hypothetical explanations for low acceptance capacity for snakes and possible

avenues of research that may be used to test the conceptual models presented.

21

2.2 Methods

An extensive literature review was conducted to determine what is known and
currently believed about human-snake interactions. The review was conducted by
searching electronic databases including Web of Science, Wildlife Worldwide and
Agricola and the electronic card catalog of Michigan State University and University of
Wisconsin libraries. Additionally, research-based books as well as gray literature on
snakes were read and bibliographic information was utilized to uncover further
informative resources. This path of inquiry led to social psychology literature, human
psychology, risk and risk perception literature, anthropological literature, biological and
ecological literature, communication literature, child development literature and
environmental education literature. Information gleaned through investigation of these
resources was then used to build a conceptual model to examine how an individual’s
beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions toward snakes may be developed and
maintained, and may determine an individual’s acceptance capacity for snakes and
associated human behaviors toward snakes. The resulting human—snake interaction
models are based on factors known to be important in development and maintenance of
human attitudes toward wildlife (Kellert 1996) and existing theories of human behavior.
Theories include Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA),
Azjen’s (1991) more recently expanded version, Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and
Riley and Decker’s (2000a) proposed model of WSAC for mountain lions.
2.2.1 Explanation of Existing Models

A useful model for the importance, abundance and tractability of human traits,

such as beliefs and attitudes, is represented by the cognitive hierarchy (Figure 2.1). It

22

consists of values, basic beliefs, attitudes and norms, behavioral intentions and behaviors.
Values are defined as desirable end states or qualities Of life that humans hold dear
(Rokeach 1973). People have few values as compared to attitudes or behaviors, but
values are Strongly held and seldom changed. An individual’s beliefs are based on what
he or she presumes “true” about a particular attitude object and its characteristics (Ajzen
and Fishbein1980), regardless of factual accuracy. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) define an
attitude as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity
with some degree of favor or disfavor.” Subjective norms are beliefs held by a person
about whether significant others (e. g. family, friends, etc.) approve or disapprove of
particular behaviors that he intends to engage in (Zimbardo and Leippe 1991).
Behavioral intention is the direct antecedent to behavior but even if a person intends to
undertake an activity, he may not due to finances, lack of time,lack of belief in being
able to do so, or some other reason (Zimbardo and Leippe 1991, Ajzen 1991).

One model of human behavior that has been used and tested extensively in human
dimensions literature over the past two decades (Young and Kent 1985, Bright et al.
1993, among others) is the TRA. It is based on the assumptions that humans use
information available to them and that humans are rational (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980).
According to TRA, a person’s intention to behave in a particular way is a result of that
person’s attitude toward the behavior and their perception Of what other significant
individuals think about the behavior in question and whether or not a person should or
should not behave in such a way (i.e., subjective norms). These two elements hold

varying levels Of importance dependent on the behavior in question. Attitudes and

23

subjective norms, in turn, are based on beliefs held by an individual about the behavior
and how significant Others think the person should or should not behave (Figure 2.2).

A second and more recent human behavior model, TPB, builds on TRA.
According to TPB, a person’s attitude toward a Specific behavior, subjective norm about
a behavior, and self-efficacy, i.e. level Of perceived difficulty in performing a behavior
(Bandura 1977), are antecedents to his or her intention to engage in a specific behavior
(Figure 2.3). When a person possesses the necessary resources and Opportunities,
behavioral intention is the immediate antecedent to the behavior (Ajzen 1991).

Finally, Riley and Decker’s (2000a) model Of WSAC for mountain lions is based
on TRA but incorporates risk perceptions as a predecessor Of a person’s acceptance
capacity for cougars, and lack of issue activity or complaints regarding their populations
to natural resource agencies. As a result, knowledge Of, and attitudes and risk beliefs
about, cougars are antecedents to a person’s risk perceptions regarding cougars. Risk
perception is the immediate pre—cursor to acceptance capacity for cougars (Figure 2.4).
2.2.2. Individual Acceptance Capacities and Behavior Components

Factors important in the formation of an individual’s attitudes and associated
behaviors toward wildlife species include: basic wildlife values, knowledge of wildlife,
perceptions of individual species and the human-animal relationship (Kellert 1996). With
regard to rattlesnakes, these factors may include beliefs/knowledge about rattlesnakes,
attitudes about rattlesnakes, fear, the risk perceptions that are a product of the belief
system that integrates an individual’s values and attitudes with respect to the risk (Slovic
1987), and finally, an individual’s behavioral intentions, based on their acceptance

capacity for rattlesnakes. In turn, an individual’s knowledge, beliefs and attitudes are a

24

result of several other interacting factors that may include the effects Of influential others,
direct experiences, indirect experiences, and emotions such as fear. These factors, or

model components, are discussed below.

2.3 Results and Discussion of Literature Review
2.3.] Model Components

2.3.1.1. Effects Of Influential Others

If a parent is fearful of or dislikes snakes, it is likely that this will result in a fear
or dislike of snakes in his or her children. Children learn much of their gender and moral
behavior by Observing other people — parents are important models, but also Others such
as day care workers (Bandura 1977, Mischel 1970). Parents have great influence in the
development Of their children’s attitudes toward specific Objects and conceptions Of
appropriate behavior in a given situation (Berger and Thompson 1996).

Teachers also affect the development of an individual’s beliefs, attitudes and
behaviors toward wildlife, including snakes. Teachers convey wildlife knowledge to
students, and often expose students to animals in the classroom. However, as Siemer et
al. (1987) found, close to half (43.5%) of their preschool to grade 12 teacher respondents
expressed fear in handling a snake, though 85% indicated they were tolerant of having
the animals physically close to them. This fear Of snakes may be transmitted to students,
who may, in turn, develop fearful attitudes. Many teachers also lack knowledge about
basic wildlife concepts and thus, are unable to transmit such knowledge and

understanding to their students (Taylor and Samuel 1975).

25

Friends can also influence a person’s attitudes and behaviors toward snakes.
First, people choose friends based on commonalities, i.e., to surround themselves with
individuals that hold similar characteristics such as gender and interests (Hartup 1989).
Second, to maintain a network of peers, people have a tendency to change their traits to
more closely match those Of friends, and a person is less likely to hold an attitude or view
that is radically different than that of his or her network (Heider 1958). This is especially
relevant for children as they get Older because they become increasingly dependent on
their peers, not only for companionship but also for self-validation (Nelson-Le Gall and
Gumerman 1984). If peers in an individual’s network, especially dominant peers, dislike
or fear snakes, an individual may adopt this “accepted” attitude toward snakes rather than
risk rejection or being ostracized.

2.3.1.2. Direct Experiences

Childhood experiences with animals have been demonstrated as important factors
in adult attitude development toward wildlife (Kellert 1976). One relevant trend in
society has been the increased selection Of reptiles as pets (Franke and Telecky 2001).
Such purposeful and enduring experiences with reptiles likely influence people’s attitudes
toward these animals. It’s important to note, however, that the vast majority of reptiles
that are kept as pets are turtles (46% of reptile owners); snakes are kept by fewer than
half as many individuals as turtles or lizards (Franke and Telecky 2001).

Encounters with snakes in the wild, generally unplanned experiences, can vary
from being pleasant to neutral or unrecognized to being startling or scary. Due to the fast
and sudden movements undertaken by children outdoors, an initial encounter with a

snake may come as a surprise for both child and snake. Such experiences may certainly

26

influence attitudes toward snakes; however, studies of snake phobia (i.e. Ophidiophobia)
indicate that such direct experiences account for < 10% of reported cases (Davey, 1992;
Murray and Foote 1979).

2.3.1.3. Indirect Experiences
Family members or friends who have had encounters with snakes may also influence
beliefs and attitudes via renditions they share with others regarding the incident(s). Many
urban children have little or no exposure to natural environments, and having no previous
exposure, their interpretations may be based not only on renditions shared by family or
friends, but also other indirect experiences such as films, TV programs, zoos, museums,
and books (Bixler et al. 1994). These sources may influence a person’s attitudes toward
the outdoors, as well as toward specific plants or animals.

Newspaper accounts can be an important influence on attitude and belief
formation (Loker et al. 1999), especially when a person has no personal experience with
an issue or attitude Object. Riley and Decker (2000b) found that the majority Of
questionnaire respondents who asserted having involvement with cougars referred to
vicarious experiences, such as newspaper accounts or second-hand stories. Likewise,
newspaper portrayals may be important in attitude development toward potentially
dangerous wildlife species, such as bears (Slovic et al. 1974), cougars and rattlesnakes.
Riley and Decker (2000b) hypothesized that mass media reports of human-cougar
conflicts were influential in stakeholders’ perceptions of cougar densities and attitudes
toward cougars. Slovic et al. (1979) stated that the sensationalism associated with

accounts of venomous stings and bites made such accounts easily remembered and thus

27

led to an overestimate of risk by people of fatal bite or sting due tO animals such as
rattlesnakes.

Snakes have appeared in literature for millenia (Nissenson and Jonas 1995).
Written and spoken language can have a powerful impact on how an animal is portrayed,
particularly when there has been no direct experience with the animal (Bixler et al. 1994).
Many popular sayings such as “speaking with a forked tongue” can perpetuate beliefs
that snakes are dangerous or evil (Mattison 1996). Crist (1999) theorized that the
language with which animals were written may even determine human perception Of
animals as subjects - beings experiencing the world as a meaningful place rather than just
existing in it, or animals as objects - with no control or comprehension of the behaviors in
which they engage. Bart ( 1972) suggested that fairy tales and children’s books dictated
what animals we should and should not like. Along these lines, More (1979) examined
children’s books that featured wildlife. Of the 4,932 books that featured animals, about
5% (n = 253) mentioned reptiles or a group Of reptiles in their titles. Over 60% referred
to mammals and almost 20% featured birds. A greater number of titles (n = 347) featured
insects or insect groups than reptiles. More posited that the number of titles that featured
a species or group was indicative of the preference (i.e., popularity) for a species or
group. It may also be indicative of the groups of wildlife that the authors themselves
were most familiar with, and thus able to write about though that information was not
obtained or mentioned in the study.

Myths and folklore are important influences in the development Of beliefs and
attitudes toward snakes (Menez 2003, Klauber 1982, Minton and Minton 1969). Snakes

have figured in human mythology for millennia (Morris and Morris 1965, Nissenson and

28

Jonas 1995), primarily as an embodiment of evil (Burton 1993, Weidensaul 1991). Many
myths and misconceptions about snakes are passed down from generation to generation
(Brown and McDonald 2000), and because most people never or seldom have a direct
experience with a snake, many misconceptions continue to be believed. One myth claims
that if you encounter a snake, it will attack you. In fact, the Opposite appears to be more
likely the reality. A recent survey of Australian residents found that a significant portion
(38%) of people attacked snakes that they encountered. In subsequent fieldwork walking
along transects, researchers found that less than one in two hundred (0.38%) encountered
snakes attacked. People were one hundred times more likely to attack than were the
snakes (Whitaker and Shine 2000). Other myths are disseminated through popular
literature; for example, in Kipling’s (1894) The Jungle Book, readers are informed that
snakes are fond of milk, and this idea has persisted despite its inaccuracy.

Snakes are among humankind’s earliest gods (Nissenson and Jonas 1995). The
earliest known snake shamans appeared about 3,500 years ago among the Psyllil of
northern Africa (Minton and Minton 1969) and the earliest Egyptian symbol for goddess
was the cobra (Nissenson and Jonas 1995). Snake-handling religious sects exist in at
least six states (TN, KY, VA, WV, MI and IN) within the contiguous US. (Burton 1993).
Members of these sects pick up serpents as a demonstration of their faith as they interpret
the New Testament writings of Mark 16: 17—18: “And these signs shall follow them that
believe; In my name Shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they
shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover” (Brown and McDonald 2000, Schwartz

1999, Burton 1993). Interestingly, more cults have been devoted to snakes than any other

29

animal (Nissenson and Jonas 1995). Individuals who subscribe to various religions may
have beliefs and attitudes about snakes associated with their religious beliefs. For
example, Christoffel (unpub. data) interviewed a devout Lutheran from MN who was
adamant that snakes are an embodiment of evil and that the story Of Eve and the snake
contained in Genesis was meant to be taken literally. For a complete review of myths
and folklore about rattlesnakes, see Klauber 1982 or Nissenson and Jonas 1995.

Policies governing conservation and management of snakes contribute indirectly
to the development and maintenance of human beliefs and attitudes toward snakes.
Bounties Offered and paid by county governments for rattlesnakes may be the most
influential policy affecting stakeholder beliefs and attitudes toward snakes, particularly
rattlesnakes. Several WI counties paid bounties on timber rattlesnakes and eastern
massasaugas until 1975, at which time the eastern massasauga was placed on the state’s
endangered species list (Vogt 1981). Bounties were paid in MN to rattlesnake hunters
until 1989 (Oldfield and Moriarty 1994) — the timber rattlesnake was state-listed as
threatened in 1996, and though some concerted searches have been made, no eastern
massasaugas have been reported in more than ten years (Oldfield and Moriarty 1994,
Naber et al. 2004). Paying bounties for dead rattlesnakes communicates the message to
stakeholders that rattlesnakes are of economic worth when dead, but not when alive.

In addition to bounties, many states have allowed rattlesnake roundups to persist
despite their potential impacts to non-target species (Campbell et al. 1989) and to local
snake populations by way of direct exploitation and disturbance of rattlesnake habitats
(Warwick 1990, Arena et al. 1995, Fitzgerald and Painter 2000). It has been estimated

that a minimum of 300,000 rattlesnakes are harvested annually in the US for round-ups

30

and commercial processors (Warwick et al. 1991). The epitome Of such roundups can be
found in Sweetwater, TX, where J aycee publications state that the roundup was initiated

as a way to reduce, if not extirpate, the rattlesnake population (Weir 1992). This echoes

the message that snakes are valuable when dead and valueless when alive.

Once collected, the rattlesnakes are Often mistreated, and at some roundups,
animals are skinned and butchered in public (Weir 1992, Arena et al. 1995, Fitzgerald
and Painter 2000). Such treatment of rattlesnakes illustrates to attendants that
rattlesnakes are not worthy Of humane treatment and that it is perfectly appropriate to
skin and butcher rattlensakes in public. While it’s true that some states and sponsoring
organizations have discontinued roundups or changed the rules so that snakes are no
longer killed outright at such events, other states and sponsoring organizations have not.
These events perpetuate non-humane treatment toward snakesbecause they
sensationalize risk-taking for personal thrills (Thomas and Adams 1993), public adulation
and prize money (Weir 1992) and permit the deaths of numerous snakes (both target and
non-target species) due to injuries sustained while being captured and stress incurred
during captivity (Campbell et al. 1989, Weidensaul 1991).

Organizers have claimed that rattlesnake roundups are held, in part, for
educational purposes (Weir 1992); however, when tested, attendees leaving a roundup
had similar knowledge levels about rattlesnakes whether or not they attended the
educational program (Fitzgerald’and Painter 2000). Such results hardly support the
previously claimed benefit of education.

Historically, wildlife biologists have been engaged in game species management

(Lancia 2005) and have largely ignored reptiles and amphibians (Scott and Seigel 1992).

31

At times, snakes have incidentally benefited from wildlife management aimed at other
species, such as waterfowl, though timing Of such management is critical in determining
its beneficial or detrimental impact (Seigel 1986). Recreational activities on public lands
may also be detrimental to slow-moving ectotherms. Seigel (1986) found that traffic was
the most important activity impacting an eastern massasauga population present on a
national wildlife refuge, with mortality patterns correlating directly with traffic patterns.

Protection for venomous snakes is unusual, and only comes when a species is on
the brink Of extinction (Weidensaul 1991). There is often great political pressure tO
refrain from listing snakes, or engaging in sound biological management of snake
populations (Seigel 1986). Most regulations in the US governing the possession and sale
of native reptiles, including snakes, are recent (Levell 1997). The only regulatory
protection afforded western diamondback rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox) in TX as of 1993,
was that a hunting license was required to collect M vertebrate animal — no permit or
license was legally required for the possession or sale of rattlesnakes (Adams et a1. 1994)
until after the turn of the century (Texas Parks and Wildlife 2004). In a survey of pet
stores in NY, Hohn (2003) found that employees in at least five of thirty-seven stores
queried, relayed incorrect information about regulations for native reptiles and
amphibians. This misinformation was presumably relayed to customers interested in
purchasing a reptile or amphibian as a pet and this in turn, helped perpetuate the
collection of native reptiles and amphibians for the pet trade (75% of the reptiles sold in
NY were reported as collected from the wild).

2.3.1.4. Knowledge

32

It may be more important that an individual understand the interconnectedness Of
animals within an ecosystem rather than specific factual information on snake species,
per se, in order to appreciate the role of snakes in nature and to develop increased
tolerance for snakes. Richmond (1977) demonstrated that conceptual knowledge rather
than factual knowledge was more positively related to the formation of positive
environmental attitudes and it may follow that this can be applied in terms of concern for
wildlife species such as snakes. Kellert (1996) explains his “ecologistic” wildlife value
orientation and associated worldview as one that emphasizes the interdependence among
species and habitats. Ecologistic value orientations seem to be on the rise in the US.
(Kellert 1996), an encouraging trend given the low level of snake specific knowledge
possessed by the general public. For example, when responses Of children and adults
were compared regarding wildlife knowledge (Kellert and Berry 1980), it was revealed
that only 31% of the children and 52% Of adults responded correctly tO the true/false
statement, “Snakes have a thin covering of slime in order to move more easily.”

2.3.1.5. Emotions and Attitudes about Snakes

There are a variety Of emotions and attitudes that are associated with snakes, but
prior literature is only available for a few. This includes fear, the evaluative attitude of
like or dislike toward snakes, and perceived risk, which consists of both a cognitive, i.e.
risk beliefs, and an affective or emotional component, i.e. fear or anxiety.

Fear is believed to be the most common emotional response to snakes (Shalev and
Ben-Mordehai 1996), and has been identified as the major obstacle to snake conservation
in India and as a contributing factor elsewhere (Seshadri 1984). Considerable research

has been conducted regarding ophidiophobia and fear of snakes (Gear and Turtleltaub

33

1967; Blanchard 1969; Evans 1981: Davey 1994; among others). Though it is Often
believed that a large percentage of people are ophidiophobic, research results indicate
that this is true for only 2-3% of the population (Lang and Lazovik 1963; Klieger 1987).
In most instances, snake-fearful individuals are not truly phobic, but a large percentage Of
people in the US (>50%) may feel at least mildly uncomfortable around snakes
(Steinhart 1984), and in a national survey Of more than 3,000 ten- to twelve-year-Olds,
42% expressed a fear of snakes (Westervelt and Llewellyn 1985). Maurer (1965)
reported that the vast majority of five- and six-year-Olds, and more that half of seven- to
twelve-year-Olds reported reptiles as things to be afraid of, and most frequently, snakes.
Snakes have also been reported to be among the most feared animals in a number Of other
surveys (Bowd 1983, Bennett-Levy and Marteau 1984; Merkelbach et al 1987; Davey
1994).

Research conducted at zoos and natural areas lends further support for the
discomfort or fear than many people feel around snakes. Hoff and Maple (1982) reported
that female visitors engaged more in avoidance behaviors and spent less time in zoo
reptile exhibits than males, and teenagers spent more time in exhibits and refused to enter
less often than children or adults. When visitors’ comments regarding their avoidance of
the reptile house were investigated, emphasis was placed on snakes rather than reptiles or
reptile exhibits generally. Meyers et a1. (2004) reported that zoo visitors experienced a
greater intensity of fear and disgust when Observing snakes than gorillas (Gorilla gorilla)
or Okapis (Okapi johnstoni). Interpreters, who were queried regarding urban students’
uncomfortable behaviors and expressed fears when visiting wildland areas, most

frequently cited fear of snakes (Bixler et al. 1994).

'34

Debate has been ongoing regarding the origins Of snake fear in humans (Ohman
and Mineka 2003). Many people believe that snake fear is an innate trait, rather than a
learned one (Wilson 1984). Evidence has been presented for both explanations, with
most research having been conducted on non-human primates. Yerkes and Yerkes
(1936) found that infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) responded more to movement
than to a particular object, showing greater fear responses to an active gopher tortoise
(Gapherus polyphemus) than to an inactive glass lizard (Ophisaurus sp. ) (an animal that
morphologically resembles a snake, but is easier to handle). NO evidence was found to
support a specific fear response prior to or apart from individual experience with a given
Object type. Joslin and Others (1964) compared responses Of wild and lab-reared rhesus
monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to snakes and snakelike Objects. They reported that only
wild-reared monkeys were consistently strongly fearful of snakes and concluded that fear
is not innate, but learned. Maurer (1965) alternatively postulated that fear of being eaten
by wild animals or poisoned by snakes may hold an evolutionarily-based ease of arousal.
Mineka et a1. (1980) presented evidence that observational conditioning is involved in the
development of fear of snakes in rhesus monkeys. More recently, it has been asserted
that snakes remain special stimuli for humans, and that fear of snakes is learned more
easily than fear of most other stimuli (Ohman and Mineka 2003). A human evolutionary
biologist has recently reported the hypothesis that the presence of venomous snakes was
responsible for the development of forward facing eyes and keen eyesight in primates,
including humans (Isbell 2006).

Fear is important, in particular, in terms of attitudes and behavioral intentions

toward snakes due to its important influence on risk perceptions and the difficulty in

35

extinguishing fear of snakes once it has been developed or activated (Ohman and Mineka
2003). Fear can lead tO heightened risk perceptions regarding snakes, because of the
tendency of highly fearful humans to over—predict risk. This overestimate comes from
two sources: first, an over-prediction Of the danger elements Of a fearful Object such as a
snake, and secondly, an under-prediction Of existing safety resources, such as the
proximity of escape routes (Wright et al. 2002). Venomous bite or sting has been
reported as one of the most overestimated causes Of death (Slovic et al. 1979). Some
likely reasons for this finding include the ways in which people judge risk. People are
likely to judge an event as common or likely if it is easy for them to recall such events, or
just by discussing such a hazard (Slovic et al. 1979). Given the memborability of
newspaper accounts regarding wildlife attacks Of various kinds, it seems likely that
people who read such accounts are likely to judge such events as common, despite their
rarity (Slovic et al. 1974, Slovic et al. 1979). Perceived risk was a determinant of desired
population trends for mountain lions (Riley and Decker 2000a) and this same pattern may
hold true for snakes, especially rattlesnakes.

Risk beliefs constitute the cognitive component of risk perception and are
important to the formation and maintenance of a person’s risk perceptions regarding a
potential hazard (Keeney 1995). Riley and Decker (2000b) reported that the variable
“risk beliefs” was one of three included in a model that predicted respondents’ desire for
future populations (as a proxy for WSAC) of cougars 85% of the time. Although
rattlesnakes are not large carnivores like cougars, a bite from such a snake can pose

considerable pain and risk to a person (Keyler 2005). Thus, information regarding

36

perceived risk about a large carnivore such as a cougar may also be applicable to
rattlesnakes.

During a series of semi-structured interviews (n = 60), the reason most Often
given by interviewees for not wanting to share their properties with rattlesnakes was the
risk posed by the animal’s presence (Christoffel, unpub. data). When probed,
interviewees expressed that they were especially fearful for small children and old people
that came and visited their properties. Interviewees were also asked to place pictures Of
animals representing the amphibian and reptile groups present in their state on fear and
like scales. There was a strong inverse relationship between fear and like levels.
Animals, such as frogs, that were not feared at all by interviewees were well-liked, while
rattlesnakes (represented by V Snake) were not (Figure 2.5). Fear and like scores for
each animal group were highly correlated (Fink 2003) (r = 0.98, p < 0.01).

A factor that can interact with an individual’s fear of, and knowledge about,
snakes is an individual’s perceived risk from snakes. Individuals that are fearful of
snakes are likely to feel at great risk when they are near one. This perception is related to
an individual’s knowledge of the risk presented and the dread associated with that risk.
Risk perception research shows that unknown risks are characterized as not observable,
unknown, or having a delayed impact, while dread risks are characterized by involuntary
exposure, catastrophic potential, dire results, and an unfair allocation of risks and benefits
(Slovic 1987).

Aspects of human-snake encounters that contribute to unknown risk perceptions
may include an individual’s lack of knowledge about local snakes. For example, most

Australians were unable to identify and distinguish even the most abundant snakes living

37

in their area (Morrison et al. 1983), an important skill to have when living and recreating
in a country where there are more venomous than non-venomous snake Species (O’Shea
2005). A second aspect may be the perceived lack of visibility of the risk. Many snakes,
such as eastern massasauga rattlesnakes, are cryptically patterned and often undetected by
people who cross the snake’s path, even when within striking distance (Prior and
Weatherhead 1994; Whitaker and Shine 1999). Aspects of dread risks that are
manifested in human-snake encounters include involuntary exposure, and perhaps a
perceived unfair allocation of risks and benefits (i.e. the public at large benefits from the
existence Of snakes, yet, only some people ever have to risk encountering one or being
bitten by one on their properties) and the potential for catastrophe. Riley and Decker
(2000a) posited that cougar attacks on humans may present the sort Of low probability,
high consequence event that leads to elevated risk perceptions. In Michigan, only a
handful (Six to eight) Of eastern massasauga rattlesnake bites are reported annually (Susan
Smolinske, MI Poison Control Center, pers. comm.) and there are no documented
fatalities due to bites. However, a rattlesnake bite may still be perceived in much the
same way as a cougar attack. Fearful individuals may also perceive a short decision time
when they encounter a snake. This can be explained in part by the perceived threat and
the probable close proximity of the snake tothe individual before being detected due to
its cryptic coloration and lack of movement (Steinhart 1984).

An additional factor that may contribute to heightened risk perceptions when a
human encounters a snake is the desirability of the interaction. Alhakami and Slovic
(1994) reported that people tended to judge benefits as high and risks as low when they

were doing an activity they liked, but their judgments were opposite — low benefit and

38

high risk — when doing an activity they disliked. If a person doesn’t like the prospect Of
encountering a snake, it is probable that he or she will judge the benefits as few and risk
as high of the encounter. Alternatively, if a person seeks out an encounter with a snake, it
is likely that he or she will perceive high benefit and low risk from the activity.
2.3.2 Proposed conceptual models of human-rattlesnake interactions

The TRA (1980), TPB (1991) and Riley and Decker’s proposed model Of WSAC
for mountain lions (2000a) largely help to explain the cognitive part Of human behaviors
toward wildlife. Riley and Decker acknowledged the importance of the affective
component of risk perceptions and attempted to incorporate a measure of affect through
risk beliefs, such as whether or not respondents felt that the same people who benefited
from the presence Of cougars in Montana were the same as the people who were at risk
from cougars in Montana. However, unlike cougars or other large mammalian predators
that have been previously studied, snakes present a ‘special’ stimulus for people in terms
of fear (Ohman and Mineka 2003), an affective component of human behavior toward
snakes. Because of this, it is essential that we move past a strictly cognitive explanation
for human behaviors and acceptance capacities for snakes, and incorporate the influence
Of fear and the associated stress that is introduced when a fearful individual encounters a
snake. This is especially important given the large percentage of individuals who are
estimated to be at least mildly uncomfortable around snakes (Steinhart 1984), and the
large percentage of human-snake encounters that come as a surprise to the human, the
snake, or both parties. In these cases, a human is making a behavioral decision under

stress and strictly cognitive models are not as likely to account for behavior.

39

An alternative model that may help to explain human behaviors toward snakes
when an individual’s cognitive abilities are compromised, such as in a stressful
encounter, is Fazio’s (1986) attitude-behavior process model (Figure 2.6.). It is based on
the premise that behavior is largely determined by an individual’s perceptions and
subsequent definition of a given situation (Fazio 1986). Attitude, and its accessibility, i.e.
risk perceptions in the case of snakes, is perhaps the most important element in the model
because Of its ‘filter’ function within the entire attitude—behavior process. Fazio’s model
helps to explain the affective part of human behaviors toward snakes and may be
applicable when one is surprised or stressed by a snake encounter. One acts before one
reflects. In such cases, a person’s ability to consider safe alternatives, positively identify
the snake, and clearly think through the situation is compromised (Wright et. al 2002).
Likewise, Zajonc (1980) posited that affective reactions to stimuli are often our first
reactions, and may guide subsequent information processing and judgment.

Based on the above literature review, two models were fashioned after Azjen and
Fishbein’s TRA, Fishbein’s TPB, Riley and Decker’s WSAC model for mountain lions
and Fazio’s attitude-tO-behavior process model (Figures 2.7a and 2.7b). Unlike any of
the models on which they are based, my models incorporate fear as a separate component
or determinant, of risk perceptions, and subsequent behavioral intentions and behaviors.
This is because of the influence, or impact, of fear on associated risk perceptions and
behaviors as outlined previously. Additionally, the models do not incorporate all
elements of the cognitive hierarchy but instead, are truncated because this research did
not focus on values or value orientations. This does not preclude these elements; they

simply are not the focus of the current research project.

40

In the first model, that of a planned encounter or behavior toward a rattlesnake
(Figure 2.7a), we begin with beliefs as they pertain to wildlife, and more specifically
rattlesnakes, and beliefs as they pertain to subjective norms, i.e., what others think an
individual should or should not do in the presence of rattlesnakes, as the antecedents to
all other elements in the model. From beliefs, the models flow to fear, an affective
component of risk perception. Past research on fear of snakes by non-human primates
indicates that “fear” must be learned, i.e. particular beliefs about snakes as dangerous
must be formed prior to the development of fear, such as through behavioral examples
provided by experienced adults (Mineka et a1. 1984). Thus, beliefs about rattlesnakes
contribute to risk perceptions directly but also indirectly, through their influence on fear
levels held by individuals toward snakes.

Subjective norms result from the beliefs an individualholds regarding what other
important people in that individual’s life or social circle, think the individual should or
Should not do when encountering a rattlesnake. Subjective norms and attitudes work in
concert to form behavioral intentions as presented in TRA (Figure 2.2).

Risk perception is hypothesized to be an attitude or evaluative judgment (Slovic
1987) in terms of rattlesnakes that results from (1) an affective component such as fear,
and (2) beliefs, and thus, this component is subsequent to these elements. However, risk
perceptions can interfere with further information processing, i.e., belief formation, as
stated previously in this manuscript, and therefore, the arrow that flows between risk
perceptions and rattlesnake beliefs is double—ended. Risk perceptions then flow to
behavioral intentions (Figure 2.7a). As in the case of TRA (Figure 2.2), behavioral

intentions are the immediate precursors to behaviors toward rattlesnakes.

41

In the model of a surprise encounter with a rattlesnake, we begin with attitude
activation (Figure 2.7b), per Fazio (1986). I haven’t included norms in this model
because it seems unlikely that a person reacting under stress accesses thoughts about
what others think they should or should not do in the situation. Instead, once attitudes are
activated, especially in the presence of stress, selective processing of the situation occurs
and risk or hazard perceptions regarding rattlesnakes are activated. From risk
perceptions, the event or encounter is defined, and resulting behaviors ensue. This
difference in chronology of the process may be due to an impairment of cognitive
abilities that is present during stressful Situations (Wright et al. 2002), such as the strong
sensory experience provided by the surprise encounter (S joberg 1998).

The arrows in the models indicate that the processes are not necessarily linear or
unidirectional. Instead, model elements are highly integratedinto a mental representation
of the attitude object, i.e. rattlesnakes. Because of the interconnectedness of the
components, a change in any one component may lead to change in another (Zimbardo
and Leippe 1991). For example, a change in behavior may necessitate a change in beliefs

and/or attitudes when cognitive dissonance has been created (Festinger 1957).

2.4 Suggestions for Model Testing

The two conceptual models (Figures 2.7a and 2.7b) of human behaviors toward
rattlesnakes presented here are testable in several ways. We can test the strength of
relationships between beliefs and behavioral intentions by asking people about their
beliefs and behavioral intentions toward snakes (see Chapter 3, this ms), although this

portion of the model is a replicate of TRA and has been tested and validated via research

42

that has been conducted during the past twenty years. This particular test is relevant to
the model of a planned encounter with a rattlesnake (Figure 2.7a).

We can test the strength of the relationship between fear and attitudes by asking
people directly about their fears and evaluation of the attitude object of interest, i.e.
rattlesnakes. This was done in an informal sense by Christoffel (unpub. data and Figure
2.5). The two constructs are highly correlated but we are unable to ascribe causality.

We can test whether engaging in behaviors may cause positive changes in beliefs
by surveying fearful individuals regarding their beliefs about snakes, having them touch
or handle snakes, and then re-surveying them regarding their beliefs about snakes, i.e., a
test of the effects of cognitive dissonance on prior beliefs (Festinger 1957). However,
prior research with 5'h — 8'h grade girls indicated a prevention of dissonance arousal after
handing snakes and an increase in negative attitudes toward snakes after touching them in
a program (Morgan 1996). Morgan posited that females may not have felt motivated to
change their beliefs or attitudes toward snakes after touching one as would happen under
the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957), but instead, may have felt forced
into touching the snakes due to peer pressure.

The relationship between behavioral intentions toward snakes and acceptance
capacities toward snakes may be investigated by asking individuals about their
acceptance capacities and behavioral intentions toward snakes, and examining their
responses for correlation.

Similarly, the relationship between fear levels and behavioral intentions toward

snakes can be investigated by asking individuals about their level of fear toward snakes

43

and associated behavioral intentions, and examining the correlation between these two
measures.

The conceptual models of human-rattlesnake interactions presented here (Figures
2.7a and 2.7b) are hypothetical, but their elements are supported by literature from
various realms and there are ample opportunities to test various aspects of the models, as
illustrated above. An adaptive management approach, using a framework such as that
proposed by Riley et. a] (2002) under the guise of adaptive impacts management (AIM)
may then be used to guide efforts to reduce lethal human behaviors and increase

acceptance capacity for snakes.

44

 

. A
Behavrors
Numerous

Faster to change
Peripheral

Behavioral Intentions Situation-specific

 

Attitudes and Norms

 

Basic Beliefs

 

Values

Few in number
Slower to change
Central to beliefs
Transcend

v situations

 

Figure 2.1. Cognitive hierarchy, adapted from Pierce et. al, in Decker et al. 2001.

45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Person’s beliefs

that the behavior .

leads to certain Sngud-e toward the

outcomes and his e avror

or her evaluations

of these outcomes
Relative importance of Behavioral Behavior
attitudinal and normative Intention
considerations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Person’s beliefs that
specific individuals or
groups think he or she
should or should not
perform the behavior Subjective norm
and his or her
motivation to comply
with the specific
referents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.2. Factors determining a person’s behavior according to the Theory of Reasoned

Action (adapted from Azjen and Fishbein 1980).

46

 
  

  
   
   
 
    

Attitude
toward the
behavior

   

   

Subjectiv
e norm

Behavioral
Intention

 

    
   
 

Behavior

 

 

o
o
O
O
.0
I
.0
.I
.0
o
.0
o
o
O
I
O
I
.I
I
.0
O
a
O
.O
.9
I
0".
o
o
.0
o
D
.0
O
I
.I
,o
O
I
o
.0
o
I
.0
O
I
O
.0
c
u
o
I
I
..

Self-efficacy

Figure 2.3. Theory of planned behavior (TPB) adapted from Ajzen 1991.

47

 
  

Beliefs about
current cougar
populations

     
   

 

   

 
 

Attitudes
about
Cougars

Risk Perceptions

    
   
 

 

Cougar
WSAC

 

 

 

 
    

Risk Beliefs
about
Cougars

 
   
 

Figure 2.4. A conceptual model of wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC) for

cougars (adapted from Riley and Decker 2000).

48

 

 

Relationship of Fear and Like Scores toward Herptiles

..L
O
_L
O

 

 

 

9- 49
8— ~8
7' ~77
6- —6
5—— 45
4- 44
34— ~3
2- ~2
1— —»1
0 l i l l ' 1 O

 

Frog Toad Sal Turtle Lizard NV Snake V Snake

——I—— Fear +LII<e

 

 

 

Figure 2.5. Average fear and like scores for M1 and MN semi-structured interviewees (n
= 60). (Sal = Salamander, NV Snake = non—venomous snake, and V Snake = venomous
snake) For like scores, a “0” represents the sentiment, “The only good one is a dead
one”, a “5” represents neutrality and the sentiment, “I can take them or leave them”, and
a “10” represents the sentiment, “This is one of my favorite groups. I would do whatever
I could to help this group, such as managing habitat or donating money.” For fear scores,
a “0” represents being phobic and the sentiment, “If there is a TV program on in the room
that features this group, I am unable to stay in the room,” while a “10” represents a total
lack of fear, and the sentiment, “I feel perfectly comfortable around this group, and

would not hesitate to pick one up and move it should that be necessary.”

Immediate

 

AIIIIUde seIeCIIVe Perceptions Definition _
Activation—’ Perception—’ of the —’ of the '—_’ Behawor
Attitude Object Event
_ Definition
Norms r of the
Situation

Figure 2.6. An attitude-to-behavior process diagram, modeled after Fazio (1986).

50

3:585 BEBE m E moxmcmoge @339 5323 SEE: Co 283895 83 3on Eamoocou 35m Eswi

mczo Z

groansm

 

   
  

86.2328 @339
923 2:05

 

:0» x55 £220
30: Sosa £26m

   
  

 

825025
3283mm
5 3 532:5

moxecmflzam
n33»:
303:2:—
.muogesom

moxmcmozam
2 E2223 Sosa

825:2. 350 um
25:88?“ Vim

 

Sccm £26m

Ringo—3am
Lo Sow

 

 

51

a

 

.Omcesm m .o._

8283:: mm 8:388 ca 8:3 $835238 @839 8328 88:: mo Coacoumtnu 3 828:8 m3 388 3:38:00 .QIN Eswfl

 

    
        

  

 

 

 

 

   
  

moxafiozam
82:38.5 8:58am .8 25:88ch 1 moxeemocumm
83:83am 2: Co I SEE 303888 4 Song 82:32
He 8m>msom 85::on co :EeNE: 383% Mo 22338444

DHNMUOEEH

 

 

52

CHAPTER 3
SURVEY OF HUMAN BELIEFS, ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORAL

INTENTIONS TOWARDS NON -VENOMOUS SNAKES AND RATTLESNAKES

53

3.] Introduction

Insights from human dimensions research increasingly are incorporated into
natural resources management (Decker et al. 2001). Theory and methods used in human
dimensions research have drawn heavily from social psychology, which is the study of
people’s perceptions and interpretations of the social world (Aronson et al. 1999). A
cognitive approach has been proposed as a means to examine human attitudes and
behaviors toward wildlife (see Chapter 1 of this ms, Pierce et al. 2001). This approach is
based on the cognitive hierarchy (Chapter 1, Figure 1.1, Fulton et al. 1996), which
predicts that people’s values determine their attitudes, which, in turn, affect behavioral
intentions and ultimately, human behaviors (Pierce et al. 2001).

As noted (Chapter 2, this ms), one human behavior model often incorporated into
human dimensions research on attitudes and subsequent behaviors is the Theory of
Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Figure 2.2, this ms). This model was later
expanded to include self—efficacy and termed the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen
1991; Figure 2.3, this ms).

Kellert (1996), without reference to any existing human behavior model, posited
that the factors important in the formation of an individual’s attitudes and associated
behaviors toward wildlife species include: wildlife values, knowledge of wildlife,
perceptions of individual species and the human-animal relationship. However these
elements can be referenced back to TRA to include beliefs, i.e. knowledge Of wildlife;
attitudes, i.e., perceptions of individual species; and behavioral intentions, i.e., the
specifics of the human-animal interaction. Specifically to rattlesnakes, this may include

knowledge of rattlesnakes, attitudes about rattlesnakes, risk beliefs about rattlesnakes, the

54

risk perceptions that are a product of these three factors, and finally, behavioral
intentions. A person’s knowledge, beliefs and attitudes are a result of factors such as
direct and indirect experiences (see Chapter 1, this ms). Some factors may be more
influential than others and may be context—dependent.

Snakes pose a special case of human-wildlife interactions for three reasons. First,
venomous snakes pose potential risks and non-venomous (NV) snakes create perceptions
of personal risks to humans. Thus, both taxa are commonly feared (Seshadri 1984,
Steinhart 1984, Westervelt and Lewellyn 1985, Shalev and Ben-Mordehai 1996).
Second, humans generally do not value snakes. In semi-structured interviews conducted
in MI and MN (n = 60), the only advantages most individuals mentioned for sharing their
properties with snakes were pest control and existence value (Christoffel, unpubl. data).
Third, most people know little about snakes, e.g., only 31% of child and 52% of adult
respondents knew snakes were not covered with a coating of slime (Kellert and Berry
1980).

Past work to study human traits toward snakes has centered on human fear (Gear
and Turteltaub 1967, Evans 1981, Somervill et al. 1981, Klieger 1987, Merkelbach et al.
1987, Bixler et al. 1994, Davey 1994 among others) toward snakes. However, early
research also found that snakes were among the least liked animals by adults, with only
wasp, rat, mosquito, cockroach and spider ranking lower in a survey of thirty-three
species (Kellert and Berry 1980) and only rat and scorpion ranking lower by children in a
survey of thirty species (Bart 1972). Children ranked the snake as the most unpopular
animal in the United Kingdom (Morris 1960) and Czechoslovakia (Surinova 1971). Hoff

and Maple (1982) reported a greater avoidance of the 200’s reptile house by females than

55

males, with snakes being mentioned in thirty-seven of thirty-eight overheard
conversations. Kellert and Berry (1979) reported that survey respondents were less likely
to support the protection of an endangered snake than a mammal or bird. Seventy-three
percent of their respondents supported protection of mountain lions (Puma concolor),
whereas only 43% indicated support for protection of the eastern indigo snake
(Drymarchon corais couperi), a large NV snake found in the southeastern United States
(Conant and Collins 1991). Zoo visitors cared more about saving gorillas (Gorilla
gorilla) and okapis (Okapia johnstoni) than snakes and reported having greater feelings
of disgust and fearfulness and lesser feelings of attraction, caring, peacefulness and a
sense of beauty while observing a snake than a gorilla or okapi (Meyers et al. 2004).
College students reported that they would deliberately hit a snake more often than any
other animal if seen crossing a road (Langley et al. 1989). Whitaker and Shine (2000)
observed that humans were 100 times more likely to attack a snake than a snake was to
attack a human in Australia.

In contrast to the above findings, many of the (forty-five) individuals who
participated in focus groups in OH supported protection for timber rattlesnakes and were
Opposed to commercial collecting and wanton killing (Zuefle 2000). Koval and Merti g
(2002) reported that 53% of their MI respondents thought protecting endangered reptiles
was very important; only 8% thought that protecting reptiles was not at all important.

Conflicting reports of people’s attitudes toward snakes highlight a need to better
understand how people perceive snakes. There is a need for more directed studies of
human-snake relationships and interactions for their management, especially given the

number of snake populations that are either in decline or for which we have very little

56

information. Twenty-three species and subspecies of snakes are listed as threatened or
endangered in at least one of six Midwestern Great Lakes states (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH,
and W1). Two are venomous, the eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus
catenatus) and the timber rattlesnake (C rotalus horridus horridus), and are listed by
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S) Region 3 as Regional Conservation
Priorities (USFWS 2002).

The eastern massasauga rattlesnake is a candidate for listing under the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (USFWS 1999). It is listed as threatened or endangered
in every state (WI, MN, IA, MO, IL, IN, OH, PA, NY) and province (Ontario) in which it
is found (Ernst and Ernst 2003), except MI in the geographic center of its range.
Although bounties are no longer paid, there is evidence of human persecution occurring
at numerous sites across the species’ range, including within MI (Legge 1996).
Szymanski (1998) identified the top two causes of declining eastern massasauga
populations as habitat loss and persecution; the magnitude of known population declines
varied from 33% in M1 to 100% in MN. In M1, the species is listed as special concern
and is protected by a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Director’s order,
prohibiting the keeping of the Species or its parts, without a permit issued by DNR.

The timber rattlesnake is under consideration for listing as a candidate species
under the federal ESA. It has been extirpated in RI and ME, and is listed as endangered
(CT, MA, NH, NJ, OH, VT, VA, IN) threatened (IL, N Y,TX, MN) or a species of special
concern (PA, WV, WI) in fifteen states (Ernst and Ernst 2003, IN DNR 2007, MN DNR
2007). More than any other factor, human exploitation through harvest, particularly the

high proportion of reproductive females taken during such harvests, has been suggested

57

as the cause for recent depletions and extirpations of many timber rattlesnake populations
(Brown 1993). MN discontinued offering bounty payments on timber rattlesnakes in
1989 (Oldfield and Moriarty 1994) and listed the species as threatened in 1996 (MN
DNR 1998).

M1 and MN each currently host only one rattlesnake (RS) and more than a dozen
NV snake species (Hohlman et al. 1999, Oldfield and Moriarty 1994). NV snakes pose
no risk to humans, other than a potentially startling encounter. In semi-structured
interviews, Christoffel (unpubl. data) found that interviewees held at least moderately
positive feelings toward NV snakes, though these animals were feared more than
salamanders, frogs, toads, turtles and lizards. Only RS scored less than neutral on the
like scale used in the interviews, and RS were the most feared of the seven groups of
amphibians and reptiles presented to individuals in pictures.

One goal of this work was to characterize stakeholder experiences and knowledge
as it pertains to local snake species and associated regulations, beliefs, attitudes and
behavioral intentions toward NV snakes and RS in MI and MN, and to compare and
contrast results from the two states. A second goal was to determine whether
stakeholders were more likely to support the conservation of NV snakes than RS by
testing three hypotheses using data collected through self-administered mail
questionnaires. The hypotheses were: (1) stakeholders possess less knowledge about RS
than NV snakes, (2) stakeholders hold more negative attitudes toward RS than NV
snakes, and (3) stakeholders are more likely to intend to engage in negative behaviors

toward RS than NV snakes.

58

3.2 Study Areas

Two areas were selected in southeastern MI and southeastern MN. The most
important criterion for area selection was the conservation status of eastern massasauga
rattlesnakes and timber rattlesnakes and the immediate needs of the states’ natural
resources agencies to address RS snake conservation in areas of habitat that were facing
increasing human development pressures. Study areas allowed for a comparison of
stakeholder beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions between states and consisted of
four counties in which one of two RS snake species (i.e., the timber rattlesnake in MN,
and the eastern massasauga rattlesnake in MI) existed. Complete descriptions of the

county-wide demographic information and ecoregions are provided in Chapter 1.

3.3 Methods

Data were collected via self-administered mail questionnaires (Appendix A.3.).
Residents of eight counties where RS existed in MI and MN were randomly sampled (n =
4,000) for survey participation. It was assumed that stakeholders who lived in more rural
areas would be more likely to have a snake encounter of any kind. Therefore, the
sampling scheme was designed to assure that there would be an adequate number of
individuals from rural areas as well as the densely populated areas in each of the study
counties. In MI, 200 respondents were selected randomly from urban ZIP codes and 300
respondents were selected randomly from rural ZIP codes in each county. In MN, the
only urban area included in the four study counties was Winona (estimated population of
27,069). Two hundred respondents were sampled randomly from Winona ZIP codes and

the remaining respondents were chosen from less populated ZIP codes. Sampling lists

59

were purchased from Survey Sampling International (881, Fairfield, CT), a national firm
specializing in survey sampling and research.

Prior to finalizing the survey instrument, it was reviewed for clarity by an expert
panel consisting of faculty at MI State University (MSU) and a research associate from
Cornell University. The instrument was pre-tested by thirty MSU undergraduate students
enrolled in an introductory fish and wildlife management course (winter term 2005).
Survey questions were revised based on input from the expert panel and pre-testing with
MSU undergraduates, prior to their inclusion in the final instrument.

A modified version of Dillman’s (2000) tailored design method consisting of six
mailings was used to conduct the mail survey. A pre-notice was sent to individuals three
days prior to questionnaire mailing to ask for participation (Appendix A. l .a.). The
survey mailing included an introductory cover letter, the questionnaire, a self—addressed
stamped envelope, and an incentive (three first-class postage stamps) for completion and
return of the instrument (Appendix A. lb). The cover letter included an explanation of
the survey, its relevance, informed consent language, and a request that the residing adult
(_>_ 18 years) who would next celebrate his or her birthday fill out the questionnaire. In
addition to asking stakeholders about their beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions
toward snakes, information was sought pertaining to resources used by individuals to
learn about wildlife in their area. A reminder and thank you postcard (Appendix A.4.)
was sent out one week after the initial survey mailing to thank participants who had
already completed and mailed back their surveys and to remind others to do the same.
For individuals who did not respond, a modified second letter (Appendix A5) and a

complete second survey was mailed out four weeks after the initial survey mailing. A

60

final survey and modified cover letter (Appendix A.6.) were mailed two months after the
initial survey mailing to individuals who still did not respond. Finally, an abbreviated
instrument (Appendix A.7.) was mailed to non-respondents three months after the initial
survey mailing to assess non-response bias. A detailed chronology of the mail surveys is
contained in Appendix A.8.

To test the first hypothesis that stakeholders possess less knowledge about RS
than NV snakes, knowledge was measured using seven questionnaire items to construct a
knowledge scale (Table 3.4). Responses were scored as “correct” = l or “incorrect,
unsure or no opinion” 2 0. Knowledge scale scores ranged 0 - 7, with 7 being a perfect
score. Three items were specific to NV snakes, three items were specific to RS, and one
item queried respondents regarding their awareness of state laws protecting any types of
snakes. A paired samples t-test was used to compare NV and RS scores (0-3 in each
case). Linear regression was used to identify the variables that explained the greatest
degree of variation in overall (0—7) snake knowledge scores.

To test the role that prior experiences (direct or indirect) potentially play in
determining attitudes toward snakes, respondents were asked to report their experiences
with NV snakes and RS. Direct experiences with wildlife during childhood have been
shown to be influential in adult attitudes toward wildlife (Kellert 1976). Eleven possible
experiences with NV snakes and RS were listed and respondents were asked to mark an
“X” in the box to the right of each statement that applied as relevant to them (Table 3.8).
Each marked box was scored as “1” and each blank box was scored as “0” in each
column. NV snake and RS experience scores ranged 0 - 11. A separate item asked

respondents the number of times they personally had observed a RS in their

61

neighborhoods in the past year. We used this item to gauge whether respondents had
recent direct evidence for the presence of RS in their neighborhoods.

To test whether stakeholders held more negative attitudes toward RS than NV
snakes, NV snake and RS attitude scales were constructed, based upon twelve belief
statements (Appendix A.3.) derived, in part, from Riley (1998). A Likert-type scale
(Babble 1973) including Strongly Agree, Agree, Unsure, Disagree, and Strongly
Disagree was used to collect data and derive scale scores. Scale items were scored from
+2 (most positive) to —2 (most negative), dependent on the valence and intensity of their
attitude evaluative component (positive or negative, somewhat or very, toward snakes).
“Unsure” responses were coded as “0” because unsure responses could not be interpreted
to either add to or subtract from a person’s attitude score. Respondents having one or
more missing items for either the NV snake or RS scales were excluded from that scale’s
analysis. Linear regression was used to identify the variables that explained the greatest
degree of variation in NV snake and RS attitude scores.

Reliability analyses were run for the NV snake and RS attitude scales, yielding
Cronbach’s alphas of (0.91) and (0.91), respectively. Factor analyses were run on each
set of belief statements that composed the attitude scales. Two factors were identified
for each of the attitude scales. The first factor for the NV snake attitude scale was
identified as impersonal risk and consisted of six belief statements; the second factor was
stewardship, consisting of five statements (Table 3.1). The first factor for the RS attitude
scale was stewardship and included six belief statements; the second was impersonal risk

and consisted of six belief statements (Table 3.1).

62

It was hypothesized that individuals who were at least somewhat interested in
snakes would have greater knowledge about, experiences with, and more positive
attitudes toward, snakes. Therefore, respondents were queried regarding their personal
interest level in snakes. Response options included: very interested (+4), somewhat
interested (+3), no opinion (88, excluded from analyses), somewhat disinterested (+2)
and very disinterested (+1).

A wildlife and outdoor activities scale was constructed from fourteen
questionnaire items, in which respondents indicated whether or not they participated in a
particular activity, and if so, how often (Appendix A.3.). This scale was constructed as a
relative measure of the amount of time that an individual regularly spent recreating
outdoors and participating in wildlife-related activities. It was thought that people who
engaged more frequently and in greater numbers of activities would have greater
knowledge about snakes and more positive attitudes toward wildlife (Koval and Mertig
2002), including snakes. Listed activities included: view wildlife, feed birds, garden,
hike or bike in natural or recreational areas, visit zoos or nature centers, camp, view
wildlife TV programs, read about wildlife, watch wildlife-related movies, feed wildlife,
photograph wildlife, use wildlife in artwork, hunt and trap. Response options and scores
included: Frequently (3 ), Occasionally (2), Rarely (1 ), and Never (0). A wildlife and
outdoor activities score (0 - 42) was calculated by summing a respondent’s score for the
fourteen questionnaire items.

Finally, to test the hypothesis that more stakeholders intend to engage in negative
behaviors toward RS than NV snakes, a statement that examined an individual’s intention

to act in a manner that would likely result in a lethal outcome for NV snakes and RS was

63

used as a proxy for behaviors because such behaviors could not be directly measured
(Appendix A.3.). Linear regression was used to identify the factors that explained most
of the variation in whether respondents would have a NV snake or RS removed from
their properties regardless of the consequences for the animal.

Respondents were classified into three stakeholder groups based on their
geographic proximity to RS, and knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions were
compared among stakeholder groups. A questionnaire item which asked, “How many
rattlesnakes do you think currently live in your neighborhood?” and had several response
options was recoded into a variable with “0” indicating the belief that no RS existed in a
respondent’s neighborhood, “1” indicating beliefs that few, some, or a lot of RS existed
in the respondent’s neighborhood, and “99” indicating uncertainty regarding the presence
of RS in the respondent’s neighborhood.

Analytical procedures included reliability analysis on attitude scale items to
confirm their utility in future work with other audiences. Factor analysis was used to
confirm the scales’ construct validity. Independent samples t-tests, Chi-squared tests,
ANOVA and general linear models were used to test for differences in knowledge,
experience, attitudes, desires and intentions between rural and urban respondents, males
and females, MI and MN respondents, previously defined RS stakeholder groups and
other post de facto groups. Linear regression, employing a stepwise procedure, was used
to identify factors that explained the greatest degree of variation in dependent variables
such as snake knowledge and NV snake and RS attitude scores and behavioral intentions
toward NV snakes and RS. Model selection was based on changes in adjusted R2 values

using a Significance level of p g 0.05. Effect sizes for independent variables included in

64

models were calculated and are reported as suggested by Gliner et al. (2001). SPSS

(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) versions 13.0 and 15.0 were used to run all analyses.

3.4 Results

A response rate for each state was calculated using procedures recommended by
Babbie (1973). Of the 2,000 questionnaires mailed in MN, forty-five were returned as
undeliverable or unable to respond, resulting in an effective sample size of 1,955. Of
these, 1,298 were at least partially completed and returned, yielding a response rate of
66.4%. Of the 2,000 questionnaires mailed in MI, thirty-eight were returned as
undeliverable or unable to respond yielding an effective sample size of 1,962 of which
1,092 surveys were at least partially completed and returned, resulting in a response rate
of 56.6%. Ninety-eight (98/1955 = 5%) and seventy-eight (78/1962 = 4%) completed
non-response instruments were returned in MN and MI, respectively. MN and MI
respondents expressed greater interest in snakes and were more likely to believe that RS
should be protected than non-respondents. MN respondents were also less likely to feel
at personal risk from RS than non-respondents.

Results were not pooled for M1 and MN respondents because of obvious
differences between the two samples (Table 3.2). MN respondents were older, lived in
more rural settings currently and as children, and had lived longer at their current
residences than MI respondents. A greater proportion of MI respondents (52.7%) held

college degrees than MN respondents (33.5%).

65

3.4.1 Wildlife and Outdoor Activities and Interests

Rural respondents scored higher than urban respondents on the wildlife and
outdoor activities scale in MI (means 2 21.66 i 0.27 and 19.04 i 0.39 respectively, t = -
5.589, df = 902, p < 0.001) and MN (means = 20.94 i 0.24 and 19.33 i 0.70 respectively,
t = —2. 123, df = 937, p = 0.03), but mean wildlife and outdoor activities scores did not
differ by state (M1 = 20.74 _-_I-_ 0.23 and MN = 20.79 i 0.23, t = —0. 147, df = 1841, p =
0.88). Respondents who believed that they lived in the presence of RS scored higher
than respondents who thought otherwise (Table 3.3). Males scored higher than females
in MI and MN (means = 21.24 3; 0.27 and 19.72 i 0.42, t = 3.098, df= 888, p = 0.02,
95% CI for difference = 0.555 — 2.474 and means = 21.23 i 0.26 and 19.46 i: 0.48, t =
3.32, df = 887, p = 0.001, 95% CI for difference = 0.693 — 2.790, respectively). MI
respondents who held a college degree scored lower on the wildlife and outdoor activities
scale than respondents who did not hold a college degree (n = 855, means 2 20.02 i 0.31
and 21.46 i 0.34, t = -3.09, df = 853, p = 0.002). Average wildlife and outdoor activities
scores in MN did not differ between respondents who held a college degree and those
who did not (n = 847, means = 20.97 i 0.36 and 20.55 ;I-_ 0.31, t = 0.90, adj. df = 723, p =
0.37).
3.4.2 Knowledge about Snakes

Mean knowledge scores differed in MI and MN, 3.3 i 0.06 and 2.8 i 0.05
respectively (n = 2,068, t = 5.41, adj. df = 1,972, p < 0.01), although effect size (r = 0.1)
was small. Less than a quarter (23.8%) of respondents completed all seven knowledge
items on the questionnaire without using an “unsure” response one or more times. For

respondents who did complete all seven items without marking unsure to any, the average

66

score was 71%. Only thirteen respondents (0.6%) scored all seven items correctly. The
two items most often answered incorrectly included one in which respondents were asked
to indicate the number of NV snake species living in their state (i.e. q9, Appendix A3;
91.5%, n = 876 and 93.1%, n =l,033 in MI and MN, respectively) and knowledge of
existing snake regulations (i.e. ql3, Appendix A3, 87.3%, n = 1,042 and 81.9%, n =
1,204 in MI and MN, respectively). Frequency of correct responses regarding numbers
of NV snake species did not differ between states (n = 2067, x2 = 1.697, df = 1, p =
0.213), but a lesser proportion of MI respondents (12.7%) knew of existing snake
regulations than MN respondents (18.1%) (n = 2,246, x2 = 12.56, df = 1, p < 0.001, r =
0.08). Proportions of individuals in each State that scored incorrectly on specific items
sometimes differed dramatically, but often demonstrated very similar patterns across
groups (Table 3.4).

In MI, knowledge about NV snakes and RS did not differ (n = 961, means = 1.58
i 0.03 and 1.53 i 0.04 respectively, t = 1.82, df = 960, p = 0.07). However, MN
respondents scored more items about NV snakes correctly than items about RS (n =
1,119, means = 1.50 i 0.03 and 1.15 j; 0.03, respectively, t = 13.37, df = 1,118, p < 0.01).
In MI and MN, males scored higher than females (n = 942, means = 3.44 i 0.07 and 2.86
i 0.10, t = 4.707, df= 940, p < 0.001 and n = 1,050, means 2 3.05 _-_l-_ 0.06 and 2.14 _-I;
0.10, t = 7.842, df = 1,048, p < 0.001, respectively). Rural respondents scored higher
than urban respondents in MI but not MN (n = 921, means = 3.35 i 0.07 and 3.07 i 0.10,
t= 2.29, df= 955, p < 0.02 and n = 1,111, means = 2.86 _-I; 0.05 and 2.63 i 0.16, t =
1.372, df = 1,109, p = 0.17, respectively). Respondents in MI had slightly greater mean

NV snake and RS knowledge scores than in MN (n = 2.155, NV snake knowledge means

67

= 1.59 i 0.03 and 1.50 i 0.03, t = 2.66, df= adj. df = 2,132, p = 0.008, r = 0.05 and n =
2,177, RS knowledge means 2 1.51 i 0.03 and 1.15 i 0.03, t = 8.24, adj. df = 2,005, p <
0.001, r = 0.18). In MI and MN, respondents who believed they lived in areas with RS
scored more snake knowledge items correctly than respondents who believed RS were
absent and respondents who were unsure whether RS were present (Table 3.5).

A stepwise regression procedure indicated that the NV impersonal risk variable
explained the greatest degree of variation in snake knowledge scores in MI and MN
(Tables 3.6 and 3.7). This was the only variable that had a large effect; all other variables
included in the models had small effects (Tables 3.6 and 3.7).

3.4.3 Snake Experiences

Respondents had few kinds of experiences with NV snakes or RS (Table 3.8).

The average number of types of experiences that MI respondents had with NV snakes
(mean = 2.04 i 0.04) was greater than MN respondents (mean = 1.88 i 0.04, n = 2,247, t
= 2.88, df = 2,245, p = 0.004). MI respondents more often had observed a NV snake in
the wild (n =2,258, x2 = 10.051, df = 1, p = 0.002), had a NV snake as a pet (n = 2,2,55, x2
= 4.156, df = 1, p = 0.045) and had a friend or neighbor who had a NV snake as a pet (n =
2,258, x2 = 8.129, df = 1, p = 0.005) than MN respondents. In contrast, MN respondents
had a greater average number of types of experiences with R8 (mean = 1.41 _-_I-_ 0.04) than
MI respondents (mean = 0.93 i 0.04, n = 2,247, t = 8.36, df = 2,245, p < 0.001). MN
respondents had more Often observed a RS in the wild (n = 2,257, x2 = 42.971, df = 1, p <
0.001), had a friend or neighbor who had observed a RS in the wild (n = 2,255, x2 =
90.562, df = 1, p < 0.001), witnessed a RS being killed by authorities, such as police (n =

2,258, x2 = 5.197, df = 1, p = 0.023), read or heard of a RS being killed by authorities,

68

such as police (n = 2,258, x2 = 14.960, df = l, p < 0.01), had a pet threatened or bitten by
a RS (n = 2,254, )8 = 4.918, df = 1, p = 0.027), been personally bitten or threatened by a
RS (n = 2,256, x2 = 13.024, df = 1, p < 0.01) and had a friend or neighbor who was bitten
or threatened by a RS than MI respondents (n = 2,256, x2 = 5.486, df = 1, p = 0.02).

Rural respondents in MI had more often observed a RS in the wild (n = 1,045,
30.0% vs. 23.1%, x2 = 5.74, df = .1, p = 0.02) than their urban counterparts. No other
differences in experiences were detected between rural and urban respondents in either
M1 or MN.

Male respondents in MI had more often observed a NV snake in the wild (n =
1,030, 89.7% vs. 79.3%, x2 = 21.07, df = 1, p < 0.01), been bitten or threatened by a NV
snake (n = 1,031, 9.7% vs. 4.3%, x2 = 9.23, df = 1, p < 0.01 ), more often observed a RS
in the wild (n = 1,028, 30.7% vs. 21.8%, x2 = 9.09, df= 1, p _< 0.01), and known others
who had Observed a RS in the wild (n = 1,028, 32.1% vs. 22.1%, x2 = 11.10, df= 1, p <
0.01) than female respondents. A greater prOportion of female than male respondents in
MI reported having a RS experience other than those listed (n = 1,028, 2.9% vs. 1.2%, x2
= 3.85, df = l, p = 0.05). In MN, males had more often observed a NV snake in the wild
(n = 1,142, 86% vs. 68.3%, X2 = 45.264, p < 0.001) had been bitten or threatened by a
NV snake (n = 1,141, 7.7% vs. 2.0%, X2 = 11.775, p = 0.001), observed a RS in the wild
(n = 1,143, 45.5% vs. 28.0%, X2 = 15.064, p < 0.001), knew others who had observed a
RS in the wild (n =1,142, 51.7% vs. 38.6%, X2 = 15.064, p < 0.001) and had been bitten
or threatened by a RS (n = 1,41, 7.2% vs. 2.7%, X2 = 7.634, p = 0.006) than females.

Overall, in both states combined, 186 respondents (8.2%, n = 2,255) indicated

they had personally observed a RS in their neighborhoods in the past year. A greater

69

proportion of MN respondents had observed RS in their neighborhoods in the past year (n
= 2,255, 9.6% vs. 6.7%, x2 = 6.306, df= 1, p = 0.012) than MI respondents. or the
respondents who indicated they had personally observed a RS in their neighborhoods in
the past year, 92.3% (n = 169) had been classified in the group of stakeholders with RS
in their neighborhoods, 3.8% (n = 7) had been classified in the group of stakeholders
without RS in their neighborhoods, and 3.8% (n = 7) had been classified as unsure
whether or not RS were in their neighborhoods.
3.4.4 Attitudes toward Snakes

Respondents’ interest level in snakes averaged 2.5 on a scale from 1-4. Interest
levels did not differ between MI (mean = 2.50 :t 0.03) and MN (mean = 2.46 i 0.03) (n
=1 ,746, t = 0.77, df = 1,744, p = 0.44). In MI, interest levels were greater for males
(mean = 2.58) than females (mean = 2.37 i 0.04) (n = 819, t: 2.91, adj. df = 475, p <
0.01) and greater for rural (mean = 2.56 :1; 0.04) than urban (mean = 2.39 i 0.05) (n =
833, t = 2.57, df = 831, p = 0.01) respondents. Interest levels did not differ between
respondents who had a college degree (mean = 2.52 i 0.05) and those who did not have a
college degree (mean = 2.48 i 0.05) (n = 784, t = 0.61, adj. df= 760, p = 0.55).

In MN, interest levels were greater for males (mean = 2.56 i 0.04) than females
(mean = 2.19 i 0.07) (n = 857, t = 5.00, adj. df = 388, p < 0.01). Respondents who had a
college degree (mean = 2.62 i 0.05) had greater interest in snakes than respondents who
did not have a college degree (mean = 2.37.: 0.04) (n = 811, t = 3.52, adj. df = 630, p <
0.01). Rural (mean = 2.46 i 0.03) and urban (mean = 2.53 i 0.11) respondents did not

differ (n = 913, t = - 0.59, df= 911, p = 0.56).

70

MI and MN stakeholder groups differed in their interest levels toward snakes
(Table 3.9). Respondents who believed that they lived in areas with RS had greater
interest levels about snakes than both respondents who believed RS were absent and
unsure respondents. Interest in snakes also differed among age groups in MI and MN
(Table 3.10). Respondents who were > 65 years old had the lowest levels of interest in
snakes in both states.

ANOVA was used to test for differences among levels of interest and NV and RS
snake experience in MI and MN (Tables 3.11 and 3.12), snake knowledge scores in MI
and MN (Table 3.13), NV snake and RS snake attitude scores in MI and MN (Table 3.14
and Table 3.15), and NV and RS snake behavioral intentions in MI and MN (Tables 3.16
and 3.17).

Mean scores for the NV snake and RS attitude scales in each state were calculated
and an independent samples t-test was used to identify differences in scores between
states (Table 3.18). Rural respondents (mean = 13.00 i 0.33) and urban respondents
(mean = 12.29 _+_ 0.44) (n = 1,065, t = 1.29, df = 1,063, p = 0.20) in MI did not differ in
their attitudes toward NV snakes. MI males held more positive attitudes (mean = 13.89 _-_I-_
0.29) than female respondents (mean = 10.53 i 0.53) (n =1,048, t = 5.54, adj. df = 550, p
< 0.01). MI respondents who held a college degree had more positive attitudes (mean =
13.55 i 0.35) than respondents who did not hold a college degree (mean = 12.51 i 0.41)
(n = 1,002, t = 1.940, adj. df = 951, p = 0.05). MI respondents who were greater than
sixty-five years old held less positive attitudes toward NV snakes than any other age class

(Table 3.19). Each of the MI stakeholder groups differed in their NV attitude scores

71

(Table 3.20); respondents who believed that RS lived in their area held more positive
attitudes than respondents who believed that RS were absent and unsure respondents.

Similar to MI, MN rural (mean = 10.85 i 0.26) and urban (mean 11.00 i 0.87)
respondents did not differ in their NV attitude scores (n = 1,192, t = -0.176, df = 1,190, p
= 0.86). MN males held more positive attitudes (mean = 12.02 _-I_-_ 0.27) toward NV
snakes than females (mean = 7.36 -_l-_ 0.55) (n = 1,125, I = 7.56, adj. df= 428, p < 0.01).
MN respondents who held a college degree had more positive NV attitudes scores (mean
= 12.20 i 0.43) than respondents without a college degree (mean = 9.91 _-l_- 0.32) (n =
1,074, t = 4.23, df = 1,072, p < 0.01). MN respondents who were greater than sixty-five
years old held the least positive attitudes toward NV snakes (Table 3.19). As in MI, each
of the three MN Stakeholder groups differed in their NV attitude scores (Table 3.20);
respondents who believed that RS lived in their area held more positive attitudes than
respondents who believed that RS were absent and unsure respondents.

MI rural respondents held more positive attitudes toward RS (mean = 5.94) than
their urban counterparts (mean = 3.24) (n = 1,017, I = -4.23, df = 1,015, p < 0.01). Male
respondents held more positive attitudes (mean = 6.50) than female respondents (mean =
2.24) (n = 1,042, t = 7.004, df = 1,040, p < 0.01). Respondents who held a college
degree (mean = 5.72) did not differ from respondents without a college degree (mean =
4.75) on the RS attitude scale (n = 999, t = 1.623, df = 997, p = 0.11). Respondents
greater than sixty-five years old held the least positive attitudes toward RS (Table 3.21)
of any age class. Each of the MI stakeholder groups differed in their RS attitude scores
(Table 3.22); respondents who believed that RS were present in their areas had the most

positive scores.

'72

MN rural (mean = 4.11 i 0.27) and urban (mean = 4.28 i 0.92) respondents did
not differ in their RS attitude scores (n = 1,185, t = —0.18, adj. df= 133, p = 0.86). Male
MN respondents (mean = 5.22 :1; 0.30) held more positive attitudes than female
respondents (mean = 1.16 i 0.52) (n = 1,120, t = 6.82, df= 1,118, p < 0.01). MN
respondents who held a college degree (mean = 5.64 j; 0.46) had more positive RS
attitude scores than respondents without a college degree (mean = 3.29 i: 0.33) (n =
1,071, t = 4.18, df = 1,069, p < 0.01). The oldest age class of respondents held the least
positive RS attitude scores of any of the age classes (Table 3.21). MN stakeholder
groups differed from one another in their RS attitude scores; respondents who believed
that RS were present in their areas had the most positive attitudes (Table 3.22).

Some respondents marked “unsure” for each of the NV snake and RS attitude
items, particularly RS attitude items (Figures 3.1, 3.2). More than 50% of respondents
were unsure whether or not RS caused deaths annually to MI (53.8%) or MN (55.8%)
residents. Almost half (48%) of MI respondents marked no items as “unsure” on the NV
snake attitude scale, yet only 18% marked no items as “unsure” on the RS attitude scale.
In MN, 41% of the respondents marked no items as unsure on the NV snake attitude
scale, but only 22% of respondents marked no items as unsure on the RS attitude scale.

MI respondents expressed more positive attitudes toward NV snakes and RS than
MN respondents. NV attitude scores in MI and MN averaged 12.75 :t 0.27 and 10.87 i
0.25 (n =2,257, t = 5.21, df = 2,255, p < 0.01), and RS attitude scores averaged 5.09 :1;
0.29 and 4.12 10.26 (n = 2,177, t = 2.49, df = 2,175, p = 0.01). NV snake attitude scores
for rural respondents in MI and MN differed 13.00 :1; 0.33 and 10.85 i 0.26, respectively

(n = 1,759, t = 5.18, df = 1,757, p < 0.01), as did RS attitude scores 5.46 i037 and 4.11

73

i 0.27 (n = 1,750, t = 2.94, df = 1,335, p < 0.01). NV snake attitude scores did not differ
for urban respondents in MI and MN 12.29 i 0.44 and 11.00 i 0.87 (n = 498, t = 1.38, df
= 496, p = 0.17) nor did RS attitude scores (4.43 i 0.46 and 4.28 i 0.92, respectively; n =
493, t = 0.15, df = 491, p = 0.88). MI and MN respondents who believed that RS were
present in their neighborhoods had more positive NV snake and RS attitude scores than
respondents who thought otherwise (Table 3.23).

The variables that explained the greatest degree of variation in NV snake attitude
scores for M1 respondents were (1) snake knowledge score, (2) interest level in snakes,
(3) whether a respondent managed for wildlife, and (4) gender (Table 3.24). The
variables that explained the greatest degree of variation in NV snake attitude scores for
MN respondents were (1) snake knowledge score, (2) interest level in snakes, (3)
educational level achieved, (4) gender, and (5) whether a respondent had observed a RS
in his or her neighborhood in the past year (Table 3.25).

The variables that explained the greatest degree of variation in RS attitude scores
for M1 respondents were (1) snake knowledge score, (2) interest level in snakes, and (3)
gender (Table 3.26). The variables that explained the greatest degree of variation in RS
attitude scores for MN respondents were (1) snake knowledge score, (2) interest level in
snakes, (3) perceived change in the RS population in a respondent’s area, (4) whether or
not a respondent had observed a RS in the past year, and (5) a respondent’s wildlife and
outdoor activity score (Table 3.27).

3.4.5 Behavioral Intentions toward Snakes
Some MI and MN respondents were unsure whether they would be less likely to

have a NV snake (16.8% and 27.3%, respectively) or RS (28.2% and 28.0%,

74

respectively) moved from their properties if they knew that the snake would likely die as
a result. A greater proportion of MN respondents were unsure whether they would be
less likely to have a NV snake moved (n = 2,245, X72 = 35.33, df = l, p < 0.01) than MI
respondents. The proportion of MI and MN respondents who were unsure whether they
would have a RS moved did not differ (n = 2,236, X2 = 0.02, df = 1, p = 0.89). Unsure
responses were not included in the following analyses.

Respondents in M1 were much more likely to consider not having a NV snake
(79%) than a RS (45.1%) removed from their property, given that the snake would likely
die as a result (n = 652, X2 = 1 1 1.99, df = 1, p < 0.01). In MN, respondents were also
much more likely to consider not having a NV snake (71.3%) than a RS (39.6%)
removed from their property, given the snake would likely die as a result (n = 666, X2 =
120.66, df = l, p < 0.01). Regardless of its fate, 21.0% of MI respondents and 28.7% of
MN respondents would move a NV snake. In contrast, 54.9% of MI respondents and
60.4% of MN respondents would move a RS regardless of its fate.

The variables that explained the greatest degree of variation in whether a MI
respondent would be less likely to have a NV snake removed included (1) NV impersonal
risk score and (2) whether a respondent seeks information on local wildlife issues (Table
3.28). The variables that explained the greatest amount of variation in whether a MN
respondent would be less likely to have a NV snake removed included (1) NV impersonal
risk score, (2) whether a respondent seeks information on local wildlife issues, and (3)
belief of how the NV snake population has changed in a respondent’s area during the

time the respondent has lived there (Table 3.29).

75

The variables that explained the greatest amount of variation in whether a MI
respondent would be less likely to have a RS removed included (1) RS impersonal risk
score, (2) whether or not a respondent felt that close contacts between RS and humans
was increasing in their area, and (3) whether or not a respondent had seen a RS in their
neighborhood in the past year (Table 3.30). The variables that explained the greatest
amount of variation in whether a MN respondent would be less likely to have a RS
removed included (1) RS impersonal risk score, (2) interest level in snakes and (3) self-

perceived personal risk from RS (Table 3.31).

3.5 Discussion

Given that the average level of interest in snakes expressed by respondents was
“somewhat interested” and non-respondents gave “lack Of interest in the survey issues” as
one Of the reasons for not completing and returning their questionnaires, it may be
interpreted that snake conservation and management was more salient to respondents
than non-respondents. Respondents were also more likely to feel that RS Should be
legally protected than non—respondents. In addition, MN non-respondents felt at greater
personal risk from RS than MN respondents and had I been able to collect data from
these individuals, the results could have differed for MN.

Not surprisingly, respondents had fewer types of experiences with RS than NV
snakes, but types of experiences were low in both cases. The most commonly
experienced encounter consisted of observing a NV snake or RS in the wild. Though the
types of experiences were especially low for RS, the experiences did have impact in

terms of MN respondents’ snake knowledge scores and NV snake and RS attitude scores,

76

and in terms of MI respondents’ behavioral intentions toward RS. These findings are
consistent with the human behavior models that underlie this work (Chapter 2, this ms).

As hypothesized, interest level in snakes was positively related to snake
experience scores, snake knowledge scores, snake attitude scores and behavioral
intentions towards snakes. Respondents appeared to have little knowledge about NV
snakes and RS, at least in terms of the seven knowledge items included in the mail
questionnaire used in this study. Low knowledge about most wildlife in the US. was
observed by Kellert and Berry (1980) more than 20 years ago, and others more recently
(Zinn and Andelt 1999). There was a particularly low level of knowledge regarding local
snake species richness and policies protecting snakes. Such a lack of cognizance of
existing regulations may not bode well for adherence to such regulations. Knowledge or
awareness of existing regulations, however, does not always appear to stop people from
killing snakes (Whitaker and Shine 2000). Other aspects of snakes seemed quite well
known, such as the extremely low likelihood of transfer of disease from wild snakes to
humans and knowledge of a lack of deaths caused by NV snakebite. This study supports
the hypothesis that Stakeholders are more knowledgeable about NV snakes than RS.

Knowledge about snakes explained the greatest degree of variation and was the
most important determinant of NV snake and RS attitude scores in MI and MN. These
findings also offer support for models of human behavior as presented in Chapter 2, but
Kellert (1993) posited that knowledge is used more often as a basis for reinforcing and
rationalizing attitudes rather than as an agent of attitude change.

One of the most surprising findings of this research was that despite the mistaken

beliefs that people often hold about snakes, people do appear to have more positive than

77

negative attitudes toward snakes, especially NV snakes. This was in contrast to study
expectations that people would be more likely to hold negative rather than positive
attitudes toward snakes. However, there was support for the study’s second hypothesis,
in that stakeholders held more positive beliefs and fewer negative beliefs toward NV
snakes than RS. One factor that may be responsible for fewer positive beliefs toward RS
is the fact that large percentages of respondents were either unsure (54.9%) or believed
that RS bites caused deaths (13.5%) to M1 or MN residents annually. This risk belief
may result in elevated risk perceptions regarding RS. Snake experts have posited that
fear of being bitten is the number one landowner concern regarding eastern massasauga
rattlesnakes (D.J. Case and Associates 2002). Venomous bite or sting was identified as
one of the ten most over-estimated causes of mortality in a study of risk beliefs (Slovic et
al. 1979). Additionally, fewer questionnaire respondents had experiences with RS than
NV snakes, and of those, fewer kinds of experiences for RS than NV snakes. The
associated lack of familiarity may also contribute to fewer positive beliefs and less
positive attitudes toward RS.

Another unexpected finding of this study was the demonstration of more positive
attitudes toward both NV snakes and RS by rural residents than urban residents. Prior
research on wildlife attitudes and value orientations suggested that rural residents were
more likely to hold utilitarian value orientations and less likely to hold humanistic and
moralistic value orientations toward wildlife than urban residents (Kellert and Berry
1982). More recently and specifically, three studies examining rural and urban
respondents’ attitudes toward prairie dogs in the Great Plains (Reading et al. 1999; Zinn

and Andelt 1999; Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service 2001) suggested that urban

78

respondents held more positive attitudes than rural respondents toward these rodents.
Given that interviewees provided few recognized utilitarian benefits of snakes in MI and
MN when queried in semi-structured interviews (Christoffel, unpub. data), it was
expected that rural respondents would have less positive attitudes than urban respondents.
Contrary to expectations, individuals who believed they were living in areas with
RS expressed more positive attitudes toward both NV snakes and RS than respondents
who felt that RS were absent or were unsure whether RS were present. Individuals who
live in RS habitat are more likely to be able to observe snakes in the wild and benefit
from their rodent control, but also live with the risk of encountering and potentially being
bitten by them. This finding is similar to Peyton et al.’s (2001) work on black bears in
MI but differs from past research on cougars (Riley and Decker 2000b) and wolves
(Williams et al. 2002), where individuals who believed that they did not live in proximity
to potentially dangerous wildlife held more positive attitudes than respondents who
believed that they lived in proximity to potentially dangerous wildlife. It may be that
individuals who live in close proximity to RS acclimate to RS presence over time, or that
individuals living in close proximity to RS so seldom have recognized encounters that
their risk perceptions are reduced over time. This latter explanation has some support
provided by the NV snake and RS experience reports of respondents. Snakes are
cryptically colored, and can often be within inches of a human but not detected (Whitaker
and Shine 2000), or respondents may be out in their neighborhoods in the presence of
snakes without knowing it. Perhaps encounters with at least some of the snake species
native to respondents’ areas are not very memorable because of the animals’ small size

(Hohlman et a1. 1999, Oldfield and Moriarty 1994) or other features of the encounter.

79

Less than 10% of respondents reported having observed a RS during the past year in their
neighborhoods.

As expected, people were more likely to engage in potentially lethal behaviors
toward RS than NV snakes. Consistent with the study’s third hypothesis, respondents
were more than twice as likely to desire to have RS removed from their properties
regardless of the consequences for such animals as they were to have NV snakes
removed. Heightened risk perceptions may beresponsible for this result, as indicated by
the importance of RS impersonal risk scores in explaining variability regarding whether a
respondent would be less likely to have a RS removed from their properties if the snake
probably would die as a result. Respondents may simply feel that they put themselves at
undue risk to RS bite and the potentially catastrophic consequences associated with such
bites, similar to other forms of wildlife attacks (Slovic et al. 1979, Riley and Decker
2000a), by allowing a RS to remain on their properties. NV impersonal risk scores also
explained the greatest degree of variability regarding whether a respondent would be less
likely to have a NV snake removed from his or her property if the snake would likely die
as a result. Risk perceptions were clearly the most important determinants in
respondents’ consideration of having a NV snake or RS removed from their properties.
When queried, interviewees had indicated that they would not want to kill a RS but
would want to have it removed from their properties for safety reasons, concerns
particularly targeted toward children and older adults who might be visiting (Christoffel,
unpubl. data). However, a large portion of respondents were unsure of whether or not
they would be less likely to move either a NV snake or a RS if it was likely to die as a

result of their actions. Regardless, such statements suggest elevated risk perceptions

8O

toward snakes that motivate individuals to remove snakes from their properties regardless

of the likely lethal results of such actions.

3.6 Management Implications

Results of this study can be used to enhance snake conservation and management
efforts. This can be accomplished, in part, by attempting to build stakeholder capacity to
co-exist with snakes. Low levels of knowledge and incorrect knowledge result in less-
inforrned decision-making by stakeholders and wildlife agency personnel. This Study
begins to address gaps in the knowledge of agency personnel by increasing their
awareness of issues surrounding NV snake and RS conservation and management, and by
providing an overview of current experiences, beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions
by stakeholders for the MI DNR and MN DNR. Such a first step has been identified as
necessary to the development of an educational outreach effort aimed at various
stakeholders (Johnson et al. 2000).

Because basic knowledge of local NVsnakes and RS and the regulations
associated with these groups is currently so low for stakeholders, educational outreach
efforts may be used to inform residents of existing regulations protecting snakes, to raise
awareness of local snake species, promote interest in snakes, and to reduce risk
perceptions pertaining to snakes and snakebites. Part of this need was addressed in MI
through a collaboration including Michigan Natural Features inventory, the Detroit
Zoological Institute and MSU (Lee and Christoffel 2005) with funding provided by
United States Environmental Protection Agency. New outreach materials should include

information regarding local snake species richness, descriptions and identifying field

81

characteristics of local species, characteristic behaviors, and distributions for native snake
species and directions on behaving safely around snakes, particularly RS. Stakeholders
should also be provided with information regarding how snakes’ presence may positively
impact their quality of life, because this is one of the characteristics of the most
successful symbols of environmental concern (Greenberg Quinlin Research Inc. 2000),
and thus, might make snake conservation and management a more salient issue for them.
To address stakeholders’ uncertainty and the mistaken belief that RS bites cause
deaths annually to residents held by some respondents, I recommend that state agencies
develop accurate outreach materials concerning RS bites in their states, actions people
can take to reduce snakebite risk, and appropriate actions to take should a person be
bitten by a RS. This may involve working with their respective state poison control
centers to track RS bite cases and their outcomes in their states. Such information could
then be used to provide residents with accurate, detailed information regarding the
incidence and circumstances of RS bites that do occur. A twenty-year history of
venomous snakebites was recently published for MN (Keyler 2005) in which the
frequency of RS bites is discussed as well as the lack of deaths caused by RS bites in
MN, but no such publication exists for M1. Such information may help to correct
misgivings that some stakeholders expressed about living in the presence of RS. This is
especially relevant given interviewees’ voiced concerns about small children and older
visiting adults. Nationally, and in MN specifically, it has been documented that adult
white males are the most frequent RS bite victims, and a large percentage of cases
involve purposefully handling RS or alcohol (Keyler 2005). Respondents already held

more positive than negative attitudes toward NV snakes and RS, but their attitudes may

82

become even more positive toward NV snakes and RS as some of their incorrect beliefs
and current misconceptions are addressed, particularly about deaths to residents due to
venomous snakebites.

Educational outreach also can be used in attempts to change stakeholders’
behaviors toward snakes. Elevated risk perceptions, particularly as they pertain to RS,
may lead to behaviors that are lethal or potentially lethal to snakes. Stakeholders put
themselves at greater risk when they attempt to kill snakes rather than leave them alone,
particularly RS. Such human behaviors toward snakes, in addition to the purposeful
handling of venomous snakes, account for a large percentage of venomous snakebites
reported annually to the Center for Disease Control and Arizona Poison Control Center.
It is important that educational outreach be used to influence human behaviors not only to
discourage hostile behavior toward snakes, but to protect humans as well.

D]. Case and Associates (2002) interviewed prominent eastern massasauga
rattlesnake experts regarding the utility of different outreach methods to address
stakeholder concerns. They posited that face-to-face contact is the best method of
communication regarding eastern massasauga rattlesnake-human issues. Research is
needed to test this assumption (see Chapter 5, this ms). Managing snake habitat and
snake populations are challenging tasks, particularly as a result of our current incomplete
knowledge of these species and their needs. However, as a result of this study, we now
have greater capacity to address the management of human beliefs, attitudes and resultant

behaviors toward snakes.

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can. can. .32 39:88: E 8.2m wgoxefi >2 a .3 ENE Econ 5305 a a5 62: 2.: .222 5 :5 5
xi. NQI. .32 38:88: E BEE. mmBV—mcm >2 5 3 g wEop :8qu a .5 out 2: .222 5 E): :2
Dan. 0:. :8» some 2:028.— AZE 5 :6 2 3:5: 8:8 8.5 835 mmbxmfi >2
mxc. can. .38 :5 mwo: o. 525 28588:: :: Owen mod—:5 $3835 >2 .222 5 d): 5
mac. _mn. .222 5 =2 :3 WEE—E 9 3:86 82% 9 box: Be moxmcm $50me >2
wow. «.00. .222 5 :2 :3 8:085 :2: ‘3 Bacon 2 585 m 805 moxmfi 953:5 >2
Non. Ex. .22 5 :2 :C 23:: me 8:23 05 9 Eatan 2: 855 $3835 >2
mm». 0mm. .222 .5 :2 :C o>= 863:.» mytwoxmfi >2 ES 3:505. 3:.“an Egon 0E8 5m 2 6:0 03 2 5: 5 550:3
2.0. _Nn. .222 5 :2 :3 38: 5:5 2: 32 SE: 55:8 9 20: 865% $30me >2
E. ems. .22 a :2 .5 2:» 2: 5 uses m: seas >z wees seas:
mm >2 mm >2
62m: 3:95 EH 9523

 

 

 

.AmooNV 9823 ENE 83% 22 :5 :2 :8 82:8 83:3 mm :56. >2 885:8 8 new:

8868:; 20:3 335 mm :5 >2 @552: 290$ 03: 20 some :8 $582 58E we: mean—m 9:23:80 dos—geomfi Am 033.

84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:3 5.: :5 two 2&0 9:08:80
NS. 2%. a: 2% 058 28a :82
swede seem. _ m esteem 08.0 005398 8:5? 03025830
65.00.0— 605. _ m 005.3 60mg: @053me 00:05:, .5 GOEOQEQ
SN. _ 42.0 2: .0 RN. _ 0:320me
0:05
3%. 00:3: 5 50:20.30 E: 080500 253 : 0:5: 4?: .5 0:5 0 55:5 00>: 00.05 9:00.05. >2 0 305 _ h
0.30: a 0.0 0353. 5:
one. mac. 2.53 3855 2 .05 305 2 : 3:085 02: 5 to 005:: 003:0 5:00—05 >2 0 05: 9 30x: fl 0n 2:03 2

mm >2 mm >2
0.0: 355095 0255305 5602 50:50 80: 0:0 050: 550m

 

 

82350800 .2“ some

85

Table 3.2. A comparison of characteristics of MI and MN respondents to snake mail

surveys conducted in spring 2005. Chi-squared and independent samples t-tests were

used to test for differences between states.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic MI MN Degrees of Test Statistic
Mean value Mean value Freedom
Age class 3.48 3.57 2184 t = -1.751
p = 0.08
Gender (% male) 66.5 74.3 1 x2 =
15.746**
College Degree (yes/no) 52.7 33.5 1 X2 =
79.697**
Kids (yes/no) 23.7 21.4 1 x2 = 1.731
Dogs (yes/no) 53.2 49.7 1 x2 = 2.722
Description of Living 2.78 2.40 1,969 t = 8.420**
Area
Description of Childhood 3.00 2.13 2,077 t = 15.733**
Living Area
No. Years in State 45.03 45.12 2,260 t = -O.112
p = 0.91
No. Years in Residence 14.31 17.35 2,235 t = -5.049**

 

 

 

 

 

** significant at the p = 0.01 level, * significant at the p = 0.05 level

86

 

20>0_ mod n a 0:: :0 :fiomawfi

0. ._0>0_ 5.0 u m 0:: :0 E00E:w_m .1. .0:0:m :000 5505 :05000 0:0 Soc :0020 :0: 00 3.00 :0002 00:00 0:: :3 00323.: 0080: 000:0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3;— om.: who KM: 00— A00 00:00:00
Sdm Nb. _ N Omd Swan «9 Ev 8020:0030: 00>
$.om n _ .0. 2.5.0. _ N *c:..m wmd mod— me A00 0820:0000: 02
:002 000006 :85
:00 _0>:0::H 8:00.200 003 m 0:004 0:00:00m :002 2 95:0
095:0 522—0035 5:00:52
modm 0:: wvd wed— wmm 00 00:00:00
mm.mm m _ .NN omd Damn gm 30 000—05090: 00>
wodm m9»: 1w _ whm ...moofi. cmd Swo— wmm 00 000—05080: 02
:002 0500i :0::m
:00 _0>:0::H 8:00.050 :03 m 0:0>01_ 0:00:06 :002 2 95:0

 

 

095:0 0022—00—8m Emma—0m:

 

 

095%.: 003200.000 002000. mm >0>::m :08 22 0:0 :2 meow :8 00:00: 00:03:00 :00030 0:0 030:3 .m.m 030,—.

87

Table.3.4. Frequency of wrong responses in M1 and MN to each of seven questionnaire

items included in snake knowledge scores (n = 2,067).

 

Knowledge Score Item

(‘24: wrong)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MI MN
Q9. Prior to receiving this survey, how many kinds of non—venomous 91.5% 93.1%
Ms) did you think live in (MI/MN)? None (0), [-4 (0), 5-10 (0), II- (876) (1.033)
15(0). 16-20 (I), more than 20 (0), Unsure (0))
Q10. Prior to receiving this survey, how many kinds of rattlesnakegs) 45.5% 74.6%
did you think live in (MI/ MN)?* (x2 =183.61. df=], 720.29) None (0), (435) (828)
l (I), 2 (0), 3 (0). more than 3 (0), Unsure (0)
Q13 Are you aware of any spec—Hit; laws that protect (M1 or MN) 87.3% 81 .991.
snakes? * (x2 =12.56, 120.08) “Yes”(l). “N0"(0) or "‘No opinion "(0). (910) (986)
Q20a6. Non—venomous snakes are likely to spread disease to humans in 24.8% 27.9%
(M1 or MN). People that agreed or strongly agreed with the statement (237) (310)
and unsure responses were marked “wrong ” (0); individuals that
disagreed with the statement were marked “correct”( I )..
.Q20b6. Rattlesnakes are likely to spread disease to humans in (M1 or 35.8% 39.3%
MN). (343) (436)
Q20a8. Non-venomous snakebites cause deaths to (M1 or MN) residents 25.4% 29.0%
each year. (243) (322)
Q20b8. Rattlesnake bites in (M1 or MN) cause deaths to residents each 65.5% 71.1%
year.* (12 = 7.37, p=0.007, r206) (627) (789)

 

 

 

* significant difference in proportions of MI and MN respondents at p = 0.01. level

88

 

02,2 :00 n 0 a: :0 0:80:00 ... 02,2 80.0 n 0 2: 0 0:80:00 .20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 N E... 2. m0; 3— 200 00:35:
mm m mo.m no. 2M _ _m 30 0000050000: 00>
oo.m 00 N 0.330.? owd mo. mwd mom A00 0000:0050: 02
000005
:002 :0: _0>:0::2 00:00::00 :03 m 0:0>0w_ :0::m_ 0:00:00m :002 2 000:0
300:0 30:50:05 3000052
EN w _ .N :d ovd wmm 200 m0:=m:D
00.0. moi. ood $6. 0N0. 30 0000000030: 00>
ohm E .0. Iowa. _ m .3100. 00.0 ~m.m 00m 00 0000:0220: 02
000005.
:002 :8 3525 00:00:55 :03 2 0:05: :0::m 0:00:05 :002 2 96:0

 

 

0900.5 0020:0xfim =0w30=2

 

 

0.00205 mm 0: 03:38:: 0500:0080: :0 0000: 300:0: 0020:0000: 00:: 021000020 0.50: :0a0

8000:0000: >033 000:: 22 0:0 :2 Bow :00: 00:00: 0m00_30§ 000:0 :008 $500.03: 030: 00:00:?» .00 flax—0:2: .n.m 030.:

RC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

88.01 :0..- $0.0. $0.0- 80.: 0:0- 2.: .850
02.000. 30.0 000.0 80.0 02.0 8.0 5:05:05:
:80 1 000.0- :00- 08.0- 50.0 30.0- 2.0 29.05 w:
000.30. :3: 30.0 :00 :00: :0 10:0: 0%.: 0.0: 9:: >2 :0
we..- _ 8. 20.0 :00 80.0 :00 2.0 5:05:05:
:00; 1 000.- 5:0- 0.8.0- :80 000.0. 2.0 230.: 0:
20-50. :2: 00:0 :00 800 :0 5.08:: 9.00 :2: 0:: >2 0
8008.. 0:0- 80.0- 50.0 200.0- E .0 2.09.0520“:
0:..- _ 00. :3: 00:: «1:10 :0 2.000.000 :00 0:2: 0:: >2 0
30.00:. 000.2 :20 :00 :00 :0 3.20.8: 000.0 02: :2: >2 _
000m 000m
:00 :0 :3 0 02600500 :0 so: a... n: N: :3. .082

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw: n 5 35000000: 20300 00.000 :2 meow :0: 00:00—30:02 0x000 E 00:00:?» :0: 030: 00:30:82 .0.m 030B

90

_0>0_ no.0 v 0 0:0 :0 Eggnmmm * .2052 20.0 V 0 0:0 :0 ::00:1:Ew:m .I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N_ _.-m _ 0. ofixm 0.00.0 mmod N000 mod .0312 000m
02.120. hmmN 000.0 98.0 210.0 00.0 0:05 E m:00>#
£100.; 1 000.- SYN- 000.0- mood hmmd- 00.0 :00:00
3.0.2:“:0. SEN $0.0 000.0 ommd 0_ .0 52:00:05“
200.0 1 moor www.m- 35.0- 200.0 m00.0- 2.0 0000—000 mm
0mm.-mwm. omBSN owed 20.0 00m.0 00.0 .102 .02 mmmd 03M 0:; >2 0
2 _. - 000- who; $00.0 mmod wmod 00.0 000% E m:00>#
33.0 10.30.- mmmd- $0.0- moo-0 mmmd- 0:0 :00000
w00.-000. momd wm0.0 000.0 vmmd mod 50:20:3—
3000 1 000.- own-m- N000- 200.0 0.00.0- 2.0 0000—05 mm
wmm.-mmm. ONO-hm 0.00.0 :00 000:0 :0 1000.02 0mm.0 22% 95 >2 n
000m 000:
000m .00 $3 : 00~_0:00:0:m mm 000m 0:0 2 NM 00¢. _0002

 

 

20.2500 .0.m 0301—1

91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000. - 000. .3.. _th 0000 N000 VNNO 00.0 3:000:50 mmoQ
v0_. - 000. 1000.0 000.0 X00 52.0 :0 30.0 00<
3.0.- - 000.- **mmw.N- 000.0- 000.0 th0- 00.0 050:3 :8 3:00; 000:02
000.- - ~00.- **h0N.v- 000—0- 2000 000.0- 3.0 00035 mm
«.00. - 00N. **>mN.0N _000 _ _00 . NON0 000 0.1-00.00. 000.0 03% _0:oE00E_ >2 .0
CL. - «00. 3.03.0- 0000 X00 0_ _0 050 $05 00<
0_ _.- - 000.- 1.050.0- N000- N000 :N0- :0 050:3 :00 00:00: 000:02
N00.- - >00.- **mmN.v- m0_ .0- :00 000.0- 3.0 20035 mm
00m. - _0N. **0VN.0N 000.0 >0N0 00N0 00.0 *iomfiNN Now-.0 xix 3:8:095 >2 0
N0..- - 000.- 1.000.0- 0000- N000 00N.- N_.0 0.50:3 :8 00:00: 000:02
#00.- - 000.. 1000.0- 00_ .0- _000 000.0- 20 $0035 0%
N00. - 00N. **000.mN 000.0 :00 _0N0 00.0 1000.00N >030 020 3:09.095 >2 0
000.- - 000.- 1000.0- 00_ .0- _000 000.0- 1.0 00035 mm
0;: - 00N. **00NBN 000.0 _ _00 00N0 00.0 1.000.0NV 0010 via 3:02.005 >2 N
0N0: . 00N. **0m0.0N 000.0 05.0 000.0 00.0 **0_0.0N0 050.0 0.050 3:00.695 >2 _
820
gm .8 03 0 0865055 3.00 mm 300 a» m h: ..a< 0022

 

 

.200 .I- :0 00:00:09.0: >053. 22 :00 00:08 0000385— 0035 E .5008; 0550598 0300 53000005 8.0 030.0.

92

_0>0~ 00.0 v 0 05 00 0:02-0:08 * ._0>0~ 50.0 v 0 05 H0 E00030?- i.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m8. - 8o. *2: ,N 08.0 05.0 20.0 8.0 28m 85590 mm
$0.- - 3... 18.0.0. Bod- 300 $3. 8.0 5050
20. - moo. $0.3.” $0.0 :60 20¢ 80 E32; 08
SN. - 08. 3.08.». wood «80 mm _ .o E .o 3.20 a?
$0.- - a»..- $030- 08.0- 930 RS- 30 0:25 5: .932 @0202
So.- . 08.- .3303- 80.0. :50 33- 2 .0 03% mm
80. - NS. 308.2 9.00 :00 $00 8.0 $0.80: :3 02: 38:88: >2 0 %
$0.- - 03.- $80.0- mood- 0.8.0 «2.0. 80 5050
gm. - $0. :32 $0.0 Sod £00 8.0 3:32: 08
a: - 08. :00; coed 3.0.0 00 _ .o :0 $20 0?
«.80 - - 0%... 2.0%- 080. $0.0 $00- 8.0 0:25 a: .252 00222
So. - 08.- 103.0. 08.0- :50 :50- 2.0 0.8%.; m:
EN. . $0. $08.2 :00 _ 5.0 02.0 30 3.20.5 83 020 38285: >2 0
000m
sum .3 003 0 BNsswcsm sum mm sum 30 0 NM 03. 3022

 

80:80 8.0 0309

Table 3.8. Eleven statements used to measure survey respondents’ (11 = 2,067)

experiences with NV snakes and RS snakes in MI and MN (2005). Percentages of

respondents who listed having experiences are reported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Types of Experiences people may have with non- Non-venomous snake Rattlesnake
venomous snakes and rattlesnakes. MI MN MI MN

I have observed at least one in the wild. 86,0%* 81 , 1% 27,5%* 40.8%
I have a friend or neighbor who observed at least 66.1% 63.5% 28.4*% 480%
one in the wild.

I personally had or have one as a pet.. 6.8*% 4.9% 0.5% 0.4%
I have a friend or neighbor who keeps or has kept 15.1*% 1 1.2% 13% 19%
one as a pet.

I have witnessed one being killed by authorities. [2% 1 ,4% O,7*% 1.8%
such as police.

I have read or heard of one being killed by 4.6% 5.4% 9,1 *% 14.6%
authorities, such as police.

I had a pet threatened or bitten by one. 2.8% 2.0% l,6*% 3.1%
I have read or heard of pets being threatened or 7.2% 5.6% 15.0% 17.8%
bitten by one.

I have personally been threatened or bitten by 7.7% 6.3% 2,7*% 5.9%
one.

I have a friend or neighbor that has been 52% 4.9% 4,3*% 6.4%
threatened or bitten by one.

Other (please 1.2% 1.4% 1.7% 0.9%
specify)

 

 

 

 

 

* significant difference between MI and MN respondents at the p = 0.05 level

94

 

:22 00.0 20 :0 053:8? *

:32 00.0 on: 00 058$:me .2. .5580 o:o Soc 5006 8: o: 805 :00: 3 .3 3:2 2:00 on: 020: :05 00:20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RN i 00: 000.0 300.0 2.0 02 3 850:0
EN .. 00.N 30.0 05.0 w0.N mg 30 08.0% my— 00>
$000.3 1.30: Sam 1 _N.~ 08.0 03.0 NmN 00m AS 083% mm 02
05:85. HERE :0th :ccagofl
m 0:035 Sconcgu 00mm. ESEEm 08055 :32 = 0:30 BEBE—Sm
0.0.5.5 SEES—3m 582:5:
ONN i Nod 000.0 m00._ 2N con 80 3.50:3
wwd i w0.N 03.0 03.0 mud wwm 30 083:0 mm 3%
$9.500 $03.0. 9.0 | 9.0 $00 000.0 saw 000 3 0902; m: 0z
2235. 03:25 :95 :osflfié
m 0:034 8:00:50 003 03055 03056 :32 : 95:0 :oEozuxSm
00:95 SEES—Sm naming

 

 

.0280 85:35 .0058w $2290.05 22 0:0 :2 :33qu 08:80.:6 wEBofi 2pm: <>OZ< .Qm £an

95

:22 00.0 20 00 0500:0000 * 022 5.0 20 e 03000000 .3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0.1.0“ {N v m 0m.~ I 0. .N 000.0 000.0 mmd 05 A0 0:00» 00 A” m
*0. A v _0.m I wm.m M0000 30.0 00d SN 0390 00 I _m u v
in A m Ed I mw.N _000 30.0 m0.m 02 000.0» 00 I 3 u m
*mAN _0.~I0m.m 0w0.0 0.0.0 vnd m: 0:8» owl _mum
1.80.0 1.50.0 Ed I EN 02 .0 000.: 3N mv 0.080 0m I M: "—
mnsouO ow< ZS
*3. .1 v 0. NYN I 00.N $0.0 0_0._ 0nd _2 0:00» 00A n 0
00d I 0m.N 0.00.0 00.0.0 0v.m 0mm 0.890 00 I _m n v
3.0. A m 00.N I 00d 000.0 05.0 w0.~ Em 0:090 00 I _v u m
“Sam I 0m.m 000.0 000.0 mmd 00. 008» 0v I _m u N
*0 A _ 10060 35w.» w0.m I 00; 02.0 03.0 NEN 3 £sz 0m I M: u _
0000:2305 000005. :85 50250
000.0 ow< m 0:264 BEBE 8:000:00 0.000 0:00:8m 0.005% :32 2 000.0 ow<
00:26 om< H2

 

 

0:50:33: 0038 300:0 0o anew own 020 w:o:8 00285 800:0 5 085.8006 @0305 038 < >0 Z< .03” 200B

96

.0>0. 00.0 n a 0:0 :0 Emu—BEE u * ..0>0. .00 u 0 05 :0 0002.0in .I. I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*N .1. A 0 00.. I 00.. 00.0 000.. 0m. 0w 00522:. 05> n 0
*N .03... A m 0N. I 00.0 000.0 00N.. N... w00 00:00:02. 00:32:00 .I. m
*0 {m v N 00.. - .0.0 00.0 w0... 0w.0 0m. 0800:0230 00:30:50 n N
3.0 .30. v . 3.00.0.0 $000.0 0w.0 I 00.0 00.0 $0... 00.0 00. 0200:8500 05> n .
000:0:005 000005 :o::m. :o..0_>0n_
030:0 H. 0:0>0.. _0>:0.:_ 00:00::00 $00 0:00:05 0:00:05 :005. : 00x05 :_ _0>0. 50:25
805.:ng 0:125 mm
EN ...c... A 0 .N.m I 00.N 00.. .00.. mwN ow 00:00:25 b0> u 0
**N .3.. A m N0.N I w..N 000. m.N.. omN 000 00:00:02: 00:30:50 N m
30 .**m V N v*. 00.N I 00.. 00.. 00... 0M... 0m. 00:85:00.0 00:30:80 .I. N
10.1.0.3 v . in .0w.0N .1000. N0. I 0N. .00. .0N.. 00.. 00. 0030:8500 00> .I. .
000:0:005 000005 :0::m. :o_.0_>0D
030:0 n. 0:0>0.. .0200: 00:00:80 00.00 0:00:0:m 0:00:05 :005. 2 09.000 :_ _0>0. “00:25
80:00—0th 3.5—m >2

 

 

.mOuoom OOEDCOQKO

8.0% mm 000 >7. 0:0 08.000 0:039 0.05. 60:00:. 0000000000: :2 9880 0800:0006 wfifibms... 030: «507?. .H Tm 030,—.

97

_0>2 mod n a 05 E EmoGEmu u * 42,2 Hod n m 05 “a 283::me u in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

im .3; A v own I 0: NE. mmm; wo.~ am 35285 bo> n v
in .3; Am co; I N9. 08. .3: 0: m3 35285 3553.8 M m
iv {a}, v N v .1; mm; I 5.. E _. mom:— om._ 9: “92:28:36 3:32:an u N
iv .im rim v _ .1 Smdm 39mm 2: I no.0 08. wow; mwd SN 3628:56 bo> u _
2E§m :25 :23300
30:2:th 955 m 0:33 3525 8:03:00 0&3 “5:56 cavcfim :82 = 8:35 E _o>u_ 3225
895:0an Siam mm
v v .**N .3; 8d I «AN 9:. 3m; NON on @8355 bo> u v
m v **N .1; omd I Nod coo. 3N.— Ed mmv 3.8.—BE Esaofiom u m
Iv .1». v N v *1 No; I m; 2:. man; an; 3; 3528:56 223088 n m
3.: .**m .**N A _ $30.? of .o of I we; owe. mom; 3; Em 3320266 bu> .I. _
0:235 :85 :28300
magewta 95:0 m 0:964 328E 8:03:00 $3 ESESm c5655 :82 = mow—«S E 1325835

825:5me 3.5—m >2

 

 

.888 855%“.

3:5 mm 28 >2 98 8wa 2:39 £32 3235 2:29:88: 22 macs: 30:20am: $3353: 038 <>OZ< .2 .m 035.

98

;0>0; mod n a 05 H: anmfiwfi u * 430; 3.0 n m 05 00 Emofiqwa n in

 

v V **m .**N {:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0w00_>5nv~ 001:5 .3.—00:25.“ :2

0m 0 I 006. 00 _. 002 00.0 cm 00:00:02; b0> n v
I: v m v *N .3; 06m I o; m 3.0. 0mm; 50 3.0 00.00.00E 3:30Eom n m
"10.3“ . N v .1; cod I 0m.m :2. 00m; m:.~ ow; 0050:0256 00:30Eom n N
$0.1m .**N v _ “10;de mow:— O;.N I m0; 2 ;. 0%.; 0w; mm; 00:00:00EE0 b0> H;
osmium :85 500300
0005:0005 0:80 n; 0:0>0I; REES 00:00:50 :03 0:00:05 0:00:8m :002 = 000.05 E _0>0_ “00:00:;
onto—320— 00.25 .anounonuém ZS
IN .1; A v 0.0.0 I ohm _ _md own; 5.0 E 30 00:00:00E b0>
in ,1; A m wo.m I 00.m Nmod mac; NM; 5m Amy 00:00:02; 0::B0Eow
$0.1m v N v i; w; I EN mid 0%.; mad 3: Amy 0030:0250 00:30:08
10.5.0. yarn v _ iifiwm mafia NN.N I Z..— om;.o 08.; 3.; am; A: 0030:00EE0 b0>
000005 :25 :o:E>0Q
0005:0005 0:20 n; 0:304 3300:; 00:00:50 003 0.005% 0:00:06 SW02 2 000—05 E _0>0_ 30:00:;

 

 

. mohoow

“E00365; 0000:: 0:0 00000:: 00039 20$; “00:00:; 9:00:33: 22 0:: :2 wqu: 00053006 30:53: 038 <>OZ< .mfim 033.

99

3%: 00.0 n 0 05 00 E0005m50 u * .~0>0_ 00.0 n a 05 80 0:005:30 n **

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1N «I; A 0 00.3 I mx.w 000:; 000: 00.: 00 080285 b0> .I. 0
**N .3.; A m 00.0 I 2.8 020.0 N000 ww.w 0N0 080285 0003058 H m
10 Jim v N v “.2.; EN I 0.0 Nomd 00:. 0N; 3; 08028550 8003058 n N
“1.0.0“? .**N v _ 3000.00 3; _N.__ 3.0.: I 00.0 - and 000.» 3:. 00_ 08028550 b0> H 0
005.0% 8.05 :580500
0005:0005 0:20 n; 0:93 00:85 00:00:50 0000 0:00:00m 0:00:8m :002 2 850:0 5 _0>0_ 80285
0.003030 exam mm
**N.**_ Av Saw— I ;0.m_ Nm: 32.2 0000 :w 0800:85b0>n0
IN ..I; A m 0N8; I 00.0. _Nm.0 20.0 00.0_ 0N0 08m285 80030Eom n m
$0.1m v N v i; 00.: I wmd wde 0mm.0 N0.0_ 03 0800:8550 8003058 n N
30.10. .**N v ; **N0_ .NN. **Nv0.: _0.m I 00.0. 000.0 00m.w 30 W00 0800:8550 b0> u _
ocmcfim :otm :000_>0Q
0005:0005 0:20 n; 0:054 00:85 00:00:50 0000 0:00:05 0:00:05 :002 = 00805 5 .98 80285
805§< 0:25 >2 , .

 

.mOuOom

003080 080:0 mm 0:0 >2 0:0 850:0 0:038 80>“: 3285 8:00:80“: :2 0:080 08:20.50 0:00:03: 030: <>OZ< .30 030B

 

20>“: 00.0 n 0 05 00 8:080:00 .I. * 505; 00.0 n 0 05 :0 8:00050m50 u 5L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 v in .**N .1; _m.0_ I $0 002 :N.: 00.: 0w 080285 b0> n 0
3.0 v m V IN .02; 0M: I mm0 0.0m. :00 :6 00.0 080285 00:30Eom u m
.10 Jim v N v i; 00.; I 0N.0- 000. m>N0 00.0 000 08028550 0003053 .I. N
*
$0 .10. .**N v _ **0N0..00 *0. m.m_ $0.: I ww.m- 000. 000.0 me- 000 08028500 00> u _
0000000. 8th 500300
0082005 0:80 0 0:05: 73:8:— 00:00_0:00 0000 0:00:8m 0:00:00m :002 = 000005 5 .038 .0285
000350. 213m 0%

0 v “1.0. .**N .1; 0w.0_ I 0N.0_ 00w. N000 No.3 00 080285 05> n 0
":0 v m v **N .02.; 00.0; I 00.0; 0mm. 0MNH 5.00 000 080285 0003058 n m
:0 (*0. v N v I; 0; .0 I 00.0 000. >000. 00.0 000 08028500 00030Eom u N

10 .030. .**N v 0 1.50103 _NN. 5.0 I 00.m won. mNZ. _00 0.2 0800:8550 b0> u _

000005 :0th 5000300
000:0..0005 0:90 0 0:0>0q 00:85 00:00:50 0000 0:00:8m 0:00:05 :002 r 000.0:0 5 _0>0. 00285
000530. 313m >2 .

 

 

.meonvm UfiamH—m

000:0 mm 0:0 >2 0:0 030:0 0:038 0_0>0_ 00285 0300:0002 22 w:oE0 0000200000 $50002: 0300 <>OZ< .26 030,—.

101

:05: 00.0 n 0 2:: :0 :50000:0 n * .05: :00 n 0 2:: :0 $00200 n 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**N .051 A 0 0w.o I _N. O00. 20.0 00.0 wb 00:00:25 .Co> .II 0
**N .03.; A m 0N0 I 00. 000. wt; 00.0 0N0 00:00:85 00:30Eom H m
:0 {*0 V N 30.0-0 I _0.0. mwo. 802 00.0- .00— 030050505 00030500 N N
1.0 .0300 V 0 $000.00 $000.» 50.0-0 I :._ I 0wo. 0.00.— 006- 002 0800:8550 b0> H _
000080 :000 55:00:00
0080:0005 0:20 0 0:030 _0>:0::0 8:00:50 0000 0:00:80 0:00:80 :002 2 0.2—0:0 5 _0>8 00:8:—
5053 03:25»: 3:30 0:
10...: A 0 00.: I 8.0 00:. 08.: 00.: a: 02022:: E> u 0
3.0 .1: A m 00.: I 00.: :00. 08.: 0: .: :00 02022:: 003250 n m
:0 .10 v N v I: 00.: I :m. 000. 0:: $0 0:: 00022500 003280 n 0
3.0.10 .10 v _ $000.00 3.00:0 N : .o I 00.0- 80. 000.: 8.0- 0.0: 0200:2506 00> n :
000080 :85 :000_>0Q
0005:0005 0:20 0 00054 _0>:8£ 0:500:00 0000 0:00:80 0:00:80 :002 = 000.05 5 _0>0_ 00:85
80:30: 3:350: 2:30 >2 . .

 

 

000205. 0% 0:0 >2 0:030:

0:00:85 0:030:00 0:0 000:0:0 0:030: 0:80: 00:85 0800:0000: =2 0:080 0005:0000 00500805: 030: <>OZ< .0: .m 0300.

102

:96: mod N a 0:0 :0 0:090:50 n * 50$: 56 n a 0:0 :0 3000530 n in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1N ..I; A 0 cm. - cm. 9:. mam: 006 mm A3 00:00:25 >:0>
**~ .3; A m 80.0-: I 0N0- 03. 000: 2.0. $0 Am: 00:00:95 923058
10 .30. v N 305: I 00.0- who. 13.0 owd- 5: AN: 0800:2550 :003050m
$0 .10. v _ ice—.90 “lowed: deIV I o: . _ - who. So: 000. no: 2: 0200:9550 35>
005:0:m :otm :000_>0Q
08:20:05 0:90 n: 0:304 058:: 00:00:50 00:00 0:00:05. 0:00:8m :02): 0 000—05 5 _0>0_ 30:25
0:50:35 Eogaaum Siam mm
0 v *0. .im .1; 00.: I mod 92. 000.: cm: mm 03 00:00:85 b0>
*0 v m v 10 .1; 3.0 I :6 000. 0.5.: Ed 000 08 00:00:85 053058
1.0 .10. v N v *1 00.0 I 00.0 who. «mod 0N6 w: 3: 0900:2550 003058
30.1.0. #3 v _ i; 5.5 mom: 9: .OIV I wvd- Sb. Po: mmd- 8: 2: 0200:8550 b0>
0::m_:0:w :95 500305
000:0:0t5 95:0 n: 0:33 03:85 00:00:50 00.00 0:00:05 0:00:8m :002 0 00x05 5 :0>0_ 30:85
0:50.08:— Ecmzaum 050nm >2

 

 

08:05 mm 0:0 >2 0:039

0:00:25 0:520:00 0:0 08:05 0:039 0:05: 30:95 0500:0000: 2:): @850 08:05:00 00:00:00.3: 030: <>OZ< .5 .m 030.0

103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. a; S .v 32 325:2 935 mm 22
:3 iv .3
“$3 $3". :3 3% o; $3 83:2 92% mm :2
00:95th :09“qu
y UCwSSm oco>3 532 pawn—gm 532 = o-QEENV acoficoaon
8.35 3.53.2 mm
a; 2: 8: monég 32m >2 z:
13% 3:. _ mm: 5w we 33 33:2 93% >2 E
“5:20th COCE>DQ
H otmflgm ocu>ud Emu: pang—Sm can: = 033.23» “coup—omen—
§8m €32< >2

 

.95 $25

mm USN A>ZV moxgm >2 @338 mucovcommou 88553319 2%: 30m 9:): 22 28 5% :2 mo 88% “6:58 :82 .wfim 2an

 

65. mod 05 E =50:in * .33: 5.0 2: an Eachmfi I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“13.3w. v m mod I mm.» mm. 5w 3.x moN 88» me A n w
3% A v 3.2 I 3.2 3. mm.w o9: Em £8» we I _m n v
**m.**N A m $6; I 00.: 3. No.» 3.9 EN an»; ow I _v n m
3m v N :2: I mm.w No. SN wmd om. Emu» ov I _m n N
31.2.0 v2..— mmN— I on.» ON._ mud nod co Emu» cm I M: n _
2E§m “ohm Sufism
moo—_BQEQ 9.80 m 2:33 12.85 8:03:00 ammo cavzfim Pagfim :82 2 $20 ow<
3.5.—U om< ZS
.1“ ,im .1 v m 05: I w; oo. 23 of? h: E8» me A n n
*w A v 2.3 I 3.2 3. Raw 5.2 Pm 33» no I _m n v
imAm 8.2 Iwzg wv. 3.5 2.3 ooN 3.8» 3| SUN
03: I ON? NN. nww no.2 of 33» ow I E n N
*m A _ 1.03.0 vmwd 1.2 I mmN— no; NM: moi mm 28» em I m: u_
ocmcmfi 5.5 5:335
woocuBtE 95.5 m 2551— 3325 8:03:00 excwo ESESm 935% :82 2 $20 ow<
3.5.—G ow< =2

 

 

Amoch Scot—5&8 FEB). :58 22 EH :2 mo momma? own 9:,“ m0 388 2553 93% >2 .3.m 035%

105

35. mod 2: 2 250232 * 2252 5o 05 a “505%: in

 

*1 ,**o V 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ex I ofic co. ohm mms 9N 3.3.23 N am
$00 .15 A _ 209 I _o.N_ 2m. 3.» no.2 _mm 3an mm 8% u _
.1; v o v “1&0 125.3“ 3.3.x. mN.: I :6 CV. 2.x 3.? w; muxgm mm 02 n o
”Vanni Sum 222259
muocobta 9.20 m 0233 3525 8232.200 $3 93:25 Eavcfim 2222 2 9.5.5 BEBE—Sm
3:95 323335 328552
$1.0 v mo Qua I ows cm. oNd 09w mnN 32.25 N am
1&0 A _ 8.2 I ow.m_ .22. 2.x 2.: 2mm $me mm 3% u _
“.230 A c 2355.? “.2536 wfiv— I _cN— ow. was 02.9 mam $wa mm 02 H o
ocmsfim Stm 20:253—
mmocflota 9.80 m 0:33 3325 853200 253 32258 922.5% :82 2 9520 how—ozoxfiw

 

 

 

 

3.5.—U SEES—3w 222532

 

 

.mOuOUm QUSHEHN

BEE >2 .3:on 52028—de “2022832 332m :28 7:2 22.2 :2 mooN 2833p woos—Rota 9:32: 038 <>OZ< .ON.m 033.

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:32 3o 05 a “some”; * .33: So 2: a “505%; I
1.71m v w 9:. I oo; _m. _N.w ooN NoN who» no A n m
in .**N A v «Nd I 3. v xv. :d 0N6 02 who» we I _w u v
in .**N A m of. I _N.n mm. 5.x omb CON 28» ow I _v n m
1% .**m V N obm I ..N; 3. Ned omN mm. Emu» ow I _m n N
$80.9 *mNmN $6. I N; 3.— 8w 3mm co 23» cm I M: u _
moocohotfi 2E§m Sum :osflfid
985 m 2.33 3:25 8:03:00 $3 3%.:me .5855 :82 = $20 om<
3.5.—G ou< ZS
1v .5». v w :3“ I 51 on. 9: $.N m: 9:8» no A n w
Im A v cod I 00% 3. $6 ooh chm Emu» me I _n u v
in A m N:. I :5“ am. wed cod ooN may» cm I _v n m
$.m I NON 2.. wmd 3% £2 £8» ow I _m u N
imvmgw *ownN vflw I N5m ON; 2.x 26 mm 23» on I M: u _
muocohotfi usmcfim ..otm :EESQ
9:20 n. 0:33 BEBE 85350 $3 ESESm Emu—35 :82 = $20 $3
3.5.—G ow< =2

 

 

.AmOONv mucovcommoh zeta ENE 7:2 can :2 Mo mummflo own o>¢ (Ho 38% 2553 mm 4N.m 2an

107

E2 85 2: a “gnaw; * 422 So 2: a 25%? i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.I; .**oovO _mNI _m. on. :.w :1 :N wag—5| no

13 .**o A _ one I NM:V ow. mmd 5m Sn 3:2; mm 8% I _

i; v o v .330 Ivfimfi **E.m.w Ned I Ea om. vow QM Ev 8&2; mm 02 I o
omgmfimum ..OCM =053>0Q

woucohuwta QDOLO hm oco>ud _m>._u:.; QUCOUCCOU okcmo Uhmficwam pat—3am END: 2 EDD-.0 MSU—onou—Sw

3:36 BESS—Sm 33655.2

t: .15 v 3 SN I 3.. mm. Zuw $.— NbN . 8525 n ma

3&0 {*0 A _ Saw I m5.» Nm. mod mhfi _mm @835 mm me? u ~

.1— v o v .13 Emma. _ m .38.». and I oo.m ow. cod 9: Nam moxacw mm 02 n o
osmsfim Stm c2530

moocobta “EEO m 2554 BEBE oocuwccou $3 23.85 “523m :32 a macho hoEonoV—Bw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:30 awe—ofiafim Human—om:

 

 

$208 2553

8:2; mm .3:on 5203333 “528%”: >32; :2: 22 Ea :2 88 5958 30:80th watsozm 038 <>OZ< .NN.m 2an

108

E2 86 2: a “50%? * 432 So as a “50%? :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*1 £38m V o OWN I am. vwm. Sim veg mwv 3.523 H mm

".330 .**o A _ 50.x. I Nmfi win. mmd mvd wow moxucm mm me? n fl

*1 V o V 1&0 103.9» **NN _ .o_ vmé I exam _om. om.w mmé oow woxacm mm 02 H c
osmzsm EEBE ..otm cosflfid

magenta macho m 2534 3:3:on $3 9%:an Eat—Em :32 = , 3:80 .oEozoxSm 8:2; mm

839m emu—533‘ cause—33*

“I; .30 V oa 00.x I QNH o3. mod 2.x wwv 352.3 H mm

.350 .**o A _ No.3 I mam— oom. @ow Emm— moa woxncm mm no? u _

*1 V o V :00 inmovbo 1205 ovN. I Vm. 2 SN. 2% oo. : :w mow—dam mm 02 H o
223% HERE hotm cosmioa

moo—55:5 95.5 m 0:93 oococccou $3 Banana Emu—85 :32 = 3:90 BEES—Sm 8:2; mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.59m 0155< msoEouo> I .52

 

 

.Amoomv museum 82023,“; 333 :NE 835 22 28 :2 waofid 388 255% mm new >2 .mm.m 2an

109

BE 86 v a 2: a “gouge * .35 :3 v a 2: a 38%? :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASN-0 I oNN- waN- 2.0.- wmv. 0mm. _ - 00.0 5950
$0.0 I mod- 005m- m0_.- 03V. 02.. T E .0 8%.; 50 “SEE owncmz
mm.m I 2N ownd 00N. EN. vwod 000 3%.; E 322.:
mwd I omN m0~.w_ 03.: 3:. EON 000 **0>m.0§ mum. Boom owveaoi 32m v
80.0 -0 I Saw. 30M- m0_.- m3. Cw..- 2.0 8:23 he “SEE owmcflz
34m I 0 _ .N Nde EN. EN. coed 3.0 may—Ea E :32 $235
3:0. I and 35m: mmm. 03. mmod 00.0 $000th Elm. 058 032305 8:26 .m
_v.m I VmN v0v0— 0_ m mum. wth 000 3me E .05. $825
00.N I OWN $0.00 mom. 3:. ZEN 00.0 immodam vow. Boom Hyman—Bos— uxacm N
00.m I m0.m 30.3 woo. wmfi 30m 000 imwmdmm 5v. 28m ego—305. 812m _
Sum
Sum .00 $3 0 comfiamncflm 30m Mm Sum Em m mm ..€< .0002

 

 

3E3 9:25 :z m00m 50 .208 002:3 83% >2 63$“? 8005000 05 E scant? mo conuamaxo 80 038 coEmbom .vwd Bash

ANS n =0 mEoccommE

110

_0>0_ 00.0 v a 05 E Emu—LEM: * .

0>0_ _00 v a 05 a anEcw_m 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aw _N.-0 I 0006.- *00N.N- 000.- Nmfi 000. _- 2.0 $00» “man 000:; mm 00m
:E .-v I Sim- *m_m.N- ~00: >00. N24- 2.0 000:00
NNO. - >00. *000.N 500. 0_ H. Vowd 000 _0>0_ _acozmoznfi
_ 5.0 I 0.0.0 01.9%.: 000. VON. m _ 0.m vvd 00000:» E _0>0_ .0835
_00.N I N3; 3.000.0— 000. N3. _0N.N N00 **vov.fi0_ 000.0 0500 0m00_305_ 003:0 0
AO0N.-v I 0o_.m- *h0m.m- 000.- 000. be . T :0 000:00
BNO. - :0. **N>0.N 000. 0. _. oom0 0_.0 _0>0_ _acosmos0m
0~o.m I 0mo.m Vim—0.0— hmm NON. 3.0.0 mv.0 000—0.; E _0>0_ 00000::
0_ 0.N I .0004 3000.0. _0v. m3. 0MNN _0.0 $000.09 mm0.0 Boom 0m00—305_ 003:0 v
m _0. - 000. “*0va v00. 00 _. 3&0 00.0 _0>0_ 00.50003me
:30 I mood 1.00%: mom. NON. bx: 3&0 000—0.; 5 ER: 8000::
N>0.N I 0N0.N **NNm.0_ 00v. TE. 00N.N m0.0 **00m.NON 000.0 0.50m 0302322 003:0 0
0.8.0u I 300 $000.3 mom. NON. 00.0 00.0 000.05 E _0>0_ 5000::
n00.~ I 000.N 3.80.0— .5. 03. NNWN V0.0 1005.23. 0N0.0 00000 00000505— 8030 N
momk. I o _ Wm 30%. 3 R0. 03. 00_ .m 00.0 0.0.3000.“V 000.0 058 0w00_305_ 003:0 _
500
80m .00 0.000 0 003050080 80m mm 80m 30 m Hm A0< _0002

 

 

.Amvm u 5 3000000000 >023 835. ZS 000m .00 00500 003000 00028 >2 .50 038 02002030 .0~.m 030,—.

111

_0>00 00.0 v 0 05 00 000000005 * 400,00 00.0 v 0 05 00 000008me “I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000.0 I 00.0.0- .20 _ 0.0- 000.- :0. >00. _ - 000 000.50
000.0 I 03.0 "1.2100 000. 0.00. 00. .0 00.0 000005 E 00000::
000.0 I 000.0 ** 300.0— .00. 0:. 000.0 00.0 1000.2 0 20.0 058. 0002392 30:0 0
000.0 I 03.0 3.0000 000. 000. >000 000 000005 E 3000::
000.0 I 0 _ 0.0 $200.0— 000. 0:. 000.0 00.0 $050. 0 :00 00000 0002305 00000 0
000.0 I 000.0 1.000. _0 000. 00% 000.0 00.0 .1000. 50 03.0 0.000 0000385. 00.000 _
80m .00 R000 0 000m .5 0.0m mm 000m 80 m NM ._.0< _0002

 

 

A000 0 5 300000000.— 0033 00.000 :2 0000 08 000000 00390 0305. mm .8 0300 020000030 00.0 030.0

112

_0>0_ 00.0 V a 05 .0 2.005%? * ._0>0_ _0.0 v 0 05 00 0:005:06 I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0mm. - So. :52 _m _. $0. 2:.- 80 Boa 0:53. 585033
:0 _ . Z I 53.- 283- mm _ .- 8: 3?.- Ed Ea :3 E 805 mm 80
28. Z I 2 3.- .....- 50.0- 00 _ .- «mm. ER- 80 00:20 .80 80: mm

:3 I 800 :83 won .2. 3?. 00.0 80.05 s 022.:
~03. I 20.0 .2.-$0.0 02. 50. we; 93 $05.? n?- 058 0002305. 80% 0
A8: I 000.0. 3000- _ _ _.- $2 ~50- 20 is» 08 e 905 mm 80
5 2-0 I 003.- 558.0- E .- 0%. E .N- 8.0 00:05 .08 305 mm
10.0 I EN 1.08.0 xmm. Sm. 83. 00.0 $wa 5 0225
003. I $0.0 $3.02 :3. E. 08.0 0.3 190$ «5.. 28m 000255. 9.20 0
E0. _ -0 I :3.- 1080- on _ .- 0%. 80.0- 000 00:20 .80 305 mm
35 I com-.0 $000.0 0 _ m 3.0 $5. one 800% s 0225
55. I 09.0 1302 a; _mm. 900 $0 :30. _ w «3. 28m 000232; 8.20 0
$3. I BE 3.02.0 30. 0%. 000.0. 2.0 was: 5 0225
.2.”. I 80.0 .1092 000. $0. 33 :8 $9.08. 0?. 28m 003305 30:0 N
3:“ I E:- iBwQ 0%. EN. 93. one :- _ 512 $0. 28,.- 0002305 9.20 _
000m
900 .00 .08 0 8003250 sum mm 300 as n. “m 03. .082

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.000 u 5 8000000000 003:0 0x05- ZE 0000 00 000000 005000 000000 mm 000 0300 02000000m 00.0 030.0

113

_0>0. mod v 0 05 .0 EmoEcmmm * ._u>o_ _00 v a 05 a Emocimi I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33.0 I New; **moo.N- >0. .- mwo. wf .- S .0 umSfiu 00020000 81:; >2

A: _.-0 I 03.. .51 mm.m- m2 - mwo. vwmr 2.0 «00:00:85 00:21; 0.00m
NE. - xm _. .3.-max: 00v. :0. 02. 3.0 **wa._w 00m. 208 07.: Econ—wag >Z m

$2.0 I «.3.. 312;.- on _ .- mmo. 00N.- m_.0 $0005.85 00:2; 0.00m
mt. - 3... t.- .00.m_ 3m. :0. m2. 0Y0 inmmd: 00N. 200m 03.. _mcoEoQE >2 N
3:. - _E. .3.-:53 nmm. :0. NS. 3.0 13005 www. 200w 0:: _acomhoqé >2 _

Sum
Sum .00 $3 0 onEm—ESm Sum mm Sum Sm m NM ..8< _200—2

 

 

 

Amwm n 5 3000:0080 >255 8:25 22 m00m .50 83% >2 0 mE>08 000 038 comm-«awed dad 2an

 

 

 

 

fix _ .0 I 0x?- nmvé- of - 050. 03,- 2 .0 A...=0:a::00=_ 850:3 0.00m
_2. - mm _. v5.2 how. 05. N2. N00 tum-2.50— m0m. 200» gm: _w:0m000E_ >2 N
Nx _. - 03. RD: mmm: 000. 3:. 3:0 .3.-ENS?“ 00m. 208 it 3085050 >2 _
Sum
Sum .00 0,03 0 00N_Em0cflm Sum mm Sum 3» L La ..€< .0002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Con n 5 3000:0030 >033- :2 m00m 08 Bfl m: 00 awe—Eamon 83% >2 0 mE>0E 00.“ 038 mommy-0&3“ .wm.m 035-

114

.96. no.0 v A. 05 .0 .amomamu * ..0>0. .00 v A. 0... .0 0.300.000 **

 

 

 

 

 

«E. - $0. RE 000. 0:. :0. :0 :8. .000 8.gm 0”. 80
$8... I 00m: m. Wm- .30.- 00.0. o. ..- 0. .0 0.00.000 0.00.000 00:00.02".
m2. - 0N.. 000.2 mom. ..0. NE. N00 **. .N...o cwm. 00000 0.0.0 3:00.590. my. m
:0.- - mo..- vmmd- 000.- 0.0.0. 50.. - 0.0 0.00.000 000.000 03:03.08".
v0.. I .N.. 0mm0.m. new. . .0. m3. .wd **.VN..I0 owN. 0.500 0.0... .000000QE. mm N
00.. I 0N.. 009m. vmm. . .0. 5:. mm... **m.v.bw. mnm. 00000 0.0... 30000000... my. .
0.0m
0.0m ...0 003 . 000.000.00.05 30m. mm 0.0m. 30 n. by. .2000 .0003.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A3.“ n 5 00000000000 0.0200 00.000 .5. m00m 00. 00.000 my. 0 00308 00. 0.00. 00.002003. .0m.m 0.0.0...

115

_0>0. m0.0 v A. 0... .0 380.0000 * ..0>0. .00 v a 0... .0 3000.030 .3..

 

 

 

 

 

.00. .-V I 0.0.- 108.0- 0m. .- 000. 0mm: w..0 WEE. 0.0... 00:00.0...
m. w. - 0. m. 3.0%... .0m. NWO. mg. 5.0 000.000 0. _0>0. 00.0....
m. .. - N50. fromvw 5mm. . .0. moo. mmd 1.02.00 ommd 0.000 0.0.. 3:00.09... mm m
9.0. I mwm. gown.» .wN. mwo. 0mm mmd 000.000 0. _0>0. 00.0....
0N.. I 50. 3.00.0. 00m. ..0- 00.. omd inched: 0.m. 0.000 V.0.. 02.00.09... mm N
mm... - b. .- **mmm.m. mm... 0.0. hr... mvd iomwfiom 3N. 0.000 0.0.. 3:00.09... my. .

0.0m.

0.0m. ...0 003 . 000.00.00.06 0.0m mm 0.0m. 3.0 II. 0”. 00¢. .0003.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.800 n .0 0.5000000. x0300 00.000 72). noon .0. 00.000 mm 0 9.30:. .0. 0.0.0. 00.000003. ..m.m 0.0.0...

116

 

Proportion of MI and MN Respondents Unsure of NV
Belief Statements

 

_..._ m --—..~-.._._.....q

 

 

Pest Control -02.er 2:0 .. . taggmwt. , 41.1:
4

 

 

 

 

 

*‘
~ .'.-,l-.. n ‘.',.~,‘it= ~ -.'.- --.:-, _ ...xq 'i"!'~ ‘ \' .‘ ..vlh .

Balance of Nature

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Injury Risk — ,, V

Death Risk k= ‘ lia

Move RS . : s.— . , r
Live wfi Mle _,

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.1 Proportion of MI and MN respondents who marked “unsure” to each of twelve

belief statements constituting a NV attitude scale on snake mail questionnaires (2005).

117

 

Proportion of Respondents Marking Unsure to RS Belief
Statements

 

_...._. --..._ . s -7 »-. _ .. --.n . _- ‘-__.- .4. .._.r..-.__. __. . ”0...”-.. .49.---u—q,

Enjoy Seeing ks malfg _.fl j W x». W L
Benefit

Ba'ance of Nature
Threaten PeOPIe 1 _. -:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spread Diseases

 

Threatens Pets i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bites cause Deaths
Injury Risk
Death Risk
Move RS
Live w/i Mile
0 1O 20 3O 4O 50 60
E M I W

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.2. Proportion of MI and MN respondents who marked “unsure” to each of
twelve belief statements constituting a RS snake attitude scale on mail questionnaires

(2005).

118

CHAPTER 4

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY: SUGGESTIONS FOR SNAKES

119

4.1. Introduction

Insights from human dimensions research increasingly are incorporated into
natural resources management (Decker et al. 2001). However, little human dimensions
research has included reptiles with the exception of one national survey assessing the
public’s attitudes toward particular wildlife species including turtles and snakes (Kellert
1980). Kellert (1980) examined public willingness to sacrifice a variety of benefits to
assure the well-being of several endangered species. In the case of reptiles, respondents
expressed little desire to make sacrifices to protect the eastern indigo snake, a species
listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, yet were willing to sacrifice a
considerable amount for other species (Kellert and Berry 1979). Furthermore,
rattlesnakes (RS) were disliked by 78% of respondents, and ranked as the fifth most
disliked animal of thirty-three included in the survey. Only wasps, rats, mosquitoes, and
cockroaches were more disliked than RS.

Kellert’s findings have been repeated in more current studies. In a survey of
visitors to an eastern national park, strong support was indicated for all “wildlife.” But
respondents were not as supportive toward the existence of snakes as a group when asked
whether snakes in the park should be killed (Greene 1997). In a separate study in
southeastern Australia, people who had killed snakes in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation
Area explained their actions as: 1) protecting their children and family pets (53%), 2)
“hate” (16%), 3) fear (8%), and 4) no reason given (23%) (Whitaker and Shine 2000).
Because of the negative attitudes toward and lethal human behaviors imposed on snakes,
social acceptance capacity (SAC) is a theoretical framework that may be helpful in reptile

conservation efforts by providing opportunities to reduce negative behaviors and build

120

individual and community capacities to co-exist with snakes and other reptiles. Various
models have been used to represent the SAC theoretical framework in wildlife
management (Table 4.1). The SAC framework originated in the leisure sciences and was
referred to as “social carrying capacity” (SCC) (Shelby and Heberlein 1986). SCC
addressed the density of people participating in recreational opportunities in an area and
its impact on user satisfaction. SCC is surpassed when impacts in an area exceed
acceptable levels of a specified evaluative standard. The SCC framework was first
applied in wildlife management for nuisance or perceived overabundant populations, and
had its roots in biological carrying capacity (i.e., the maximum number of animals that a
given area of habitat can sustain). Thus, human dimensions researchers first used
numbers of animals rather than numbers or types of human-animal interactions as a
determinant of SAC. More recently, researchers have started to examine frequencies and
kinds of wildlife-human interactions as a determinant of SAC and as a framework for
wildlife management under the label of adaptive impacts management (Riley et al. 2002).
The earliest work ascribing a SAC framework to wildlife management was
conducted by Decker and Purdy (1988) for white-tailed deer. They defined wildlife
acceptance capacity (WAC) as the maximum number of animals of a particular species
that would be tolerated by humans in an area. An upper limit, but no lower limit, was
identified as a target for a wildlife population. Decker and Purdy’s early framework
focused on one key stakeholder group rather than including multiple stakeholders.
More recently, Decker et al. (1996) defined a stakeholder as an individual who will be
affected by, or will affect, wildlife or wildlife management. Stakeholders may include

diverse groups such as hunters, animal rights supporters, individuals that feed wildlife,

121

individuals that observe wildlife, motorists that risk deer-vehicle collisions, among
others. Because such groups are not mutually exclusive, individuals often belong
concurrently to two or more of these groups. These groups are important in management
of wildlife populations due to their increased investment (IAFW A 2002) and risk (Stout
et al. 1993, Conover 1995) associated with such populations. Because of the abundance
and diversity of stakeholder groups, wildlife managers need to decide whose interests
they will address in a given situation (Riley et al. 2002). Stakes for each focal group can
be determined in various ways, and are discussed in the next two described frameworks
associated with SAC.

Using WAC as a starting point, Minnis and Peyton (1995) proposed a cultural
carrying capacity (CCC) framework that incorporated social judgment theory (Sherif and
Hovland 1961), in which three divisions to the evaluative continuum of an individual’s
attitude toward an object or issue are posited. The latitude of acceptance (LOA) contains
beliefs about the object or issue that the individual considers acceptable while the latitude
of rejection contains beliefs that are unacceptable. Finally, the latitude of non-
commitment contains beliefs that are neither acceptable nor unacceptable. According to
Minnis and Peyton (1995), multiple stakeholders have defined LOAs (i.e. lower and
upper size limits for a particular wildlife population). By defining LOAs for key
stakeholder groups, the area common to all is deemed the CCC for a species in a
particular place and time, and eliminates the need for wildlife managers to choose among
stakeholder priorities in making management decisions. Thus, CCC is defined as the
wildlife population level in a defined area that produces the most manageable amount of

issue activity at a given time. Rather than absolute numbers of animals considered the

122

key determinant of cultural carrying capacity, numbers of human-animal interactions and
public attitudes as they relate to the likelihood of issue activities were also included.

Social judgment theory (Sherif and Hovland 1961) predicts that when a
communicator puts forward a persuasive message that reflects a receiver’s own
attitudinal position or a similar position, the receiver will assimilate the position toward
his or her own attitude and persuasion is apt to be successful. However, when a
communicator puts forward a persuasive message that does not reflect a receiver’s
attitudinal position or a similar position, the receiver is likely to contrast the position
away from his or her own attitude and persuasion is unlikely to be successful (Eagly and
Chaiken 1993). Thus wildlife managers can use such information to predict the
acceptability or rejection of messages to influence CCC for a particular wildlife
population by multiple stakeholder groups. Minnis and Peyton acknowledged the
temporally and spatially dynamic nature of CCC, and defined an upper and lower limit to
wildlife-human interactions.

Finally, Carpenter et al. (2000) proposed the wildlife stakeholder acceptance
capacity (WSAC) framework, based on social efficiency theory (Shelby and Heberlein
1986). Shelby and Heberlein posited that social efficiency was maximized by putting a
resource to its most highly valued use. Social efficiency theory predicts that managers
will manipulate wildlife populations to provide its most highly valued use. Carpenter et
a]. (2000) generalized the concept of social efficiency to wildlife management decisions,
and presented a mathematical formula by which wildlife managers could maximize the
net social value of their decisions. Stakeholders are an explicitly stated part of the

framework because of the inherent role they play in wildlife management (Decker et. al

123

1996), and as in the case of Minnis and Peyton, multiple stakeholders are considered.
Stakes are weighted for each group and are determined by size of the group and the
intensity of support or opposition that the group holds toward a particular management
action (Table 4.1). The dynamic nature of WSAC is acknowledged, and upper and lower
limits are defined in terms of desires for and tolerance of wildlife impacts, i.e., human-
wildlife interactions recognized by a stakeholder and that serve as impetus for some sort
of action by the stakeholder. WSAC is determined by a complex mix of variables:
psychological variables, such as value orientations and specific beliefs; behavioral
variables, such as past experience with wildlife; and situational specifics, such as wildlife
encounter frequency and wildlife management actions (Zinn et al. 2000).

The frameworks for SAC that have been applied to wildlife management
situations thus far have relied on well-defined and vocal stakeholder groups and have
been applied to “huggable” (i.e., mammals and birds) wildlife populations, such as white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Minnis and Peyton 1995, Minnis 1997, West and
Parkhurst 2002), black bear ( Ursus Americana) (Peyton et al. 2001, Bowman et al. 2001,
Organ and Ellingwood 2000, Miller et al. 1998, Grise 1995), timber wolf (Canis lupus)
(Beyer et al. 2006, Pate et al. 1996, Schoenecker and Shaw 1997, Bjerke et al. 1998)
mountain lion (Puma concolor) (Riley and Decker 2000a and b, Manfredo et al. 1998,
Wolch et al. 1997), and Canada goose (Branta candensis) (Coluccy et al. 2001). Reasons
for these species’ importance to stakeholders include but are not limited to: 1) license
revenues and excise taxes paid by the hunting public (Federal Aid 2006, International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2002); 2) damage to agricultural crops and

livestock (Conover et. al 1995); and 3) threats to human health and safety, such as deer-

124

vehicle collisions (Stout et al. 1993). These species have garnered considerable funding
and management attention and thus, are relatively well-known. In contrast, no
information exists pertaining to SAC for reptiles, and in particular, snakes. However,
these frameworks can also be applied to snakes, turtles, or other non—game species, which
do not have well-defined and cohesive stakeholder groups, and for which we have little
information regarding population dynamics and relationships between numbers of
animals and numbers of human-animal interactions in an area (Table 4.2).

The major goal of this study was to test two existing frameworks of SAC —
cultural carrying capacity concept (CCC) and its associated latitudes of acceptance and
wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity concept (WSAC) and its proxy- desire for future
populations —as used by Riley and Decker (2000b) and Lischka (2006). Based upon this
goal, we sought to assess the utility of the frameworks and to compare and contrast
results from MI and MN, where human and snake populations differed. We hypothesized
that stakeholders who believed they were living in areas with extant RS populations
would be more likely to demonstrate less tolerance of and desire for RS populations than
stakeholders who believed that RS were absent or were unsure whether RS existed in

their areas.

4.2 Study Areas
Two areas were selected for research, one in southeastern MI and the other in
southeastern MN. Study areas allowed for a comparison of stakeholder SACs between

two similar, but importantly different, RS species and states. Each study area consisted

125

of four counties in which one of two RS species (i.e., the timber rattlesnake in MN, and
the eastern massasauga rattlesnake in MI) existed. All county-level demographic

information and ecoregion descriptions can be found in Chapter 1.

4.3 Methods

Mail surveys were conducted in MI and MN using a modified version of
Dillman’s Tailored Design Method (2000) that included six mailings (See Chapter 3 for
details). MI and MN data were analyzed separately to account for differences between
snake species and respondents in the two states (Table 3.2, Chapter 3, this ms).
In each state, stakeholder groups were defined post hoc, based on their responses to a
questionnaire item that asked about the current RS population in their area. One group of
stakeholders consisted of respondents who believed that they were living and recreating
in an area with RS, a second group consisted of respondents who believed they were
living and recreating in an area without RS, and a third group of respondents who were
unsure of whether they shared their living and recreation area with RS. The assumption
was made that these groups were not cohesive or unified in any way, such as working
toward a common goal, though this was not formally tested. Rather, stakeholders were
classified strictly based on their perceived geographic proximity to RS. Individuals that
actually are living in close proximity have a greater probability of encounter(s) with RS
and thus may derive greater direct benefits (i.e., rodent control, aesthetics) as well as
facing greater direct risk (i.e., snakebite) from them. Such individuals are of particular
interest because they have a greater likelihood of contact with RS, and therefore have a

greater probability of engaging in some sort of behavior in response to such

126

interactions. Individuals living elsewhere do not have the opportunity to view RS as
regularly in the wild but also are not presented with the potential risk from such
encounters.

We hypothesized that stakeholders who believed they were living in areas with
extant RS populations would be more likely to demonstrate less tolerance of and desire
for RS populations than stakeholders who believed that RS were absent or were unsure
whether RS existed in their areas. To test this hypothesis, data collected were used to
determine (1) whether there were differences in latitudes of acceptance and desires for
future RS populations among stakeholders who believed they lived in the presence of RS,
stakeholders who believed they lived in areas without RS and stakeholders who were
unsure of whether or not RS were present, (2) whether stakeholders’ latitudes of
acceptance and desire for future RS populations were inversely related to degree of risk
perceived by individuals, (3) whether stakeholders’ desire for future populations for non-
venomous (NV) snakes exceeded that of RS, and (4) differences and similarities in results
between MI and MN.

Measures of SAC were modeled after Riley and Decker (2000), Lischka (2006)
and Beyer et al. (2006). Questionnaire respondents were queried regarding what change
they would like to see in NV snake and RS populations in their neighborhoods. Potential
responses included: (-1) Decrease a lot, (-1) Decrease somewhat, (0) Stay the same, (1)
Increase somewhat, (1) Increase a lot, and (88) No opinion, which was coded as missing
data. As a follow-up, respondents were further asked to indicate how important it was to
them that the indicated population (i.e., NV snakes or RS) actually match their desired

Change. Responses included: (I) Not at all important, (2 ) Somewhat important, (3 ) Very

127

important and (99) Unsure, which was coded as missing data. A respondent’s desire for
future snake populations then was defined as the product of their desire for a population’s
change multiplied by the importance that the population actually match the respondent’s
indicated preference (-3 — +3).

Based on hypothetical scenarios used to measure tolerance for black bears
(Peyton et al. 2001), we developed six hypothetical scenarios for RS populations and the
number of human-RS, pet—RS, and livestock-RS interactions associated with each
population level. As the numbers of RS increased in the hypothetical scenarios, the
potential consequences for pets, livestock and humans became greater (Table 4.3). A
partial “latitude of acceptance” (LOA) was constructed for each defined stakeholder
group by using the average preferred population level (q27, Appendix A.3.) chosen by
the group and the average maximum tolerable situation that would induce issue activity
(q28, Appendix A.3.).

Factor analysis was used to identify two factors, RS stewardship and RS
impersonal risk, underlying twelve belief statements that respondents were asked to
consider and indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each. A respondent’s
RS stewardship score was calculated using responses from six questionnaire items and a
RS impersonal score was measured using six questionnaire items (Table 3.1, Chapter 3,
this ms). Self-perceived personal risk was measured by one questionnaire item (question
2'1b, Appendix A3.) I

In addition to the a priori stakeholder groups, respondents were segmented post de
facto into groups of interest to test for differences using t-tests, ANOVA and general

linear models. We used a stepwise regression procedure to identify the variables that

128

accounted for the greatest amount of variation in LOA measures and future snake
population desires. Model selection was based on changes in adjusted R2 values, p _<_
0.05. Demographic variables tested for inclusion in models were: (1) number of years
living in state, (2) number of years living at current residence, (3) description of area in
which you currently live, (4) description of area in which you lived as a child, (5) gender,
(6) educational level, (7) whether or not a respondent had children living in their
residence, (8) whether or not a respondent had dogs living at their residence, and the (8)
age class to which a respondent belonged. Human trait variables that were tested for
inclusion in models were: (1) wildlife and outdoor activities score, (2) information
seeking behavior regarding wildlife, (3) interest in wildlife, (4) wildlife habitat
management, (5) interest in snakes, (6) NV snake experience score, (7) RS experience
score, (8) whether or not a respondent had observed a RS in their neighborhood in the
past year, (9) how the NV snake population had changed in the neighborhood, (10) how
the RS population had changed in the neighborhood, (11) how the frequency of close
contacts between RS and people in M1 or MN have changed, (12) perceived personal risk
from RS, (13) post hoc stakeholder group, ( l4) snake knowledge score, (15) NV
impersonal risk score, (16) RS impersonal risk score, (17) NV stewardship score, and

( 18) RS stewardship score. Not all variables were tested for inclusion due to collinearity
concerns, but instead, the variables that made most logical sense in terms of hypothesis
testing were included while others were excluded from consideration when applicable.

SPSS 13.0 and 15.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for all analyses.

129

4.4 Results
4.4.] Cultural Carrying Capacity - Latitudes of Acceptance

In M1, the overall average preferred RS population and hypothetical associated
impacts situation was 2.26 j; 1.26, which was truncated as Situation 2 (Situation B, prior
to q27, A3). In this Situation, RS were described as existing but rarely sighted by anyone
and as being at risk of extinction. Forty-one percent of MI respondents chose a preferred
situation of no RS present in their neighborhoods. The overall average maximum
tolerable RS population and hypothetical associated impacts situation was 3.99 i 1.55
(rounded up to Situation 4, i.e. Situation D, prior to q27, A3). Under this scenario, RS
are sighted regularly, pets or livestock are rarely bitten and RS populations are healthy
but scattered. This partial LOA consisted of a preferred RS population that was at risk of
extinction and an upper tolerance level of healthy but scattered RS populations.

MI stakeholder groups differed in their mean preferred and maximum tolerable
situations. Respondents who believed that RS were present in their area chose a higher
preferred situation (2.75 i 1.19) and maximum tolerable score (4.39 i 1.45) than
respondents who believed that RS were absent (2.03 i 1.26 and 3.83 i 1.53) and
respondents who were unsure (1.89 i 1.15 and 3.71 i 1.56) (n = 948, F = 45.86, df = 2, p
< 0.01; and n = 915, F = 17.06, df = 2, p < 0.01, respectively) (Figure 4.1).

In MN, the overall average preferred situation was 2.27 i 1.25 (n = 1,144), which was
truncated to Situation 2. The overall mean maximum tolerable situation was 3.78 i 1.57,
which was rounded up to Situation 4. Forty percent of MN respondents indicated a
preferred situation that consisted of no RS in the neighborhood. The mean preferred

situation did not differ between MI and MN (means = 2.26 and 2.27 respectively; n =

130

2,135, t = -0. l6, df = 2,133, p = 0.88). However, mean maximum tolerable situation was
greater in MI than MN (means 2 3.99 and 3.78, respectively; n =2,054, t = 3.02, df =
2,052, p < 0.01).

The three MN stakeholder groups differed in their mean preferred situations (n =

1,134, F = 67.68, df = 2, p < 0.01). Respondents who believed that RS were present
scored highest (2.69 i 1.15), followed by unsure respondents (2.08 i 1.24, p < 0.01) and
respondents who believed that RS were absent (1.81 i 1.18, p < 0.01). Unsure
respondents scored higher than respondents who believed that RS were absent (p < 0.04).
Respondents who believed that RS were present chose a higher maximum tolerable
situation (4.16 i 1.41) than unsure respondents (3.55 j; 1.67, p < 0.01) and respondents
who believed that RS were absent (3.42 _-l_- 1.60, p < 0.01) (n = 1,089, F =28.63, df = 2, p
< 0.01). Unsure respondents did not differ from respondents who believed that RS were
absent (p = 0.77) (Figure 4.2).

4.4.2 Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity — Desire for Future Rattlesnake
Populations

In MI, respondents tended to desire somewhat of a decrease in future RS
populations (avg. —0.63 i 1.42). More than half (57.4%) of respondents indicated that
they would like the RS population to remain at its current level. In MN, desires for future

RS populations averaged (-0.49 i 1.39). Greater than half (60.9%) of respondents
indicated that they would like the RS population to remain at its current level. Mean
desire for future RS populations was lower for MI than MN (n = 1,675, t = -2.04, df =

1,602, p = 0.04).

131

Mean desire for future RS populations differed among stakeholder groups in MI
(n = 725, F = 8.40, df = 2, p < 0.01). Post hoc tests indicated that stakeholders who
believed that they lived in the presence of RS had higher scores (-0.42 i 1.38) than
respondents who were unsure of whether RS were present (-0.98 i 1.51) (Tamhane’s T2
test, p < 0.01). Stakeholder groups also differed in MN (n = 908, F = 9.62, df = 2, p <
0.01). Stakeholders who were unsure of whether RS were present scored lower (0.96 i
1.50) than stakeholders who believed they lived in the presence of RS (038 j; 1.45, p <
0.01) and stakeholders who believed that RS were absent (-0.42 i 1.18, p = 0.01).
4.4.3 Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity — Desire for Future Non-venomous
Snake Populations

In MI, the average score for desire for future NV snake populations was 0.25 i
1.34. The most commonly selected response indicated adesire for the NV snake
population to remain as it is (60.8%). MI stakeholder groups differed in their desires for
future NV snake populations (n = 814, F = 5.24, df = 2, p < 0.01). Respondents who
lived and recreated in areas with RS scored higher (0.39 i 1.36) than respondents who
were unsure if RS were present (001 i 1.35, p < 0.01). Respondents who believed that
RS were absent did not differ from the other two groups (0.23 i 1.31, p = 0.39 (Yes RS)
and p = 0.14 (Unsure)).

In MN, the average score for desire for future NV snake populations was 0.18 i
1.23. The most commonly selected response suggested a desire for NV snake
populations to remain at their current levels (64.8%). Stakeholder groups in MN differed
in their desires for future NV snake populations (n = 940, F = 6.20, df = 2, p < 0.01).

Stakeholders who were unsure whether RS were present scored lower (-0.12 i 1.42) than

132

respondents who believed that RS were present (0.29 i 1.24, p < 0.01). Respondents
who believed that RS were absent did not differ (0.16 i 1.10, p = 0.33 (Yes RS) and p =
0.11 (Unsure)).

Desires for future NV snake populations did not differ between MI and MN
respondents (n = 1,801, t = 1.27, df= 1,736, p = 0.20). Desires for NV snake
populations and RS populations in M1 were moderately correlated (Pearson’s r = 0.62, p
< 0.01), though a paired sample t-test indicated that desires for NV snake populations
were greater than for RS (means = 0.25 and -0.63, respectively; t 218.48, df =706, p <
0.01). Results were similar in MN (Pearson’s r = 0.65, p < 0.01; means = 0.18 and -0.49,
respectively; t = 16.66, df = 841, p < 0.01). Changes in the NV snake population in a
respondent’s area were inversely related to desires for future NV snake populations in MI
and MN (Pearson’s r = -0.23, Adj. R2 = 0.05, F = 32.64,t = - 5.71, p < 0.01 and
Pearson’s r = -0.26, Adj. R2 = 0.07, F = 46.77, t = —6.84, p < 0.01, respectively).

4.4.4 Comparison of Cultural Carrying Capacity and Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance
Capacity Measures

Correlations among measures of CCC and WSAC were positive and moderate to
good (Fink 2003) in MI and MN. In M1, the Pearson’s test statistic for correlations
between desired future RS populations and preferred and maximum tolerable situations
were r = 0.52 (p < 0.01, two—tailed test, n = 716) and r = 0.39 (p < 0.01, two-tailed test, n
= 691) (Figure 4.3). Correlation between preferred and maximum tolerable situations
was r = 0.54 (p < 0.01, two-tailed test, n = 943). Results were similar for MN measures.
The Pearson’s test statistic for correlations between desired future RS populations and

preferred and maximum tolerable situations were r = 0.49 (p < 0.01, two—tailed test, n =

133

887) and r = 0.32 (p < 0.01, two-tailed test, it = 859) (Figure 4.4). Correlation between
preferred and maximum tolerable situations was r = 0.57 (p < 0.01, two-tailed test, n =
1,085).

4.4.5 Explanatory Factors for Latitudes of Acceptance

In M1, the factors that explained the greatest amount of variability in preferred
situation were RS stewardship score, educational level, description of the area in which
the respondent lived (area description), and the age class to which the respondent
belonged (Table 4.4). The factors that explained the greatest amount of variability in
maximum tolerable situation in M1 were RS stewardship score, whether or not the
respondent managed habitat for wildlife, and age class (Table 4.5).

In MN, the factors that explained the greatest amount of variability in preferred
situation were RS stewardship score, description of the area in which the respondent
currently resided, number of years a respondent had resided in the state and degree of
personal risk from a RS perceived by the respondent (Table 4.6). The factors that
explained the greatest amount of variability in maximum tolerable situation in MN were
RS stewardship score, description of the area in which the respondent lived, the number
of years that a respondent had lived in MN and a respondent’s level of interest in local
wildlife issues (Table 4.7)

4.4.6 Explanatory Factors for Future Snake Population Desires

The factors that explained the greatest amount of variability in desire for future
RS populations in M1 were RS stewardship score, degree of personal risk perceived by an
individual from a RS and age class (Table 4.8). The factors that explained the greatest

amount of variability in desire for future RS populations in MN were RS stewardship

134

score, degree of personal risk perceived from a RS, belief about how close contacts
between people and RS are changing, and dog ownership (Table 4.9).

In M1, the independent factors included in regression models that explained
variation in desires for NV snake populations were NV snake stewardship score and a
measure of a respondent’s belief in how the NV snake population had changed over time
(Table 4.10). The same two independent factors were included in the model for future
NV snake population desires in MN (Table 4.1 1).

4.4.7 Relationship of Risk to Capacity Measures

We examined the relationship between respondents’ rating of personal risk posed
by RS and our SAC measures (i.e., preferred situation, maximum tolerable situation and
desire for future RS populations) (Table 4.12). An inverse relationship existed between
respondents’ ratings of personal risk posed by RS and their desires for future RS
populations (Figure 4.5). Regression procedures were used to test whether SAC
measures demonstrated an inverse relationship with ratings of personal risk from RS
perceived by respondents (Table 4.13) and to examine the relationship between SAC
measures and a respondent’s RS impersonal risk score (Table 4.14). RS impersonal risk
score accounted for a change in adjusted R2 that ranged 0.14-0.21 for M1 respondents and
0.10-0.36 for MN respondents.

Because of the importance of RS stewardship score in explaining variability in the
various SAC measures, regression was used to examine its bivariate relationship with
each of the SAC measures (Table 4.15). RS stewardship scores accounted for a change

in adjusted R2 that ranged 0.22-0.48 for M1 respondents and 0.13-0.47 for MN

respondents. The bivariate correlation was calculated for RS impersonal risk scores and
RS stewardship scores for M1 respondents (r = 0.71, p < 0.01) and MN respondents (r =
0.67, p < 0.01). Because of the high correlation between the two variables, only one was
included in any regression model used to account for variability in SAC measures. RS
stewardship score was chosen because of its greater contribution, i.e., adj. R2, to

variability in dependent measures.

4.5 Discussion

Few articles have been published that have actually attempted to operationalize
the concepts of CCC (Peyton et a1. 2001) and WSAC (Lischka 2006). Results of this
study suggested the two frameworks result in highly correlated results and agreement
among the variables that explain the greatest degree of variation in the dependent
measures. Either framework may work equally well when attempting to gauge
stakeholder tolerance of and desires for interactions with a wildlife species of interest.

Contrary to much of the previous research on stakeholder attitudes toward
carnivores (Riley and Decker 2000b, Kellert 1985, Williams et al. 2002), this study
indicates that respondents who recognize they live in the company of RS are more
tolerant of RS than stakeholders who believe otherwise. This tolerance of landowners
living with RS mirrors that of MI stakeholders’ tolerance of another potentially risky
species, the black bear (Peyton et a1. 2001). Past experience with bears and awareness of
bears coincided with a higher WAC, or maximum tolerable situation for bears. The
authors concluded that living with bears had not produced more intolerance for bears.

Similar to this study, Peyton et a1. (2001) also found that respondents who lived in areas

136

where no bears were currently present, were less tolerant of having black bear in their
area than respondents who lived in areas where bears were present. Findings on black
bears and RS in MI may reflect a lack of any lethal encounters with either of these
species in that state or a lack of media attention. Although the eastern massasauga has
been documented in almost half of the counties in the lower peninsula of MI, there does
not appear to have been any documented fatalities from this species during the past fifty
years. This may suggest that there are few negative impacts, damage or threats to human
safety that stakeholders actually experience when they reside in an area with extant RS
populations. Such stakeholders may acclimate to the RS over time, although this
hypothesis was not tested.

A large proportion of respondents (>20%) were unsure whether they lived in an
area with RS. As a result, such individuals might be unable to make well-informed
decisions or provide relevant input to the snake management processes in their areas.
This also suggests that human-snake encounters may be very rare, even when snakes are
present (Whitaker and Shine 2000).

Surprisingly, level of personal risk that a respondent felt from a RS was not
related to an individual’s preferred or maximum tolerable situation, but a strong
relationship was demonstrated for personal risk ratings and desire for future RS
populations. There was a stronger relationship between impersonal risk scores and any of
the SAC measures. The majority of respondents felt at no risk or only slight risk from
RS. Riley and Decker (2000) and Stout et al. (1993) found similar patterns for SACs for

mountain lions and deer.

137

As expected, respondents had a greater desire for an increase in NV snake
populations than RS populations. What was unexpected was that the desire for an
increase in NV snake populations was so slight (< 1 on a scale of 0-3). These data
demonstrated, as expected, an inverse relationship between a respondent’s perception of
how the NV snake population had changed since the respondent had lived in an area and
a respondent’s desire for future NV snake populations. What was most similar for both
groups of snakes (i.e. NV snakes and RS) was the great percentage of people who opted
for a response which may have indicated desires for the current NV and RS populations
to stay the same. It’s unclear why stakeholders chose that response, though similar
results have been obtained for white-tailed deer (Christoffel and Craven 2000, Decker
and Gavin 1987), mountain lions (Riley and Decker 2000b) and black bear (Peyton et al.
2001), among others. Perhaps such responses are an indication of the sentiment, “If it’s
not broke, why fix it?” and just represent contentment with the status quo.

In comparing the utility of the two methods used to measure SAC to guide
management actions for RS, there are problems with both. Desire for future populations
as a proxy for WSAC, as measured in terms of Riley and Decker (2000) and Lischka
(2006) only indicates stakeholders’ desires for how they would like to see the wildlife
population of interest change. Such desires seem irrelevant for management when a large
segment of stakeholders has little idea of what the current wildlife population of interest
is and/or is totally intolerant of the wildlife population of interest. As a result, such stated
desires give managers little information regarding accurate identification of maximum
tolerance levels for human-wildlife interactions when human experiences with the

wildlife species of interest are so limited (i.e., no experience or perhaps sighting an

138

individual animal out in the wild). LOAs seem at least partially irrelevant to snake
management when stakeholders indicate a preferred situation of having no snakes
present. Under such circumstances, only an intolerance level can be determined, and the
management goal becomes one of not exceeding that tolerance level or managing for
WAC (Decker and Purdy 1988). It is interesting to contemplate the implications of
stakeholders’ maximum tolerable situations in terms of managing RS populations,
however, given the results of this research. The majority of stakeholders would tolerate
situations up to and including #4, but there was a dramatic drop for situation #5 and #6.
The latter were the only two situations in which bites to humans were mentioned as
occurring, and even so, these would still be we occurrences. It appears that the great
majority of respondents to this survey were intolerant of any potential risk of RS bite to
humans in their areas.

Though respondent populations differed between MN and MI, similar results
were obtained regarding SACs for NV snakes and RS in both states. The factors that
explained the greatest variability in SAC measures were the same in many cases. In
particular, it was striking how important RS stewardship score was for SAC in both
states, though human and rattlesnakes differed in various ways, including demographic
characteristics in humans and size and potential for observation in RS species. This
suggests that a measure of stewardship may also be the most important factor in
determining SACs for RS elsewhere. Stakeholder groups and their associated SAC
results demonstrated similar patterns in MI and MN, indicating that classification of
stakeholder groups based on geographic proximity to RS was valid and potentially useful

for classifying RS stakeholder groups in other areas.

139

4.6 Management Implications

The utility of measuring (or attempting to measure) SACs for snakes is in
identifying the underlying beliefs and attitudes that stakeholders possess about wildlife
and their influence on measures of SAC, and subsequently using such information to
manage people’s beliefs and attitudes toward, and associated tolerance of, the wildlife
population of interest (Beyer et al. 2006). Both approaches, i.e. CCC and WSAC, used in
this study emphasize the importance of communication and educational efforts in
managing wildlife populations (Peyton et al. 2001, Beyer et a1. 2006, Carpenter et al
2000), and both provide a mechanism whereby such efforts can be assessed — monitoring
how stakeholder beliefs and attitudes change over time, and how such changes impact
their tolerance of and desires for interactions with wildlife.

Clearly, RS stewardship score explained a great deal of the variation in measures
of SAC for M1 and MN stakeholders toward RS. This should be tested in other areas of
the US where greater than one species of RS occurs and where stakeholders may differ
from the present study. Study results suggest that a stewardship score may be used as an
evaluative tool for monitoring SAC for RS, and that communication and education efforts
may yield the greatest results if they are focused on influencing stakeholder stewardship
scores.

Study results also suggested that there is an overlap in stakeholder LOAs, even if
the LOAs are not complete. Results potentially may be used by wildlife managers to
guide snake management decisions and to start monitoring SAC, particularly in areas
where known RS populations exist. However, it’s essential that managers start

monitoring RS populations as well as human-rattlesnake interactions in MI and MN.

140

Few studies have been conducted that can be used to estimate RS population numbers in
an area, and current monitoring for human-rattlesnake encounters appears to consist of a
call for citizens to report sightings of eastern massasauga rattlesnakes in MI and timber
rattlesnakes in MN. A more systematic approach will need to be taken if SACs and their
implications for RS conservation and management are to be used in such efforts.

The identification of misconceptions regarding risks posed to humans by both NV
snakes and RS through the process of formulating SACs for these groups can be used to
produce written materials and programs aimed at correcting such misconceptions. Future
work should evaluate the effectiveness of educational outreach efforts in correcting such

misconceptions and their influence on SACs.

141

Table 4.1. Three existing frameworks used for incorporating social acceptance capacity

in wildlife management decisions. (WAC = wildlife acceptance capacity, CCC = cultural

carrying capacity, WSAC = wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity).

 

 

 

 

 

 

WAC (Decker and CCC (Minnis and WSAC (Carpenter
Purdy, 1988) Peyton, 1995) et al., 2000)

Goals Manage for Manage for wildlife Manage population to
maximum wildlife numbers that produce the maximize net social
population level in an most manageable amount value of decisions
area for one key of issue activity at a (minimizing conflicts
stakeholder group. syccific time and place. is subordinate).

Limits Upper only Upper and Lower Upper and Lower

Theoretical Taken from Social judgment them — Social efficiency

framework biological carrying attitudinal responses are theog — social

capacity in part

mediated by judgmental
processes and effects.
Where “latitude of
acceptance” terminology
comes from (Sherif and
Hovland).

efficiency is
maximized when a
resource is allocated
to its most highly
valued use (Shelby
and Heberlein 1986).

 

 

 

 

 

Key parameters Weighting CCC/ARM-includes many N = stakeholder #s
of interest mentioned. parameters, especially S=degree stakeholder
Account for social, management, impact, group is impacted +/-
economic and relationships between P=group political
political factors. impact and management, power
No specification. perceptions, behaviors. I=intensity of support
Calculation unclear. or opposition
Considerations Consider damage and Behaviors to increase or Consider: a)
appreciative interests decrease extent of wildlife- constraints to benefits
and thresholds, human interactions with stakeholders receive
perceived species may involve from wildlife and b)
competition of the personal efforts or trying detrimental impacts
species w/another of to modify management of wildlife on
interest, role of WL agency’s approach (when economic, social and
disease transmission WL population becomes environmental values
to livestock, etc. an issue for guy). of stakeholders.
Influencing Communication and Education, resetting Communication and
capacity education. Sizable management goals, education. Authors
discrepancies in communication, providing state it is reasonable
WAC and technical or financial to expect that when
management assistance. Stakeholders understanding of an
objectives for a key may solve impacts via issue is high,
constituency personal efforts or through intensity of support
represents a potential higher authority. Agency will be proportional
management problem should respond prior to to actual stake in
disruptive issue activity. issue.
Static/dynamic Dynamic Dynamic-adaptive Dynamic in time and

 

 

management/monitoring.

 

space.

 

142

 

Table 4.2. A comparison of species and their characteristic traits for which social
acceptance capacity frameworks have been applied (i.e. huggables) vs. those for which
social acceptance capacity frameworks have not been applied (i.e., unhuggables). (+) =

trait present, (-) = trait absent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trait Huggables Unhuggables

Wildlife population estimate available

(+) (-)
Relationship between wildlife population
and human interaction frequencies known

(+) (-)
Species awareness (+) ' (-)
Species appreciation (+) (-)
Knowledge of species’ natural history
and management needs (+) (—)
Well-defined stakeholder groups

(+) (-)

 

 

 

 

143

Table 4.3. Six hypothetical scenarios and their associated characteristics and frequencies
that were used to measure cultural carrying capacities for rattlesnakes in mail surveys

about snakes conducted in Michigan and Minnesota (2005).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Situation Snake Sightings Bites Pets Bites Bites People
Populations Livestock
1 NA NA NA NA N A
2 Risk Extinction Rare N A NA NA
3 Small and Occasional Rare Rare NA
Isolated
4 Healthy but Regular Rare Rare NA
Scattered
5 Healthy & Regular Occasional Occasional Rare
Connected
6 Abundant & Frequent Occasional Occasional Rare
Widespread

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmor m2 .- ihooa- 50.. So. vacr S .o
mam—o ow<
Omor of .- assumed- 02 .- mg .- S .o
.5338an no?
we. .80. :33 2:. :o. N; .22 2:233
m3. om". icon. ~ N mwm. mm fl. mmd ivhfiom _ 8?: 28m 35.5305 8.23.23“ as
Sou m2 .- sigma- 30.- GB. m9 .. 26
5:95.80 32.
2 2. :5. :83 2 a. a8. 3 .o .22 assess
3:. as. 1.35. _ N owm. mm fi. 006 traces: owm. Boom 328333... aficmozam m
N2. mac. .3.. _ 9% 8a. a _ 0. m8. 2 .o _0>0. .2238
2:. v3. icmmNm moo. om fl. cod 3.05.03 Num. .2on 95.63395 8.28:5. N
mi. VS. *LKNNN woo. woo. om _. cod imcowmv #3. 88m 9288305 oxacwozsm _
«Hum _NZDHGH muom
.mcou 0&3 s Sum .5 mm Sum Em m NM ..€< $82

 

 

:33 modum on. a “anaemia ._.

._o>o_ Edna 05 um “58$:me ..cL Anew n 5 mscoucommoc 325m .88 83cm :meouz

moom c8 moo—guessed c8 c2533 vehemoa 633:; 30233 05 E sought, mo cosmcflmxo no.“ 033 commmouwom 41V 2an

145

_o>o_ m0.0 n a 05 8 EmoEcw_m ._. 40>»: 00.0 n a 2: 8 280$ch i.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ _0.- E. 0 .- *wmm.m- moor g0. 30.- 00.0 320 2.3
So; 09.- 103$ N3- Go. 8.0 3:22 as“:
02. 000. $000.3 0?. mi. 3.0 :30de mam. 28.» 9.3532... 8.2833. m
39. on..- .. 2 com. to; go. m3- mod sass ass:
13. we. *smwni mmv. v2. 3.0 .3. 0 mad: _mm. 28¢. 95.23% 8.232% N

3:. _ _ _. 10%.2 cow. woo. n2. 3.0 **wvm.mmm Em. 29a assuage... 32§=é _

Sum 3585 Sum mm
..EoU Qemm 2 Sam um mm Sum 33 m ..€< 3002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Awa n 5 mEovcommB .3./Sm :9: 835 289022 moon

80 duo—«52:8 c8 28338 @3329 825me 633:; E00530 2: 5 count? .8 cozmamaxo no.“ 038 :o_mm2wom .m.v 2an

146

_0>2 m0.0 u a 05 a Ema-“Emu * .65— _0.0 n a 05 a Ema-:36 .2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o _ m. So. 3&3 o. _. one. 08. 2 .o .2.. 382$
95.- mm _ .- ice .v- : 7 8o; 3 .o 2% E as» .6 .oz
2 _ .- amm- ...... _ Nom- ofl .- m _ - 2 .o 83:88 32
5. am _. itaom con. mi. woo ..immd: 8m. 20% 9.333% Bacfizé ,-
n3- .3 .- ...... .31.- mm _ .- NS. woo; 3 .o 22... 5 3% .8 .oz
8 _ .- m _ m - iced? E. .- mm? o _ .o 83:82. 82
£2. a _. 3&3. Rm. :2. one :3. a: 3m. 28w 38332... ofiaozam m
w: .- 8m; Ingm- E _ .- 08. «S.- w _ .o cesarean 32
5. mm _. £32 mom. 3. Rd toga: Gm. sea 952533 33523“ N
om _. mm _. 33.2 Now. So. 3. _. m2 10.2.me 2 m. 208 95.532... 32§=§ _
Sum _mtBE Sum
.25 $3 H 20m .5 mm 90m 3.. m Nm ...3 $82

 

 

.2 mm H 5 3:00:33“ 3&3 ENE 8125 882.52

m00m hop. $835222 50 cosmzzm 025020 .20ng 300530 05 E c2893 00 gamma—axe .80 293 cofimohwom .06. 2an

147

~32 mod n a 05 E “goat—mi * 496— 5.0 n a 05 Ha 38$:me v.3.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mom. 3. _. is? _ .m 3.. 2 _. 8m. N _ .o 0&2} _82 5 5825
one; RN; $3.2- 31.- m3 .- o. .o 2% E 28» Mo .02
3o: EN... :83- c: .- .2.- c _ .o 83.3% 82
2 _ So. :8: o2. :8. m3 19%.8 S _. .208 $2533 323.2% v
95.- 2a. :33- 3.- 9o. :2 .- Ed 2% e :8» ,5 .oz
8. .- E..- immwm- cm. .- SN- 5 _ .o 835$ 82
we. who. *1 .5 8m. _2. Rd "18¢; at. 208 35.532” fiasoeé m
$5.- 8”... i 53.. m: .- 3o. RN; 5 _ .o 83.3% SE
3 _. _wo. inflow own. 2:. Rd 2%. 3 «a. 28m 9.383% figsfim a
OS. 2o. :33 .2. N5. me. So ism? o2. 28” E5333 335035
80m BEBE Sum NM
.28 958 a gm .5 mm 90m 3» m :5. 382

 

 

:26— modum 2: a anEcw_m * 432 Edna 2t 8 Emommcmmm ”IL AVE N 5 3:030qu >038 :«E 838 88352 moom

8% £32833 8“ c2828 03.229 83::me 6.92:3 Engaged 2: E cough? mo cosmswaxo 5m «39 commmewom 8cm oBmH

148

:52 mod n a 2: 8 anuEmG * 42:: 56 u a 05 a “58::me **

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coo. m3 .- *mg. _ - 3o: 08. m8: mod 3&0 ow<
man; 3%.. .1136- mo..- _mm.. 86 it _mcomsm
m2. hm _. 31%—.8 0%. _m _. mod imwfiwE Nov. Boom Ecmcaaem oxmcmozam m
0.8.. at“..- Iommw- of.. woe. 2%... 8d Mm: Ecomsm
of. mm _. .5..me _ N NE. mm _. mod ISwégm cow. 208 35325on 83:83am N

02. mi. "132.8 33. So. N2. $6 $590? Ev. 28m $5253on oxacmoEam _

Sum 3395 Sam 30m
.28 $8 H .a mm sum as m mm ..a< 382

 

 

.AM~© H 2V wHCDUCOQth ~A®>u3m 16E Dmem Saw—£032 MOON ho.“ .mCOUfl—DQCQ Dv-dfiwvflumu 0.25—C MOM OhmOU HO.“ D—DNH Gomwwohwom ..wv O—Dwr—n

149

 

_96— mod n a 05 S :32:ch * 432 5.9 .I. m 2: Ha 38$:me in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3.. 08. *mmm.~ $0. 08. mm _. mod 9:223 won
woo; www- i: 3- cm _ .- m: .- Ed £828 086
m2.- cov- £8.0- ow _ .- m2.- vmd Va: .285
2.. mm _. 555w. own. 5. $6 1832 an 28m 9.333% flaming v
25.- 3&- 336. mm _ .- mg. on. .- o _ .o 303:8 82o
SN- 2;- iomow- ow _, .- new..- «we fin .285
E. N3. ins-.2 8c. ME. 86 1.228 an. 28m 952?on %§E§ M
3m.- Sn- :8an- m _ - mco. 5»- 8.0 vs: .285
E. 9:. tied. m5. _2. $5 Iwawm won. 208 gauge-.3 935222 N

m2. m2 . i? _ .8 30. £5. E _. $6 35?. _ 9- 8w. 203. £633; 8352.5 _

30m 3385 Sum
.28 $3 H gm .5 mm gum 3» m mm a?“ 332

 

 

he .mcosfisaom 835238 223 H8 882V

.83 n 5 acouaommou 58852

633:; Eaten-don 2: 5 count? mo conga—98 H8 039 commmouwom dd 2an

150

3%: mod n a 2: a “50$ch * ._o>o_ 5.0 n a 05 S 38$ch “.3."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ _ 7 EN... :33- ON _ .- N8. N _ N.- w _ .c 09.20 8:238 835 >2
MGN. EN. 532.. _ N NE _ _o. NNN. Ed **N$.RN 8v. 208 £835; 3% >2 N
808 9533303,
RN. m _ N. :80. _ N 80. _ 5. EN. woo tags: 8v. 3.9; 9% 3383-82 _
Sum E385 Sum NM
853:8 “memo H Sum gm mm Sum as m ..NBN 682

 

 

.Aomm n 5 35238.. Siam ENE 8:25 cmeomE moom H8 .mcocflsmoa 83% >2 833 8m 86% N8 038 coiwouwom .o_ .v 2an

151

E>2 mod n a 2: a EmocEwR * 40>»: Ed n a 2: E anEcwa **

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om _ .- vow..- *Vwmcch- x2: mmc. Em; 2d owcmso 5:238 8E5. >2
x2. 3... ”1.53.2 cum :3. at. omd inoméom «.3.. 208 95.83305 8:25 >2 N
208 952.?»on
wen. of. immm.2 Sc. :5. 3:. mod iommdom mom. 8:2; 97: m2050:9752 _
Sum 3325 Sam Sum
85380 $3 H 4m mm gum as m mm +3 382

 

.Qmo .I. 5 Amoomv mgcovcomfl: 235.0526 _68 7:2 N8 mcouflzmom 83am >Z BEE Sm 26% H8 038 :o_mm2wom A 3“ 2an

152

 

Table 4.12. Comparison of personal risk scores and mean capacity measures for

Michigan and Minnesota snake mail survey respondents (2005).

 

 

Personal Risk Mean Preferred Mean Maximum Mean Desire for
Situation Tolerable Situation Future Rattlesnake
Populations

M1 ME MI M1! Ml MN.

1 — No risk at all 2.4] 2.32 4.08 3.77 -0. 16 0.06
2- Slight risk 2.34 2.38 4.08 3.92 -0.81 -0.54
3 — Somewhat at risk 1.95 2.10 3.82 3.60 -1.80 -l.89
4 — Great risk 2.80 2.75 3.80 3.50 —2.00 — l .50

153

_o>o_ mod n a 2: an Emocmcmmm * 40>“: 5.0 u a 05 um “cmommcwi .2.

macaw—anon

 

ammo- god- .5. 30¢... 03¢- Ned vad- **mow.mw_ 3.. .o mm 225 e8 250G 22

counszm

0N. _ .c mm; .c- we _ .c- mccd- N _ ed- 086 Sod- 29220... E38382 ZS

cued mm. _ .0. Same. mmcd- awed- wmmd oood :ocmszm 3:0qu 7:2

muons—anon

$00- mumd- figmd- mmmd- mmd 25.0- .1. 30mm ___.0 mm 223m e8 Pion— :2

52525

_ _ _.c _mmd- 39c- 33d. coed- bite Bed. @3223. €35wa :2

Red 036. Em. _- Named- _ _ _.c- whim mood counszm @8535 :2

Sum e8 3235. NM .334.

oocowmcou omemo H Son am Em Sum m E omgnu

 

.3ng $5808 5638 823808 308 new

moxmcmogfi E nomom out .9823 go mwcsfl .Bconcomme 33% ENE «53:52 new 53:32 52582 mmEmcouflom .2 .v 2an

154

33: mod n a 2: a Hanogcwfi * .35— 56 n a 08 3 88$ch .1.

 

88825
cEd xocd **mmc._ _ mmmd 95 2 _.o $9342 Q: .o 03828. 828332 7:2
_3 .c E _.c **m$.m_ omvd mvd cm_.c immohvm mid 88535 3:805 22
macaw—anon
chc w: .c :2: .mm 30¢ cod _o_.o ionmwwv ommd mm 283m 88 “.8on 7:2
828.5%
cfld 2.: .c i. _ vm.m_ 05:0 wmd 9... .o :3de 9: .o 28:28. 8:8882 _2
31d 2 _.c “1.392 mote Sac 096 $80.03 mac counszm 38305 :2
macaw—smog
mcmd >2 .0 **mwc.3 ccwd 00.3 mm _ .c imvwd—v Nomd mm 232m 88 BBQQ :2
Sum 88 3325 mm ..8<
8:25:00 ammo H Son .Hm Sm Sum m 8 omSfiU

 

$838338

333m ENE moom 508882 was cmeBE 88 883.88 5833 was 38% fit 3808098 5953 mmEmcosflom .36 2an

155

.88. 5.0 u a 88 8 Emocmcwa i.

 

cocazzm

om _ .c 320 $5.52 035 3:9 .2 _.c Imwo. _2 mm _ .o 83828. 8:8me 22

03 .3 mm _ .c :8». _ N _mmd mmd 3. _ .3 $306.? memd cozmszm 08888.5 22

mcosflsqom

02 .c E. _ .c imxosm fixed 00.: mm _ .o ixSMwn :06 mm 0885 88 0:80 22

803085

c: .c I _.c **c_m.m_ vcvd Sac em _ .o iocodg flmd 208208 828082 :2

C.— .o 3 _ .c **mvw.mm momso ocd cm _ .o **m>m._mm 02.0 88835 08835 HE

mecca—smog

ox _ .3 mm. _ .c .3253 N990 ocd $20 $03.30 wwvd mm 233m 80.. 9:8Q H2
88m .8 238:: mm .230.
882.800 .0me 0 8.00 gm 80 Sum m 8 emcmnu

88808888 88% ~88

8:25 moon 808882 080 camEflE 88 88888 3688 0:0 888. 888838 8:88:08 88380 mmEmcouflom .28 2an

156

 

Average Preferred and Maximum Tolerable
Situations for Ml Stakeholder Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Rs Yes RS Unsure

LL lVIax Tol 87+ Pref Sit l

 

 

 

Figure 4.1. Latitude of acceptance (LOA) for three stakeholder groups in southeastern
Michigan (No RS = stakeholders who believed rattlesnakes were absent from the areas in
which they lived and recreated, Yes RS = respondents who believed that they lived and
recreated in areas where rattlesnakes were present, and Unsure RS = respondents who
were unsure whether rattlesnakes existed in areas where they lived and recreated) n =
915. The lower line represents the mean preferred situation and the upper line represents
the mean maximum tolerable situation for each of the three stakeholder groups. The
LOA consists of that area on the graph that is tolerable for all stakeholder groups

(designated by dashed lines between 2.75 and 3.71).

 

MN Stakeholder Groups Average Preferred
and Maximum Tolerable Situations

 

 

 

 

 

6 6
5- «5
4' ,4
3 3
2, *2
1 i f 1

 

 

No RS Yes Rs Unsure

[;$E§:n;fiig

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.2. Latitude of acceptance (LOA) for three stakeholder groups in southeastern
Minnesota (No RS = stakeholders who believed rattlesnakes were absent from the areas
in which they lived and recreated, Yes RS = respondents who believed that they lived and
recreated in areas where rattlesnakes were present, and Unsure = respondents who were
unsure whether rattlesnakes existed in areas where they lived and recreated) n = 1,089.
The lower line represents the mean preferred situation and the upper line represents the
mean maximum tolerable situation for each of the three stakeholder groups. The LOA
consists of that area on the graph that is tolerable for all stakeholder groups (designated

by dashed lines between 2.69 and 3.42).

158

 

Comparison of Ml Respondents' CCC and RS SAC

 

Desire for Future RS Pop

 

+PretSit +MaxTo| Sit

 

 

 

Figure 4.3. Relationship between mail survey respondents’ desires for future rattlesnake
populations (W SAC) and preferred and maximum tolerable situations for rattlesnakes in
Michigan (2005).

*CCC = Cultural Carrying Capacity, RS SAC = Rattlesnake Social Acceptance Capacity

159

 

Comparison of MN Respondents’ CCC and RS SAC Measures

 

6
5
4
3
2
1
r , _ 7 . 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Desire for Future RS Pop

 

 

—-— Pref Sit-0- Max Tol Sit I

 

 

Figure 4.4. Relationship between mail survey respondents’ desires for future rattlesnake

population and preferred and maximum tolerable situations for rattlesnakes in Minnesota

(2005).

160

 

MI and MN Respondents Personal Risk Ratings x RS
SAC

3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00

—2.00

 

-3.00

No Risk SIilg'It Risk Moderate Risk Great Risk

 

 

.—n—— Minnesota + Michigan

 

 

 

Figure 4.5. Relationship between Michigan and Minnesota snake mail survey

respondents’ personal risk ratings and desires for future rattlesnake populations, i.e.,

WSAC (2005).

161

CHAPTER 5
OUTREACH TO INCREASE KNOWLEDGE AND INFLUENCE

STAKEHOLDER ACCEPTANCE CAPACITY FOR SNAKES

162

5.1 Introduction

Reptile populations are declining globally due to habitat degradation and loss, invasive
species, environmental pollution, disease, unsustainable human use, and climate change
(Gibbons et al. 2000). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN 2000) estimates that 25% of reptile species are threatened with
extinction. Thirty-seven reptile species, including twenty-three snakes, are listed as
threatened or endangered by at least one of six Midwestern Great Lakes states (Table 5.1,
Table 5.2). Five snake species or subspecies are listed as Regional Conservation
Priorities in USFW S Region 3, consisting of IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH and WI
(USFWS 2002). In addition to state and regional protection, the eastern massasauga
rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus, Rafinesque 1818) is a candidate for listing
under the federal Endangered Species Act (USFW S 1999).

In M1, the eastern massasauga is listed as a species of concern and is protected
under 3 MI DNR Director’s order (MI Natural Features Inventory 2006). The bulk of the
remaining eastern massasauga populations exist in Michigan, where human tolerance and
desire for rattlesnakes (RS) is low (See Chapters 3,4, this ms). The main conservation
threats are habitat loss and degradation, fragmentation, and human persecution (Holman
et al. 1999, Legge 1996). Thus, the need to reduce harmful human behaviors and
increase stakeholder acceptance capacity (SAC) — or tolerance — for snakes is immediate
in MI. One potential venue to fulfill this need is through outreach efforts aimed at
reducing lethal human behaviors toward snakes and their subsequent assessment to
identify optimal methods and delivery channels to improve and monitor the effectiveness

of such efforts.

163

To use educational outreach as a wildlife management tool, it is important to
understand the ways in which people receive and process information presented. The
sub-discipline of human dimensions of wildlife management aims to do so through
research regarding human behaviors. Such research has primarily relied on cognitive and
motivational approaches (Decker et al. 2001). A cognitive approach — one that can be
used to predict human behavior - entails the examination and study of concepts such as
values and norms that underlie human behavior, while a motivational approach is used to
explain reasons for human behavior (Decker et al. 2001). However, various factors can
interfere with an individual’s cognitive process when presented with information about a
particular subject.

Prior knowledge or beliefs about an object or issue has been identified as one of
the most important variables that can bias a person’s information processing activity
(Wyer and Srull 1984). Information may be processed in such a way that it reinforces an
individual’s existing schema, or mental model, e. g., forewarned audiences — of either the
message content or of the fact that they would be presented with a persuasive message -
were prone to biased information processing. The audience’s initial attitudes tended to be
reinforced, resulting in resistance to new arguments (Petty and Cacioppo 1986).

Fear is believed to be the most common emotional response to snakes (Shalev and
Ben-Mordehai 1996), and has been identified as the major obstacle to snake conservation
in India and as a contributing factor elsewhere (Seshadri 1984). Snakes have also been
reported to be the most feared of animals listed in surveys (Davey 1994, Merkelbach et
al. 1987). Fear, anxiety and stress can interfere with cognitive processing. Wright et al.

(2002) found that individuals who were fearful of snakes tended to over-predict fear and

164

subsequently over-predicted the danger of a snake, as well as under—predicted existing
safety resources such as potential escape routes.

One way in which motivational and cognitive approaches have been used in
concert to study how humans receive and process outreach information is through the
elaboration—likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion (Petty and Caccioppo 1986). Two
routes, a central and a peripheral, are identified by which persuasive messages are
processed by recipients. Persuasion that occurs through central route processing is
believed to result in enduring attitude and belief change while peripheral route processing
is believed to likely result in attitude or belief changes of short duration. In wildlife
education, the central route used to influence stakeholder attitudes includes a number of
issue-relevant, information-based approaches, such as outreach publications (i.e.,
brochures, cards, booklets, etc.) and programs that use slides, videos and other inanimate
props. Peripheral cues that may be important when influence is attempted include
outreach programs that rely on mere exposure (Zajonc 1968), such as the presence of an
animal in a tank at a nature center or classroom or in a cage or enclosure at a 200, without
a verbal or written message. Positive attitude changes have occurred using this technique
(Litvak 1969, Zajonc 1968), though results have been variable (Kress 1975).

Behavioral modeling is an approach used to modify people’s attitudes toward an
object via observation, rather than directly experiencing, the consequences of another
person’s interactions with the object (Bandura 1969). Individuals fearful of snakes who
observed a second individual behave without fear in the presence of a snake showed a
tendency to reduce their fear behaviors (Gear and Turteltaub 1967). Fearful individuals

have shown greater approach behavior toward snakes with behavioral modeling than

165

without (Somervill et al. 1981). Behavioral modeling accounted for most (80%) of the
attitude change toward snakes observed in adults by Blanchard (1969), though Kress
(1975) found no attitude change in children toward snakes after observing an adult or
another child interacting with a snake.

Morgan and Gramann (1989) attempted to test the ELM through a variety of
snake outreach programs with middle school summer environmental camp participants.
A combination of central and peripheral route strategies was expected to likely exist
through behavioral modeling and direct contact opportunities. They evaluated the
effectiveness of seven treatments with fifth - eighth grade children, based on increased
knowledge and more positive attitudes toward snakes. The treatments consisted of: (1)
an informational slide show and no involvement with snakes; (2) mere exposure to
snakes but no information presented; (3) an informational slide show and mere exposure
to snakes; (4) mere exposure and behavioral modeling of snakes but no information
presented; (5) an informational slide show and mere exposure and behavioral modeling of
snakes; (6) mere exposure, behavioral modeling, and direct contact with snakes but no
information presented, and; (7) an informational slide show, mere exposure, behavioral
modeling, and direct contact with snakes.

Morgan and Gramann (1989) found that individuals who viewed the slide
program were nearly twice as knowledgeable as those who had not; this approach
appeared to be effective in increasing participants’ knowledge of snakes. However, the
slide show in itself was not effective in changing attitudes. Mere exposure and
behavioral modeling of snakes resulted in higher individual attitude scores than

treatments that did not include any involvement with snakes. Direct contact with snakes

166

in addition to behavioral modeling and mere exposure did not result in higher attitude
scores. Attitude scores were highest for individuals who received an informational slide
show, mere exposure, behavioral modeling, and direct contact opportunities. Although
the goal of outreach is commonly to increase knowledge and influence attitudes toward
wildlife, such as snakes, and the full-treatment approach appears to be the most effective
with children, this approach remains untested on adults. Furthermore, Morgan and
Gramann (1989) did not re-assess program participants at a later time; thus, retention of
the changes that occurred due to their programs is unknown.

Current snake conservation efforts have aimed at influencing adult stakeholders’
SACs for snakes, but no efforts appear to have been made to quantitatively evaluate
results. For example, trained volunteers in Minnesota respond to residents who have
concerns about timber rattlesnakes, but the effectiveness of such efforts has not been
evaluated (Jaime Edwards, MN DNR, personal communication). The Toronto Zoo has
conducted extensive eastern massasauga workshops for more than ten years with summer
vacationers exposed to eastern massasaugas. An evaluation form was distributed,
completed, and collected for 2-3 years, but resulting data have not been analyzed or
utilized (Bob Johnson, Toronto Zoo, personal communication). Environment Canada
hired an outside consultant to do a long-term retrospective assessment of comprehensive
eastern massasauga conservation efforts around the Bruce Peninsula and Georgian Bay
areas of Ontario. The consultant concluded that it was highlylikely that the conservation
efforts had resulted in positive attitude changes by stakeholders, but did not have

empirical data to demonstrate this (Cathexis Consulting Inc. 2006).

167

The goal of this research was to evaluate use of different outreach methods to
increase stakeholder knowledge and influence attitudes both in the immediate and longer
(six months later) term toward snakes, and to offer suggestions for influencing SAC for
snakes, particularly RS. The general hypothesis tested in this chapter stated that
stakeholders would be more likely to gain knowledge from any of three treatments
administered than from simply filling out a self-administered questionnaire on snakes and
would be more likely to hold more positive attitudes toward snakes after attending a
program with live snakes. This hypothesis was tested with data indicating 1) whether
stakeholders attending any program and stakeholders receiving written materials as a part
of this study had greater knowledge than those in the control group and 2) whether
stakeholders who attended an outreach program that included behavioral modeling that
utilized live snakes had more positive attitudes toward and SAC for snakes than

stakeholders that received any of the other treatments or the control group.

5.2 Study Areas

The study area consisted of four counties in which a large block of habitat and
extant populations of eastern massasauga rattlesnakes were found in southeastern
Michigan. County-wide demographic information and ecoregion descriptions can be

found in Chapter 1.
5.3 Methods

An experiment using adult (2 18 years old) audiences was conducted to test the

effectiveness of three outreach methods to increase knowledge about, and influence

168

attitudes toward snakes. Data were collected to determine increases in knowledge and
changes in attitudes about snakes immediately after treatments and again six months later
(Appendix, A. l0. and Al 1.). Participants were drawn from mail survey respondents (see
Chapter 3, this ms). Individuals who indicated on their mail questionnaires (Appendix,
A.3.) that they were interested in attending a snake outreach program or participating in
follow-up surveys were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups or a control
group. A control group was included to provide information regarding the potential
changes of attitudes, beliefs, or behavioral intentions due to questionnaire completion
without participation in outreach programs (Coover and Angel] 1907). This sampling
selection did preclude individuals who were not willing to attend an outreach program,
non-respondents, and individuals who were not included in the survey sample, and so
was subject to self-selection bias (Heinsman and Shadish 1996, Shadish et al. 2000).
Participants in the experiment had indicated an interest in learning more about snakes on
their mail questionnaires, and so results of this study are likely not applicable to
individuals who are not interested in learning more about snakes. Nevertheless, insights
can still be gained regarding the retention of knowledge gains and attitude changes.

The experimental treatment groups and control group were compared regarding
their knowledge gains and attitude changes from the time they filled out their mail
questionnaire to immediately after attending a program, receiving written educational
materials, or receiving a second mail questionnaire and request to fill out the
questionnaire and return it. Individuals who agreed to participate in the experiment were

compared with respondents who refused to determine if there were characteristics that

169

could be identified that explained a respondent’s willingness to participate with those that
were unwilling.

Treatments consisted of: (1) a 30-minute informational slide show about the
human values associated with snakes and natural history of MI’s snakes (Appendix,
A. .l 3.a) followed by a 30—minute informational slide show that provided in—depth
information about five snake species residing in MI (Appendix, A.13.b); (2) a 30-minute
informational slide show about the human values associated with snakes and natural
history of MI’s snakes (Appendix, A. 13.a) followed by a 30-minute session in a separate
room where five snakes were in tanks and each snake was handled by a naturalist who
conveyed in-depth information about the five snake species (Appendix, A.13.b); (3) a
mailing of a cover letter and packet of written educational publications about snakes in
MI, and; (4) a control group. The control group was sent a second mail questionnaire
identical to that which the program participants completed at the conclusion of the snake
outreach programs (Appendix, A. 10.). The written materials treatment group was sent a
second mail questionnaire (Appendix, A. 10.) and a packet of written outreach
publications about MI snakes. All four groups were sent a long-term mail questionnaire
the following spring to track knowledge and attitude change retention (Appendix, A.11.).
Finally, individuals who did not reply to the long-term questionnaire were sent a second
instrument approximately six weeks after the initial long-term mail questionnaire was
sent in a final attempt to minimize participant attrition.

A pilot outreach program was conducted on 26 August 2005, followed by nine
experimental outreach programs at Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Park Authority’s

Kensington Metropark nature center (Appendix, A. 12.). This facility was chosen because

170

of its location (within an approximately 30-minute drive for participants from three, i.e.
Livingston, Oakland and Washtenaw, of the four study counties). Participants from the
fourth county, Jackson, were reimbursed for their mileage to attend outreach programs.
A protocol was developed for the outreach experiment and followed (Appendix, A.9.).
All outreach program participants received a MI DNR non—game species patch as a
“thank you” for participating in the experiment, and a participant chosen at random from
each audience was presented with a $50 gift card to Meijer (a regional store similar to
Walmart). Two female, Caucasian, part-time naturalists were trained to deliver
prescribed treatment programs using scripts written by the author (Appendix, A. Ba and
A.13.b) to minimize the effect of demographic and outreach delivery differences in
presenters, i.e., procedural heterogeneity (Lipsey 1990). All presenters wore green
Huron—Clinton Metroparks polo shirts to minimize the potential for perceived differences
in presenter credibility by participants.

Initially, participants were mailed invitations to attend outreach programs on
randomly selected dates. Due to low attendance at the first two workshops (n = l, n =
2, respectively), phone contact was used to confirm invited participants’ plans to attend
the workshop that they had been assigned to or to reschedule their attendance on an
alternate date when necessary. By contacting participants by phone, participants were
able to air their concerns or questions regarding the experiment and to gain permission
to bring their spouse and/or children along with them to the program so that they could
participate.

Respondents were asked to assess how their attitudes had changed about snakes

by participating in this study (ql, Appendix, A. 13). Responses included: Greatly

171

Increase, Somewhat Increase, Has not Affected this, Somewhat Decrease and Greatly
Decrease. Participants also provided standardized data by answering items that were
identical on the original mail questionnaires (time 1), post-treatment assessment
instruments (time 2) and long-term assessment instruments (time 3). A knowledge
score was calculated from respondents’ answers to four questionnaire items that used a
Likert-type scale (SAzStrongly agree, A 2 Agree, U = Unsure, D = Disagree, SD =
Strongly Disagree): (1) NV snakes are likely to spread disease to humans in MI, (2) NV
snakebites cause deaths to M1 residents annually, (3) RS are likely to spread disease to
humans in MI and (4) RS bites cause deaths to M1 residents annually. Respondents’
answers were recoded into 1 for responses that corresponded with agreement with
factual information and 0 for unsure responses and responses that did not correspond
with factual information. These scores were calculated at pre-treatment, immediately
post-treatment and at the long-term assessment.
NV snake and RS attitudes were measured using twelve belief statements with a
Likert type scale (SA=Stroneg agree, A = Agree, U = Unsure, D = Disagree, SD =
Strongly Disagree) (Appendix A.3). Reliability analyses were run for the NV snake and
RS attitude scales, yielding Cronbach’s alphas of (0.91) and (0.91), respectively. Factor
analyses were run on each set of belief statements that composed the attitude scales.
Two factors were identified for each of the attitude scales. The first factor for the NV
attitude scale was identified as impersonal risk and consisted of six belief statements; the
second factor was stewardship, consisting of five statements (Chapter 3, Table 3.1, this
ms). The first factor for the RS attitude scale was stewardship and included six belief

statements; the second was impersonal risk and also consisted of six belief statements

172

(Chapter 3, Table 3.1, this ms). Scale scores for NV impersonal risk, RS impersonal risk
and RS stewardship ranged -12 - +12. Scores for NV stewardship ranged -10 - +10.
Participants’ scores on these four scales, i.e. NV Impersonal Risk, NV Stewardship, RS
Impersonal Risk and RS Stewardship, were tested for differences over time and among
treatment groups, between program (Treatments 1 and 2) and non-program (Treatments 3
and 4) participants, and between treatment (Treatments 1, 2, and 3) and control
(Treatment 4) participants.

Measures of wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC) were modeled
after Riley and Decker (2000b) and Lischka (2006). Participants were queried regarding
the change they would like to see in NV snake and RS populations in their
neighborhoods. Potential responses included: {-I) Decrease a lot, (-I) Decrease
somewhat, (0) Stay the same, (1) Increase somewhat, (1) Increase a lot, and ( 88) No
opinion, which was coded as missing data. As a follow-up, participants were asked to
indicate how important it was to them that the indicated population (i.e., NV snakes or
RS) actually match their desired change. Responses included: (1) Not at all important,
(2 ) Somewhat important, (3 ) Very important and ( 99) Unsure, which was coded as
missing data. A respondent’s desire for future snake populations then was defined as the
product of their desire for a population’s change multiplied by the importance that the
population actually match the respondent’s indicated preference (-3 — +3).

Behavioral intentions were measured by means of a Rattlesnake Sensitivity Index
(RSI) modeled after a black bear sensitivity index previously developed by Peyton and
others (2001). The RSI consisted of seven hypothetical situations involving RS that

participants were asked to imagine and indicate what, if any action, they would take in

173

the given situation (q26, Appendix A.3). Responses included: Do nothing (4 ), I would
ask someone what I should do (3), I would tell someone that they need to remove the
snake (2), I would kill the snake (1) or unsure ( 99), but dropped from the analyses. RSI
scores ranged 0 - 28, with a greater score indicating greater tolerance, i.e. less sensitivity
to rattlesnakes.

ANOVA procedures were used to test for differences among treatment groups at
pre-treatment, post-treatment and at the long-term assessment. ANOVA was also used to
test for difference among treatment groups in terms of self-assessments regarding
changes in how participants’ attitudes and beliefs had changed due to participation in this
study. Independent samples t-tests were used to test for differences between individuals
who had attended a program and individuals who had not, and between treatment groups
and the control group. Repeated measures were used to test for differences in parameters
of interest within subjects (time 1 vs. time 2 vs. time 3) and among treatment groups.
Scheffe and Tamhane’s T2 post hoc tests were used to test for pairwise differences in
treatments and times (George and Mallery 2006). The cutoff for alpha was set at p = 0.10
in order to give treatments, particularly programs ”the benefit of the doubt about whether
statistically modest effects represent treatment efficacy or merely sampling error” (Lipsey
1990). Effect sizes are reported for measures that demonstrate differences among
treatment groups or between program and non—program participants or between treatment
and control groups (Rosenthal 1994, Gliner et al. 2001). Power is reported for measures
demonstrating differences to elucidate probabilities of Type II errors, as suggested in
Lipsey (1990). All analyses were performed using SPSS, versions 13.0 and 15.0 (SPSS,

Inc., Chicago, IL).

174

5.4 Results

One hundred fifty-eight of 1,092 Ml mail questionnaire respondents indicated that
they would be interested in attending an informational program about snakes, but only
twenty-eight came to one of nine programs offered. Of the remaining participants (n =
130), half were mailed written educational materials and half were assigned as the control
group. Approximately a third (22/65 = 33.8%) of each of these two groups continued
their participation in the experiment, including the completion and return of the long-term
assessment instrument. Participants who remained in the experiment for the duration
include twelve who received a slide program but no live animals (Treatment 1), six who
received a slide program and modeling of snakes (Treatment 2), twenty-two who
received written materials but no program (Treatment 3) and twenty-two who answered
questionnaires but received no treatment (Control Group 4).
5. 4.1 Self—assessed Changes in Beliefs and Attitudes toward Snakes

Respondents provided information regarding their own assessment of changes
they experienced in their beliefs or attitudes about snakes due to study participation
(Appendix, A.13.). Respondents reported (a) increased interest in snakes, (b) reduced
negative feelings toward snakes, (c) increased interest in seeking opportunities to learn
more about snakes, (d) similar fear levels toward snakes, (e) similar feelings toward
having a snake as a pet, (t) slightly decreased perceptions of personal risk from snakes (g)
increased positive feelings about snakes, and (h) increased levels of attention to snakes
since participating in this study. On average, respondents had spoken to two different
groups of people about snakes since study participation. The increase in interest level

about snakes differed among treatments (Table 5.3). Scheffe post hoc tests indicated a

175

difference between the treatment consisting of two informational slide shows (Treatment
1) and the written materials group (Treatment 3). Reduction in negative feelings toward
snakes did not differ among groups (Table 5.4). The belief that a participant had
increased his or her time to seek opportunities to learn about snakes differed among
treatments (Table 5.5). Scheffe post hoc tests indicated that Treatment group 2 (an
informational slide show followed by a demonstration featuring live snakes) would spend
more time seeking out opportunities to learn more about snakes than the written materials
group (Treatment 3) or control group (Treatment 4). Level of fear that participants felt
toward snakes did not differ among treatments (Table 5.6). Interest in having a snake as
a pet did not differ among treatment participants (Table 5.7), nor did the slight reduction
in levels of fear of personally being bitten by a RS (Table 5.8). The increase in positive
feelings toward snakes differed among treatments (Table 5.9), but post hoc tests did not
identify any pairwise differences between groups. Increase in the level of attention that
participants indicated they would pay to snakes differed among treatments (Table 5.10).
Scheffe post hoc tests indicated that the group who received two informational slide
shows about snakes (Treatment 1) had increased their attention toward snakes more than
the control group (Treatment 4).

Participants in either program treatment group (Treatment 1 and Treatment 2)
reported (a) greater increases in interest to learn more about snakes, (b) increased time to
seek opportunities to learn more about snakes, (c) increased positive feelings toward
snakes and ((1) increased attention to snakes, than did non-program groups (Treatments 3

and 4) (Table 5.11). Participants in any treatment group (Treatments 1, 2, and 3)

176

expressed a greater increase in attention to snakes than the control group (Treatment 4)
(Table 5.12).
5.4.2 Changes in Knowledge about Snakes

Mean knowledge scores among treatment groups did not differ at pre-test (mean =
3.29, n = 75, df= 3, F = 0.76, p = 0.52), but did at post—test (Table 5.13). Scores did not
differ among treatment groups at the long-term assessment (mean = 3.54, n = 57, df = 3,
F = 1.40, p = 0.25). Repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due
to treatment (Type 111 SS = 7.89, df = 3, F = 2.60, p = 0.06, eta = 0.37, power = 0.60).

Knowledge scores did not differ between program and non-program participants
at pre-test (means 2 3.46 1; 0.15 and 3.19 i 0.16, respectively; n = 76, (if = 74, t = 1.18, p
= 0.24). Program participants scored higher (mean = 4.00 i 0.00) than non-program
participants at post-test (mean = 3.21 i 0.14; n = 75, adj.df = 46, p < 0.01), and at the
long-term assessment (means = 3.79 i 0.10 and 3.44 i 0.12, n = 58, adj.df = 54, t = 2.36,
p = 0.02). Multivariate tests indicated a time * program/no program effect (Pillai’s trace
= 0.09; F = 2.59, p = 0.09, eta = 0.30, power = 0.49). Repeated measures analysis
revealed a between-subjects effect due to program attendance (Type 111 SS 2 7.73, df = 1,
F = 8.06, p < 0.01, eta = 0.36, power = 0.80).

Knowledge scores did not differ between treatment and control participants at
pre-test (means = 3.35 i 0.12 and 3.17 i 0.25, respectively; n = 75, df= 73, t = 0.75, p =
0.45) or post-test (means = 3.60 i 0.11 and 3.29 i 0.19, respectively; n = 74, df = 72, t =
1.48, p = 0.14). Treatment groups scored higher at the long-term assessment (mean =

3.65 i 0.10) than the control group (mean = 3.35 i 0.17; n = 57, df= 55, t = 1.67, p =

177

0.10). Repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due to treatment (n
= 54, Type 111 SS = 3.42, df = 1, F = 3.23, p = 0.08, eta = 0.24, power = 0.42).
5.4.3 Changes in Attitudes about Snakes

Interest in snakes did not differ among groups at pre-test (mean = 3.22, n = 67, (if
= 3, F = 0.47, p = 0.70) or post-test (mean = 3.33, n = 76, df= 3, F = 1.41, p = 0.25).
Interest levels did differ at the long-term assessment (Table 5.14). Multivariate tests
indicated a time * treatment effect (Pillai’s trace = 0.23, F = 2.06, p = 0.07, eta = 0.34,
power = 0.72). Repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due to
treatment (n = 52, Type 111 SS = 2.10, df = 3, F = 2.97, p = 0.04, eta = 0.39, power =
0.67).

Interest in snakes did not differ between program (mean = 3.28 i 0.09) and non-
program (mean = 3.19 _+_: 0.06) participants at pre-test (n =68, df = 66, t = 0.89, p = 0.38)
or post-test (means = 3.46 i 0.13 and 3.24 i 0.06, respectively; n = 77, adj. df = 39, t =
1.51, p = 0.14). Mean interest levels were greater for program participants (mean = 3.47
_-_I-_ 0.12) than non-program participants (mean = 3.08 i 0.04) at the long-term assessment
(n = 59, adj. df = 23, t = 3.19, p < 0.01). Multivariate tests indicated a time * program
effect (n = 53, Pillai’s trace = 0.16, df = 2, F = 4.90, p = 0.01, eta = 0.40, power = 0.78.
Repeated measures analysis detected a within-subject effect due to time * program (Type
111 SS = 1.20, df = 1.7, F = 2.98, p = 0.06, eta = 0.23, power = 0.52) and a between-
subjects effect due to program (Type 111 SS = 1.69, F = 7.32, p < 0.01, eta = 0.35, power
= 0.76).

Snake interest did not differ between treatment and control groups (means = 3.24

i 0.06 and 3.19 i 0.09) at pre-test (n = 67, df = 65, t = 0.44, p = 0.66), post —treatment

178

(means = 3.38 i 0.08 and 3.21 i 0.09, respectively; n = 76, adj. df = 62, t = 1.49, p =
0.14), or at the long-term assessment (means = 3.24 i 007 and 3.10 _+_ 0.07, respectively;
n = 58, adj. df = 51, t = 1.40, p = 0.17). No within-subject or between-subject effects
were revealed through repeated measures analysis.

NV snake attitude scores did not differ among groups at pre-test (mean = 19.83 i
0.49, n = 75, df = 3, F = 0.67, p = 0.57), but did differ at post—treatment (Table 5.15).
Groups did not differ at the long-term assessment (mean = 19.93 i 0.60, n = 57, df = 3, F
= 1.19, p = 0.32). Multivariate tests indicated an effect due to time (Pillai’s trace 2 0.10,
F = 2.51, p = 0.09, eta = 0.31, power = 0.48). Repeated measures analysis revealed a
between-subjects effect due to pre-test scores (Type 111 SS = 291, F = 13.52, p < 0.01, eta
= 0.48, power = 0.95).

Program and non-program participants’ NV snake attitude scores did not differ at
pre-test (means = 20.56 -_l-_ 0.61 and 19.54 i 0.67) at pre-test (n =75, t = 1.12, adj. df= 70,
p = 0.27), but did at post-test (means 2 22.35 i 0.49 and 19.89 i 0.63, respectively; n =
71, t = 3.08, df = 69, p < 0.01). NV snake attitude scores were still greater for program
participants at the long-term assessment (means = 21.56 i 0.83 and 19.30 i 0.75,
respectively; n = 58, t = 2.02, adj. df = 44, p = 0.05). When I controlled for pre-test NV
snake attitude scores, repeated measures analysis revealed between-subject effects due to
the pre-test scores (Type 111 SS = 276, F = 13.44, p < 0.01, eta = 0.46, power = 0.95) and
program effect (Type 1H SS = 99, F = 4.83, p = 0.03, eta = 0.3, power = 0.58).

Treatment groups and the control group did not differ at pre-test on NV snake
attitude scores (means = 20.40 i 0.58 and 18.96 i 0.89, respectively; n = 74, t = 1.40, df

= 72, p = 0.17). Treatment groups scored higher (mean = 21.59 i 0.52) than the control

179

group (mean = 19.38 i 0.85) at post-test (n = 70, t = 2.34, df = 68, p = 0.02) but the
groups did not differ at the long-term assessment (means = 19.97 i 0.80 and 19.86 i
0.87, respectively; n = 57, t = 0.09, df = 55, p = 0.93). When I controlled for pre-test NV
snake attitude scores, repeated measures analysis revealed a within-subject effect due to
time * treatment (n = 51, Type 111 SS = 27, F = 4.14, p = 0.05, eta = 0.28, power = 0.51)
and a between-subjects effect due to pre—test NV snake attitude score (n = 51, Type 111 SS
= 265, F = 11.58, p < 0.01, eta = 0.44, power = 0.92).

NV impersonal risk scores did not differ at pre-test (mean = 9.87 i 0.32, n = 75, F
= 0.56, p = 0.65), post-test (mean = 10.21 i 0.28, n = 70, F = 1.35, p = 0.27), or at the
long-term assessment (mean = 9.83 i 0.37, n = 58, F = 0.80, p = 0.50). A repeated
measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due to pre-test score when 1
controlled for NV impersonal n'sk pre-test score at pre-test (Type 111 SS = 62.14, F =
8.27, p < 0.01, eta = 0.38, power 2 0.81).

Program and non-program participants did not differ on NV impersonal risk
scores at pre-test (means 2 10.22 _+_ 0.42 and 9.67 _+_- 0.44 respectively, n = 76, t = 0.82, df
= 74, p = 0.41) but did at post-test (means = 10.92 i 0.26 and 9.83 i 0.38 respectively, n
= 71, t = 2.35, adj. df = 69, p = 0.02). NV impersonal risk scores no longer differed at
long-term assessment (means = 10.56 i 0.61 and 9.56 i 0.44 respectively, n = 59, t =
1.27, df = 57, p = 0.21). When I controlled for NV impersonal risk score at pre-test,
repeated measures analysis revealed between-subjects effects due to pre-test (Type 111 SS
= 58.21, F = 8.02, p < 0.01, eta = 0.37, power = 0.79) and program attendance (Type 111

SS = 21.31, F = 2.94, p = 0.09, eta = 0.23, power = 0.39).

180

Treatment and control groups did not differ on NV impersonal risk scores at pre-
test (means = 10.14 i 0.35 and 9.29 i 0.69 respectively, n = 75, t = 1.10, adj. df= 35, p =
0.28), post-test (means = 10.35 i 0.33 and 9.96 _-_i-_ 0.50 respectively, n = 70, t = 0.67, df =
68, p = 0.51), or at the long-term assessment (means = 9.84 3; 0.47 and 9.81 i 0.59
respectively, n = 58, t = 0.04, df = 56, p = 0.97). When 1 controlled for NV impersonal
risk score at pre—test, repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due
to pre-test score (Type 111 SS = 58.41, F = 7.51, p < 0.01, eta = 0.36, power = 0.77).

NV stewardship scores did not differ among groups at pre-test (mean = 8.27 i
0.22, n = 75, F = 1.05, p = 0.38) or the long-term assessment (mean = 8.32 i 0.26, n = 59,
F = 1.37, p = 0.26), but did at post-test (Table 5.16). When I controlled for NV
stewardship score at pre-test, repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects
effect due to pre—test score (Type 111 SS = 131.77, F = 28.81, p < 0.01, eta = 0.59, power
= 1.00).

NV stewardship scores did not differ between program and non-program
participants at pre-test (means = 8.57 i 0.32 and 8.04 i 0.30 respectively, n = 76, t =
1.16, df= 74, p = 0.25) but did at post-test (means = 9.21 i 0.28 and 8.10 _+_ 0.31
respectively, t = 2.67, df = 73, p < 0.01) and the long-term assessment (means = 9.11 i
0.32 and 8.00 i 0.34 respectively, t = 2.36, adj. df = 51, p = 0.02). Repeated measures
analysis indicated a between-subjects effect due to program attendance (Type 111 SS =
27.40, F i: 3.21, p = 0.08, eta = 0.23, power = 0.42). When I controlled for NV
stewardship score at pre-test, repeated measures analysis revealed between-subjects

effects due to pre-test score (Type 111 SS = 130.47, F = 29.57, p < 0.01, eta = 0.59, power

181

= 1.00) and program attendance (Type 111 SS = 22.35, F = 5.07, p = 0.03, eta = 0.29,
power = 0.60).

Treatment and control groups did not differ at pre-test (means = 8.45 i 0.26 and
7.88 i 0.42 respectively, n = 75, t = 1.22, df = 73, p = 0.23) or the long—term assessment
(means = 8.38 i 0.34 and 8.23 i 0.42 respectively, n = 59, t = 0.28, df = 57, p = 0.78),
but differed at post-test (means = 8.88 i 0.28 and 7.79 i 0.38 respectively, n = 76, t =
2.28, df = 74, p = 0.03). When 1 controlled for NV stewardship score at pre-test, repeated
measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due to pre-test score (Type 111 SS =
136.09, F = 27.98, p < 0.01, eta = 0.58, power = 1.00).

RS attitude scores did not among treatment groups at pre-test (mean = 13.71 i
0.83, n = 72, df = 3, F = 1.36, p = 0.26) but did at post-test (Table 5.17). Treatment
groups 1 (two informational slide shows) and 3 (written materials group) scored higher
than group 4 (control group). Treatment groups did not differ at the long-term
assessment (mean = 15.81 3; 0.76, n = 54, F = 0.39, p = 0.76). Repeated measures
analysis revealed a within-subjects effect due to time * treatment (Pillai’s trace = 0.16, n
= 45, F = 2.49, p = 0.07, eta = 0.40, power = 0.57), and between-subjects effect due to
pre-test score (Type III SS = 969, F = 32.44, p < 0.01, eta = 0.67, power = 1.00).

RS attitude scores did not differ at pre-test between program (mean = 15.11 i
7.25) and non-program (mean = 12.71 i 6.83) participants (n = 73, t = 1.42, df = 71, p =
0.16). Program participants scored higher (mean = 18.52 i 1.03) at post-test than non-
program participants (mean = 14.22 i 0.91; n = 69, t = 2.90, df = 67, p < 0.01), but scores
did not differ at long-term assessment (means = 16.94 3 1.34 and 15.39 i 0.90,

respectively; n = 55, t = 0.96, df = 53, p = 0.34). Repeated measures analysis revealed a

182

time* treatment within-subject effect (F = 3.59, p = 0.04, eta = 0.28, power = 0.62).
When I controlled for pre—test RS snake attitude scores, a between-subjects effect due to
pre-test was revealed (Type 111 SS = 997, F = 34.82, p < 0.01, eta = 0.67, power = 1.00).

Treatment and control groups did not differ at pre-test on RS snake attitude scores
(means = 14.35 i 1.03 and 12.35 i: 1.39, respectively; n =72, t = 1.12, df= 70, p = 0.27)
but did at post-test (means = 17.58 _+_- 0.83 and 12.09 i 1.17, respectively; n = 68, t = 3.83,
df = 66, p < 0.01). Scores no longer differed at long—term assessment (means = 15.94 i
0.92 and 15.60 i 1.34, respectively; n = 54, t = 0.22, df = 52, p = 0.83). Repeated
measures indicated witin-subjects effects due to time (F = 2.82, p = 0.07, eta = 0.25,
power = 0.51) and time * treat/control (F = 2.91, p = 0.07, eta = 0.25, power = 0.52).
When 1 controlled for RS attitude scores at pre-test, repeated measures revealed a within-
subjects effect due to time * treat/control (Pillai’s trace = 0.12, F = 5.87, p = 0.02, eta =
0.35, power = 0.66), and between-subjects effect due to pre-test scores (Type III SS =
1006, F = 34.59, p < 0.01, eta = 0.67, power = 1.00).

RS impersonal risk scores did not differ among treatment groups at pre-test (mean
= 7.00 i 0.43, n = 75, F = 2.10, p = 0.11) or the long-term assessment (mean = 7.81 i
0.42, n = 57, F = 0.39, p = 0.76) but did at post—test (Table 5.18). When I controlled for
pre-test scores, repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due to pre-
test scores (Type 111 SS = 205.83, F = 19.23, p < 0.01, eta = 0.53, power = 0.99).

RS impersonal risk scores differed between program and non-program
participants at pre-test (means = 8.07 i 0.66 and 6.33 i 0.53 respectively, n = 76, t =
2.02, df = 74, p = 0.05). Because of this, gain scores were compared at post-test and at

long-term assessment. Gain scores did not differ at post-test (means = 1.23 _+_- 0.83 and

183

0.29 i 0.56 respectively, n = 74, t = 0.97, df = 72, p = 0.34) or the long-term assessment
(means = -0.61 i 1.00 and 0.38 j; 0.58 respectively, n = 57, t = - 0.91, df= 55, p = 0.37).
When 1 controlled for RS impersonal risk scores at pre-test, repeated measures analysis
revealed within-subjects effects due to time (Pillai’s trace = 0.1 1, F = 6.37, p = 0.02, eta =
0.33, power = 0.70) and time * pretest scores (Pillai’s trace = 0.09, F = 5.33, p = 0.03, eta
= 0.30, power = 0.62). A between-subjects effect due to pre—test scores was also
indicated (Type III SS = 159.31, F = 34.98, p < 0.01, eta = 0.63, power = 1.00).

Treatment and control groups did not differ at pre-test (means = 7.24 i 0.52 and
6.50 i 0.77 respectively, n = 75, t = 0.80, df = 73, p = 0.43) or the long-term assessment
(means = 7.95 i 0.53 and 7.55 i 0.72 respectively, n = 57, t = 0.44, df = 55, p = 0.66),
but did at post-test (means = 8.38 :1; 0.52 and 5.79 i 0.65 respectively, n = 74, t = 2.98, df
= 72, p < 0.01). Repeated measures analysis indicated a between—subjects effect due to
inclusion in a treatment group or not (Type 111 SS = 62.88, F = 2.90, p = 0.09, power =
0.39). When 1 controlled for pre-test scores, repeated measures analysis revealed a
within-subjects effect due to time * treatment/control (Pillai’s trace = 0.06, F = 3.39, p =
0.07, eta = 0.25, power = 0.44) and between-subjects effects due to pre-test scores (Type
111 SS = 225.19, F = 21.75, p > 0.01, eta = 0.54, power = 1.00) and inclusion in treatment
or control group (Type 111 SS = 29.05, F = 2.81, p = 0.10, eta = 0.23, power = 0.38).

RS stewardship scores did not differ among treatment groups at pre-test (mean =
6.70 i 0.46, n = 73, F = 0.89, p = 0.45) or the long-term assessment (mean = 8.07 i 0.41,
n = 55, F = 0.21, p = 0.89), but did at post-test (Table 5.19). Repeated measures analysis

indicated a within-subjects effect due to time (F = 2.60, p = 0.09, eta = 0.24, power =

184

0.46). When I controlled for pre-test scores, a between-subjects effect due to pre-test
score was revealed (Type 111 SS = 349.16, F = 30.91, p < 0.01, eta = 0.65, power = 1.00).

RS stewardship scores for program and non-program participants did not differ at
pre-test (means = 7.04 i 0.79 and 6.41 i 0.56 respectively, n = 74, t = 0.66, df = 72, p =
0.51), post-test (means = 8.92 i 0.64 and 7.78 _-_1-_ 0.51 respectively, n = 71, t = 1.36, df =
69, p = 0.18), or the long-term assessment (means = 8.47 j; 0.61 and 7.87 i 0.52
respectively, n = 56, t = 0.67, df = 54, p = 0.50). Repeated measures analysis indicated a
within-subjects effect due to time (F = 4.83, p = 0.01, eta = 0.30, power = 0.74). When I
controlled for pre-test scores, a between—subjects effect due to pre-test score was revealed
(Type 111 SS = 371.12, F = 34.40, p < 0.01, eta = 0.65, power = 1.00).

Treatment and control groups did not differ on their RS stewardship scores at pre-
test (means = 7.10 i 0.57 and 5.83 i 0.75 respectively, n = 73, t = 1.29, df= 71, p = 0.20)
or the long-term assessment (means = 8.24 i 0.46 and 7.81 i 0.80 respectively, n = 55, t
= 0.50, df = 53, p = 0.62) but did at post-test (means = 9.17 i 0.44 and 6.30 i 0.69
respectively, n = 70, t = 3.60, df = 68, p < 0.01). Multivariate tests indicated an effect
due to time (Pillai’s trace = 0.13, F = 3.33, p = 0.05, eta = 0.36, power = 0.60) and time *
treatment/control (Pillai’s trace = 0.10, F = 2.50, p = 0.09, eta = 0.32, power = 0.48).
Repeated measures analysis indicated a within—subjects effect due to time (F = 4.82, p =
0.02, eta = 0.31, power = 0.74). When I controlled for pre-test scores, repeated measures
analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due to pre-test scores (Type III SS = 346.90,

F = 31.71, p < 0.01, eta = 0.64, power =1.00).

185

5.4.4. Changes in Social Acceptance Capacity Measures for Snakes

NV SAC scores differed at pretest (Table 5.20). Because of this, gain scores at
post-test and long-term assessment were examined for differences. There was no
difference among gain scores at post-test (mean = 0.55 i 0.23, n = 56, F = 1.56, p = 0.21)
or long-term assessment (mean = -0.24 _-_+-_ 0.23, n = 49, F = 0.62, p = 0.61). Repeated
measures analysis detected a within-subjects effect due to time (F = 2.91, p = 0.10, eta =
0.27, power = 0.38), and a between-subjects effect due to pre-test score (Type 111 SS =
13, F = 21.27, p < 0.01, eta = 0.61, power = 0.99).

NV SAC scores did not differ between program (mean = 1.40 i 0.29) and non-
program (mean = 1.39 i 0.18) at pre-test (n = 63, t = 0.02, df = 61, p = 0.99), but did at
post-test (means = 2.35 i 0.35 and 1.51 i 0.27, respectively; n = 67, t = 1.92, df= 65, p =
0.06). NV SAC scores did not differ at long-term assessment (means = 1.59 i 0.33 and
0.85 i 0.32, respectively; n = 57, t = 1.38, df = 55, p = 0.17). When I controlled for pre-
test scores, repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due to pre-test
score (Type 111 SS = 35, F = 10.52, p < 0.01, eta = 0.46, power = 0.89) and program
attendance (Type 111 SS = 15, F = 4.49, p = 0.04, eta = 0.32, power = 0.54).

Treatment groups differed (mean = 1.63 i 0.19) from the control group (mean =
0.95 i 0.27) at pre-test. Because of this, gain scores were examined at post-test and long-
term assessment. Gain scores did not differ at post-test (means = 0.59 i 0.30 and 0.47 i
0.29, n = 56, t = 0.29, adj. df = 47, p = 0.78) or long-term assessment (means = - 0.41 i
0.30 and 0.06 i 0.33, respectively; n = 49, t = -0.98m df = 47, p = 0.33).

RS SAC scores did not differ at pre-test among treatments (mean = 0.11 1; 0.18, F

= 0.23, p = 0.88). Because raw data were not normally distributed (high kurtosis value

186

for RS SAC T2), gain scores were used to test for differences due to treatment. Gain
scores did not differ at post—test (mean = 0.63 i 0.19, F = 0.10, p = 0.96) or long-term
assessment (mean = 0.02 i 0.19, F = 1.23, p = 0.31). When I controlled for pre-test
scores, repeated measures analysis indicated a within-subjects effect due to time * pre-
test score (Pillai’s trace = 0.25, F = 10.42, p < 0.01, eta = 0.50, power = 0.88), and a
between-subjects effect due to pre—test score (Type 111 SS = 17, F = 28.17, p < 0.01, eta =
0.69, power = 1.00).

Pre—test RS SAC scores did not differ between program and non-program
participants (means = 0.13 i 0.23 and 0.09 i 0.25 respectively, n = 56, t = 0.11, df = 54,
p = 0.91). Gain scores did not differ at post-test (means = 0.72 i 0.29 and 0.55 i 0.25,
respectively, n = 49, t = 0.45, df = 47, p = 0.66) or the long-term assessment (means =
0.25 i 0.39 and 0.15 i 0.19 respectively, n = 49, t = -1.04, df = 47, p = 0.30). When 1
controlled for pre-test scores, repeated measures analysis revealed a within-subjects
effect due to time * pre—test score (Pillai’s trace = 0.04, F = 9.78, p < 0.01, eta = 0.47,
power = 0.86) and between-subjects effect due to pre-test score (Type 111 SS = 17, F =
30.22, p < 0.01, eta = 0.69, power = 1.00).

Treatment and control groups did not differ at pre-test (means = 0.19 i 0.22 and -
0.06 i 0.31, respectively, n = 55, t = -0.64, df = 53, p = 0.52). Gain scores did not differ
at post-test (means = 0.67 i 0.27 and 0.56 i 0.23, respectively, n = 48, t = 0.28, df = 46,
p = 0.78) or the long-term assessment (means = 0.03 i 0.26 and 0.00 _-_l-_ 0.24 respectively,
n = 48, t = 0.08, df = 46, p = 0.94).

The preferred situation selected among treatment groups did not differ at pre-test

(mean = 3.24 i 0.12, n = 72, df= 3, F = 1.36, p = 0.26), post—test (mean = 3.55 i 0.13, n

187

= 73, (if = 3, F = 0.12, p = 0.95) or the long-term assessment (mean = 3.52 i 0.13, n = 60,
(if = 3, F = 0.47, p = 0.70). When 1 controlled for pre-test (preferred situation) selection,
repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due to pre-test selection
(Type 111 SS = 24, F = 21.32, p < 0.01, eta = 0.55, power = 1.00).

Program participants (mean = 3.52 i 0.19) had a greater preferred situation than
non-program participants at pre-test (mean = 3.11 i 0.15) at pre-test (n = 73, t = 1.67, df
= 71, p = 0.10), but gain scores did not differ at post-test (means = 0.08 i 0.24 and 0.36 :1;
0.16 respectively, n = 70, t = —l .04, df = 68, p = 0.30) or the long-term assessment (means
= 0.26 i 0.30 and -0.05 i 0.15, respectively, n = 58, t = 1.06, df= 56, p = 0.30). When 1
controlled for pre—test selection, repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects
effect due to pre-test selection (Type 111 SS = 9.85, F = 24.85, p < 0.01, eta = 0.57, power
= 1.00).

Treatment and control groups did not differ at pre-test (means = 3.28 i 0.15 and
3.17 i 0.21, respectively, n = 72, t = 0.39, df= 70, p = 0.70), post-test (means = 3.55 i
0.16 and 3.55 i 0.21, respectively, n = 73, t = 0.01, df = 71, p = 0.99), or the long-term
assessment (means = 3.53 i 0.17 and 3.50 i 0.18, respectively, n = 60, t = 0.10, df = 58,
p = 0.92). Repeated measures analysis indicated a within-subjects effect due to time
(Pillai’s trace = 0.13, F = 3.80, p = 0.03, eta = 0.36, power = 0.67). When 1 controlled for
pre-test selection, repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due to
pre-test selection (Type 111 SS = 25.61, F = 23.56, p < 0.01, eta = 0.57, power = 1.00).

The maximum tolerable situation for participants differed by treatment at pre-test
(Table 5.21). Post hoc tests indicated no pairwise differences between treatment groups.

Because of this, gain scores were examined at post-test and long-term assessment for

188

differences. Gain scores differed among groups at post-test (Table 5.22), but not long-
term assessment (mean = -0. 16 i 0.20, n = 51, (if = 3, F = 1.47, p = 0.24). Repeated
measures analysis, controlling for pre-test selection, revealed within-subject effects due
to time (Pillai’s trace = 0.24, F = 14.17, p < 0.01, eta = 0.49, power = 0.96) and time *
pretest selection (Pillai’s trace = 0.25, F = 14.92, p < 0.01, eta = 0.50, power = 0.97) and
a between subjects effect due to pre-test selection (Type 111 SS = 7.81, F = 8.42, p < 0.01,
eta = 0.40, power = 0.81 ).

Program participants selected a greater maximum tolerable situation (mean = 5.37
i 0.17) than non-program participants (mean = 4.87 i 0.16) at pretest (n = 73, t = 2.03, df
= 71, p = 0.05). Non-program participants had greater gain scores at post-test (mean =
0.37 i 0.17) than program participants (mean = -0.63 i 0.34, n = 65, t = -2.65, adj. df =
38, p = 0.01), but program participants (mean = 0.39 :t 0.38) had greater long—term
assessment gain scores than non-program participants (mean = -0.44 _-t_- 0.22, n = 52, t =
2.05, df = 50, p = 0.05**). Repeated measures analysis, controlling for pre—test
selection, revealed within-subject effects due to time (Pillai’s trace = 0.24, F = 15.03, p <
0.01, eta = 0.49, power = 0.97), time * pretest selection (Pillai’s trace = 0.25, F = 15.55, p
< 0.01, eta = 0.49, power = 0.97), and time * program attendance (Pillai’s trace = 0.09, F
= 4.35, p = 0.04, eta = 0.29, power = 0.53). A between-subjects effect was revealed due
to pre—test selection (Type 111 SS = 9.12, F = 10.39, p < 0.01, eta = 0.43, power = 0.88).

Treatment and control groups did not differ at pretest (means = 5.00 i 0.16 and
5.13 i 0.17, respectively, n = 72, t = -0.49, df = 70, p = 0.62), post-test (means = 4.98 i
0.17 and 5.20 i 0.20 respectively, n = 67, t = -0.76, df = 65, p = 0.45), or the long-term

assessment (means = 4.86 i' 0.25 and 4.86 _+_- 0.32 respectively, n = 58, t = -0.01, df = 56,

189

p =1.00). Repeated measures, controlling for pre-test selection, revealed within-subject
effects due to time (Pillai’s trace = 0.08, F = 3.89, p = 0.06, eta = 0.28, power = 0.49) and
time * pretest selection (Pillai’s trace = 0.06, F = 3.12, p = 0.08, eta = 0.25, power =
0.41), and a between-subjects effect due to pretest selection (Type 111 SS = 12.82, F =
7.55, p < 0.01, eta = 0.38, power = 0.77).
5.4.5 Changes in Behavioral Intentions toward Snakes

Treatment groups did not differ at pretest (mean = 0.53 i 0.14, n = 76, df = 3, F =
0.45, p = 0.72) in their level of agreement/disagreement with the statement “I would be
lags likely to have a rattlesnake removed from my property if I knew that it was likely to
die as a result.” Treatment groups did differ at post-test (Table 5.23) but not at the long-
term assessment (mean = 1.07 i 0.12, n = 58, df = 3, F = 0.49, p = 0.69). Repeated
measures analysis revealed a within-subjects effect due to time (Pillai’s trace = 0.13, F =
4.01, p = 0.02, eta = 0.36, power = 0.69). When 1 controlled for the pretest level of
agreement with the statement, a between-subjects effect was revealed due to pretest level
of agreement (Type 111 SS = 14.44, F = 10.69, p < 0.01, eta = 0.41, power = 0.89).

Program and non-program participants did not differ at pre-test (means = 0.61 i
0.22 and 0.45 i 0.18 respectively, n = 77, t = 0.54, df = 75, p = 0.59) but did at post-test
(means = 1.29 :1; 0.14 and 0.88 :1; 0.16 respectively, n = 77, t = 1.92, adj. df= 74, p =
0.06). Program and non-program participants did not differ at long-term assessment
(means = 1.21 i 0.16 and 0.98 i 0.16 respectively, n = 59, t = 0.92, df= 57, p = 0.36).
Repeated measures analysis indicated a within-subjects effect due to time (Pillai’s trace =
0.17, F = 5.59, p < 0.01, eta = 0.41, power = 0.84). When I controlled for level of

agreement or disagreement with the statement at pretest, repeated measures analysis

190

revealed a between-subjects effect due to the pre-test level of agreement or disagreement
with the statement (Type 111 SS = 15.75, F = 12.12, p < 0.01, eta = 0.42, power = 0.93).

Treatment and control groups did not differ in their level of agreement or
disagreement with the statement regarding removal of a RS from their properties at
pretest (means = 0.63 i 0.17 and 0.29 i 0.27 respectively, n = 76, t = 1.14, df = 74, p =
0.26) but program participants showed a greater degree of agreement with the statement
at post-test (means = 1.25 i 0.13 and 0.54 i 0.23 respectively, n = 76, t = 2.68, adj. df=
37, p < 0.01). Treatment and control groups did not differ in their level of agreement at
long-term assessment (means = 1.14 i 0.15 and 0.95 i 0.21 respectively, n = 58, t = 0.73,
df = 56, p = 0.47). Repeated measures analysis indicated a within-subjects effect due to
time (Pillai’s trace = 0.17, F = 5.62, p < 0.01, eta = 0.41, power = 0.84). When I
controlled for the level of agreement or disagreement with the statement at pretest,
repeated measures analysis revealed a between-subjects effect due to pretest level of
agreement (Type 111 SS 2 15.03, F = l 1.40, p < 0.01, eta = 0.41, power = 0.91).

Scores on the RSI did not differ among groups at pretest (mean = 20.64 i 0.60, n
= 56, F = 0.90, p = 0.45), post—test (mean = 21.46 i 0.55, n = 59, F = 0.80, p = 0.50), or at
long-term assessment (mean = 21.32 i 0.59, n = 50, F = 0.31, p = 0.82). Repeated
measures analysis indicated a within-subjects effect due to time (F = 3.40, df = 2, p =
0.04, eta = 0.35, power = 0.61). When I controlled for RSI pre—test score, repeated
measures analysis revealed a between—subjects effect due to pretest score (Type 111 SS =
582.33, F = 34.38, p < 0.01, eta = 0.77, power = 1.00).

Program and non—program participant RSI scores did not differ at pre-test (means

= 20.70 i 0.70 and 20.62 i 0.88 respectively, n = 57, t = 0.07, df = 55, p = 0.95), post-

191

test (means = 22.00 i 0.63 and 21.06 i 0.82 respectively, n = 60, t = 0.91, adj. df = 57, p
= 0.37), or the long-term assessment (means = 21.63 i 0.76 and 21.20 i 0.77
respectively, n = 51, t = 0.34, df = 49, p = 0.74). Repeated measures analysis indicated a
within-subjects effect due to time (Pillai’s trace = 0.17, F = 2.77, p = 0.08, eta = 0.42,
power = 0.50). When 1 controlled for pretest RS1 scores, repeated measures analysis
revealed a between-subjects effect due to pretest (Type 111 SS = 695.58, F = 45.37, p <
0.01, eta = 0.80, power = 1.00).

Treatment and control groups did not differ on their RSI scores at pre-test (means
= 20.15 i 0.67 and 21.88 i 1.26, n = 57, t = -l.30, df = 54, p = 0.20), post-test (means =
21.39 i 0.66 and 21.67 :1; 1.00 respectively, n = 59, t = -0.22, df = 57, p = 0.83), or the
long-term assessment (means = 21.19 i 0.74 and 21.53 i 1.00 respectively, n = 50, t = -
0.27, df = 48, p = 0.79). Repeated measures analysis indicated a within-subjects effect
due to time * treatment/control (Pillai’s trace = 0.25, F = 4.05, p = 0.03, eta = 0.49, power
= 0.67) and between-subjects effect due to treatment/control (Type 111 SS = 180.04, F =
3.52, p = 0.07, eta = 0.34, power = 0.44). When 1 controlled for RSI pre-test scores,
repeated measures revealed a within-subjects effect due to time * treatment/control
(Pillai’s trace = 0.09, F = 4.49, p = 0.04, eta = 0.30, power = 0.55) and a between-
subjects effect due to pretest RSI score (Type 111 SS = 346.90, F = 31.71, p < 0.01, eta =

0.64, power = 1.00).

5.5 Discussion
Though sample sizes were small, this study demonstrates that information and

education campaigns can change a participant’s beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral

192

intentions about wildlife, at least in the short-term. Participants felt that their
involvement in this research had increased their interest in learning more about snakes
and had increased their positive feelings toward snakes.

Knowledge results support the hypothesis that individuals who attended a snake
program would have greater knowledge than individuals who did not attend such a
program, and this greater knowledge was still apparent six months after the outreach
intervention. Similar results were obtained immediately post-treatment by Morgan and
Gramann (1989) for 5th — 8'h grade participants.

Not surprisingly, all of the participants in this experiment, including the control
group, were at least somewhat interested in snakes. Program participants expressed
greater interest in snakes than non-program participants. This finding begs the question
as to whether increased interest leads an individual to attend a program rather than just
receive written materials to begin with, and has implication for stakeholder participation
in just such communication and education efforts and thus their potential utility for
management.

In terms of influencing attitudes, this experiment offers some evidence for face-
to-face programs being more effective in doing so than written materials, and thus,
support for the second hypothesis. NV snake attitudes were more positive for program
participants immediately after the outreach intervention, and were still more positive at
the long-term assessment than non-program participants. When the two factors
underlying the NV snake attitude scale were examined in greater detail, this pattern was
consistent for both NV impersonal risk and NV stewardship scores. RS attitudes were

more positive for program participants at post-test but did not differ at the long-term

193

assessment. These results are mixed, but the RS attitude scores at long-term assessment
is congruent with prior research (Gomez et al. 2004) that focused on primary school
children and the retention of attitude changes toward snakes. When the two factors
underlying the RS attitude scale were examined separately, it was revealed that the level
of impersonal risk perceived by program participants was less than that of non-program
participants, and it raises the question as to whether perceived risk interfered with
participation in programs for some individuals. RS stewardship scores did not differ at
pretest for any of the groups, though Treatment groups 1 and 3 (program using slide
shows and written materials groups) demonstrated greater scores immediately after the
outreach intervention than Treatment groups 2 and 4 (program with modeling and control
groups).

The results for changes in SACs are hard to interpret. No consistent patterns were
evident in examining any of the data pertaining to SACs at pre-treatment, post-treatment
or at the long-term assessment. Probably the most important finding from this
examination of measures was that the pre-treatment score was the most important
determinant in terms of post-treatment and long-term assessment measures. This was
true for every SAC measure.

Program participants were less likely to have a RS removed from their properties
if they knew it would likely die as a result at post-treatment time, but did not differ from
non-program participants at the pre-test or long-term assessment. This finding had been
expected prior to the experiment, but it was surprising given that RSI scores did not differ

between groups at pre-test, post-test or at the long-term assessment.

194

The most consistent finding of this study was that pre-test scores for attitudes and
behavioral intentions were by far the most important determinants of post-test and long-
term assessment attitude and behavioral intention scores. This finding is consistent with
' social judgment theory (Sherif and Hovland 1961) which posits that information
processing is affected by currently held attitudes and beliefs. Participants who desired an
increase in the NV snake population at pre-test also desired an increase in it at post-test
and long-term assessment. Likewise, if an individual desired a decrease in the NV or RS
population at pre-test, they were apt to still desire a decrease at post-test and long-term
assessment. The effect sizes were medium to large for the influence of pre—test scores in
all cases. A second consistent finding had to do with a spike or increase in program
participants’ SACs immediately post-treatment but a tendency for this difference to

dissipate at the long-term assessment, though the reason for this was not investigated.

5.6 Conclusions

This study was a first step in testing the effects of various educational outreach
methods to increase stakeholder knowledge and influence stakeholder SACs for snakes,
particularly RS. Future work should include larger sample sizes, perhaps by offering a
monetary incentive for participation, or by targeting locations in which to conduct
programs, and asking for voluntary compliance from people who attend such programs.
Such an effort has the potential to greatly increase sample size without great additional
financial costs. However, such an experimental design will be more susceptible to

spurious effects due to differences in experimental setting and the associated changes in

195

audience members’ abilities to pay attention, among other factors (Shadish, Cook and
Campbell 2002).

If wildlife managers are to use education and outreach efforts as wildlife
management tools, it is important that such efforts are continually monitored and
assessed, as with any other management intervention. This study provided one first small
step in incorporating outreach as a part of the adaptive wildlife management process, and
demonstrated that knowledge and attitudes can be influenced for long (at least six
months) periods of time, especially when a face-to-face format is used. Such efforts
should be expended when human-wildlife issues are first emerging so that the efficacy of
such outreach and communication efforts can be assessed prior to issue activities and
before negative attitudes and behavioral intentions toward wildlife are developed.
Interventions can be adapted for various stakeholder audiences and can target specific
human-wildlife interactions when managers have information regarding stakeholder
beliefs and attitudes and the associated desires for human-wildlife interactions and

tolerance of the wildlife population of interest.

196

Table 5.1. Midwestern Great Lakes states and numbers of reptiles listed as threatened,

endangered or of special concern by each state.

 

State Threatened Endangered Special Concern Reference
Illinois 8 8 8 Illinois
Endangered

Species Protection
Board

Indiana 0 15 4 Indiana
Department of
Natural Resources

Michigan 2 2 6 Michigan Natural

Features Inventory
Minnesota 3 1 8 Minnesota
Department of

Natural Resources

Ohio 0 5 8 Ohio Department
of Natural
Resources

Wisconsin 3 6 8 Wisconsin

Department of

Natural Resources

 

Totals 16 37 42

197

Table 5.2. Twenty—three snake species listed as endangered or threatened in six

Midwestern Great Lakes states. (Scientific names from Ernst and Ernst 2003.)

 

State Endangered Snakes Threatened Snakes
IllinoisI Coachwhip Kirtland’s snake
(Masticophisflagellum, Shaw 1802) (Clonophis kiitlandii, Kennicott
1856)
Broad-banded water snake Timber rattlesnake
(Nerodia fasciatus confluens. Blanchard (Crotalus horridus, Linnaeus 1758)
1923a)
Eastern massasauga Western hognose snake
(Sistrurus catenatus catenatus, (Heterodon nasicus, Baird and
Rafinesque 1818) Girard 18523)
Ratsnake Mississippi green water snake
(Elaphe obsolete, Say, in James 1823) (Nerodia cyclopion, Dumeril, Bibron
and Dumeril 1854)
Flathead snake
(Tantilla gracilis, Baird and Girard
1853)
Eastern ribbon snake
(Thamnophis sauritus sauritus
Linnaeus 1766)
Lined snake
(Tropidoclonion lineatum, Hallowell
1857)
Indiana2 Butler’s garter snake

(Thamnophis butleri, Cope 1889)

Copperbelly water snake
(Nerodia etythrogaster neglecta, Conant
1949)

Cottonmouth

(Agkistrodon piscivorus Bonnaterre
1790)

Kirtland’s snake

Eastern massasauga

Scarlet snake

(Cemophora coccinea, Blumenbach
1788)

Smooth green snake

(Liochlorophis vemalis, Harlan 1827)

198

Table 5.2. (cont’d)

State

Endangered Snakes Threatened Snakes

 

Indiana

Michigan3

. 4
Minnesota

Ohio5

. . 6
Wisconsm

Southeastern crowned snake
(Tantilla coronata, Baird and Girard
1853)

Timber rattlesnake

Kirtland’s snake Eastern fox snake
(Elaphe vulpine glova’i, Conant 1940)

Copperbelly water snake

Eastern massasauga Timber rattlesnake

Copperbelly water snake Kirtland's snake

Plains garter snake

(Thamnophis radix, Baird and Girard
1853)

Timber rattlesnake

Eastern massasauga

Lake Erie water snake

(Nerodia sipedon insularum, Conant and

Clay 1937)

Queensnake Butler’s garter snake
(Regina septemvittata, Say 1825)

Eastern massasauga

Western ribbon snake

(Thamnophis proximus, Say 1823)
Northern ribbon snake

(Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis,
Rossman 1963b)

199

Table 5.3. Mean scores for changes in interest levels toward learning about snakes for

three treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted

 

 

 

 

 

 

in Michigan in 2005.
Treatment n Mean Standard 95% C1. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 12 4.25 0.13 3.96 4.54 0.38 2.86** 1 > 3*
2 7 4.14 0.14 3.79 4.49
3 22 3.80 0.09 3.61 3.99 3 < 1*
4 18 3.95 0.11 3.73 4.18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.4. Mean scores for reduction in negative feelings toward snakes for three

treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan in 2005.
Treatment n Mean Standard 95% Cl. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 12 2.25 0.22 1.77 2.73 0.54 0.16
2 7 2.14 0.26 1.50 2.78
3 22 2.35 0.17 2.00 2.70
4 21 2.29 0.14 1.99 2.58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** significant at the p = 0.01 level, ** significant at the p = 0.05 level, * significant at

the p = 0.10 level

200

 

 

Table 5.5. Mean scores for change in time spent looking for opportunities to learn more
about snakes for three treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach

experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment n Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 11 3.64 0.20 3.18 4.09 21.57 3.23**
2 7 4.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 2 > 3***
2 > 4***
3 20 3.35 0.11 3.12 3.58 3 < 2***
4 21 3.43 0.11 3.20 3.66 4 < 2***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.6. Mean scores for changes in levels of fear toward snakes for three treatment

groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005.
Treatment n Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 12 2.67 0.19 2.25 3.08 268* 0.69
2 7 2.29 0.36 1.41 3.17
3 19 2.63 0.16 2.30 2.96
4 19 2.68 0.11 2.45 2.91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** significant at the p = 0.01 level, ** significant at the p = 0.05 level, * significant at

the p = 0.10 level

201

 

 

Table 5.7. Mean scores for changes in interest in having a snake as a pet for three

treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan in 2005.
Treatment n Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 12 2.83 0.27 2.24 3.43 2.00 0.12
2 7 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00
3 19 2.84 0.12 2.60 3.08
4 21 2.86 0.14 2.56 3.16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.8. Mean scores for changes in perceived personal risk from rattlesnakes for three

treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan in 2005.
Treatment n Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 12 2.67 0.14 2.35 2.98 2.91** 0.94
2 7 2.14 0.34 1.31 2.97
3 20 2.35 0.18 1.97 2.73
4 20 2.45 0.14 2.17 2.73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** significant at the p = 0.01 level, ** significant at the p = 0.05 level, * significant at

the p = 0.10 level

202

Table 5.9. Mean scores for changes in positive feelings toward snakes for three treatment

groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005.
Treatment n Mean Standard 95% Cl. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 12 4.42 0.19 3.99 4.84 0.34 2.80**
2 7 4.29 0.18 3.83 4.74
3 20 3.85 0.15 3.54 4.16
4 21 3 86 0.14 3 56 4 l6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.10. Mean scores for changes in attention paid to snakes for three treatment

groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005.
Treatment n Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 12 4.42 0.15 4.09 4.74 0.35 3.73** 1 > 4**
2 7 4.43 0.20 3.93 4.92
3 20 4.05 0.15 3.73 4.37
4 21 3.81 0.11 3.58 4.04 4 < 1**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** significant at the p = 0.01 level, ** significant at the p = 0.05 level, * significant at

the p = 0.10 level

203

_0>2 2 .o u a 05 Ha ancEwB * ._o>o_ mod n a an “50$:me .1. .32: 5.0 n a on 885556 .13..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93 5o teem :3 e .o a am a c 2 .o n 9:. 8 aces 9 8:522

So one :13 :3 2 .o n as.“ a: 1 .o a Re 8 ages 322:.

woo as _ _.o n 9% a: 2 .o a SN 3 assesses. a: .283 Basses

Rd 83 8d a £3 a c 2 .o a ems % as. a $er a mess

NS- :5 sod n 8s a : w. .o a mom R as... no aspen

who moo imam :3 mod a one. a : 2d a w; an axes sea Es; 9 aeeéoeae weseea

Pro. :s :.o a N3 8: e. .o a .2 co amazes o3:an

m3 moo rises Se 2 .o a w? a: 2 .o n _S. 8 8.35 52a 22: 3.52 5 mass

Etm Empafim 5th eBcEzm
530m 323 BB 885 a H 53:. EEonéoZ H :35 53on e moxacm obese $5.8m E owcmcu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Amoomv EoEtomxo 58850 835 8&222 E23258

E mucmfiflgnfl Cu new m $58885 EEonéo: pew AN new _ 35882.5 83on 8m $538 5 mowfifio :82 A _.m 033.

204

_0>2 3 .o n a 2: E Hemogcma * :32 mod n a on EmocEmB as. ._o>o_ 5.0 n a “a Emocmcma .13..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is 2.0 tied :8 :d n :3 as 2 .o n as 8 sea e. 5222
m3 :8 .1 .o a $3 89 :.o n o. .e 8 amazes 22.8
ad- 88 E .o a new as N; a :A 3 messages see .2. .288 828.3
8.0 so 2 .o n can as 2 .o a as an as. a seas 5 uses
”no- a c _ _.o a was as 2 .o a mom 3 as .8 season
93 as :d n mam as 86 a mom em axes... Bone Es: 2 3:22.38 messes
3o- :3 3 .o a Rs as N; a was 8 aces... 2332
:5 :8 _ _.o a 3m so So n 8e 8 an... sees 22: 3.52 5 uses
:23 = um Lotm EmESm 2 do eotm Eapcfim
53cm 37. 33.5 . H :36 ESE .0556 H SSE 32:32... 2 moxacm “0839 $5.3m E owes—LU

 

 

 

.388 825398 53:50 885 53:22 8053558

E 3:3653 ca @580 65:08 EoEEobéo: new Am can m ._ 35532.5 30830.: new mmczofl E mowcmso 582 .96 035.

205

ER: 9 .o n m 05 a Eaume_m * 40>“: mod n a 05 um Emouawi in 432 5.0 n a 05 a “58$ch “In:

 

 

206

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

***m v w
it v v mod 3:0. 3d mmd vm v
***m v m
it v m nmd mod $6 m~.m mm m
”Iain A N
in? A m 00% 006 cod 004V 9 m
:33 A _
33% A _ $31.0 *iom.mm cod cod cod cod 2 fl
moussta osmzfim .895
95.5 m 2.951— ._.U exema 23:55 :32 2 «5.5.3.;

 

 

.38 E sawEomE E 388:8 Eofitomxo

58230 an “o :8 mm 95% 63:8 a ban mascuw 8253: 025 5a mochm Sosa 358 035355. EoEEobéoa :32 .26 2an

Table 5.14. Mean long-term interest scores about snakes for three treatment groups and a

control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment It Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 12 3.50 0.15 3.17 3.83 13.51*** 4.65*** l > 3*
2 6 3.33 0.21 2.79 3.88
3 20 3.05 0.05 2.95 3.15 3 < 1*
4 20 3.10 0.07 2.96 3.24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.15. Mean post—treatment scores for knowledge about snakes for three treatment

groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005.
Treatment It Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
l 16 22.56 0.65 21.19 23.94 1.88 3.02** 1 > 4*
2 9 22.44 0.71 20.81 24.08
3 21 20.48 0.95 18.50 22.45
4 24 19.38 0.85 17.62 21.13 4 < 1*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** significant at the p = 0.01 level, ** significant at the p = 0.05 level, * significant at

the p = 0.10 level

207

 

 

Table 5.16. Mean post—treatment scores for NV stewardship for three treatment groups

and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment It Mean Standard 95% Cl. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
l 17 9.35 0.34 8.63 10.08 3.20** 2.77** 1 > 4**
2 10 9.30 0.42 8.34 10.26 2 > 4*
3 25 8.40 0.49 7.40 9.40
4 24 7.79 0.38 7.01 8.57 4 < 1**
4 < 2*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.17. Mean post-treatment scores for RS snake attitudes for three treatment groups

and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment It Mean Standard 95% CI. Leven F Group
Error 6 Differences
Statisti
c
1 14 19.71 1.41 16.67 22.76 1.12 6.06*** l > 4***
2 8 17.38 1.27 14.38 20.37
3 23 16.35 1.28 13.70 19.00 3 > 4*
4 23 12.09 1.17 9.67 14.50 4 < 1***
4 < 3*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

***significant at the p = 0.01 level, ** significant at the p = 0.05 level, *significant at the

p = 0.10 level

208

 

Table 5.18. Mean post-treatment scores for RS impersonal risk for three treatment

groups and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005.
Treatment It Mean Standard 95% Cl. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Difference
1 16 9.50 0.79 7.83 11.17 1.67 4.40*** l > 4**
2 9 9.11 0.74 7.42 10.81
3 25 7.40 0.84 5.68 9.12
4 24 5.79 0.65 4.46 7.13 4 < 1**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.19. Mean post-treatment scores for RS stewardship for three treatment groups

and a control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment n Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Difference
1 15 9.53 0.88 7.64 11.43 0.34 4.52*** 1 > 4**
2 9 8.33 0.90 6.26 10.40
3 23 9.26 0.62 7.98 10.55 3 > 4**
4 23 6.30 0.69 4.87 7.74 4 < 1**
4 < 3**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

***significant at the p = 0.01 level, ** significant at the p = 0.05 level, *significant at the

p = 0.10 level

209

 

 

Table 5.20. Mean pre-treatment scores for NV SAC for three treatment groups and a

control group as part of an outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment n Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
l 14 1.71 0.44 0.77 2.66 2.93** 2.19*
2 10 1.10 0.38 0.24 1.96
3 19 1.84 0.21 1.41 2.28 3 > 4*
4 19 0.95 0.27 0.38 1.51 4 < 3*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.21. Mean pre-treatment selections for maximum tolerable situations involving
rattlesnakes for three treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach

experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment n Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 16 5.31 0.24 4.81 5.82 1.74 2.25*
2 10 5.40 0.27 4.80 6.00
3 23 4.61 0.27 4.06 5.16
4 23 5.13 0.17 4.78 5.48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

***significant at the p = 0.01 level, ** significant at the p = 0.05 level, *significant at the

p = 0.10 level

210

i __
.- l
.
&—0 .
Llll
.

   

Table 5.22. Mean post-treatment gain scores for maximum tolerable situation involving

rattlesnakes for three treatment groups and a control group as part of an outreach

experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment n Mean Standard 95% Cl. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 16 -019 0.39 4.02 0.64 3.37** 4.49***
2 10 -1.30 0.63 -2.73 0.13 2 < 3*”
2 < 4*
3 18 0.61 0.24 0.10 1.13 3>2***
4 20 0.15 0.22 -0.31 0.61 4 > 2*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.23. Mean post—treatment scores for level of agreement with the statement “I

would be Legs likely to have a rattlesnake removed from my property if I knew that it

would likely die as a result” for three treatment groups and a control group as part of an

outreach experiment conducted in Michigan in 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment n Mean Standard 95% CI. Levene F Group
Error Statistic Differences
1 17 1.41 0.19 1.00 1.82 2.84** 3.03** l > 4*
2 10 1.10 0.18 0.69 1.51
3 25 1.20 0.22 0.75 1.65
4 24 0.54 0.23 0.06 1.02 4 < 1*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

***significant at the p = 0.01 level, ** significant at the p = 0.05 level, *significant at the

p = 0.10 level

211

 

 

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

212

6.1 Summary of Findings

The purpose of this dissertation research was to enhance reptile conservation and
management efforts through the incorporation of human dimensions insights. Pertinent
results can be used in this manner. In Chapter 2, two conceptual models for human
behaviors during a rattlesnake encounter were developed. One model is applicable when
the encounter is planned and the other is applicable when such an encounter is unplanned.
In chapters 3-5, data and results are presented that inform the conceptual models and that
test relationships among model components. Data collections were conducted via semi-
structured and in—depth interviews (Christoffel, unpublished data), mail questionnaires
(Chapters 3,4,5, this ms) and post-treatment and long-term assessment instruments used
in an outreach experiment (Chapter 5, this ms).

People appear to be as interested in snakes as a questionnaire topic as any other
currently studied wildlife species (MN response rate of 66%, MI response rate of 57%).
For example, Riley and Decker (2000a) obtained a 58% response rate to their work on
acceptance capacities and cougars in Montana. Many, if not most, recent questionnaire-
type surveys have received less than 50% (Riley 2007).

Congruent with past research on people’s specific knowledge of wildlife (Kellert
and Berry 1980), questionnaire respondents appeared to have little factual knowledge
about local snakes, such as identities, species richness and policies that may protect
snakes. An alarming implication associated with the lack of knowledge is that if
stakeholders are unaware of regulations protecting snakes, it is unlikely that they will
comply with such regulations. However, knowledge or awareness of existing regulations

does not always appear to stop people from killing snakes (Whitaker and Shine 2000).

213

Stakeholder knowledge about snakes explained the greatest degree of variation
and was the most important determinant of NV snake and RS attitude scores in MI and
MN. These findings offer strong support for the human behavior models presented in
Chapter 2, but Kellert (1993) posits that knowledge is used more often as a basis for
reinforcing and rationalizing attitudes rather than as an agent of attitude change.

Despite mistaken beliefs that people often hold about snakes, they do appear to
have more positive than negative attitudes, especially toward NV snakes. People
generally held moderate to very positive attitudes toward NV snakes and were neutral or
slightly positive toward RS. Rural respondents held more positive attitudes than urban
respondents toward NV snakes and RS. Prior research on wildlife attitudes and value
orientations suggested that rural residents were more likely to hold utilitarian value
orientations and less likely to hold humanistic and moralistic value orientations toward
wildlife than urban residents (Kellert and Berry 1982). More recently, studies that
examined rural and urban respondents’ attitudes toward prairie dogs in the Great Plains
(Reading et al. 1999; Zinn and Andelt 1999; Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service
2001) suggested that urban respondents held more positive attitudes than rural
respondents toward these rodents. Given that interviewees provided few recognized
utilitarian benefits of snakes in MI and MN when queried in semi—structured interviews
(Christoffel, unpub. data), it was expected that rural respondents would have less positive
attitudes than urban respondents.

People who currently believe they live in the presence of RS have more positive
attitudes toward snakes and have greater SACs for snakes. Peyton et a1. (2001) found

similar results for black bears in MI, but this finding differs from past research on

214

cougars (Riley and Decker 2000b) and wolves (Williams et al. 2002), where individuals
who believed that they did not live in proximity to potentially dangerous wildlife held
more positive attitudes than respondents who believed otherwise. It may be that
individuals who live in close proximity to RS acclimate to RS presence over time, or that
individuals living in close proximity to RS so seldom have recognized encounters that
risk perceptions are reduced over time. This latter explanation has some support
provided by respondents’ snake experience reports. Snakes are cryptically colored, and
can often be within inches of a human but not detected (Whitaker and Shine 2000). Thus
respondents may be out .in their neighborhoods in the presence of snakes without
knowing it. Perhaps encounters with at least some snake species native to respondents’
areas are not very memorable because of the small size of some snakes (Hohlman et al.
1999, Oldfield and Moriarty 1994) or other features of the encounter. Less than 10% of
respondents reported having observed 3 RS in their neighborhoods during the past year.
There is evidence for elevated risk perceptions regarding snakes, given that 55%
of respondents were unsure whether RS bites caused annual deaths to local residents, and
32% believed that RS bites caused annual deaths to residents. This is particularly
important as it pertains to the associated SACs for snakes. In semi-structured interviews
(Christoffel, unpublished data), interviewees demonstrated a strong (r = -0.98) inverse
relationship between levels of fear and like for amphibian and reptile groups. Similarly,
mail questionnaire respondents’ level of perceived personal risk from RS and RS SACs

demonstrated an inverse relationship, though of lesser strength.

215

People are more likely to engage in potentially lethal behaviors toward RS than
NV snakes. Questionnaire respondents were more than twice as likely to have RS
removed from their properties regardless of the consequences for such animals as to have
NV snakes removed. Heightened risk perceptions may be responsible for this result, as
indicated by the importance of RS impersonal risk scores in explaining variability
regarding whether a respondent would be less likely to have a RS removed from their
properties if the snake probably would die as a result. Respondents may simply feel that
they put themselves at undue risk to RS bite and potentially catastrophic consequences
associated with such bites, similar to other forms of wildlife attacks (Slovic et a1. 1979,
Riley and Decker 2000), by allowing a RS to remain on their properties. NV impersonal
risk scores also explained the greatest degree of variability in whether a respondent
would be less likely to have a NV snake removed from his or her property if the snake
would likely die as a result. Clearly risk perceptions were the most important
determinants in respondents’ consideration of having a NV snake or RS moved from their
properties. When queried, interviewees had indicated that they would not want to kill a
RS but would want to have it removed from their properties for safety reasons, especially
targeted toward children and older adults who might be visiting (Christoffel, unpublished
data). A large portion of respondents were unsure of whether or not they would be less
likely to move either a NV snake (22%) or a RS (28%) if it was likely to die as a result of
their actions. Regardless, such statements suggest elevated risk perceptions that motivate
people to remove snakes from their properties regardless of the consequences.

The concept of SAC, in any form, may currently have limited utility in terms of

snake management because of the lack of knowledge regarding most snake population

216

impacts perceived by people, lack of knowledge regarding the relationship between snake
populations and levels of associated human-wildlife interactions or effects, and lack of
funding with which to investigate and address such issues. Perhaps the greatest
contribution of these conceptual frameworks at this time is the opportunity to start
understanding key human beliefs and attitudes that are antecedents to SACs. Knowledge
of such beliefs and attitudes can be used to address knowledge gaps, correct mistaken
beliefs, and in some cases, attempt to influence SACs.

Interestingly, none of the traditional demographic parameters measured were
useful in predicting attitudes, beliefs, experiences, or SACs for snakes. Risk scores,
knowledge, attitude scores and level of interest in snakes had greater predictive power.

Little research has attempted to operationalize the concepts of CCC (Peyton et al.
2001) and SAC (Lischka 2006). In this study, results of CCC and WSAC measures were
highly correlated and there was general agreement among the variables that explained the
greatest degree of variation in the dependent measures. Either conceptual framework
may work equally well when attempting to gauge stakeholder tolerance of and desires for
interactions with a wildlife species of interest.

Contrary to much of the previous research on stakeholder attitudes toward
carnivores (Riley and Decker 2000, Kellert 1985, Williams et al. 2002), this study
indicates that respondents who recognize that they live in the company of RS are more
tolerant of RS than stakeholders who believe otherwise. Peyton et al. (2001) found
similar results in a statewide survey of MI stakeholder attitudes toward black bears. Past
experience with bears and awareness of bears coincided with a higher WAC, or

maximum tolerable situation for bears. Findings on black bears and RS may reflect a

217

lack of any lethal encounters with either of these species in MI. Although RS have been
documented in almost half of the counties in the lower peninsula of MI, there appears to
have been no documented fatalities from RS during the past fifty years. This may
suggest that there are few negative impacts, damage or threats to human safety that
stakeholders actually experience when they reside in an area with RS populations. Such
stakeholders may acclimate to the RS over time or not perceive impacts from RS,
although these hypotheses were not tested.

More than one in five respondents were unsure whether they lived in an area with
RS. As a result, such individuals may be unable to make well-informed decisions or
provide relevant input to the RS management processes in their areas. But this also
suggests that human-RS encounters may be very rare, even when RS are present
(Whitaker and Shine 2000).

Surprisingly, the level of personal risk that a respondent felt from a RS was not
related to an individual’s preferred or maximum tolerable situation, but a strong
relationship was demonstrated for personal risk ratings and desire for future RS
populations. There was a stronger relationship between RS impersonal risk scores and
SAC measures. Fortunately, the majority of respondents felt at no risk or only slight risk
from RS. Riley and Decker (2000) and Stout et a1. (1993) found similar patterns for
SACs for mountain lions and deer.

Questionnaire respondents had a greater desire for an increase in NV snake
populations than RS populations. However, even desire for an increase in NV snake
populations was only slight (<1 on a scale of 0-3). The data demonstrated an inverse

relationship between a respondent’s perception of how the NV snake population had

218

changed since the respondent had lived in an area and a respondent’s desire for future NV
snake populations. What was most similar for NV snakes and RS, was the great
percentage of people who opted for a response indicating desires for the current NV
snake and RS populations to stay the same (63% and 59%, respectively). Unfortunately,
it’s unclear why stakeholders chose that response, although similar results have been
obtained for white-tailed deer (Christoffel and Craven 2000), mountain lions (Riley and
Decker 2000) and black bear (Peyton et al. 2001), among others. Perhaps such responses
are an indication of the sentiment, “If it’s not broke, why fix it?” and just represent
contentment with the current situation.

There are problems with both methods used in this study to measure SAC to guide
management actions for RS. Desire for future populations, as a proxy for WSAC, as
measured in terms of Riley and Decker (2000b) and Lischka (2006), only indicates
stakeholders’ desires for how they would like to see the wildlife population of interest or
the associated positive or negative interactions with the wildlife population, to change.
Such desires seem irrelevant for management when a large segment of stakeholders have
little idea of what the current wildlife population of interest is or is totally intolerant of
the wildlife population of interest. As a result, such stated desires give managers little
information regarding accurate identification of maximum tolerance levels for human-
wildlife interactions when human experiences with the wildlife species of interest are so
limited (i.e., no experience or perhaps sighting an individual animal out in the wild).
LOAs seem at least partially irrelevant to snake management when stakeholders indicate
a preferred situation of having no RS present. Under such circumstances, only an

intolerance level can be determined, and the management goal becomes one of not

219

exceeding that tolerance level or managing for WAC (Decker and Purdy 1988). It is
interesting to contemplate the implications of stakeholders’ maximum tolerable situations
in terms of managing RS populations, however, given the results of this research. The
majority of stakeholders would tolerate situations up to and including #4 (i.e. 58%), but
there was a dramatic drop for situation #5 and #6. The latter were the only two situations
in which bites to humans were mentioned as occurring, and even so, these would still be
age occurrences (Table 4.6). It appears that the majority of respondents to this survey
were intolerant of any potential risk of RS bite to humans.

Though respondent populations differed in MN and MI, similar results were
obtained regarding SACs for NV snakes and RS. Factors that explained the greatest
variability in SAC measures were the same in many cases. In particular, it was striking
how important RS stewardship score was for SAC in both states, though human and RS
populations differed in various ways. In the case of RS, this included size and potential
for observing the animal. These results suggest that a measure of stewardship may also
be the most important factor in determining SACs for RS elsewhere. Stakeholder groups
and their associated SAC results demonstrated similar patterns in MI and MN, indicating
that classification of stakeholder groups based on geographic proximity to RS was valid
and potentially useful for classifying RS stakeholder group elsewhere.

Participants in the outreach experiment (Chapter 5) had higher knowledge scores
and more positive attitudes toward RS after attending programs than individuals who had
received written materials or a control group. This suggests that educational outreach

efforts can be used to increase knowledge and influence attitudes toward wildlife.

220

6.2 Recommendations for Future Research

As is commonly the case, this research has raised more questions than it has
answered. There are many opportunities to build upon this research.

One important area for future research concerns further model testing, particularly
of human behavior during an unplanned RS encounter. This model was not investigated
empirically as a part of this study, but such work may help to elucidate mechanisms by
which individuals engage in lethal behaviors toward RS, and means by which to reduce
such behaviors, not only for the RS’s sake, but also for human safety reasons.

Self-efficacy, i.e. a person’s belief in his ability to engage successfully in a
behavior with desired outcomes, is a component that was not explicitly addressed in this
research. Low knowledge about snakes, particularly in terms of snake identification and
high percentages of respondents who indicated that they would kill a RS, indicate that
self-efficacy needs to be addressed. If respondents were able to differentiate NV snakes
from RS, it is likely that great numbers of NV snakes would no longer be killed due to
misidentification as RS. Secondly, if respondents understood the great risk they put
themselves at in trying to kill a RS rather than leaving it alone, fewer RS bites would
occur and fewer RS would be killed.

D.J. Case and Associates (2002) interviewed prominent experts on eastern
massasauga rattlesnakes regarding utility of different outreach methods to address
stakeholder concerns. Experts posited that face—to-face contact was the best method of
communication regarding eastern massasauga rattlesnake-human issues. I attempted to
assess the efficacy of face-to-face contact using slide shows, face-to-face contact and

behavioral modeling, and a mailing of written materials to increase knowledge and

221

influence attitudes toward eastern massasaugas in MI. However, further research that
achieves larger sample sizes is needed to assess methods adequately (see Chapter 5, this
ms).

Another aspect of research to be pursued pertains to the frequency of educational
outreach in terms of influencing SAC and RS attitudes, particularly in new residential
developments in current RS habitat. How often must such efforts be conducted in order
to address the influx of humans who are first experiencing life in the presence of RS and
to address the ‘decay’ function, or the loss of attitude change that occurs post-outreach
intervention? In many cases, participants in the outreach experiment experienced an
immediate positive attitude change after attending a program, but attitude scores at the
long-term assessment more often reflected pre-program rather than post-program scores.
This recommendation is pertinent in both states and study areas, where increasing
residential development is an ongoing issue, particularly on the bluffs overlooking the
Mississippi River in MN and the sprawl associated with the metropolitan areas of Ann
Arbor and Detroit in MI, but is also relevant elsewhere in the US.

Future work should include a larger experiment to determine whether modeling a
positive encounter with a snake provides greater and more enduring attitude changes in
adults than a program without modeling. Sample sizes in the current study were really
insufficient to answer those questions. It’s important to investigate, given the much
greater costs involved in keeping live animals for educational outreach programs, the
long-standing belief held by many naturalists and environmental educators of the
importance of direct experiences with animals in attitude formation toward wildlife, and

prior research (Kellert 1976) which indicates the importance of direct experiences in

222

childhood with wildlife in the development of adult attitudes toward wildlife. Most
previous research has focused primarily on children (Kidd, Kidd and Zasloff 1995,
Reames and Rajecki 1988, among others) but outreach programs featuring live animals at
zoos have demonstrated more positive feelings, increased interest and increased
engagement in conservation behaviors toward wildlife by adults who attended such
programs as compared to adults who attended traditional exhibits (Povey and Rios 2004,
Swanagan 2000). Associated with such direct experiences and educational interventions
with children, is the potential for intergenerational learning and attitude changes
associated with that learning (Vaughan et al. 2003).

Another interesting direction of research pertains to management implications
associated with increased positive attitudes toward RS but similar fear levels in
stakeholders after an outreach effort. Results from pilot outreach efforts conducted in
2004 indicated that a one-time educational outreach effort did not affect participants’
levels of fear toward RS, though positive feelings toward RS were increased. It is
important to determine if participants’ behaviors will differ from pre-program
expectations if they have a planned or an unplanned rattlesnake encounter following an
outreach intervention. Only then can we determine if educational outreach can be used to
change lethal human behaviors toward RS.

Another area of management concern that needs to be addressed regards the
weighting of stakes of stakeholder groups, particularly in terms of managing wildlife
species with few, if any, vocal stakeholder groups. For example, in this study, how do
we weight the stakes of people who live in the presence of RS against people who live in

the absence of RS? What are the stakes for people who are unsure of whether RS are

223

present? Do people who have lived in an area for a longer period of time have a greater

stake in local wildlife? If so, what is that worth?

6.3 Management Recommendations

Results of this study can be used to enhance snake conservation and management
efforts, particularly in M1 and MN. This can be accomplished, in part, by attempting to
build stakeholder capacity to co-exist with snakes. Low levels of knowledge and
incorrect knowledge about snakes result in less-informed decision-making by
stakeholders and wildlife agency personnel. This study is beginning to address gaps in
the knowledge of wildlife agency personnel by increasing awareness of the issues
surrounding NV snake and RS conservation and management, and by providing an
overview of current experiences, beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions by
stakeholders for the MI DNR and MN DNR. Such a first step has been identified as
necessary to the development of an educational outreach effort aimed at various
stakeholders (Johnson et a1. 2000).

Basic knowledge of local NV and RS snakes and the regulations associated with
these groups is currently very low for stakeholders, i.e. > 80% of stakeholders in each
state were unaware of existing regulations that protect snakes. Educational outreach
efforts may be used to inform residents of existing state regulations that protect snakes, to
raise awareness of local snake species, promote interest in snakes, and to reduce risk
perceptions pertaining to snakes and snakebites. This need is urgent given the
percentages of respondents who indicated that they would kill a rattlesnake, even with a

very mild interaction, such as seeing one once near their home (10% in MI, 17% in MN).

224

Educational outreach efforts began as a part of this dissertation research (see
Chapter 5, this ms) but need to be expanded. Outreach materials should include
information regarding local snake species richness, descriptions and identifying field
characteristics of local species, characteristic behaviors, and distributions for native snake
species and directions on behaving safely around snakes, particularly RS. Stakeholders
should also be provided with information regarding how presence of snakes may
positively impact their quality of life, because this is one of the characteristics of the most
successful symbols of environmental concern (Greenberg Quinlin Research Inc. 2000),
and would perhaps make snake conservation and management a more salient issue for
stakeholders.

To address stakeholders’ uncertainty and the mistaken belief that RS bites cause
deaths annually to residents, I recommend that state agencies develop accurate outreach
materials concerning (1) RS bites in their states, (2) actions people can take to reduce risk
of snakebites, and (3) appropriate actions to take should a person be bitten by a RS. The
most commonly asked questions during this study’s outreach experiment concerned RS
bite, how to avoid being bitten and what to do if one were bitten. To develop accurate
outreach materials for stakeholders, managers should work with their respective state
poison control centers to track RS bite cases and their outcomes. Such information could
then be used to provide stakeholders with accurate, detailed information regarding the
incidence and circumstances of RS bites that do occur. Keyler (2005) presents this
information for MN, but no such publication exists for M1. Such information may help to
correct misgivings that some stakeholders have about living in the presence of RS. This

is especially relevant given interviewees’ voiced concerns about small children and older

225 '

visiting adults. Nationally, it has been documented that adult white males are the most
frequent RS bite victims (Morgan et al. 2004), and in MN specifically, a large percentage
of cases involved the purposeful handling of RS and alcohol (Keyler 2005). Stakeholders
living in areas with RS should be alerted to the appropriate measures to take to reduce the
likelihood of bites to pets and livestock. In addition, they should be provided with
information for actions to take in case of a bite to a pet or livestock, and where to go to
receive medical care for their animals. Improper treatment of RS bite may make a life or
death difference, particularly for small-bodied dogs or cats.

Low-cost or free identification charts should be made available to stakeholders.
Although there are 17 snake species in MN and 18 in MI, very few respondents answered
correctly when queried regarding the numbers of kinds of snakes that live in their states.
It can be safely assumed that because stakeholders don’t know the variety of snakes that
live in their states, they also don’t know how to identify snakes. Misidentification has led
to the demise of many NV snakes in both states, where they are often turned into nature
centers or DNR offices as RS, though in fact, they are far more likely to be eastern milk
snakes in MI, bullsnakes in MN, or a hognose snake in either state. Because species
richness is so low in these states, learning fieldmarks for local snakes would be fairly
easy to do.

Efforts need to be made to substantiate the level of human-snake interactions with
different snake population levels. Currently, there are no credible data regarding this
relationship. Survey results indicated that a majority of respondents preferred either non-
existent RS populations (41%) or populations that were at risk of extinction (15%), given

the suite of consequences listed under each hypothetical situation. More than half of

226

respondents (58%) indicated maximum tolerable situations in which no RS bites to
humans would occur, and it is unclear how stakeholders would respond if such a bite
occurred in their neighborhoods. Hypothetical scenarios were used in this research, but
the levels of human-snake interactions are not known, and RS population information is
lacking, particularly as it pertains to distribution and numbers of animals on the
landscape.

Educational outreach may be used in attempts to change stakeholders’ behaviors
toward snakes. Elevated risk perceptions, particularly as they pertain to RS, may lead to
potentially lethal human behaviors toward snakes. Stakeholders put themselves at greater
risk when they attempt to kill snakes rather than leave them alone, particularly RS. Such
human behaviors toward snakes, in addition to purposeful handling, account for a large
number of venomous snakebites reported annually to the Center for Disease Control and
Arizona Poison Control Center. It is important to reduce such human behaviors not only
to discourage hostile behavior toward snakes, but to protect humans as well.

The utility of measuring (or attempting to measure) SACs for snakes is in
identifying the underlying beliefs and attitudes that stakeholders possess about wildlife
and their influence on measures of SAC, and using such information to manage people’s
beliefs and attitudes toward, and associated tolerance of, the wildlife population of
interest (Beyer et a1. 2006). Both approaches used in this study emphasize the
importance of communication and educational efforts in managing wildlife populations
(Peyton et al. 2001, Beyer et al. 2006, Carpenter et a1 2000), and both provide a
mechanism whereby such efforts can be assessed — monitoring how stakeholder beliefs

and attitudes change over time, and how such changes impact their tolerance of and

227

desires for interactions with wildlife. This needs to be done for many more species of
wildlife than we currently have collected data.

RS stewardship score explained a great deal of the variation in measures of SAC
for M1 and MN stakeholders toward RS. This should be tested in other areas of the US
where greater than one species of rattlesnake occurs in an area and stakeholders may
differ from the present study. Results of this study suggest that a stewardship score may
be used as an evaluative tool for monitoring SAC for RS, and that communication and
education efforts may yield the greatest results if they are focused on influencing
stakeholder stewardship scores.

Study results suggested that there is an overlap in stakeholder LOAs, even if the
LOAs are not complete. Results potentially may be used by wildlife managers to guide
snake management decisions and to start monitoring SAC, particularly in areas where
known RS populations exist. However, it’s essential that managers start tracking RS
populations as well as human-RS interactions in MI and MN. Few studies have been
conducted that can be used to estimate RS population numbers in an area, and current
tracking for human-RS encounters appears to consist of a call for citizens to report
sightings of eastern massasaugas in MI and timber rattlesnakes in MN. A more
systematic approach will need to be taken if SACs and their implications for RS
conservation and management are to be used in such efforts.

Managing snake habitat and snake populations are challenging tasks, particularly
as a result of our current incomplete knowledge of these species and their needs.
However, as a result of this study, we now have greater capacity to address the

management of human beliefs, attitudes and resultant behaviors toward snakes.

228

APPENDIX

229

A.1.SURVEY PRENOTICE

The prenotice was printed on Michigan State Uni versity Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife letterhead

March 17, 2005

Dear

In a few days, Ms. Rebecca Christoffel, a researcher in my lab, will ask your help to
improve decisions about Michigan’s natural resources. This research will assure human
values are adequately considered in management of wildlife.

The Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University is sponsoring Ms.
Christoffel’s survey efforts. Her work is specifically assisting managers of Michigan’s
non-game wildlife species, but may be applied to similar management issues in other
states. Ms. Christoffel will further explain the goals of her research and the importance of
your participation in a letter accompanying the questionnaire.

Your household is one of a small number in which people are being asked for their
beliefs and opinions about Michigan’s snake populations. Your thoughts are very
important and fl contribute to wildlife management. For the study results to truly
represent the thinking of people in your community, it is important that each
questionnaire be completed and returned.

You may be assured of confidentiality in responding. Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by law. The questionnaire has an identification number
for mailing purposes only. This is so that I may check your name off the mailing list
when your questionnaire is returned. Your name will never be placed on the
questionnaire itself. Questionnaire completion is voluntary. You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by completing and returning the questionnaire. You may choose
not to participate at all, or to refuse to answer certain questions without any penalty or
loss of the included gift of postage stamps.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions at 1-888-290-0413. 1 would
greatly appreciate your help with this important survey.

Sincerely,

Shawn J. Riley, Assistant Professor
Wildlife Ecology and Management
Michigan State University

230

A.2. SURVEY MAILING #1 COVER LETTER

The cover/etter was printed on Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and

Wildlife letterhead
Date
Dear :

As a resident of southeastern Michigan, you are likely aware of the area’s increase in
residential and commercial development. Such a situation leads to an increase in human-
wildlife interactions. Knowing people’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward wildlife
can aid in wildlife management decision-making. The goal of our research is to enhance
rare reptile conservation using insights from people who use and value Michigan’s
resources.

Your household is one of a small number in which people are being asked for their
beliefs and opinions about Michigan’s snake populations. Your thoughts are very
important to us and M contribute to wildlife management. For study results to truly
represent the thinking of people in your community, it is important to complete and
return the questionnaire.

You may be assured of confidentiality in responding. Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by law. The questionnaire has an identification number
for mailing purposes only. This is so that I may check your name off the mailing list
when your questionnaire is returned. Your name will never be placed on the
questionnaire itself. Questionnaire completion is voluntary. You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by completing and returning the questionnaire. You may choose
not to participate at all, or to refuse to answer certain questions without any penalty or
loss of the included gift of postage stamps.

Would you please have the adult (2 18 years) residing in the household who will next
celebrate a birthday complete the questionnaire? The survey has 14 pages and should
take about 15 minutes to complete.

I would be happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this study.
Please write me or call me toll free at (888) 290-0413. 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, Ph.D.,
Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRII-IS) by
phone: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824-1047.

Thank you very much for your participation in this research!
Sincerely,

Rebecca Christoffel, Project Director

231

A.3 SURVEY INSTRUMENT

l
l
I

A Survey of your Beliefs and Attitudes

Michigan’s Snakes

 

 

Michigan State University

Dept. Fisheries «3. Wildlife
13 Natural Resources Bldg
East Lansing, MI 48824

 

 

 

 

Rebecca Christoffel
Michigan State University
Dept. Fisheries 6: Wildlife

13 Natural Resources Bldg
East Lansing, MI 48824

 

232

 

000050250 50> .0. 00x...0
0000 00: 000.000 530$ 080:0... >00 0. 00.0 0:0 .. _000 >.0E_m

 

u>m>.....3m m1... zmnhmm O...

 

000.000 0.000225. 5000 E0. 0. 000.555....
_.0 000:0 0. 00... 0.003 00> .. D .80 0.5 0.0000 0000.0

.III>|I0=000. 0200 0.... .0 >.0EE00
0 03000. 0. 00... 0.00.5 00> 0 D .80 0...: 0.0000 0000.0

0.000 0. 00.... 0.00.: 00>
.00. 00000000 .0 0.000560 000.0000 >00 .0. 0000 0.2.. 000 00000.0.

00030.0 0. 000.000 05.0.“. £09.08
0 c. .. 00.0 000 .. .000 >085 ..0>00 x000 00.00. 05 :0 0.0: 0
5.3 0. 05.0. 0000.0 00000000000 0... 00.0800 0. .0: 0009.0 00> ._

30.000.00.00 50> .0. 00> «:05.

050.000 803 .0 00..-..0. .0... =00 .0 .000.000
0>000 05 .0 000050.000 0005.0 00:20.20 000000.". 0...;
0000.0 .>0>50 0.5 000000. 00.00000 .0 00000000 >00 0>0c 00> =

000.000 0.000.022 .0000 0.0.00.0 .000000000 :0 00000 0. 0......3 00

0.003 00> ._ 0:0 0:000. >030 .00 .0 >.0EE00 0 02000. 0. 00... 00.0
0502. 00> ._ .0>00 0.000 00.00. 05 :0 00.080 0;. .0000 0000.0 0.000
>0>50 0.... _.0E 0. 00000: ...02 0.0 0:0 0000. 0. 00> .0. 0.0 000......
.000 0.0.0. 50> .0. 0002000 :000 00; 000.000 000.000... 00.5 .0 £0
0 >030 0.... 0. 00.000.00.00 50> .0. 000060.000 .00 .0 00x0. 0 0<

.080: 50> 5.?
00.300000 00 .0>0.. ...3 00000000.. 50> 0:0 .30. >0 03032.0
E008 00300.0 05 0. 0.500.500 £0.00. =05 00000000. 50>

00.00.00 0. 00.00.... m. .0000 00.0. 0.0000

00000000000 0;... 0000.52.00 50> .0. 00030.0 0000 00.. 000.000
:50. 0:0 00000.. 0. 000.050 02 202.00. >00 0. 0. 00.0 000 0. .000
0000.52.00 00.000 50> .0 00000000000 0.... 0.0.0800 0000.0

0.00.5.5. 0. 0000200000 00.000 0. 0.00.0000 :3 0:0 00 0. E00005.
>.0> 0.0 0.00. 0.5 :0 00.0000. 50> 050:3 00.00-00: 0.000.025.
.0 000 0:0 000.000 0.000.003 00.0000... 5.; 0005000m .0502 .0
0.00.00000 00030.5. 0.00 0. >030 0 .0 000 0. 00000000000 02...

4000.. 898.0. .0583 .80
0c.0..0m 0005000.”. _0.0.0z a.
0.50:2. 0:0 00:000.“. .0 50.5.0000
5.0.020... 0.05 00030:».

”>0 00.000000 >0>50 4.

0003.30 0:0 0.0..00 50> .0 >0>50 0 "000.2% 0.:09005

233

 

 

 

00.00.0.0.0_0 00.00.0.0.0.0 00.0.00 00.00.20.
>.0> .0030E0w 02

00.00.05.
.0030E0m >.0>

 

 

 

 

 

 

6x00 000 0. ..x: 00 ...00. 0000.0. 000000.
0.20:3 .000. 0. 0.0 00> .00. >00 00> 0.003 00.00.20. 30: .N

 

00F

 

.0011

 

.5200 c. 2.0.... 000

 

0.._0_.3 583.000

 

 

0.5.... 000.

 

00.3... 2.0.... 5.031

 

9.2.; .080 080

 

 

00.0. o. >.r 0.._0..3 30.>

 

0.000

 

 

0.0.000
05.0.. .0 000N ..0.>

 

 

 

www.mw _mcozmw00w.
.o .032 59.5.9.1

 

000.00

 

00.... 08.

 

 

00.2.... 32>

 

 

5.02 >005! >...0:0....000Q 3.000.000...
.55....0 <

 

 

 

 

 

.3308
0000 .0. .80 000 0. ..x: 00 x.0E 0000.0. «00.03.00 0532.0.
0.... 0. 000000 00> 00 .00> .00.0>. 0 0. 0.2.0 300 .000< .F

.0.0000E0_00 000 0000. .009. 0.0 305'...

00.00. 000 000.000 00.00.. 0.0 g 0005.00.00 000 .00...00.
00.5 .00.. .0000 00 0000. 0.0EE0E 0000.00. g3.» .>0>50

0.... .0". .0523 5.3 00000..00x0 50> .0000 0.00 02.000 0.0...
00...>..0< 00.0.05 .4.

 

00.000
.000.000.0.0 .0 0.00005 D .00000 000.. .0 .000..000> D
00.000 0..0_0000m D 9.5 .0 80000.0 .00000 00.1 D
.00000 00... 00000.2. D
00.000 00.00 009.00 0E0w D _00000 >.0.00E0_0 00000.2. D

00.000 0.0.0.0000< D

3.00 000 0. ..x: 00 ...00. 0000.0. 0030.00.00
0>00 00> .00. 00000000 .0000. .0 _0>0. .0000... 0... 0. .00.... .00

0. 00.00 00> 0.03 .00> .003 0. .00
0.00.0“. D 0.05. D 00.0E0. .0 0.00. 00> 0.< .00
0.00 ll 0000
000000 ...000 0. :9. 00.3 0000.0 .0000 2.
«0.000000... 50> 0. 02. >..00.50 0.00 000 0000 >000. 30... .00
00.0.20
000000 00. 0. :0: 00.3 0000.0 .0000 5 00.000002.

50> 0. 03. 250.50 a. .0 0 0 0.... .0000 00.2.00 >000. 30... .00

0.88 ooo.0mv-.;>o. .050 D
0.0000 08.007. 00.0 00...00o..05. D
88.00.- 08.00. 00.0 08.0 U

8.0.000 .05.”. _H.

00.0. 00.0.0 D

0.80 000 0. ..x: 00 ...00. 0000.0. 000002.00 50>
.0 .000. .0 :0 .0000 00> 00.0 0.... 00.3000 00> 0.003 30... .00

234

.008. 80.8.
00.0 :0.__000..0s. D 0.0000 08.va .:.so. =0Em D
8.0000 E.0..:o: .050 .H.
08.8. -0800. 00.0 .093 D E0. .050 D
3.00 000 c. ..x: _.0 .00.... 0000.0.
00>: >..:0..30 30> 0.055 00.0 05 00.3000 30> 0.302. .50... .00

02 D 00> D 00>: 30> 0.05s >..000.0 0... 0.50 30> 0n. ...n

0.00> |l 0000.000 .:0..30 .30> .0 00>: 30> 0>00 9.0. .50... .on

0.00> II 0:09:25. :. 00>: 30> 0>00 0.00> >:0E .50: .mm

000.000

.o 080: 50> 5.; 00.0.8000 00 >0; 0: :. __..s 0:0 .0..:00_.:00

0.0 0.02.0:0 50> 0:0..0030 03030.0 0. 0005000. .30> 0:0.0.00:3
.0000 o. ..00.3o> .3000 0:0..0030 2.0. 0 30> x00 0. 0.... 0.0.5

_ _ _ 0 _ _ r _
0.30:3. H. _ m. _ o F o _ m r.,.<, ..

38.. 98 c. .0... c0 0.0... $00... 000030.00

.30 :. 0003:0050. .0 .0053: 05 00300. 0. 05500.00 00
>05 .05 .0300. 0:0 >...0530 :0 0. 050050 000.98 0. 30> 00300
0.30.5 .0.... :0..0 ..0 00.03. 09.000050. .0 _0>0. .0030. 05 0. .003 .00

__... .J

0.30:3. u. _I m. . n. r 0 _ m _ < _

330 0:0 0. ..x: _.0 ...0... 0000.0. 0000500090..
.30> .0. 3.0. 30> 0.30.5 0:0..03..m 0.0.0000 05.0 00.55 Km

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.0.5 .0 :0..0030 .0. 00.300 0:0 :05 0.0:. 000.0000 30> ..

           

S. 8.52.0 c. .0.. 2.. ES. .2.». logo 2...... $00... 03.0....
.000. .3000 :0..0E.0.:. .0. 30> 0. .:|0..J0 E. .00. E: 0. 00.300
.m

     

mC05N0=QD
_NH50ECO._>CN .I—
. . . , . ... .1. 2.. a.
200.. ...
.00. 0......
0.0
.wXLGQ mHMuw .wOON .W0macmo
0.3.0: .0 0E0.mo.0 .I

.._ a, 0...... . a... , ,,

 

 

000:0...0mnmmfiio... Eng...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\00:0...\ 0.00E0E >_.E0n. .m

 

 

 

E000 E. . .c0..o E.
:0 .0 .02 .0030E0w >.0> 00.30m

 

 

 

000.300 0000 .0.
.80 0:0 :. ..x: :0 ...0... 0000.0. 000300. 00.0.0. 0:0 0...0..3 .000. .3000
00.500. :. 30> 0. 000.300 9.30:0. 05 .0 0000 0.0 .00t00E. .50... .0

All. JII: 0. 0.0 0000. .02 D .vll..0..l|.0030 0. 0:0. 00> D
380 0:0 0. ..x.. :0 ...0..: 0000.0. «0030.0.
00.0.0. 0:0 0...0...s .000. .3000 :0..0E.0.:. .30 0.000 30> 0n. .0

235

 

m _ H g W H _ _

w i2: _ ; fl #
, 9:ch 0.52 ‘. owér 9.: Sb #4 mE02

.35 95 5 ..x.. 5.. .225 «59:22 5 9: v.55 30> Eu 3.0.38
maoEoco>éoc *0 wuci >52: 26... $023.0. 25 9:232 2 horn .m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

852227.”? 8629:66 :o_:_mo 87.925 .
>.0> fizBmEom ‘ , .VoZ fiEsmEow

 

 

€82 mco E =x= cm £9: 8me mAmexmcw whamfoi

E 3925 _mcowhwa B _m>m_ 50> mncowwn 30> 2:03 26: .w

.mEo:

cos :2 9 €863 Eocm> mm: 800 ES mxmcm m w_ $38863
mlxmglmq < .83 boo. m: =2 9 E053 mm: 8: mmou 8,: 9.98 m
9 922 wxmcw 3308.28-55 gonadal: ES 9: $9.5m £5
:_ .wmxmcw mtmmEoS _o mcozamemq 50> xwm 9 8.: 2:03 95 262

 

wmxmcm ”cm 7.22 .m

 

 

 

3:0me .3me 550
meQmm

wagging

in.

3.5

38 .2521: .58 mm 5033 w_mEEm_>_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Era—nu $5 =a .2 ..x: ca {2: 362$ «3.305 50>

:o 9:23 E 033.35 30> 0.5 2:225 *0 3%: “as; .90» 2 Ed

 

N||:.:mmzo 2 o .ww> .3

4x2.
9.0 E ..x: ca {2: owner: «:30 :o :02; ..o o>= :0 205:
3.2.93. :0 2:23. .2 «832. own-=2: 3 95?»: on 30> on .w

 

 

8050299. 50> E Exm mmxmcmmfig o:
< 5:336

   

cozoczxm be xm: 8 9m 25sz o mxmcmmfim.
oco>cm >3 839m 299 Sn Exm wwxmcmmES
m .5?qu

$8.02 new =mEm 9m 25:2: 0 mxmcmmfifi
5:5 299 Pa x0982. .o 23

0308 B 8:56 2.22880 mwxmcmmfim.

o 5:255

883% Sn. 5.3; 95 95sz 0 9.2329
5:5 :99 En x0982. 5 £8

moxgwofim. 6 mmEEQm 55mm.

9 cozasgm

nwuomccoo ucm 5.3: 08 25203 0 9.38.58
580 cu SD 29 9a 285:; 2 8:3

8:89. 2.22880 x859: 5 $3 9 $5
mmxmcmoES ho 35:56 8.32

m noun—Em
39$.sz
92230
£863: .98 2:; mcogmooa 9.9 $38 mEmEmE
580 398 means; 2 $5

8:89 \Smcswmooo x869: .o 38 2 «6E
335229 We maczcmfi Emnumt

"— :ozasgw

  

 

 

aneusameu Bugsanom

nae 8&3 “Em Emvcanm 2m 25sz

<—————— SJaqumN

 

 

 

 

too—ton: _o: 50 a. 5:535 2&3?“—

 

 

Ew bcm kw «teammag 20:8 ES 26.325 ms E‘swcm 2
085 mm: 600509..ng 50> c_ wmxmconS 8 @695: 9:89.05
53> 35088 B 59E 35 26.3 895on 2a mcozmzzw x_m

236

 

     

 

.0000 :0. .50
:0 30:00.00. 0 000 :0>
.060: So
.00: BEEzm 0 .03 0.0..
.Slmsw 00..: 30:00.00. <
.00: 0E0: So
.00: .00 0 00..: 00.05200. <
00.0.6050.
0 >0 00:900.... 5%
0.0 0E0: 50> .00: 0.0.".
0.002. 0
c. 310% 080: 50..
.00: 00.05050. 0 00m 30>
..00 .0 00 0.5:: .0: 0
.0 09.30 30:00.00. 0 5:2.
0...... wclo 50:0 .00: 30>
. 00..... .0 0E0: 50x
.00: 00.05050. 0 000 30>

 

 

    

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

U v
stnwwm omem
mwm mam Mam mm
awn. ewp Wwpmb,
x ..5 Ir 9? .U
yr.. 93 O
.em WIN .Mm. w .:0>m.
W 0 U P
a W o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.xo: 0.0.50.0...0 0:. c. ..x: :0 9.00.0 .3 9.0.: 200... .00.:
0.303 30> 000.0:0 .30.. 0:. .0 :02; 0.00.0... 2.0.0: .:0>0 :000 .0“. .0

I m I
050::

.:0:o.E_
, : . ... .0:>>0Eom .. . x

.xo: 0:0 :. ..x: :0 x.0E 0000... SN 5000: . :. 00:220.. .50
:0.0E :000500: 3 0:. .05 30.. 0. .. 0. 200.005. .50... .mm

  
      

..

 

0.0000
....o.. 2.3. .23: ... «0'33me
34. 3.3% 0 :000 2009.000. 0>0: 0:2. c.0052. :05
.050 .305. 00.. 00 0.0000 >:0E 2.0: 000.. .000 0:. act—.5 .0..

00E:
Ann-O:

00...... .0:0: .... «0009.30: .0: .50 :_ 30:00.30. 0 :000 0>0:
30H 0>0=0n 30> 00 00E: >:0E 2.0.. £00.. «00.. 0:. 0:..50 .3
09.05 9:09:25.

5.; 00: 0>0.. >0... 30> 000:0..096 0:00.00 3:; So 0:: o. 00... 0.02. ..x02
moxacm 53> moo—.010 xm

_ _ ... . .. . _
_ 0E0w — .o. < ~

 

 

a 050:3 _ 0:02 _ 30“.

.08.. 0:0 ... ..x: :0 .20... 88E. ....oololmdl... .... . ..
|>|50 :. 0>.. ....cotso 0.5:. 00.. 00 00.0.0.4: 0|..=|0.. >:0E 2.0... .3

8.5% oz L 02 L 00> w
3.0: 0:0 :. ..x: :0 ....0E 0000...: 20.00.05
9:09:25. .020... .0.... 02.0. olfimdmm >:0 .0 0.030 00.. 0.< .0..

5.500 02 g 02 . 00> V _
....0: 0:0 :. ..x: :0 0.:0E 0000...: «€002.00 0:0 9......
:0E:: E0... 5:020... 000: 1030:0050. 9:09:25. :55 30.. on. .09

5.500 02 .0 02 u 00> _
3.0: 0:0 :. ..x: :0 0...0E 0000...: «9:80:00 0:0 m:....x c005: E0...—
:0..o0.0.=. 000: .mflxmcm 010E0:m>-:0:. 9:09:25. 0.....5 30> 0n. .:

 

.0. 0 6:29:00 0E00

.0:>>0Eom
0000.0...

 

‘ 0000.000 . 0000.000 ,, 0:.>0.w ,

3.0: 0:0 :. ..x: :0 000..: 0000...: «090:0 '30:. n: . .:.
._ 0 :. 0003:0050. .0 ..00E:: 0:. 000 0. 00... 30> 0.002. 30... ..N

 

— 7 ‘1. _ .. “..._ Wit“, ‘ ...n h— w —

N: J? F _.Jgimc‘ozag

3.0.... 0:0 :. ..x: :0 0.00.: 0000...... 0:09:25. :. 0.... 0.5:. 00>
0.0 Aleulllo 00:00.00. .0 00:0. >:0E 30: $0300 0.5 053000.. 0. 3...... .3

m .
_ 6.:wCD _ can“ 0.22 _ mu _“5

 

 

5.0 .0...s0Eom 0800 0:. 5:20:50 . 5.0
0.20:3 00000500. 00000500 .. 00.0% 000005... 0000005....

 

33... 0:0 :. ..x: :0 ...0E 0000.0.
.00.. 002.50: .0: .:o :. 09.05050. .0 830.3000 0:. .0.... x:....
30> on 600.000 .:0...:o ._.:o> .0 00>: 0>0: 30> 0E: 0:. .m:..:o .mr

.0:.s0Eom
0000055

0.20:...

30> on 600.000 .:0..:o 50> .0 00>: 0>0: 30.. 0E: 05 m:...:.n. .0.

 

..xon 0:0 :. ..x: :0 ...0E 0000.0. .00... maloldjvnc ..I0:.
..zlofllc. 000.05. maoEo:0>-:o: .0 5:03:00 0:. .0... 35:.

 

 

 

      

.:0.5 E.

0.30:3 .:0..an. ..0 .0 .oz. .. .0230Eow . .:0.50E. >.0> . .

 

5.5.302. 0.. :0 0 E0:

36..
0:0 :. ..x: :0 0.5:. 0000.0. «an 5:00.... :. 00:05.05 50> :20...
1.9. 2.. .2.. 3.. 2 ._ a. 2.5.8.... .3... .00

 

 

 

 

. .. . _ . .§.§0&.£6
0:0 0:93 5 00:200....
:00: 00.... .0... 59.5.0: 5 0:0... 0 0>0.. _

 

 

  

.3.: :00... ..o.

 

 

1 0 i .. .. . .. 55...... ....
0.5 a 5:5
5 00:800.... 050.. 0.00 .o 0.00.. .o 000. 0>0.. _

 

 

 

00.5 00 :80 09:55.5
>0 00.... 9:0... 0:0 5 0.00... .o .000. 0>0... _.

  

 

.. ......r.....r

 

.. ......m ,m.0.0 0:0... .0.
00: 5 0000.. 9.2, 59.90.. 5 0:0... 0 0>0c _
.. 0 00 0.5 0>0.. 5 .00: .950. .

 

.0. m . «MESOEOw

. .0..30Eom
0000500... 0000500 . 00005:.

 

 

... , ._ .. ......38. 55030203253 909....

 

 

.2.; 0:. c. 0.5 .000.

 

.0 0020000 9.; 59.90: 5 0:0... 0 0>0: _

. ...; 9...... 0.5 .03. .0 3:030. 20.. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

0x0:0
30:0 0:0Eo:0>
-0.:0m I :02

 

...—no.0 .0....
3:05.230 =0 .0. ..x: :0 fun. 0000.: .0005 30:0 ..000 .0“. .5

380 0:0 :. ..x: :0 ...0E 0000...: «00:25 Hafizljon: .0: .:o
lulola..|:. 0 0. 0 wlol]: E :0>.:o .0 .00E:: 0.... 000 o. 0.... 30.. 2:02. 25... .NN

0:0..0... on. 0x0cm 0.3:". .0. 09.000 .0.

 

 

 

.0._E.00.U
0.30:3 >.0>

.0_.E_00_0 .0..E.0 .0..E.0

.0..>>0:.ow .0530Eow . >.0>

 

0E0... E9. 00.0.. >:0 0. 0008.8 0.0 0:; 000...
00 0E00 0... 00.05020. :5.. 50:0: .0... 0.0000 0.0 00.00.. .053 ch .0

fl . a .. . .
:02.
a 0.30:3 . :02. :0 .0 52 h :03 >.0>.oz _ .0..30Eow — =03 >.0>.

 

 

$096.2
:. 00.05050. 9.30: .....s 00.0.8000 0.33.. 0... o. 00.0.. 0:. 020.0505
00050000. .0552 .o 50.5.0000 c0922.). 0:. x5... 30> on :02. 26... .o

. . ......
.0.. . .0. E =0
f . 0.:0CqL o: .0 E0. ... 0 .0 E0.

 

    

   

.0.. 0Eo0
.0 E0 _

.0..
.005 .0 E0 .

  

 

00.0050. 0:0 02. 30> .0... 000.0 0... :. 00.05050.
E9. .0.. .0 0.0 2.0.50.0: 30> .0... 05:0... 20.. on .:0.x0 .023 0.. 3

238

 

 

 

 

no. a fiésmEom
23:: 653280 9.3980

 

 

 

wcmEac ucm mmxmcmmES 5953 909:8 owo_o m>m=on 30> on Am
.coEEo 50> $5352 2320 $0.: 65

xon 9: c_ ..x.. cm meE van mcozmmac 9.33:2 2: use 33:. .FN
mmxmcmozuam Ea... 9.2m .m

 

EmE>o.Eo >E 98908 2:03 z 6E0: >5
a m

598 m

       

Nam-.525- C. . C_mmm._00D ..O .:.wmwhoE Pa.

.205 .:_>_. ho Em o.:o E 338%
2:03 = 6:6: >E B 2:: a 55:5
um>= 9.8m wsoEocmSéoc m 265. _ =

w_ mxmcw 39:80? :0: m 3 8:2
0.59.“ 528 m ho .x ._ 2: can no.5. :_

gmm sumo mEJov_m,2‘cm._cw_§ owmzwmmu

wmzmo wmgnwv—mp—m w:0E0cm>-COZ

cm .522 5 22m: 3 8:93
9: 025.1an 2m moxmcw 95:85? .52

dméoi E Emu. 8.50 new 3.9
3:: .9280 2 20; moxmcm maoEocm>éoz

  

mmxmcm muoEocm>-:02 .m
«3.5-6i 53:25an 695.85%

 

6.52.5": .§u<n< .029. bucobmuc‘mv c.5823» ...ouo ..2 sci—no
50> 5.3 002mm 230.0 .3.: .55 x3 05 :. L? as {are 302.“. .0“

 

A.4 MICHIGAN MAIL SURVEY “THANK YOU!” POSTCARD

Last week a questionnaire seeking your beliefs and attitudes about Michigan’s snakes
was mailed to you. Your name was randomly chosen from a list of people living in
southeastern Michigan.

If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, thank you very much! If
not, please do so today. I am greatly in need of your help because it is only by asking
people like you to share your beliefs and attitudes about snakes that I can provide
recommendations to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources regarding their
management.

If you did not receive a questionnaire or if it was misplaced, please call me toll free at 1-
888-290-0413 and I will get another one in the mail to you today.

Rebecca Christoffel, Graduate Student

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

East Lansing, Michigan 48824

Last week a questionnaire seeking your beliefs and attitudes about Michigan’s snakes
was mailed to you. Your name was randomly chosen from a list of people living in
southeastern Michigan.

If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, thank you very much! If
not, please do so today. I am greatly in need of your help because it is only by asking
people like you to share your beliefs and attitudes about snakes that I can provide
recommendations to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources regarding their
management.

If you did not receive a questionnaire or if it was misplaced, please call me toll free at 1 -
888-290-0413 and I will get another one in the mail to you today.

Rebecca Christoffel, Graduate Student

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

East Lansing, Michigan 48824

240

A.5. SURVEY MAILING #2 COVER LETTER

The coverletter was printed on Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife letterhead
April 18, 2005

About three weeks ago, I sent a questionnaire to you that asked about your beliefs and
attitudes toward snakes. To the best of my knowledge, it’s not yet been returned.

Comments of people who have responded include a wide variety of beliefs and attitudes
about snakes. Many people have described firsthand experiences with snakes, both
good and bad. The survey results are going to be very useful to wildlife managers and
others.

I am writing again because of the importance your response has for helping to obtain a
true picture of people’s attitudes and beliefs about snakes in southeastern Michigan.
Although 500 questionnaires were sent to people living in each of the four counties in my
study area, it’s only by hearing from nearly everyone in the sample that I can be sure
that the results are truly representative.

You may be assured of confidentiality in responding. Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable bylaw. The questionnaire has an identification number
for mailing purposes only, so that I may check your name off the mailing list when your
questionnaire is returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire itself.
Questionnaire completion is voluntary. You indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate by completing and returning the questionnaire. You may choose not to
participate at all, or to refuse to answer certain questions.

Would you please have the adult (3 18 years) residing in the household who will next
celebrate a birthday complete the questionnaire? The survey has 14 pages and should
take about 15 minutes to complete.

A few people have called 1-888-290-0413 with specific questions or to state that they
know very little about snakes and wonder if they should still participate. I do want your
participation and I’m very happy to answer any questions or concerns that you might
have about the survey. What I’m most interested in is people’s feelings toward snakes
and in their desires for current and future snake populations in their areas.

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, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 432-4503, mail: 202 Olds Hall,
East Lansing, MI 48824-1047, or email: ucrihs@msu.edu.

I hope that you will fill out and return the questionnaire soon, but if for any reason you
prefer not to answer it, please let me know by returning the survey with a brief note on
the inside back cover. Postage has been affixed to the survey for your convenience.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Christoffel, Project Manager

241

A.6. SURVEY MAILING #3 COVER LETTER

The coverletter was printed on Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife letterhead

June 14, 2005
Address Block
Dear First Name Last Name:

During the last two months, I have sent you several mailings about an important
research study I am conducting in southeastern Michigan.

Its purpose is to help Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
understand how people feel about wildlife, particularly snakes, in their area. This
information will be used to better inform wildlife management decisions made by
the MDNR, particularly as they relate to snake populations.

The study is drawing to a close, and this will be the last contact that will be made
with the random sample of people chosen to provide their views on wildlife
management in southeastern Michigan.

I am sending this final contact because of my concern that people who have not
responded may have different beliefs or attitudes about snakes from those
individuals that have responded. Hearing from everyone in this sample hells
assure that the survey results are as accurate as gossible, and that they provid_e_
a solid foundation for the MDNR to use to guide figure wildlife management
decisions.

I want to assure you that your response to this study is voluntary, and if you
prefer not to respond that’s fine. If you do not wish to participate, will you
please write a short note on the inside back cover of the enclosed survey
and drop it in the mail? This would be very helpful.

Finally, I appreciate your willingness to consider my request as I conclude this
effort. Even if you know nothing about snakes or you have no interest or $1 not
care at all about snakes, that input would be useful for me to receive. Thank you
very much!

Sincerely,

Rebecca Christoffel
Project Director

242

A.7. SURVEY NON-RESPONSE INSTRUMENT

33.23:. ENSEQ‘ mexoxmtsu 9.3»an
\ovut .33 3x {.35 x3; 30x «Sufi

Shack»? .333 E .333 up .3; Mt $3 2.3: 3§ X13 333.33. 93.35 .3\ .333: tbcuofittub‘
.3 mg @38th SD 5.33 3.0333 9‘ £323 .3 hu3mmu on .85 33k 53mg .33 \o 3&2 3335 2% \23 53%?
£5 3 33.333 b 33.38 .8: b3 9: at totuEkoxS hit 3k 33 @333 on 3: E39: 9: 35 83339. M‘ .3.: 333,33. .3§

$33.th mu too».
we .3 3 “it 53 mL 2 2a.: of 83x 339: 33x 3 E 333333 {.35 33; E333 ox: 3.33.33. 2t .33 SK 2 .3335 3px 3 Sat
v.35 at 9qu @323. R NEE St S 3‘93 .23 .38 oh .33 SK $3 33x no.3 N .6th bkuuxthbumhukhhu “0363? u butuutu 9.3 N
. Adam .30

\o M3333 p.39. \Soutt no.3“... u uh: 93. :3 9: .5} on x§3m .....fix :3: mL .23 .23.th umoi 33.33 E .3335 m. 93x 923$
3993.“. 39$ mi 3 3233‘de
E 333 .8: v.33 23. 98$ 3.x 23:33 N \o .8.» 33.33; :8 SEER x3; 3 buLoqunQ 96c H .33 EEK 333W? 3 ~33? .8:

Ed 9: Si 335. 333.33 .39 .:oEcEE S .335. 3338 3303.3on 33x .333 3.3«3 uxsttoihmau a 33x .23.“. x: :83 Q:

MQQN .MN 3333‘ ..Euh§\ .3 3m. gomQ

-~T§8¢ 5953 .323 how
@538 ”3.530”. .9532 M”
3:33 a 335m .6 Eoetauo
m u a com. o

.:. 33:: + ..m ... ..2 824.83 Easesaum

_vuzobhtpfi 000030”. 96:3 moogaomoa .8302 m”

3:23., a 822$... Euetoaua

36.62:: 2.55 53.225

_otottgw 3393.

243

0230...... 89.2.2 .955... Em.
922:5 30.580”. 2.5.62 3
022.3 a. 00:05.". .200 .392
3.05.20 8030”.

moAHH meHmHH omHvHH SHmHH OmmHHH

\0mcomm0gl 0.3 .3 .23.... .... ..k. .3 «.3... 0.32% «so.» 03 So 301
02 H H 00> H H «.0032. 0m0=3 a 03: 30> on
22.0“: H 0.05; H «0.3.0.. ..o 29... no» 0..<
0.525 H H xm... 2. ..0 Eu H H H xm... 29? a ..c Ea H H H xm... 028 G :3 H H H xm... +8.5 .8 :3 H H H
«00,330..
043.3 .23.... 5.x. .3 «.33 0323 «2.00.00. H28 03. 30> +9.: 30.3 05 5 09.2323... Eat xm... +0 0.3 2.9.8.0.. so» +9.: 0>0=0n 30> on 20.6.0 .823 oh
8.5.32: oz: 8>HH
10233.3. utlcxo 23% 2...»... .3 «.33 0.325 «9:20:00 2.0 9.52 .352. Ea... 5:0033 300... gm 9:09:25 2...: 30> on
32.00.0236 >.0> H H 3020.02.23 253023 H H c0230 02 H H 30.60.02. ..230Eow H H 32.00.02. >.0> H H
«0.33.0.0. 0a»... .23.... 5.»... .3 «.3... 0.32% 229.95 2820.5 ... B0202. .883; we _0>0. .59» 09.33“. so» 2.63 301
.8» H H :51 H H .58 H H 30.6 _828 ... 233...: H H 2:2... 32> H H
«33.3 .3.. H3 23.... .....x. .3 «.3... 0.30me «0023780 9.36:3 0f. ... 09.9.0 so.» at .30.» .029: o cH
«2.303.... 032% 530.. .059; H H
2.9395 mt .223 30.583. 3.5.62 H0 .200 .3955 223 .6922: 60 H H H 320.323 .393 9.0. 02 30x00. >023 0;... H H

 

9.9.3.0.. .3 32.0028 9:09 .30....— 2303 H H H 96?...“ 9.20320 0x: ..o: 0.0 H H H
>023 0f. ... 332 0.: ... 30.60.02. +9. Eu H H H >023 0.: 302000.. ..0>0: H H H
3.35 ..aono 0.2: >.0> 305. H H H £028 .0305 2 0...... 022 +9. on H H H

«33.3 35

3'32. 23% 2...... .3 «.3... 0.82% «V0193 20910.5 Son... 33:20 9.0 mw0=0n .8 >023 .50 2. 9.83.. 0.. .0.. 002.0 30> ..uf 2030.. 2.300% a 0.0.: 33

.m

K
.o

244 '

A.8. MICHIGAN AND MINNESOTA MAIL SURVEY CHRONOLOGIES

Michigan

 

Pre-notice letter with Pl’s signature

March 19, 2005

 

Cover letter, questionnaire, incentive

March 23, 2005

 

Postcard

March 30, 2005

 

Second cover letter and questionnaire

April 19, 2005

 

Third cover letter and questionnaire

June 14, 2005

 

 

Non-response mail instrument

 

August 25, 2005

 

 

 

 

 

Minnesota

Pre-notice letter with MN DNR April 18, 2005
signature

Cover letter, questionnaire, incentive April 21, 2005
Postcard April 29, 2005
Second cover letter and questionnaire May 18, 2005

 

Third cover letter and questionnaire

June 13, 2005

 

 

Non-response mail instrument

 

August 25, 2005

 

245

 

 

A.9. OUTREACH EXPERIMENT PROTOCOL

1.) Each participant was considered a unit of analysis. All participants were a subset
of a randomly selected sample provided by Survey Sampling International for the
author’s mail questionnaire about snakes administered in Jackson, Livingston,
Oakland and Washtenaw counties, Michigan. Potential participants had marked a
box on the inside back cover of the mail questionnaire indicating that they were
interested in attending an informational program about Michigan’s snakes. A
random numbers generator was used to assign respondents to snake program
dates. A coin toss was used to determine whether the right side or left side of the
audience would be assigned to live snakes or to the Powerpoint slide presentation
for the second half of the program each evening.

2.) Workshops lasted for approximately 1 hour, and participants were asked to fill out
a post-workshop assessment instrument prior to departure. The first 30 minutes
of the workshop was the same for all participants and consisted of a Powerpoint
presentation given by the author that included basic reptile information, basic
snake information, values of snakes, natural history, and snake conservation
threats and remedial actions (A12).

3.) At the end of the “general” presentation, the audience was divided down the
middle and half of the audience was presented with a 30-minute Powerpoint slide
presentation featuring several Michigan snakes. The other half of the audience
was presented with a lecture in a room in which four featured snakes were present
in glass fronted tanks and the speaker handled the snakes in turn as they were
being discussed. This activity, “behavioral modeling” (Bandura 1977), has been

found to be useful in changing attitudes toward snakes (Morgan and Gramann
1989).

4.) The author and a second person (one of two part-time naturalists from Kensington
Metroparks) presented all programs. All programs were held on weeknight
evenings at 7:00 pm. Kensington Metroparks Nature Center was offered as a
place to hold the programs. This park was selected because of its location on the
Washtenaw-Oakland County border - no more than a 30—minute commute for
participants in 3 of 4 study counties. Jackson County participants were
reimbursed for their mileage to participate in the program.

5.) An informed consent form and invitation letter was sent to each potential
participant. The letter contained information regarding the location, time, and
duration of program and a brief explanation of the experiment. Participants were
asked to bring the consent form to their program and informed that it could be
shown to the gate person to gain free entry into the park on the evening of their
program. Jackson County residents were also informed about mileage
reimbursement. All participants were informed that by participating, they would

246

be entered into a drawing for a $50 Meijer gift certificate. One certificate was
awarded to a participant at each of eight programs.

6.) The post-program assessment instrument was piloted, along with the program on
26 August 2005 with a “general public” audience at Kensington Park Nature
Center. A question regarding whether participants knew the first names of others
at the talk prior to its presentation was added to the instrument. As a follow up,
pe0ple who responded that they did know first names were asked how many
people they had known the first name of prior to the program.

7.) A “canned” talk was used for the experiment. The author and two part-time
naturalists presented the same information and were consistent in their
presentations. They also attempted to be consistent among themselves, though
not to the point that it interfered with program delivery. Presenters only answered
short questions at the end of the programs.

8.) Participants were screened prior to the start of the second half of the program
regarding their comfort level with snakes. Anyone that was SO uncomfortable
that they feel they would not be able to focus on content were excluded from the
snake experiment.

9.) The author and two part-time naturalists wore green Kensington Metropark t-
shirts and khakis to present each program in an attempt to control for variability
due to different garb and credibility (as implied by the green Metroparks t-shirts).

247

A.10. POST-PROGRAM ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT

#

 

DA TE

1. How would you describe your level of personal interest in Michigan’s snake(s)?
(Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

Very
interested

Somewhat
interested

No
opinion

Somewhat
disinterested

Very
disinterested

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Do you think Michigan’s non-venomous snake(sLneed protection from human killing
and collecting? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

Yes

No

No opinion

3. Do you think Michigan’s rattlesnake(s) need protection from human killing and
collecting? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

Yes

No

No opinion

4. Please read the following questions and mark an “X” in the box that most closely
represents your opinion. -

a) Do you believe close contacts between rattlesnakes and humans are increasing or
decreasing in Michigan?

 

Increasing
a lot

Increasing
somewhat

Staying
the same

Decreasing
somewhat

Decreasing
a lot

Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) To what extent do you believe that you personally are at risk from rattlesnakes in the

areas that you live and recreate?

 

715m at‘great
risk

I am at some
risk

I am at a
slight risk

I am at no
risk

Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c) How well do you think the Michigan Department of Natural Resources understands

the risks to the public associated with having rattlesnakes in Michigan?

 

very Well '

Somewhat
well

Not very
well

Not at all
well

Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

248

 

 

 

 

d) To what degree are people that benefit from rattlesnakes the same as those who are
exposed to any risks from them?

 

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Unsure
similar similar dissimilar dissimilar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Please mark an “X” in the box that most closely agrees with your opinion for each
statement.
(SA=Stroneg agree, =Agree, U=Unsure, =Disagree, SD=Stroneg disagree)

Non-venomous snakes

to

some .
, snakes

to

a person

a non-venomous
a mile of my home, it would decrease my

 

249

6. Please mark an “X” in the box that most closely agrees with your opinion for each
statement.
(SA=Stroneg agree, A=Agree, U=Unsure, D=Disagree, SD=Stroneg disagree)

 

Rattlesnakes SA A U D SD

 

I enjoy seeing rattlesnakes in the wild in
, Michigan.

 

Rattlesnakes help to control mice, rats and
other Rests in Michigan.

 

Whether or not I see one, I get some benefit
from just knowing that rattlesnakes live in
Michigan.

 

Rattlesnakes are important to the balance of
nature in Michigan.

 

Rattlesnakes pose a threat to people by their
presence in Michigan.

 

Rattlesnakes are likely to spread disease to
humans in Michigan.

 

In Michigan, rattlesnakes pose an
unacceptable threat to dogs and cats.

 

Rattlesnake bites cause deaths to Michigan
residents each year.

 

In Michigan, the risk of a person being injured
by a rattlesnakegis acceptably low.

 

ln Michigan, the risk of a person being killed
by a rattlesnake is acceptably low.

 

I would be Es likely to have a rattlesnake
moved off my property if I knew that it
. probably would not survive as a result.

 

 

If I knew a rattlesnake lived within a mile of
my home, it would decrease my enjoyment of
living there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. How would you like to see the number of non-venomous snakes in your neighborhood
change? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

' Increase Increase ‘ Stay Decrease Decrease No
a lot somewhat the same somewhat a lot opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AJA‘ A. ~ A;

 

8. How important is it to you that the non-venomous snake population match your
preference in question 7? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

"- ' Véry important ” Somewhat Not at all important Unsure
important

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

250

9. How would you like to see the number of rattlesnakes in your neighborhood change?
(Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

Increase Increase Stay Decrease Decrease No
a lot somewhat the same somewhat a lot opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. How important is it to you that the rattlesnake population match your preference in
question 9? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

Very important Somewhat Not at all important Unsure
important

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. For each event below indicate which of the four choices you would most likely make
by placing an “X” in the appropriate box.

 

Q)
: “5’5
O (u 00.) (D
> C
Event 2 “g 2°05 :05
°. ‘0 o' 35.: fix
to) ugh he“; *m
E~S 3013 £305, .95, “d
:i-: :ms DNQ) 30, 3
35 Egg 3‘33 SE ‘8

 

You see a rattlesnake near your home
once.

 

You hear about QLJQ time when a
rattlesnake strikes at a neighbor’s dog or
cat.

 

You see a rattlesnake near your home
more than once in a week.

Pets near your home are regeatedly

threatened by a rattlesnake.

 

 

A rattlesnake bits a pet near your home
once.

 

A rattlesnake bites several pets over a
summer near your home.

 

 

You see a rattlesnake on your porch once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

251

Six situations are described below that might be associated with increasing numbers of
rattlesnakes in your neighborhood. Use these to answer the questions that follow
(Questions 12 and 13).

 

Possible Situation in your neighborhood

 

 

 

Increasing Rattlesnake
Numbers

Situation F

frequent sightings of rattlesnakes

bites to pets or livestock occasional/y reported

bites to humans rarely occur

residents must take precautions with pets, livestock, children
rattlesnake populations are abundant and widespread

 

Situation E

regular sightings of rattlesnakes

bites to pets or livestock occasionally reported

bites to humans are rare but do occurrattlesnake populations
are healthy and connected

 

Situation D

regular sightings of rattlesnakes
pets or livestock are rarely bitten
rattlesnake populations are healthy but scattered

 

Situation C

rattlesnakes occasional/y sighted by people
pets or livestock are rarely bitten
rattlesnake populations are small and isolated

 

Situation B

rattlesnakes exist but rarely sighted by anyone
rattlesnake populations are at risk of extinction

 

 

Situation A
no rattlesnakes exist in your neighborhood

 

 

12. Which of the possible Situations would you Qrefer for your neighborhood? (Please
mark an “X” in one box.)

 

.

‘ A

B 5‘ C D E "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unsure

 

13. What is the lowest level of rattlesnakes (which Situation) that would cause you to
express concerns to an authority and request that they do something to reduce the
number of rattlesnakes in your neighborhood? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

. A

B c D E‘

F

Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

252

 

 

14. On a scale from —5 to +5, please place an “X” over the number that most closely
reflects the amount of like that you have for each group.

(-5 = Totally dislike [the only good one is a dead one], -4= Very strong/y dislike, -3 =
Strongly dislike, -2=Moderately dislike, -1=Slightly dislike, 0=Neutral [I can take them or
leave them], +1=Slightly like, +2=Moderately like, +3=Strongly like, +4: Very strongly
like, and +5: Totally like [I would do whatever I could for this group of animals]).

Non-venomous snakes

l
V

 

-5 - 4 -3 -2 - 1 O 1 2 3 4 5
Rattlesnakes
-5 -4 3 -2 - 1 O 1 2 3 4 5

15. On a scale from O to 5, please mark an “X” on the number that most closely reflects
the amount of fear that you feel around each group.

(O=Phobic [If a TV program is on in the other room about them, I can’t sit in that room],
1=Very strongly fearful, 2=Strongly fearful, 3=Moderately fearful, 4=Slightly fearful [I
can’t touch them], 5=No fear at all [I feel comfortable picking them up and moving them if
neededj)

Non-venomous snakes

‘—
V

V

 

O 1 2 3 4 5
Rattlesnakes
0 1 2 3 4 5

16. Did you know the first name of any individual at this program prior to its start?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes” to question 16, please indicate how many people you knew the
first name of in the audience prior to the program’s start.

 

Thank you very much for your participation in this research!

253

A.11. LONG-TERM ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT

ff

 

Date

 

1. Please place an “X” in the box to the right of each statement that most closely reflects
your feelings since participating in this study.

Participating in this
study about snakes has
caused".

 

Greatly
Increase

Somewhat
Increase

Has not
Affected
This

Somewhat
Decrease

Greatly
Decrease

 

...my interest in learning
about snakes to

 

...my negative feelings
toward snakes to...

 

...the time I spend looking
for opportunities to learn
about snakes to...

 

...my fear of snakes to...

 

...my interest in having a
snake as a pet to...

 

...my feelings of being at
personal risk of being bitten
by a rattlesnake to...

 

...my positive feelings
toward snakes to...

 

 

...the attention I pay to
information about snakes
to...

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Have you had any personal observations or encounters with snakes since the last
time you filled out a survey as part of this study?

No
Yes
If yes, please describe:

 

 

 

3. How would you describe your current level of personal interest in Michigan’s
snake(s)? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

Very Somewhat
interested interested

No
opinion

Somewhat
disinterested

Very
disinterested

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

254

 

4. Have you talked with anyone about snakes since participating in this study? Please
place an “X” in the box to the left of all that apply.

Family

Fnends

Neighbors

Co-workers

Others (please specify)

 

5. Please place an DC in the box to the l_e_ft of each source that has provided you with
information about snakes since you last completed a questionnaire for this study. a
each source you marked, how would you rate most of the information that you received
about snakes? Mark each as (+) snake friendly, (0) snake neutral or (-) snake unfriendly
in the appropriate columns to the right of each source that you have marked with an “X”.

 

Source of information Snake Snake Snake

Friendly Neutral Unfriendly
(+) (0) f-l

 

A. Local newspapers

 

B. Family members/friends/neighbors

 

C. Ml Department of Natural Resources
publications

 

D. Ml Department of Natural Resources
meetings

 

E. TV news or wildlife shows

 

F. Wildlife videos or DVDs

 

G. Programs at nature centers, state parks,
etc.

 

H. World wide web (Internet)

 

I. Radio

 

J. Sporting

 

K. Environmental publications

 

L. Other (please specify)

 

 

 

M. None (I have not been provided with any
further information about snakes)

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Do you think Michigan’s non-venomous snake(s) need protection from human killing
and collecting? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

Yes No No opinion

255

7. Do you think Michigan’s rattlesnake(sg need protection from human killing and
collecting? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

Yes No No opinion

8. Please mark an “X” in the box that most closely reflects your Opinion for each
statement.
(SA=Strongly agree, A=Agree, U=Unsure, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly disagree)

 

Non-venomous snakes SA A U D SD

 

I enjoy seeing non-venomous snakes in the wild in
Michigan.

 

Non-venomous snakes help to control mice, rats and
other gets in Micllgan.

 

Whether or not I see one, I get some benefit from just
knowing that non-venomous snakes live in Michigan.

 

Non-venomous snakes are important to the balance of
nature in Michigan.

 

Non-venomous snakes pose a threat to people by their
gresence in Michigan

 

Non-venomous snakes are likely to spread disease to
humans in MichiLan.

 

In Michigan, non-venomous snakes pose an
unacceptable threat to dogs and cats.

 

Non-venomous snakebites cause deaths to Michigan
residents each year.

 

In Michigan, the risk of a person being injured by a non-
venomous snake is acceptably low.

 

In Michigan, the risk of a person being killed by a non-
venomous snake is acceptably low.

 

I would be Leg likely to have a non-venomous snake
moved off my property if I knew that it probably would not
survive as a result.

 

 

If I knew a non-venomous snake lived within a mile of my
home, it would decrease my enjoyment of living there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. How would you like to see the number of non-venomous snakes in your neighborhood
change? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

Increase Increase Stay the Decrease Decrease No
a lot somewhat same somewhat a lot opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. How important is it to you that the non-venomous snake population match your
preference in question 9? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

Very important Somewhat Not at all important Unsure
important

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

256

11. Please mark an “X” in the box that most closely reflects your opinion for each
statement.
(SA=Stroneg agree, A=Agree, U=Unsure, D=Disagree, SD=Strongly disagree)

 

Rattlesnakes SA A U D SD

 

I enjoy seeing rattlesnakes in the wild in Michigan.

 

Rattlesnakes help to control mice, rats and other
pests in Michigan.

 

Whether or not I see one, I get some benefit from just
knowing that rattlesnakes live in Michigan.

 

Rattlesnakes are important to the balance of nature
in Michigan.

 

Rattlesnakes pose a threat to people by their
presence in Michigan.

 

Rattlesnakes are likely to spread disease to humans
in Michigan.

 

In Michigan, rattlesnakes pose an unacceptable
threat to dogs and cats.

 

Rattlesnake bites cause deaths to Michigan residents
each year.

 

In Michigan, the risk of a person being injured by a
rattlesnake is acceptably low.

 

In Michigan, the risk of a person being killed by a
rattlesnake is acceptably low.

 

I would be le_s_s likely to have a rattlesnake moved off
my property if I knew that it probably would not
survive as a result.

 

 

If I knew a rattlesnake lived within a mile of my home,
it would decrease rrLy enjoyment of living there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. How would you like to see the number of rattlesnakes in your neighborhood change?
(Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

Increase Increase Stay the Decrease Decrease No
a lot somewhat same somewhat a lot opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. How important is it to you that the rattlesnake population match your preference in
question 12? (Please mark an “X” in one box.)

 

Very important Somewhat Not at all important Unsure
important

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

257 '

14. For each event below indicate which of the four choices you would most likely make
by placinfln “X” in the appropriate box.

 

\ gg
Event 0 *" o 0)
—— ‘o *3 83 s
H I O
o. mgo‘EEg ES?
tmwg‘ofigm 4‘(t:
b,: DOB‘O C ‘0: Q)
\‘\ \\Q([) \U) L
as es=s~w em a
0 (DE E
3!: 3 3: 3 2

 

You see a rattlesnake near your home once.

 

You hear about gig time when a rattlesnake
strikes at a neighbor’s dogor cat.

 

You see a rattlesnake near your home more
than once in a week.

 

Pets near your home are repeatedly
threatened by a rattlesnake.

 

A rattlesnake bites a pet near your home
once.

 

A rattlesnake bites several pets over a
summer near Lour home.

 

 

You see a rattlesnake on your porch once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. Please read the following questions and mark an “X” in the box that most closely
represents your opinion.

a) From your experiences and awareness of encounters other people are having, do you
believe close contacts between rattlesnakes and humans are increasing or decreasing in
Michigan?

 

Increasing a Unsure

lot

Increasing
somewhat

Staying
the same

Decreasing
somewhat

Decreasing
a lot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) To what extent do you believe that you personally are at risk from rattlesnakes in the
areas that you live and recreate?

 

I am at great _
risk

I am at some
risk

I am at a
slight risk

I am at no
risk

Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c) How well do you think the Michigan Department of Natural Resources understands
the risks to the public associated with having rattlesnakes in Michigan?

 

Very well

Somewhat
well

Not very
well

Not at all
well

Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

258

 

 

Six situations are described below that might be associated with increasing numbers of
rattlesnakes in your neighborhood. Use these to answer Questions 16 and 17.

 

Possible Situation in your neighborhood

 

 

Situation F

f“ frequent sightings of rattlesnakes

bites to pets or livestock occasionally reported

bites to humans rarely occur

residents must take precautions with pets, livestock, children
rattlesnake populations are abundant and widespread

 

Situation E

regular sightings of rattlesnakes

bites to pets or livestock occasionally reported
bites to humans are rare but do not occur
rattlesnake populations are healthy and connected

 

 

Situation D

regular sightings of rattlesnakes

pets or livestock are rarely bitten

rattlesnake populations are healthy but scattered

 

Situation C

rattlesnakes are occasionally sighted by people
pets or livestock are rarely bitten

rattlesnake populations are small and isolated

Increasing Rattlesnake
Numbers

 

Situation B
rattlesnakes exist but rarely sighted by anyone
rattlesnake populations are at risk of extinction

 

Situation A
no rattlesnakes exist in your neighborhood

 

 

 

16. Which of the possible Situations would you grefer for your neighborhood? (Please
mark an “X” in one box.)

 

A B C D E F Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17. What is the lowest level of rattlesnakes (which Situation) that would cause you to
express concerns to an authority and request that they do something to reduce the
number of rattlesnakes in your neighborhood? (Mark an “X” in one box.)

 

A B C D E F Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you very much for your participation in this research!

259

A.12. SNAKE OUTREACH EXPERIMENT CHRONOLOGY

 

Pilot program conducted

26 August 2005

 

Invitation letter sent to participants

3 September 2005

 

Conducted experimental programs

6,7,12,14,15,19,20 September and 8

 

 

 

 

 

October 2005
Letter and survey sent to control group 3 November 2005
Outreach publications, letter and survey 4 November 2005
sent to written materials treatment group
Long-term questionnaires mailed 7 April 2006
Second long-term questionnaires mailed May 31, 2006

 

 

260

 

Al3.a. SCRIPT FOR FIRST HALF OF SNAKE OUTREACH PROGRAM

II.

111.

So, why learn about snakes anyway? (values of snakes in society)
A. Ecological

l. predator

2. prey

3. indicators of habitat quality
B. Spiritual or religious

l. Christians

2. Hindus

3. Snake-handling sects in SE USA

4. Fertility deities in many cultures around globe
C. Cultural

1. Lucky house cobras in India
D. Economic

1. Fashion
2. Pet trade
3. Meat

E. Aesthetic
l. Snakes used in art and jewelry-making
2. Diversity of colors, patterns
3. Diversity of forms, movements
F. Pharmaceutical
1. Rattlesnake venoms used for plethora of human medicinal
purposes (heart problems, high blood pressure, hemophilia, etc.)
2. Saliva from non-venomous snakes, such as northern water snakes
for use in developing anti-coagulants or blood thinners, etc.
What makes a snake a reptile? (Brief intro to reptile characteristics)
A. Scales
B. Ectotherrnic
C. Little to no parental care
D. Claws on limbs
E. Amniotic eggs
Snake Myths
A. Snakes are NOT slimy
B. Where you find one snake, you may find another but no guarantees
C. A snake will not chase a person, though a blue racer may try to scare you
off
D. Having one kind of snake on your property DOES NOT preclude other
species from being there (e. g., rattlesnakes not around where you have
things such as fox snakes, etc.)
E. No humans have been bitten in Michigan and died from eastern
massasauga rattlesnake bite for AT LEAST 50 years.
F. The two best ways to get bitten by a snake are to purposely handle a snake
or to try and kill a snake.

261

IV.

VI.

VII.

What makes a snake a snake? (Special characters of snakes)

No eyelids or external ears

No or only vestigial limbs

Jaws and teeth for swallowing prey

Movement - rectilinear, concertina, sidewinding, ?

Size — smallest to largest (7??? = smallest, Indian python longest,

anaconda heaviest)

. Ecdysis

A car in the life of a Michigan snake

Hibernation or brumation

Emergence/migration

Thermoregulation and associated behaviors and micro-habitats

Eating and hunting

Mating

Reproduction

Migration/hibernation

onservation threats to Michigan snakes

Loss and degradation of habitat

Roads

Accidental or intentional killing

Collection for the pet trade, especially of rare snakes

Lack of knowledge regarding specific macro and micro habitat needs,

population status, minimum number of individuals for a viable population,

effects of toxicants on snakes, etc. '

Actions that will help conserve Michigan snakes

A. Habitat protection.

B. Fewer killings due to misidentification when people learn to recognize the
18 different kinds of snakes that live in Michigan.

C. Additional funding for non-game management and research to learn about
snakes’ management needs, etc.

D. Smaller roads and culverts, etc. to assist animals in moving from point A

to point B.

Regulations that are strictly enforced regarding the take and possession of

Michigan’s snakes.

F. Incentives and direction to private landowners in managing their
properties to benefit snakes (or at least to not wipe out snakes while
managing to benefit some other favored species/group).

G. Fewer snakes may be killed by landowners if they are trained in the
correct response when they “hear” or see a rattlesnake. Most bites occur
when individuals purposefully handle rattlesnakes or try to kill them.

WUOP"?

“Tl

Gamecowa

91.0.0.0”?

F“

262

A.13.b. SCRIPT FOR SECOND HALF OF SNAKE OUTREACH PROGRAMS

During the second half of the program, we’re going to spend a little time acquainting you
with several species of snakes found in Michigan.

1. Eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis Iriangulum)

A. Description: The eastern milk snake is a slender, medium-sized snake
reaching lengths of 24 to 52 inches. Its scales are smooth, without a ridge
or keel running down the middle of them, and so the snake is very smooth
to the touch, like paten leather. At hatching, youngsters have a white
background color with bright orange-red blotches outlined in black and are
from 6 to 11 inches long. This is aposematic coloring that affords these
small individuals some protection from potential predators. As the snake
matures, the background color fades to gray or tan and the blotches turn a
sort of brick-red, maroon or brown. A field mark that can help in
identifying this snake is the light “V” or “Y” shaped marking that is
usually present on the back of its head. The belly has a checkerboard
pattern on it, but may just appear as dark in older individuals.

B. Distribution: Eastern milk snakes are found throughout the lower
peninsula of Michigan and are rarely found in some localized areas of the
upper peninsula.

C. Habitat(sj: This is a habitat generalist. Milk snakes are found in a wide
variety of habitats including open woodlands, bogs, swamps, woods
edges, marshes, lakeshores, old fields, pastures, farrnyards, and suburban
parks and gardens. They are also found in and around human habitations,
and are attracted to piles of rocks, logs, firewood or building materials.

In fact, the eastern milk snake got its name from the commonly held
misconception that these snakes, often found in dairy barns, were suckling
milk from farmers’ cows. Actually, the snakes were much more interested
in the rodents that were found in the barns.

D. D_iet: As I just mentioned, adult milk snakes feed primarily on rodents, but
also consume snakes, lizards, birds and eggs. Milk snakes are
constrictors; they bite their prey and then wrap their bodies around their
prey items to hinder them helpless. For prey that are helpless, such as
eggs, the snake simply seizes and swallows. As a youngster, a milk snake
will prey on other snakes. This species is a member of the kingsnake
family, which is known for its propensity to feed on other snakes. The
animal switches over to warm-blooded prey as it matures.

E. Habits: Milk snakes are secretive and remain underground or under cover
much of the time. They are most often active at night rather than during
the day. The best time to observe adults is in the spring when they can be
found basking to raise their body temperatures. Youngsters are most often
observed in September and October, prior to hibernation.

263

II.

F. Reproduction: Milk snakes lay 5-24 eggs in late June or early July in
rotted stumps or logs, piles of vegetation or manure, shallow burrows in
soil or sand, or cavities under rocks, bark or other surface litter. The eggs
often stick, or adhere, to one another. Hatching occurs in August or
September. Youngsters reach maturity in 3-4 years, and can live for 7—10
years in the wild.

G. Hibernation: Milk snakes can often be found using old stone foundations
or wells for overwintering or hibernation, though old burrows, cavities
under rotted stumps, rock or soil crevices, and rock-filled road
embankments are also used. They may be found in the company of other
species such as fox snakes, garter snakes, and brown snakes.

H. Factoids: As youngsters, milk snakes are sometimes thought to be coral
snakes. No coral snakes are found in Michigan, other than in a zoo, and
the coloring is actually quite different. Coral snakes are striped, rather
than blotched. Milk snakes are also often mistaken for rattlesnakes. This
has to do with their blotched coloring and their defensive behavior. When
a milk snake feels threatened, it will vibrate its tail rapidly in dry grass or
leaf litter, mimicking a rattlesnake. However, this snake is a benefit rather
than a risk to peOple, with its propensity for eating rodents.

 

Eastern fox snake (Elaphe gloydi)

A. Description: The eastern fox snake is a robust, medium-sized snake with
an average total length of about 3.5 feet, but it ranges from 3 — 5.5 feet. It
has a background color that varies from yellow to light brown. A row of
black or dark chocolate brown blotches run along the back, alternating
with smaller dark blotches along the sides. The belly has irregular rows of
dark squarish spots on a yellowish background. Fox snakes have a
spinelike tip on their tail, and their scales are weakly keeled; there is a
slight ridge running along the center of each scale.

The fox snake got its name from the musky-smelling secretion that it often
emits when handled in the wild. Not only the snake but you, too, will
smell foxy after such an encounter. Fox snakes are often called
“copperheads” due to their solid copper-colored heads, but they aren’t
even closely related to a true copperhead. Fox snakes are not venomous,
or poisonous. Youngsters have a gray or tan background color with gray
or brownish blotches outlined in black, and achieve their adult coloration
when about 3 years old. Field marks to look for in identifying the fox
snake is its rather flat brown or copper-colored head and its blunt tail.

B. Distribution: The Eastern fox snake is found only within the Great Lakes
basin and it inhabits coastal marshes and other near-shore habitats along
Lakes Huron and Erie. This snake is listed as threatened in the state of
Michigan, and is protected by law.

C. Habitat(s): Eastern fox snakes are primarily found in marshy areas and
vegetated dunes and beaches, but they can sometimes be found in nearby

264

farm fields, pastures, and woodlots. Fox snakes can sometimes be spotted
basking on muskrat houses, dikes, and road embankments.

m: The diet of these snakes consists primarily of small mammals, such
as meadow voles and deer mice. They will also eat nestling birds and
eggs. Youngster may eat earthworms and frogs. When consuming
helpless prey, the fox snake simply seizes and swallows. For larger prey,
the snake uses constriction like the milk snake.

Habits:

Reproduction: Females lay 7-29 eggs during late June and July in rotted
stumps or shallow burrows, or under logs, boards, or mats of decaying
vegetation. Sometimes several females will lay their eggs at one nest site.
Like the milk snake, fox snakes have adherent eggs. Most hatching occurs
in late August or September. Fox snakes mature in 3-4 years.

 

. Hibernation: Eastern fox snakes hibernate in mammal burrows or other

frost-free shelters. They are typically active from mid-April until late
October, and are most often observed in the spring. They become more
night-active during the warmer summer months.

Factoids: Fox snakes are excellent climbers. They are often mistaken by
people for rattlesnakes because of their coloration and a certain defensive
behavior they engage in. Like the milk snake, fox snakes will often
vibrate their tails rapidly when feeling threatened. Not only their blotches
but their solid copper-colored heads have led some people to believe that
they are rattlesnakes. This is a harmless snake that benefits people by its
rodent-eating habits.

Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon)

A. Description: The northern water snake is medium-sized snake. Females

B.

are larger than males and although old females may attain lengths greater
than four feet, the average range for adults is 2 — 4 feet. Water snakes
generally have a tan, brown or gray background color with a variable
pattern of black, dark brown or reddish brown crossbands and blotches on
the back and sides. Some older specimens lose their blotched patterning
and appear very dark brown or black in color, especially when dry. The
white, yellowish or orangish belly is usually marked with reddish brown
half-moon shaped spots. The scales on the northern water snake are
keeled, having a raised ridge running along their centers. Northern water
snakes are often referred to as “water moccasins” and mistakenly believed
to be poisonous, or venomous. True water moccasins, or cottonmouths,
do not occur in this area.

Distribution: Northern water snakes are found throughout Michigan in
appropriate habitat.

C. Habitatjs): This is a snake that is normally found in or around water

bodies, though dispersing individuals may be found some distance from
any standing water. Water snakes prefer fairly open and sunny locations
with ample cover and basking sites. People often encounter this species

265

on docks, in boathouses, near piers, bridge supports, dams, causeways, and
flowing culverts.

D. Qigt: Northern water snakes are opportunistic feeders, with a diet made
up primarily of cold-blooded prey such as minnows, tadpoles, frogs,
crayfish and aquatic salamanders, though carrion is also taken. They are
grab and swallow predators, not bothering to engage in constriction.
Youngsters include insects and earthworms in their diets. The saliva of
this snake has compounds in it that inhibit blood clotting; if bitten, though
it won’t hurt much, you will bleed quite a bit.

E. Habits: Northern water snakes are mostly active during the day in spring
and fall, but become primarily night-active during the warmer summer
months. _

F. Reproduction: Courtship and mating occurs in the spring for this species.
Northern water snakes give birth to “live” young in August or September
rather than laying eggs. Newborn snakes are 7.5 — 10.5 inches long. A
litter may number from 4-99, but average litter size is 15-40. Larger
females give birth to proportionally larger litters. Youngsters reach
maturity in 2-3 years.

G. Hibernation: Northern water snakes hibernate from October to April. The
colder months are spent in mammal or crayfish burrows, rock crevices,
overbank root systems or other sheltered sites near their summer habitat.
This species often hibemates in the company of others of its kind and
other snake species.

H. Factoids: All snakes swim; it’s just a matter of how willing they are to do
so. So anytime you see a snake in water, you must not assume that it is a
northern water snake. However, northern water snakes are tied to aquatic
habitats. Northern water snakes are sometimes mistaken for Michigan’s
only venomous snake, the eastern massasauga. It’s pretty easy to
differentiate by behavior alone. Unlike the massasauga, a northern water
snake will approach people rather than flee. If you are fishing and leave a
bait bucket unattended nearby and there is a northern water snake in the
area, do not be surprised if the snake comes and helps itself to a meal at
your expense. If you try to handle the snake, don’t be surprised if it bites.
Northern water snakes are quick to defend themselves from potential
threats — like you. Like the fox snake, the northern water snake can emit a
very noxious smelling secretion when threatened.

 

IV. Eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos)

A. Description: The eastern hognose snake is a rather small but thick-bodied
snake with a short tail and a flattened upturned snout. It can be brightly
patterned with brown spots on a yellow background, or it may be a solid
gray-green color. However, it will always have two big black eyespots on
the back of its head. The belly may be yellow, cream, gray or even
pinkish, often mottled with a darker color. The chin and throat are usually
lighter than the rest of the underside. Eastern hognose snakes range from

266

20-45 inches, but are typically 2.5 — 3 feet long. Youngsters have dark
blotches along their light gray or brown backs, and are 5-10 inches long at
hatching.

. Distribution: Eastern hognose snakes are found throughout the lower
peninsula of Michigan and in Menominee County in the upper Peninsula.
This species has become an uncommon to rare snake in many places
where it was reasonably common only 10-20 years ago.

. Habitatgs): Eastern hognose snakes are found nearly all types of terrestrial
habitats, from open pine or deciduous woodlands to old fields, meadows
and pastures.

. _D_ie_t: Eastern hognose snakes are toad-eating specialists. They are
immune to the poisons found in the paratoid glands at the back of the
toads’ heads. When the toad pumps itself up with air to appear larger to
the snake, the snake is able to bite the toad and “deflate” it with fangs
found at the back of the snake’s mouth. This enables the snake to be able
to swallow its prey item. Other prey items include frogs, salamanders,
small reptiles, eggs, small mammals, birds, and insects.

. Habits: Hognose snakes are largely day active but tend to be most active
in the morning and early evening during the warm summer months. When
they aren’t foraging or basking, they spend most of their time
underground.

. Reproduction: Most mating occurs in the spring but it has been reported as
late as September. Females lay their eggs in June or July in a shallow
burrow in sand or soil, or under a log or rock. Clutch size ranges from 4-
61 eggs. Hatching occurs in late August or September, and youngsters
reach maturity in 2-3 years.

. Hibernation: Eastern hognose snakes hibernate in deep, self-excavated or
abandoned burrows or under a rotted stump or similar shelter.

. Factoids: The eastern hognose snake is sometimes called the Michigan
cobra or “puff adder.” This is due to the defensive behaviors displayed by
this species. If the animal is approached by what is perceived to be a
predator, the animal will first lift the front portion of its body up off the
ground and flare out the skin at the back of its head, showing off its two
big eyespots that make it appear larger than the snake really is. If that
doesn’t work, the snake will “play possum” rolling over on its back,
lolling out its tongue, and often exuding foul-smelling secretions and feces
from its cloaca. If you turn the snake right side up, it will immediately flip
over again on its back, until the danger has passed — you! It should be
mentioned here that the eastern hognose snake is a harmless snake that
seldom, if ever, bites when approached. Unfortunately, it is often
mistakenly believed to be venomous or poisonous, and so is often
mistakenly killed by people.

267

LITERATURE CITED

Abraham, J. “Field Note — Rattlesnake Poachers.” Minnesota Conservation Volunteer,
Mar-Apr 2004.

Adams, C.E., J .K. Thomas, K.J. Stmadel, and S.L. Jester. “Texas rattlesnake roundups:

implications of unregulated commercial use of wildlife.” Wildlife Society Bulletin
22 (1994): 324-330.

Ajzen, I. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50 (1991): 179-21 1.

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980.

Albert, D.A. Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a
working map and classification. St. Paul: USDA Forest Service, North Central
Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-l78, 1995.

Alhakami, AS. and P. Slovic. “A psychological study of the inverse relationship
between perceived risk and perceived benefit.” Risk Analysis 14 (1994):
1085-1096.

Arena, P.C., C. Warwick and D. Duvall. “Rattlesnake Roundups.” In Wildlife and
recreationists: co-existence through management and research, edited by KL.

Knight and K.J. Gutzmiller, pp3l3-324. Washington: Island Press, 1995.

Aronson, E., T.D. Wilson and RM. Akert. Social Psychology. Reading: Addison-Wesley,
1999.

Ashton, R.E. Endangered and Threatened Amphibians and Reptiles in the United States.
SSAR Herpetological Circular No. 5, 1-65, 1976.

Babbie, E.R. Survey research methods. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.,
1973.

Bandura, A. “Modeling and Vicarious Processes.” In Principles of Behavior
Modification, 118-216. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969.

Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, 1977.

Bart, W.M. “A hierarchy among attitudes toward animals.” Journal of Environmental
Education 3 (1972): 4-6.

268

Bennett-Levy, J. and T. Marteau. “Fear of animals: what is prepared?” British
Journal of Psychology 75 (1984): 37-42.

Berger, KS. and RA. Thompson. The Developing Person through Childhood. New
York: Worth Publishers, 1996.

Beyer, D., T. Hogrefe, R.B. Peyton, P. Bull, J .P. Burroughs, and P. Lederle, editors.
Review of Social and Biological Science Relevant to Wolf Management in
Michigan, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Report
No. 3457. Lansing: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 2006.

Bixler, R.D., C.L. Carlisle, W.E. Hammitt, and M.F. Floyd. “Observed Fears and
Discomforts among Urban Students on Field trips to Wildland areas.” Journal of
Environmental Education 26, no.1 (1994): 24-33.

Bjerke, T., O. Reitan, and SR. Kellert. "Attitudes toward wolves in southeastern
Norway.” Society and Natural Resources. II (1998): 169-178.

Blanchard, E.B. “The Relative Contributions of Modeling, Informational Influences, and
Physical Contact in the Extinction of Phobic Behavior.” Doctoral dissertation,
Stanford University, 1969.

Bowd, A.D. “Children’s Fear of Animals.” The Journal of Genetic Psychology 142
(1983): 313-314.

Bowman, J .L., B.D. Leopold, F.J. Vilella, D.A. Gill, and H.A. Jacobson. “Attitudes of
landowners toward American black bears compared between areas of high and
low bear populations.” Ursus 12 (2001): 153-160.

Bright, AD. and M.J. Manfredo. “A conceptual model of attitudes toward natural
resource issues: a case study of wolf reintroduction.” Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 1 (1996): 1-21.

Bright, A.D., M.J. Manfredo, M. Fishbein, and A. Bath. “Application of the theory of
reasoned action to the National Park Service’s controlled burn policy.”
Journal of Leisure Research 25 (1993): 263-280.

Brown, F. and J. McDonald. The serpent handlers: Three families and their faith.
Winston-Salem: John F. Blair, Publisher, 2000.

Brown, T.L., C.P. Dawson and R.L. Miller. “Interests and attitudes of metropolitan New
York residents about wildlife.” Transactions of the North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference 44 (1979): 289-297.

Brown, W.S. “Female reproductive ecology in a northern population of the timber
rattlesnake, Crotalus horridus. ” Herpetologica 47 (1991): 101-15.

269

Brown, W.S. Biology, status, and management of the timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus): a guide for conservation. SSAR Herpetological
Circular No. 22, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, 1993.

Burton, T. Serpent-handling believers. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press,
1993.

Campbell, J .A., D.R. Formanowicz, Jr., and ED. Brodie, Jr. “Potential impact of
rattlesnake roundups on natural populations.” The Texas Journal of Science
41 (1989): 301-317.

Cann, J. Snakes alive! Snake experts & antidote sellers of Australia. Lansing: E.C.O.,
2001.

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

Cathexis Consulting, Inc. “Evaluation of the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake Public
Education and Outreach Porgarm in the Bruce Peninsula and Eastern Georgian
Bay Region.” In Third International Symposium and Workshop on Conservation
of the Eastern Massasauga, Sistrurus catenatus: Population Viability and
Outreach, October 12-14, Toronto Zoo, Ontario, Canada, 2005. Available at:
http://www.brocku.ca/massasauga ‘

Christoffel, RA. and SR. Craven. “Attitudes of woodland owners toward white-tailed
deer and herbivory in Wisconsin.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, no. 1 (2000):
227-234.

Collins, M.A.J. “Questionnaires and Changing Students’ Attitudes to Animals.”
Journal of Environmental Education 8, no. 2 (1976): 37-40.

Coluccy, J .M., R.D. Drobney, D.A. Graber, S.L. Sheriff, and DJ. Witter. “Attitudes of
central Missouri Residents toward local Giant Canada Geese and Management
Alternatives.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, no. 1 (2001): 116-123.

Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. Reptiles and Amphibians: eastern and central North
America, 3rd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.

Congdon, J .D., A.E. Dunham, R.C. van Loben Sels, and J .T. Austin. “Life histories and
demographics of long-lived organisms: Implications for management and
conservation.” In Proceedings of the Biology of the Medieon Archipelago: the
Sky Island of southwestern United States and Mexico, 624-30. Report
RM-GTR-264, Tucson, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest
Service, 1995.

270

Connelly, N.A., T.L. Brown and D]. Decker. “Factors affecting response rates to
natural resource-focused mail suveys: empirical evidence of declining rates over
time.” Society and Natural Resources 16 (2003): 541-549.

Conover, M.R., W.C. Pitt, K.K. Kessler, T.J. DuBow, and W.A. Sanbom. “Review of
Human Injuries, Illnesses, and Economic Losses caused by Wildlife in the United
States.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 23, no. 3 (1995): 407-414.

Coover, J.E. and F. Angell. General practice effect of special exercise. American
Journal of Psychology 18 (1907): 328-340.

Crist, E. Images of animals: Anthropomorphism and animal mind. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1999.

DJ. Case & Associates. Improving the Image of the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake in
the Midwest, Final Report to Indiana Department of Natural Resources, December
15, 2002.

Davey, G.C.L. “Characteristics of individuals with fear of spiders.” Anxiety Research 4
(1992): 299-314.

Davey, G.C.L. “Self-reported Fears to common Indigenous Animals in an Adult UK
Population: the Role of Disgust Sensitivity.” British Journal of Psychology 85
(1994): 541-554.

Decker, D]. and TA. Gavin. “Public attitudes toward a suburban deer herd.” Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 15 (1987): 173-180.

Decker, D.J., and K.G. Purdy. “Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in
wildlife management.” Wildlife Society Bulletin, 16 (1988): 53-57.

Decker, DJ. and J .W. Enck. “Human dimensions of wildlife management: Knowledge
for agency survival in the 21S" century.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1 (1996):
60-71.

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

Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, and W.F. Siemer, eds. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
Management in North America. Bethesda: The Wildlife Society, 2001.

Diller, L.V. and DR. Johnson. “Food habits, consumption rates and predation rates of
western rattlesnakes and gopher snakes in southwestern Idaho.” Herpetologica
26 (1988): 32-37.

271

Dillman, D.A. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edition. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.

Dodd, K.C. Jr. “Importation of live Snakes and Snake Products into the United States,
1977-1983.” Herpetological Review 17, no. 4 (1986): 76-79.

Dodd, K.C. Jr. “Status, Conservation and Management.” In Snakes: Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology, 478-513. Caldwell: Blackburn Press, 1987.

Dodd, Jr., K.C. “Strategies for snake conservation.” In R.A. Seigel and J.T. Collins
(eds), Snakes: Ecology and behavior, 363-393. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.

Eagly, A.H. and S. Chaiken. The Psychology of Attitudes. Belmont: Wadsworth
Group/Thomson Learning, 1993.

Edwards, J. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Rochester, MN.
Conversation with author discussing timber rattlesnake work to be conducted in
southeastern Minnesota, 2003.

Ernst, C.H. Venomous reptiles of North America. Washington: Smithsonian Institution
Press, 1992.

Ernst, CH. and EM. Ernst. Snakes of the United States and Canada. Washington:
Smithsonian Books, 2003. ’

Evans, PD. “The Effects of Sex and Fear Level of Subjects on the Snake Approach
Behaviour of Dyads.” Behaviour, Research, and Therapy 19 (1981): 207-214.

Fazio, R.H. “How do attitudes guide behavior?” In The Handbook of Motivation and
Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, edited by RM. Sorrentino and ET.
Higgins, 204-243. New York: Guilford Press, 1986.

Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
1957.

Fink, A. How to manage, analyze and interpret survey data, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, 2003.

Finley, R.W. Original vegetation cover of Wisconsin. St. Paul: USDA Forest Service,
North Central Forest Station, 1976.

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. Beliefi Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1975.

Fitch, H.S. “Observations on the food and nesting of the broadwing hawk (Buteo
platypterus) in northeastern Kansas.” Condor 76 (1974): 331-333.

272

Fitch, HS. and RD. Bare. “A field study of the red-tailed hawk in eastern Kansas.”
Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. 81 (1978): 1-13.

Fitzgerald, LA. and CW. Painter. “Rattlesnake commercialization: long-term trends,
issues and implications for conservation.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, no. 1
(2000): 235-253.

Franke, J ., and TM. Telecky. Reptiles as Pets: an Examination of the Trade in live
Reptiles in the United States. Washington: Humane Society of the United States,
2001.

Fulton, D.C., M.J. Manfredo and J. Lipscomb. “Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual
and measurement approach.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1 (1996): 24-47.

Galligan, J .H. and W.A. Dunson. “Biology and status of timber rattlesnake ( C rotalus
horridus) populations in Pennsylvania.” Biological Conservation 15 (1979): 13-58.

Gear, J.H. and A. Turteltaub. “Fear Reduction following Observation of a Model.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6, no. 3 (1967): 327-331.

George, D. and P. Mallery. SPSS for Windows: Step by Step, 6'h edition. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon, 2006.

Gibbons, J .W. “Reproduction, growth and sexual dimorphism in the canebrake
rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus atricaudatus).” Copeia 1972: 222-226.

Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T]. Ryan, K.A. Buhlmann, T.D. Tuberville, B.S. Metts,
J.L. Greene, T. Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy and CT. Winne. “The Global Decline
of Reptiles, deja vu Amphibians.” BioScience 50, no. 8 (2000): 653-666.

Gliner, J.A., J .J . Vaske, and GA. Morgan. “ Null hypothesis significance testing:
effect size matters.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6 (2001): 291-301.

Gomez, L.M., K.W. Larsen and P. Walton. “’Snake Talks’ in the Classroom: Do They
Influence Children’s Attitudes?” Herpetological Review 35, no. 4 (2004): 338-
341.

Goyder, J .C. “Further evidence on factors affecting response rates to mailed
questionnaires.” American Sociological Review 47 (1982): 550-553.

Greenberg Quinlan Research, Inc. Environment top tier voting issue. Washington, DC:
League of Conservation Voters, www.lcvedfund.org[poll/index.html, accessed
July 18, 2007, (2000).

273

Greene, H.W. “Conservation” In Snakes: the Evolution of Mystery in Nature,
292-306. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Greene, H.W. and IA. Campbell. “The future of pitvipers.” In Biology of the pitvipers,
eds. J.A. Campbell and ED. Brodie, Jr., 421-427. Tyler: Selva, 1992.

Grenard, S. Medical Herpetology. Pottsville: Reptile & Amphibian Magazine, 1994.

Grise, L.D. Assessing Stakeholder Preferences Regarding Current and Future Bear
Management Options. Master’s thesis, Michigan State University, 1995.

Harding, J .H. Amphibians and reptiles of the Great Lakes region. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press, 1997.

Hartup, W.W. “Social relationships and their developmental significance. ” American
Psychologist 44 (1989): 120-126.

Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley, 1958.
Heinsman, D.T. and W.R. Shadish. Assignment methods in experimentation: when do
nonrandomized experiments approximate the answers from randomized

experiments? Psychological Methods 1 (1996): 154-169.

Henderson, C. Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of southeast Minnesota — Region 5.
St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1980.

Hoff, MP. and T.L. Maple. “Sex and Age Differences in the Avoidance of Reptile
Exhibits by Zoo Visitors.” Zoo Biology 1 (1982): 263-269.

Hohn, S.M. “A survey of New York state pet stores to investigate trade in native
herpetofauna.” Herpetological Review 34 (2003): 23-27.

Holman, J .A., J.H. Harding, M.M. Hensley, and GR. Dudderar. Michigan Snakes, 2"d
ed., Michigan State University Extension Publication E-2000, East Lansing:
Michigan State University, 1999.

Hoover, C. The US. Role in the International live Reptile Trade: Amazon tree boas to
Zululand dwarf chameleons. Washington: TRAFFIC North America, 1998.

Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. 2006 Endangered and Threatened Species
List. httgl/dnrstate.il.us/espb/datelist.htm accessed on January 30, 2007.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. http://www.in.gov/dnrfishwild/endangeredl,
accessed January 30, 2007.

274

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Economic importance of
hunting in America. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
website: httpz/lwww.iafwa.org/publications.htm, 2006.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 2000
I UCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland: IUCN, 2000.

Isbell, L.A. “Snakes as agents of evolutionary change in primate brains.” Journal of
Human Evolution 51 (2006): 1-35.

Johnson, Bob. Toronto Zoo, pers. communication, 2005.

Johnson, G., B. Kingsbury, R. King, C. Parent, R. Seigel and J. Szymanski. The Eastern
Massasauga Rattlesnake: a Handbook for Land Managers. Ft. Snelling: United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000.

J oslin, J ., H. Fletcher, and J .A. Emlen. “A Comparison of the Responses to Snakes of
Lab- and Wild-reared Rhesus Monkeys.” Animal Behaviour 12 (1964): 348-352.

Keeney, R.L. “Understanding Life-threatening Risks.” Risk Analysis 15, no. 6 (1995):
627-637.

Keenlyne, K.D. “Reproductive cycles in two species of rattlesnakes.” American
Midland Naturalist 100 (1978): 368-375.

Keenlyne, K.D. and JR. Beer. “Food habits of Sistrurus catenatus catenatus. ” Journal
of Herpetology 7 (1973): 381-382.

Kellert, S.R. “Perceptions of animals in American society.” Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 41 (1976): 533-546.

Kellert, S.R. “Public Perceptions of Predators, Particularly the Wolf and Coyote.”
Biological Conservation 31 (1985): 167-189.

Kellert, S.R. “Attitudes, knowledge and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial
superpowers: United States, Japan and Germany.” Journal of Social Issues
49 (1993): 53-69.

Kellert, S.R. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington:
Island Press, 1996.

Kellert, SR. and J.K. Berry. Public Attitudes Toward Critical Wildlife and Natural

Habitat Issues, Phase 1. Washington: US. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, US. Government Printing Office, 1979.

275

Kellert, SR. and J .K. Berry. Knowledge, Affection and Basic Attitudes toward
Animals in American Society, Phase III. Washington: US. Dept. of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, US. Government Printing Office, 1980.

Kellert, SR. and MO. Westervelt. Trends in Animal Use and Perception in 20:12 Century
America, 024-010-00-625-1. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.

Keyler, D.E. Venomous Snakebites: Minnesota & Upper Mississippi River Valley
[982-2002, Minnesota Herpetological Society Occasional Paper Number 7.
Minneapolis: Minnesota Herpetological Society, 2005.

Keyler, DE. and J. Wilzbacher. Timber rattlesnake reproduction at Great River Bluffs
State Park (2000-2002) Minnesota. Unpublished report. St. Paul: Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Nongame Wildlife Program, Conservation
Biology Research Grants Program, 2002.

Kidd, A.H., R. M. Kidd and R.L. Zasloff. “Developmental factors in Positive Attitudes
toward Zoo Animals.” Psychological Reports 76 (1995): 71-81.

Kingsbury, B.A. Conservation approach for eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus
catenatus). Milwaukee: USDA-Forest Service, Eastern Region of the Forest
Service Threatened and Endangered Species Program, 2002.

Kipling, R. The Jungle Book. Doubleday: Garden City, 1894.

Klauber, L.M. Rattlesnakes: Their Habits, Life Histories, and Influence on Mankind.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

Klieger, D.M. “The Snake Anxiety Questionnaire as a measure of Ophidiophobia.”
Educational and Psychological Measurement 47 (1987): 449-459.

Koval, M.H. and AG. Mertig. Attitudes toward Natural Resources and their
Management: a Report on the “2002 Resource Attitudes in Michigan Survey. ”
East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2002.

Kratz, T.K. and G.L. Jensen. "Minnesota’s landscape regions.” Natural Areas Journal 3
(1983): 33-44.

Kress, SW. A study of the modification of children ’s negative attitudes toward animals.
Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1975.

LaBarre, W. They shall take up serpents: Psychology of the southern snake-handling
cult. New York: Schocken Books, 1969.

Lancia, R.A. “Foreword.” In Techniques for Wildlife Investigations and Management, v,
edited by GE. Braun. Bethesda: The Wildlife Society, 2005.

276

Lang, P.J. and AD. Lazovik. “ Experimental Desensitization of a Phobia.” Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 66 (1963): 519-525.

Lange, K.I. A Postglacial Vegetational History of Sauk County and Caledonia Township,
Columbia County, south-central Wisconsin, Technical Bulletin 168. Madison:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1990.

Langley, W.M., H.W. Lipps, and J .F. Theis. “Responses of Kansas Motorists to Snake

Models on a Rural Highway.” Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science
92, no.1-2 (1989): 43-48.

Lee, Y. and R. Christoffel. Learning to Live with the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake:
Initiating a Public Education and Outreach Program in Southeast Michigan,
Report Number 2005-20, Lansing: Michigan State University Extension and
Michigan Natural Features Inventory, 2005.

Legge, J.T. Final report on the Status and Distribution of the Eastern Massasauga
Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) in Michigan. Unpublished report.
Fort Snellilng: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, 1996.

Legge, J.T. and MR. Rabe. Summary of recent sightings of the eastern massasauga
rattlesnake (S. c. catenatus) in Michigan and identification of significant
population clusters. Unpublished report. Fort Snelling: US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 3, 1994.

Levell, J .P. A field guide to reptiles and the law, rev. 2nd edition. Lanesboro: Serpent’s
Tale, 1997.

Lipsey, M.W. Design sensitivity: Statitstical power for experimental research. Newbury
Park: Sage Publications, Inc., 1990.

Lischka, S. Enabling impact-based management of wildlife populations: a novel method
to identify the effects of wildlife on stakeholders. Master’s Thesis, Michigan State
University, 2006.

Litvak, S.B. “Attitude change by Stimulus Exposures.” Psychological Reports 25
(1969): 391-396.

Loker, CA, J. Shanahan, and DJ. Decker. “The mass media and stakeholders’ beliefs
about suburban wildlife.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4 (1999): 7-26.

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

277

Massasauga Recovery Team. Third International Symposium and Workshop on
Conservation of the Eastern Massasauga, Sistrurus catenatus: Population
Viability and Outreach. 2005 October 12-14, Toronto Zoo, Ontario.
http://www.brocku.ca/massasagga, 2006.

 

Mattison, C. The Encyclopedia of Snakes. New York: Facts on File, 1996.
Maurer, A. “What Children Fear.” Journal of Genetic Psychology, 106 (1965): 265-277.

McMurry, Martha. Minnesota Household Projections 2000-2030. St. Paul: Minnesota
State Demographic Center, 2003.

Menez, A. The Subtle Beast: Snakes, from Myth to Medicine. London: Taylor & Francis,
2003.

Merkelbach, H., M.A. Van den Hout, and GM. Van der Molen. “Fear of Animals:
Correlations between Fear Rating and Perceived Characteristics.” Psychological
Reports 60 (1987): 1203-1209.

Meyers, O.E., Jr., C.D. Saunders and AA. Birjulin. “Emotional dimensions of watching
zoo animals: an experience sampling study building on insights from
psychology.” Curator Vol. 47, No.3 (2004): 299-321.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan GAP state land ownership
(stewardship) digital geospatial data. Lansing: Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Land and Minerals Services Office, 2000.

Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan 's Special Animals at
http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/data/specialanimals.cfm, accessed January 30,
2007.

Miller, S.M., SD. Miller, and D.W. McCollum. “Attitudes toward and relative value of
Alaskan brown and black bears to resident voters, resident hunters, and
nonresident hunters.” Ursus 10 (1998): 357-376.

Mineka, S., R. Keir, and V. Price. “Fear of Snakes in Wild- and Laboratory-reared
Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta).” Animal Learning & Behavior 8, no. 4

(1980): 653-663..

Mineka, S., M. Davidson, M. Cook and R. Keir. “Observational conditioning of snake
fear in rhesus monkeys.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 93 (1984): 355-372.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Timber Rattlesnake in Minnesota.
St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998.

278

Minnesota Departmentof Natural Resources,
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ets/amphibians.html, accessed January 30, 2007.

Minnesota State Planning Agency. Minnesota Public Lands. St. Paul: Land Management
Information Center, 1983.

Minnis, D.L. Cultural Carrying Capacity and Stakeholders’ Attitudes Associated with
the Deer Crop Damage Issue in Michigan. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1997.

Minnis, D.L., and RB. Peyton. “Cultural carrying capacity: modeling a notion.” In
Urban deer: a manageable resource? edited by J .B. MCAninch, pp. 19-34,
Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife
Society, 1995.

Minton, S.A. Jr. and MR. Minton. Venomous Reptiles. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1969.

Mischel, W. “Sex Typing and Socialization.” In Carmichael ’3 Manual of Child
Development, Vol. 2, edited by RH. Mussen, New York: Wiley, 1970.

Mittermeier, R.A., J .L. Carr, I.R. Swingland, T.B. Werner, and RB. Mast.
“Conservation of amphibians and reptiles.” In Herpetology: Current Research on
the Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles, edited by K.Adler, Proceedings of the
First World Congress of Herpetology, 59-80. Oxford: Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles, 1992.

More, T.A. “Wildlife preferences and children’s books.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 7
(1979): 274-278.

Morgan, B.W., C. Lee, L. Damiano, K. Whitlow and R. Geller. “Reptile Envenomation
20-year Mortality as Reported by US Medical Examiners.” The Southern Medical
Journal 97, no 7 (2004): 642-644.

Morgan, J. “Understanding the effects of cognitive dissonance during interpretation:
Implications for ‘hands-on’ programming.” Legacy 7 (1996): 1-7.

Morgan, J .M., and J .H. Gramann. “Predicting effectiveness of wildlife education
programs: a study of students’ attitudes and knowledge toward snakes.” Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 17 (1989): 501-509.

Morris, D. “An analysis of animal popularity.” International Zoo Yearbook 2 (1960):
60-61.

Morris, D. and R. Morris. Men and Snakes. London: Hutchinson & Co Ltd., 1965.

279

Morrison, J .J .1, J .H. Pearn, J. Covacevich, and J. Nixon. “Can Australians Identify
Snakes?” Medical Journal of Australia 2 (1983): 66-70.

Murray, E]. and F. Foote. “The Origins of Fear of Snakes.” Behaviour Research and
Therapy 17 (1979): 489-493.

Naber, J .R., M.J. Majeski, and AR. DeMars. Baseline Surveys for the Massasauga
Rattlesnake in Minnesota, 2002 and 2003 , Unpublished report. St. Paul:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2004.

Nelson-Le Gall, SA. and RA. Gumerman. “Children’s perceptions of helpers and
helper motivation.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 5 (1984):
1-12.

Nissenson, M. and S. Jonas. Snake Charm. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1995.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources,

httpzl/www.dnr.ohio.gov/wildlife/resources/mgtplans/specieslist.htm, accessed
January 30, 2007.

Ohman, A. and S. Mineka. “The Malicious Serpent: Snakes as a Prototypical Stimulus
for an Evolved Module of Fear.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 12,
no. 1 (2003): 5-9.

Oldfield, B. and J .J . Moriarty. Amphibians and Reptiles Native to Minnesota.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.

Organ, J .F., and MR. Ellingwood. “Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for black
bears, beavers and other beasts in the east.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5
(2000): 63-75.

O’Shea, M. Venomous snakes of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Pate, J ., M.J. Manfredo, A.D. Bright and G. Tischbein. “Coloradans’ attitudes toward

reintroducing the gray wolf into Colorado.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(1996):
421-428.

Petty, RE. and J .T. Cacioppo. “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.” In
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 19, edited by L. Berkowitz,
123-205. New York: Acadmic Press, 1986.

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

280

Pierce, C.L., M.J. Manfredo and J.J. Vaske. “Social Science Theories in Wildlife
Management.” In Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America,
edited by D]. Decker, T.L. Brown, and W.F. Siemer, pp. 39-56. Bethesda: The
Wildlife Society, 2001.

Povey, K.D. and J. Rios. “Using Interpretive Animals to Deliver Affective Messages in
Zoos.” Journal of Interpretation Research 7, no. 2 (2004): 19-28.

Prior, K.A., and F.J. Weatherhead. “Response of Free—ranging Eastern Massasauga
Rattlesnakes to Human Disturbance.” Journal of Herpetology 28, no. 2 (1994):
255-257.

Reading, R.P., B]. Miller and SR. Kellert. “Values and Attitudes toward Prairie Dogs.”
Anthrozoos, 12 (1999): 43-52.

Reames, J. and D.W. Rajecki. “Changing preschoolers’ attitudes toward animals: a zoo
program and an evaluation. National Association of Interpretation 1988 Research
Monograph, pp. 27-38, 1988.

Reed, RN. and R. Shine. “Lying in Wait for Extinction: Ecological Correlates of
Conservation Status among Australian Elapid Snakes.” Conservation Biology 16
(2002): 451-461.

Reinert, H.K., D. Cundall and L.M. Bushar. “Foraging Behavior of the Timber
Rattlesnake,Crotalus horridus.” Copeia 1984 (4): 976-981.

Richmond, J .M., and RF. Morgan. A National Survey of the Environmental Knowledge
and Attitudes of fifih-year pupils in England. Environmental Education Report,
ERIC/SMEAC Information Reference Center, 1977.

Riley, S.J. Integration of environmental, biological, and human dimensions for
management of mountain lions (Puma concolor) in Montana. Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, 1998.

Riley, 8.]. Personal communication via written review of Chapter 6 of dissertation, 2007.
Riley, S.J., and D]. Decker (a). Risk Perception as a Factor in Wildlife Stakeholder
Acceptance Capacity for Cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5

(2000): 50-62.

Riley, SJ. and D]. Decker (b). Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in
Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28 (2000): 931-939.

Riley, S.J., DJ. Decker, L.H. Carpenter, G.F. Mattfield, G. Parsons, and J .F. Organ. The
essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30 (2002): 585-593.

281

Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press, 1973.

Rosen, RC. and CH. Lowe. “Highway Mortality of Snakes in the Sonoran Desert of
southern Arizona.” Biological Conservation 68 (1994): 143-148.

Rosenthal, R. “Parametric measures of effect size.” In The Handbook of Research
Synthesis, edited by H. Cooper and L. Hedges, pp. 231-244. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.

Sargent, L. Personal communication at Michigan Eastern Massasauga Working Group
meeting held at East Lansing field office of USFWS.

Schoenecker, K.A., and W.W. Shaw. “Attitudes toward a proposed re-introduction of
Mexican gray wolves in Arizona.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2, no.3
(1997):42-55.

Schwartz, S. “Glad Tidings.” In Faith, Serpents, and Fire, pp. 5-25. Jackson: University
Press of Mississippi, 1999.

Scott, NJ. Jr., and RA. Seigel. ”The management of amphibian and reptile populations:
species priorities and methodological and theoretical constraints.” In Wildlife
2001: Populations, edited by DR. McCullough and RH. Barrett, pp. 343- 368.
London: Elsevier Applied Science, 1992.

Sei gel, R.A. “Ecology and Conservation of an Endangered Rattlesnake, Sistrus
catenatus, in Missouri, USA.” Biological Conservation 35 (1986): 333-346.

Sei gel, R.A., and C]. Sheil. “Conservation and Recovery.” In Second International
Symposium and Workshop on the Conservation of the Eastern Massasauga
Rattlesnake, Sistrurus catenatus catenatus: Population and Habitat Management
Issues in Urban, Bog, Prairie and Forested Ecosystems, edited by B. Johnson and
M. Wright. Toronto: Toronto Zoo, 1999.

Seshadri, D. “To Save the Snake: Education and Conservation at the Madras Snake
Park.” Oryx 18, no. 2 (1984): 79-81.

Shadish, W.R., T.D. Cook, and D.T. Campbell. Experimental and Quasi-experimental

Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
2002.

Shadish, W.R., G.E. Matt, A.M. Navarro, and G. Phillips. The effects of psychological

therapies under clinically representative conditions: a meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin 126 (2000): 512-529.

282

Shalev, A. and D. Ben-Mordehai. “Snakes: Interactions with Children with Disabilities

and the Elderly — some Psychological Considerations.” Anthrozoos D(, no. 4
(1996): 182-187.

Shelby, B., and T.A. Heberlein. Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis:
Oregon State University Press, 1986.

Sherif, M., and CI. Hovland. Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Eflects in
Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961.

Shine, R. and J .K. Webb. “Natural History of Australian Typhlopid Snakes.” Journal of
Herpetology 24 (1990): 357-363.

Siemer, W.F., R.B. Peyton, and DJ. Witter. “Teachers’ attitudes toward animals:
implications for conservation education.” Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 52 (1987): 460-467.

Sjoberg, L. “Worry and risk perception.” Risk Analysis 18 (1998): 85-93.

Slovic, P. “Perception of Risk.” Science. 236 (1987): 280-285.

Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. “Rating the Risks.” Environment 21, no. 3
(1979): 14-39.

Slovic, P., H. Kunreuther and G.F. White. “Decision Processes, Rationality and
Adjustment to Natural Hazards.” In Natural Hazards: Local, National,

Global. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1974.

Smolinske, Susan, Michigan Poison Control Center. Personal communication, 2006.

Somervill, J .W., S.A. Mullenberg, B.L. Benz and M. Chaisson. “Sex of experimenter and
effects of pretest interactions on approaching a snake by fearful female subjects.”
Perceptual and Motor Skills 53 (1981): 403-406.

Southeast Michigan Council of Gorvemments (SEMCOG). 2030 Regional Development
Forecast for Southeast Michigan: Populations, Households, and Jobs, for Cities,
Villages, and Townships 1990-2030. Detroit: SEMCOG, 2001.

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Versions 13.0 and 15.0, SPSS, Chicago.

Steinhart, P. “Fear of Snakes.” Audubon 86, no. 2 (1984): 6-9.

Stout, R.J., R.C. Stedman, D]. Decker, and BA. Knuth. “Perceptions of risk from

deer-related vehicle accidents: implications for public preferences for deer herd
size.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 21 (1993): 237-249.

283

Stutesman, D. “Snake.” London: Reaktion Books, 2005.

Surinova, M. “An analysis of the popularity of animals.” International Zoo Yearbook
11(1971): 165-167.

Swanagan, J .8. “Factors Influencing Zoo Visitors’ Conservation Attitudes and Behavior.”
Journal of Environmental Education 31, no. 4 (2000): 26-31.

Szymanski, J.A. Status Assessment for the Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus c. catenatus).
Fort Snelling: US. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998.

Taylor, SE, and DE. Samuel. “Wildlife Knowledge and Attitudes of Public School
Teachers.” Proceedings of the Conference of the Southeastern Association of
Game and Fish Commissions 29 (1975): 759-765.

Texas Parks and Wildlife. Commercial Nongame Permit: Regulations, Exceptions and
General Information. PWD BR W7000-618. Austin: Texas Parks and Wildlife, 2004.

Thomas, J .K. and CE. Adams. “The social organization of rattlesnake roundups in rural
communities.” Sociological Spectrum 13 (1993): 433-449.

US. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts website,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states.

 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. United States Fish and Wildlife Resource
Conservation Priorities, Region 3, Version 2.0. Fort Snelling: United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, 2002.

US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Assistance. Federal Aid
Apportionment Information. United States Fish and Wildlife Service website:
http://federa1asst.fws. gov/apport/apport.htrnl, 2006.

University of Minnesota, Department of Soil Science, USDA Soil Conservation Service,
Minnesota Geological Survey. Minnesota Soil Atlas: St. Paul sheet. St. Paul:
University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Report
120, 1973.

Vaughn, C., J. Gack, H. Solorazano, and R. Ray. “The effects of Environmental
Education on Schoolchildren, Their Parents, and Community Members: A Study
of Intergenerational and lntercommunity Learning.” Journal of Environmental
Education 34, no. 3 (2003): 12-21.

Vogt, R.C. Natural History of Amphibians and Reptiles of Wisconsin. Milwaukee:
Milwaukee Public Museum, 1981.

284

Warwick, C. 1990. “Disturbance of natural habitats arising from rattlesnake round-ups.”
Environmental Conservation 172-175.

Warwick, C., C. Steedman and T. Holford. 1991. “Rattlesnake collection drives — their
implications for species and environmental conservation.” Oryx 25 (1): 39-44.

Weidensaul, S. Snakes of the World. Secaucus: Chartwell Books, Inc., 1991.

Weir, J. “The Sweetwater Rattlesnake Round-up: a Case Study in Environmental
Ethics.” Conservation Biology 6 (1992): 116-127.

West, BC. and J .A. Parkhurst. “Interactions between deer damage, deer density, and
stakeholder attitudes in Virginia.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, no. 1 (2002):
139—147.

Westervelt, MO. and LG. Llewellyn. Youth and Wildlife: the Beliefs and Behaviors of
Fifth and Sixth Grade Students regarding Non-domestic Animals. Washington:
Division of Program Plans, Office of Planning and Budget, United States Fish and

Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, US. Government Printing Office,
1985.

Whitaker, PB. and R. Shine. “When, Where and Why do People Encounter Australian
Brownsnakes (Pseudonaja textiles, Elapidae)?” Wildlife Resources 26 (1999):
675-688. '

Whitaker, PB, and R. Shine. “Sources of Mortality of large Elapid Snakes in an
Agricultural Landscape.” Journal of Herpetology 34 (2000): 121-128.

Williams, C.K., G. Ericsson and T.A. Heberlein. “A quantitative summary of attitudes
toward wolves and their reintroduction (l972-2000).” Wildlife Society Bulletin 30
(2002): 575-584.

Wilson, E0. ”The Serpent.” In Biophilia, pp. 81-101. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1984.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Endangered and Threatened
Species Laws & List, PUBL-ER-OOI REV 2004. Madison: Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources, 2004.

Wolch, J .R., A. Gullo, and U. Lassiter. “Changing attitudes toward Califomia’s
cougars.” Society and Animals 5, no.2 (1997): 95-116.

Wright, L.M., S.W. Holbom, and PE. Rezutek. “An Experimental test of Stimulus

Estimation Theory: Danger and Safety with Snake Phobic Stimuli.” Behaviour,
Research and Therapy 40 (2002): 911-922.

285

Wyer, RS. and T. Srull. The Handbook of Social Cognition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1984.

Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service. Black-tailed prairie dog Management Survey:
Report of Results. Cheyenne: Wyoming Department of Game and Fish, 2001.

Yerkes, RM. and A.W. Yerkes. “ Nature and Conditions of Avoidance (fear) Response
in Chimpanzee.” Journal of Comparative Psychology 21 (1936): 53-66.

Young, RA. and AT. Kent. “Using the theory of reasoned action to improve the
understanding of recreation behavior.” Journal of Leisure Research .17 (1985):
90-106.

Zajonc, R.B. “Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology Monographs 9, Supplement, Part 2. (1968): 1-27.

Zajonc, R.B. “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences need no lnferences.” American
Psychologist 35 (1980): 151-175.

Zimbardo, P.G., and MR. Leippe. The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social
Influence. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1991.

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

Zinn, H. and W. Andelt. “Attitudes of Fort Collins, Colorado residents toward prairie
dogs.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 27 (1999): 1098-1106.

Zuefle, D. M. Southern Ohio Residents'Attitudes Toward Timber Rattlesnakes and Their
Management: A Focus Group Study. The Plains: Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, 2000.

Zu g, G.R., L.J. Vitt, and JP. Caldwell. Herpetology: An introductory Biology of
Amphibians and Reptiles, 2nd edition. San Diego: Academic Press, 2001.

286

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSIT IIIIIIIII

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll