"“vu‘ . .~
WE...
'f
.
.

 

Illuminzlfluulluuwwill" L

LIBRARY

4E5m

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN EVALUATION OF MICHIGAN'S HUNTER ACCESS
PROGRAM FROM THE PARTICIPANT LANDOWNER'S PERSPECTIVE

presented by

David George Feltus '

c. -

has been accepted towards fulfillment ,
of the requirements for ‘

Master 0.f_S_c.i.ens:.e_degreein_Dep.ar.tmenL of Perk &

Recreation Resources

.
I O
? ‘ l

‘

Mfimmmflaun

 

Date_lioxemher_8.._1219. .

0-7639

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY ‘
mm mm

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

  
 
  

 

 

 

AN EVALUATION OF MICHIGAN‘S HUNTER.ACCESS PROGRAM
FROM THE PARTICIPANT LANDOWNER'S PERSPECTIVE

By

David George Feltus

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF MICHIGAN'S HUNTER ACCESS PROGRAM
FROM THE PARTICIPANT LANDOWNER'S PERSPECTIVE

By

David George Feltus

In 1977 Michigan's Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
initiated a program intended to increase hunting opportunities
in southern lower Michigan. The DNR pays landowners to al-
low hunters on their land.

Many areas of uncertainty exist about the best way to
conduct such a program.- In order to remove some of these un-
certainties current and former participant landowners were
sent a questionnaire. The questionnaire included a variety
of questions designed to: identify the landowner's character-
istics as a pOpulation, provide information about their re-
lations with hunters, and discover their likes and dislikes
about the programs

Findings include that most respondents (77%) allowed
public hunting prior to participation and described their
relation with hunters as good or excellent (57%). Approximately
a third of the respondents felt the program improved their
relations with hunters and most respondents (96%) intend to
continue participating.

For purposes of analysis respondents were divided into
five subgroups: "all respondents", "all participants",
"dropouts and non-renews", "non-urban fringe participants",

and "urban fringe participants".

This thesis is dedicated to my parents. Without their

support and faith in me it would not have been written.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks go to Donald Holecek, my major professor, for
his help and encouragement throughout this study. I am also
grateful to Daniel Stynes, who was always willing to give of
his time and expertise.

Frances Piper's assistance in the preparation of the
study was invaluable and is very much appreciated. Linda
Hammer, who typed this thesis, deserves special thanks for
her efforts.

I am also very grateful to the friends who helped me at
all stages of my research.and to the work study students who
aided in the preparation of the survey.

Finally, I wish to thank Ed and Dianne Panozzo who have

always been there when I needed them.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

CHAPTER
I

II
III

IV

V.

INTRODUCTION ........................ . .....

Background Information ....... - ..........
The Problem. ......................... ...
Objectives of the Study ................
Limitations of the Study ...............
Organization of the Thesis .............

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................
METHODOLOGY ...............................

Sample Size ............................
Census Characteristics .................
Questionnaire ..........................
Census Frame ...........................
Followeup Procedures ...................
Response Rate ..........................
Data Processing ........................
Subgroup Composition ...................

GENERAL FINDINGS ..........................
Data Presentation ..................... .

Demographic Information ................
Socio-Economic Data ....................

Summary: Demographic and Socio-Economic

Data ................................
Hunting ................................
Hunter Relations .......................
Summary: Hunting and Hunter Relations..

Program Participation ..................

Summary: Program.Participation .........

DISCUSSION OF SUBGROUPS ...................

"Dropouts and Non-Renews" and "All
Participants" Subgroups ............
"Non-Urban Fringe Participants" and

Page

vi

17
18
l9
19
20
20

23
23
23
24
31
38
52
53
69
73

77

"Urban Fringe Participants" subgroups.80

iv

Page

CHAPTER
VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... 85
Conclusions ........................... 85
Recommendations ....................... 88
Further Research ...................... 89
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A Questionnaire ................... 92
B. Cover letters and Reminder Post-
card ......................... 96
C List of Cities and Type 1 and
Type 2 Townships ............. 101
D Table 32: Percent Organization
Membership ................... 105
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................... 106

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE
TABLE

TABLE

10.
11.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

RESPONDENTS WITH INCOME ABOVE OR BELOW

STATE MEDIAN OF $18,000 BY SUBGROUP...

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS INCOME COMING FROM
FARMING ...............................

PRIMARY REASON GIVEN BY RESPONDENTS FOR
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY IN THE PAS

PROGRAM ...............................

MEAN AND MEDIAN ACREAGE OWNED BY RESPON-
DENTS IN SOUTHERN LOWER MICHIGAN BY

SUBGROUP ..............................

ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH MORE THAN TEN
PERCENT OF THE RESPONDENTS BELONG,

BY SUBGROUP ...........................

RESPONDENTS FIVE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCES
OF INFORMATION ON MATTERS PERTAINING

TO THEIR LAND .........................

WHO RESPONDENTS ALLOWED TO HUNT ON THEIR
LAND PRIOR TO PAS PARTICIPATION, BY

SUBGROUP.. ............................

NEW HUNTERS ON RESPONDENTS LAND FOR THE

1978-79 HUNTING SEASON ................

NUMBERS OF HUNTERS ON RESPONDENTS'
PROPERTIES DURING THE 1978-79 HUNTING
SEASON WHO HAD NOT HUNTED ON THEM IN

PREVIOUS YEARS ........................
PERCENT OF HUNTING USE BY PERIOD .........

RESPONDENTS RELATIONS WITH HUNTERS

BEFORE PAS PARTICIPATION ..............

RESPONDENTS' ATTITUDE TOWARDS HUNTING

BY SUBGROUP ...........................

vi

Page
24
25
26
28
30

31

33

35

36
37

39

40

Page

TABLE 13. SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH HUNTERS EXPER-
IENCED BY RESPONDENTS .................. 42

TABLE 14. SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BEFORE
AND AFTER PAS PARTICIPATION BY RESPON-
DENTS WITH HUNTERS, BY SUBGROUP ........ 44

TABLE 15. MOST SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS OF RESPONDENTS 4
WITH HUNTERS, BY SUBGROUP .............. 5

TABLE 16. RESPONDENTS' RANKING OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
BY SUBGROUP ............................ 48

TABLE 17” CROSS-TABULATION OF MEAN SCORE FOR PROBLEMS
BY WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT HAD SIGNIFI-

CANT PROBLEMS WITH HUNTERS ............. 50
TABLE 18. CHANGE IN RESPONDENTS' RELATIONS WITH

HUNTERS AFTER PROGRAM:PARTICIPATION, 51

BY SUBGROUP ............................ .

TABLE 19. RESPONSES BY SUBGROUP ON WHETHER PARTICI-
PANTS' NEIGHBOR COMMENTED ON HIS PAS
PARTICIPATION .......................... 53

TABLE 20. BREAKDOWN OF NEIGHBOR COMMENTS ON PROGRAM
PARTICIPATION BY SUBGROUP .............. 55

TABLE 21. PROGRAM FEATURES WHICH RESPONDENTS LIKE
BEST, BY SUBGROUP ...................... 55

TABLE 22. WHAT RESPONDENTS LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE PAS 53
PROGRAM ................................

TABLE 23. POSSIBLE CHANGES IN PAS PROGRAM WHICH
RESPONDENTS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT ....... 50

TABLE 24. AVERAGE RANKS FOR IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS 61

TABLE 25. RESPONDENTS' FIVE MOST FREQUENT IMPROVEMENT
SUGGESTIONS ........................... 53

TABLE 26. RESPONSES BY SUBGROUP ON WHETHER PARTICIPANTS
WOULD BE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN PAS
PROGRAM WITHOUT RENUMERATION .......... 54

TABLE 27. CROSS-TABULATION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE
DROPPED OUT OF THE PAS PROGRAM OR WHO
DO NOT INTEND TO RENEW THEIR LEASE BY
URBAN FRINGE STATUS ................... 55

vii

TABLE 28.
TABLE 29 .

TABLE 30 .

TABLE 31 .
TABLE 32.

WHY DROPOUTS DISCONTINUED PARTICIPATION. . .

REASONS GIVEN FOR RENEWING PAS PROGRAM
LEASE, BY PARTICIPANT SUBGROUP .........

REASONS GIVEN FOR NOT RENEWING PAS PRO-
GRAM LEASE .............................

COMPARISON OF SUBGROUP RESULTS ............
PERCENT ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP. . . . . . . . . .

viii

70
74
105

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Throughout the United States, hunting pressures on pub-
lic lands are rising. This problem.is especially evident in
Michigan where 90% of the state's population is confined to
its southern third (Zone III). Over three-quarters of
‘Michigan's hunters also live in this region. In order to
increase hunting opportunities for these roughly 375,000
hunters the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
has established the Public Access Stamp (PAS) program. This
study was designed to evaluate the program and provide infor-
mation to help improve and expand it.

Background Information

While landowners have the right to restrict access to
their property, the game living on their land is a common
property resource. It has traditionally been the responsi-
bility of the states to provide or insure access to this
resource. However, providing and insuring such access is
becoming increasingly difficult and expensive.

Michigan encompasses more than 36,000,000 acres of land.
Over one-third of this land is closed to hunting for a
variety of reasons (Boyce, 1975). This figure does not in-
clude posting against hunting on any of the state's roughly

12,000,000 acres of farmland. There are only 40 acres of
l

2

land per Michigan hunting license and only four acres per
‘Michigan resident (Womach, 1975). If you divide the state
into three roughly equal parts, one of these parts, the
southern one-third of the state (Zone III), contains 90% of
the population. It contains 80% of the state's hunters
(Boyce, 1975).

Many Michigan hunters complain of increased posting and
claim they must travel further to hunt and that they hunt
less than they did in the past (Womach, 1975). In 1955, 15%
of Michigan wildland was fenced (Barrett, 1955). A 1958 study
of pheasant hunting found that 41% of the farmers asked, re-
fused to allow hunting on the first request (Zorb, 1959).
Palmer (1967) found that 25% of hunters sampled had trouble
getting or never got permission to hunt on private lands.
Only 6% of the hunters sampled were seldom or never refused
permission to hunt. In the same study hunters who hunted
exclusively on the private land of strangers averaged less
than seven days in the field, the lowest of any Michigan
group.

There are only 260,000 acres of huntable state owned
land in southern lower Michigan (WOmach, 1975). Hunters who
hunt on those lands average over eight days in the field per
season, the highest of any Michigan group (Palmer, 1967).
They have better hunting success than private land hunters
as well. A partial reason for this may be that private land
hunters hunt where they know they will be accepted, rather
than take chances asking to hunt on new land with good habitat

where they may be refused.

State game areas studied in 1955-56 and 1961-62 showed
a 62% increase in man hours hunted in the five year period
between studies (Palmer, 1967). During the 1965 hunting
season non-hunting use of state owned game lands was only 4%.
By the 1975-76 season such use had risen to 44% (Belyea and
Lerg, 1976).

Competition between hunters and non-hunting users of
state game land is rising rapidly. In the past the solution
to this kind of problem has been the fee simple acquisition
of additional public land.

However, as open lands have decreased in size and number,
acquisition costs have risen dramatically (Mahoney, 1975).
The opportunity costs of forgone products from farm and
other lands acquired for exclusive recreational use have also
risen. Michigan agencies charged with the acquisition of
recreation lands, estimated that between 1971 and 1975
acquisition costs rose approximately 18%.

In many cases, purchase of new land for hunting use is
too costly and removal of land from production may be too
damaging to be practical. In Michigan these problems are
compounded by the requirement that the DNR pay full property
taxes on state owned hunting land. Each new purchase im-
poses a permanent financial burden on the agency. Less than
fee simple techniques for acquiring hunting rights on private
lands may help solve these problems. Easements in particular,
are less expensive and less disruptive of production than
other methods of land acquisition (Mahoney, 1975). Base-

ments secure rights of use, or limitations on use and do not

displace the original owner.

The Problem

 

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources' Public
Access Stamp (PAS) program was conceived and designed to
combat the increasing scarcity of hunting lands. The program
acquires hunter access rights, or easements} on private lands
Lin Zone III, the southern third of Michigan.

Rural landowners are paid by the DNR's Wildlife Division
to allow public hunting on their land. The fee varies from
$.50 to $2.50 per acre depending upon the land's habitat
quality. For this money landowners must post their land
with signs indicating that they are participants in the pro-
gram and must be available to issue permission tags to hunters
who wish to hunt. Landowners must allow any licensed hunter
access to their land but may limit numbers to one for every
ten acres of land they have in the program.

The first hunting season (1977-78) that the program.was
in operation, 473 landowners representing 93,500 acres of
hunting land participated. For the 1978-79 season 65 new
landowners were enrolled and 12,500 acres of land were added
to the program. A

In 1982 the PAS program.will come up for legislative
reapproval. At that time, the program's success in expanding

Zone III hunting opportunities will be evaluated. This study

 

1

While the DNR calls the agreements "leases" they are
not, at least in the legal definition of the term. "Ease-
‘ment" comes closer to describing their function.

5

was supported, in part, by the DNR in order to acquire in-
formation which would be useful in evaluating and improving
the program. Three groups are important in such an evalua-
tion, landowners, hunters, and DNR Wildlife Division person-
nel. Ideally, all three would be sampled to provide infor-
'mation for program evaluation. However, time and cost fac-
tors limited this study to a subset of the landowner group.

Current and former participant landowners were selected
as the target group for this study. They were chosen for
several reasons:

(1) The relatively low number of acres and land-
owners enrolled, viewed as problems by DNR
program.administrators, are best addressed
by current and former participant landowners.

(2) Current and former participant landowners are
more familiar with the program than the
general population of rural landowners.

(3) Lists of current and former participant land-
owners were readily available from the DNR.

Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study is to provide infor—
mation which will enable the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources to make the PAS program more effective.

The study's specific objectives are:

(1) Identify demographic and socio-economic
characteristics of current and former program

participant landowners.

6

(2) Determine current and former participant
landowners' relations with hunters.
(a) Relations before participation
(b) Relations after participation

(3) Determine current and former participant
landowners' problems with hunters.
(a) Problems before participation
(b) Problems after participation

(4) Identify major likes and dislikes about the
PAS program for current and former partici-
pant landowners.

In order to accomplish the first of these objectives re-
spondents were asked a variety of questions about their in-
come, land ownership, organization membership, and informa-
tion sources. The second and third objectives were addressed
by questions on the landowner's attitude towards hunting,
past and present hunter relations, and hunter related problems.
The final objective was the subject of a number of questions
on major likes and dislikes about the program, improvement
suggestions, reasons for continuing or discontinuing parti-
cipation, and compliance with program regulations.

While the questionnaire included over 50 questions, data
from only 33 of them are reported in this analysis. Results
from questions not included in this thesis were omitted for
several reasons. First, a few questions were frequently
misinterpreted by respondents, greatly impairing interpreta-
tion of the data. Second, in several cases questions were

included as "double checks" on response consistency. When

responses to this type of questions were consistent with
those to the primary question the "double check" responses
were omitted. Third, some questions, despite appearing to
be useful, failed to provide information pertinent to achiev-
ing study objectives. Finally, the mass of data accumulated
far exceeded that which could be presented in one document.

Limitations of the Study

 

The study has four major limitations: respondents' mis-
interpretation of questions, recall problems, self-evaluation
bias and non-response bias. Misinterpretation of questions
is inescapable with a mailed questionnaire because there is
no interviewer to clarify confusing or misleading questions.
Many problems of this type were discovered and corrected
during pretests of the questionnaire (see Appendix A for copy
of questionnaire).

Recall problems occur when respondents are asked to supply
information on events which they may have forgotten, or remem-
ber inaccurately. These problems increase in severity as
the period between an event and a request for information
about that event lengthens. Additionally, specific informa-
tion is subject to greater recall problems than general in-
formation. While steps were taken to minimize recall problems
in this study, they may still be significant for several
questions.

Self-evaluation bias can occur when respondents are
requested to answer questions which.tbey believe can affect
their well being. Such questions as "Would you be willing

to pay two dollars more than you are now paying to use the

8

swimming beach?" tend to elicit negative responses, even
from.those respondents who would be willing to pay, if those
sampled believe their responses might cause the agency in
question to actually increase the beach use charge. 0n the
other hand, if respondents feel certain their responses won't
affect agency policy they may tend to exagerate their willing-
ness to accept fee increases and other "negative" policy
decisions. 3

Non-response bias may be present and undetected because
the high response rate obtained with the census made non-
response follow-up appear unwarranted. However, recent work
by Brown and Wilkins (1978) indicates that "where a notable
proportion of the sample (even 10 or 15 percent) has with-
drawn from, or is no longer actively involved in the subject
of the survey" nonresponse bias can be especially highs The
Public Access Stamp program.fits this description quite
closely and non-response bias, if present, would most likely
affect results for "all respondents" and the "dropouts and
non-renews" subgroups.

Organization of the Thesis

 

The thesis is divided into 5 additional chapters. Chapter
II is comprised of a review of literature pertinent to this
study. In Chapter III study methodology is discussed. The
principle findings of the study are presented in Chapter IV.
The subgroups are discussed in Chapter V and conclusions are

presented in Chapter VI.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Four studies will be discussed in this chapter. The
first three dealt with the general issue of public access to
private land in Michigan. The final study was conducted to
evaluate the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service's (ASCS) Pilot Public Access Programs This program
was a nation wide experiment in providing public recreational
access to private farm.land.

In a study of landowners in southern lower Michigan‘s
"thum " area Parker (1975) found that their median age lay
between 51 and 60 and that 65% of them had incomes of over
$10,000. pear year. Sixty-one percent received at least half
of their income from their land. Respondents‘ median acreage
was 156 acres. This figure is biased in an upwards direction
because no landowners owning less than 50 acres were sampled
and response rates for larger landowners were higher than
that for smaller landowners. Further findings include that
85% of the respondents allowed at least some public hunting.
Mbre than half (52%) of the respondents reported having
trespass problems with hunters, and 28% reported hunter dis—
courtesy. Property damage (26%) and carelessness with

firearms (16%) were also mentioned as problems.

10

Landowners in the Parker study were asked about their
attitude towards "fee hunting". "Fee hunting" was described
as "any system.which would enable the landowner to earn addi-
tional income by charging people to hunt on his property."
Landowners opposed to "fee hunting" comprised 38% of the
sample and those who felt "fee hunting" was not worthwhile
made up 28%. While 38% expressed some interest in "fee
hunting". Interest in "fee hunting" increased with the
number of acres owned, and 50% of those respondents owning
260 or more acres expressed some interest in it.

Seventy-four percent of those responding to the question
felt $5.00 or less per acre per year would be sufficient
compensation for having "fee hunting" on their land. Only
37% of the respondents felt that such a program should be
conducted by government "leasing" of hunting rights.

Respondents expressed a number of concerns when asked
about participation in a formal public access program.

Among them.were control of trespass (93%), liability (93%),
and property damage (86%). Both the right to exclude hunters
whom the landowners did not wish hunting on their land and

a limitation on hunter numbers were felt to be highly desire-
able program.attributes by 98% of the respondents.

Westfall (1974) in a study of 195 Kent County landowners
found them to have a mean and median age of 53.8 years. More
than 68% of the respondents had incomes of over $10,000 per

year. The average size of the parcel investigated was 47.6

11

acres.1 The primary ownership objective for slightly over
31% of them was farming, while almost 13% specified invest-
ment.

Only 65.4% of the respondents allowed public hunting on
their land while 97.8% of them had such requests. Damage
was cited by 35.7% of the respondents as their first reason
for not allowing public hunting. Almost 20% cited safety
as their first reason, and control (16.1%) and moral consi-
derations (14.3%) were given as first reasons by a signifi-
cant percentage of the respondents.

Of the 12 respondents giving a second response, reasons
for not allowing public hunting included damages (33.3%),
liability (25%) and safety (25%).

In another question, respondents were asked to rate the
importance of a series of factors in relation to public re-
creational use Of their land. Damages were rated as very
important by 61.1% of the respondents, control was rated
very important by 54.9%, liability by 51.7% and number of
hunters by 51.7%.

Only 26.9% of the respondents were in favor of a govern—
ment program to provide public hunting on private land. Over
80% of those favoring such a program were willing to partici—

pate for $4.00 per acre or less.

 

1
Westfall supplies acreage data on only one parcel for
each landowner.

12

A study of 486 rural landowners was conducted by the
Michigan DNR in 1975 (Kitchel, 1978). Slightly over 68% of
the respondents were 45 or Older. Less than 45% of the re-
spondents owned more than 80 acres of land and less than
four percent owned more than 240 acres.2 The average respon-
dent owned 81 acres in Livingston County. Only ten percent
of those sampled considered themselves to be full time far-
mers, but approximately 40% did at least some farming.

Kitchel found that 55.3% of those sampled allowed
strangers who asked permission and/or anyone not causing pro-
belms (with or without permission) to use their land. Over
half the respondents reported having problems with hunters
using their land. Thirty-eight percent felt that landowner
problems with "uninvited people" had increased over the past
few years. The most commonly cited problem was property
damage, with loss of privacy and noise or general disturbance
also receiving frequent mention.

In regard to the state's leasing of private land for
recreation 58.7% thought it was a good idea. However, only
33.8% thought license fees ought to be used to pay for the
leases.

The following study investigated landowner reactions to
the ASCS Pilot Public Access Program (WOmach, 1975). This
program” which operated from 1971 to 1976, acquired public

recreation rights on rural land for a variety of activities

 

2
Applies only to total rural acreage owned in Livings«
ton County and excludes parcels less than 15 acres in size.

13

including hunting.

Participants were limited to landowners who were al-
ready associated with the ASCS. For the most part, this
restricted participation to farmers. This is in marked con-
trast to Michigan's PAS program in which any rural landowner :
may enroll.

The ASCS program allowed landowners to submit bids
offering their land for up to $3.00 per acre. The ASC county
committee then selected the lowest bidders for the desired
habitat types.

The program operated in ten states of which one was
Michigan. Five counties in Michigan were involved in the
program and 145,000 acres were enrolled.

The Womach study was confined to hunting use of the
program lands but included non-adjacent and adjacent non-
participant landowners as well as program participants.
Findings include that participants felt they had increased
visitation and claimed almost twice as many hunting visits
as non-participants. Participating farmers generally wanted
the program continued. Almost three quarters (74%) of the
participants allowed public hunting prior to the programs

WOmach concluded that Michigan was one of the states
in which the program was most successful and that Michigan
could benefit from expansion of the program. However, the
final recommendation of the study was that because the pro-
gram increased hunting opportunities through providing infor-
mation rather than by actually increasing acres available, it

should be discontinued.

14

Summary: Literature Review

The picture of Southern Lower Michigan rural landowners
which emerges from these studies shows the landowners to be
largely middle aged or older. The acreages owned are gener-
ally small, for the most part less than 80 acres. Farming is
the primary reason for ownership for about one-third of the
respondents.

More than half of those surveyed allow the public to
hunt on their lands, but many of the landowners had problems
with hunters. Chief among the problems mentioned was damage.
Liability and control were also considered important.-

Approval of a government sponsored program.to acquire
hunting rights on private lands ranged from 26.9% to 58.7%.
Among those who approved, the fee level required to involve
them in such a program was generally below $5.00 per acre.

In a study of the ASCS Pilot Public Access Program,
Womach found that participant landowners generally liked the
program and that almost three quarters of them had allowed
public hunting prior to participation. Womach also found the
program was generally successful in Michigan and that
Michigan could benefit from expansion of such a program.

The Public Access Stamp program is an extension of an
ASCS type program. This study is designed to evaluate and

provide information to help improve and expand it.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

The data for the study were obtained by mailed question-
naire. The questionnaires were sent to all current and past
participants in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources'
Public Access Stamp (PAS) program. Followeup procedures
consisted of a postcard to non-respondents followed by a
letter and second questionnaire to those who still had not
responded. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) was used to perform the data analysis.

Sample Size

Initially sample size was to be determined by the num-
ber of respondents required to confine sampling error to
:_5% with a 95% confidence interval. In order to establish
this confidence interval an estimate of population variance
had to be made. Data from a study of Kent County landowners
(Westfall, 1974) was available for estimation of population
variances. Estimates were obtained from responses given by
~landowners who favored paid public access hunting on private
lands. Variances were obtained for questions similar to
those used in the PAS study.

Most of the relevant questions were coded as binomial

variables. For several questions there was a 50/50 percentage

15

16

distribution between responses. This distribution produces
the maximum variance for binomial variables. A sample size
of four hundred is required to achieve the desired confi-
dence interval (95%) and level of confidence (: 5%) in such
cases (Babbie, 1973). Since this sample size closely appro-
ached the total size of the population in question a census
study was conducted rather than a sample survey.

Census Characteristics

 

The primary advantage of a census is that it virtually
eliminates sampling error. Of course, the problem of non-
response bias remains and is of greater or lesser impact de-
pending on the response rate. Primary disadvantages of
census are the time and money required, but in the case of
the Public Access Stamp program the size of the total popu-
lation was small enough to make a census study feasible.

Interpretation of census data is a significantly dif-
ferent from interpretation of survey data. Though such
statistical measures as mean, variance, and median still per-
tain, measures of significance such as chi-square, lambda,
gamma, T-tests, etc. are not applicable. These and other
tests of significance are used to make inferences about a
population from a sample, whereas a census supplies infor-
mation about a population directly. As a result only
descriptive statistics are used to convey the findings of

this study.

l7
Questionnaire

The choice of a mailed questionnaire as the census in-
strument was dictated by time and cost factors. Financial
and personnel resources were limited, and no other means of
contacting the 609 current and former PAS participants was
as inexpensive in time and money as a self-administered
mailed questionnaire.

Low response rates and improper question interpretation
by respondents are the main disadvantages of this type of
census instrument. To avoid a low response rate a cover
letter stressing the need for information and the importance
of the landowner‘s response was included with the initial
questionnaire. Cover’ letters to known dropouts were worded
somewhat differently than the participants' cover letters,
again in hopes of maximizing response (see Appendix B for
cover letters and postcards). A follow-up postcard and the
cover letter mailed with a second questionnaire were similarly
worded. The questionnaire was kept as brief as possible
while still fulfilling the needs of the study and was print-
ed on blue paper, a color previously found to maximize re-
sponse rates. The questionnaire was mailed out March 12,
1979, 11 days after the hunting season ended, in order to
obtain responses while program participants retained a high
level of interest and their recall was still fresh. In
order to minimize improper question interpretation questions
were kept as direct and simple as possible and additional

clarification was included where necessary.

18

Development of the questionnaire began in the spring
of 1978 and included personal interviews with several PAS
participants landowners. Because of the lengthy delay be-
tween these interviews and the census itself, these land-
owners were not excluded from the study.

In February of 1979 the census instrument was pretested.
Prototype questionnaires were mailed to 25 participant land-
owners. Twenty-three respondents returned the questionnaire.
Because of the close similarity between the pretest and the
final census instrument, pretest respondents were included
in the final data analysis. Revisions were completed in
February and the final version of the questionnaire was
mailed out early in March.

Census Frame

The census population numbered 609. It was taken from
two sources: the 1978-79 list of PAS participant landowners
published by the Michigan DNR for use by Southern Lower
Michigan hunters, and a list of program dropouts supplied
to the researchers by the DNR. Thus, the census population
consisted of all current and former PAS program participants.
To insure that responses came from this population the cover
letter indicated that the current or former PAS leasee should
be the one to complete the questionnaire. In order to pre-
vent landowners from receiving more than one questionnaire

the census lists were checked and duplicate names removed.

19

Follow-up

 

Daily response, rather than a predetermined schedule,
determined when follow-up procedures were carried out.
Reminder postcards were sent out when response had fallen to
eight or nine questionnaires per day. This occurred 16 days
after the initial mailing. Respondents' names were indivi-
dually typed in the salutation and the postcards were hand
signed by the researcher.

The second questionnaire and cover letter were mailed
out 8 days after the postcards were mailed when response
had fallen to four questionnaires per day. Non-respondents'
names were again individually typed in the salutation and the
letters were hand signed by the researcher.

Response fell to three questionnaires per day 12 days
after the second questionnaire was mailed, but by that time
84% of the questionnaires had been returned and no further
follow-up was performed.

Response Rate

 

The final response rate for usable questionnaires was
85.2% (499/586). Adding the 23 pretest respondents gave a
total of 522 questionnaires available for analysis and
raised the response rate slightly.

Non-response can probably be attributed to variety of
factors. Death and relocation played a part,as well as
duplicate names which had not been caught when the lists
were checked. In addition some landowners were never actually
in the program, despite the fact that the DNR listed them

as participants. Several blank questionnaires were returned

20
representing each of these groups. The overall response rate

rose to 87.6% when these questionnaires were subtracted from
the census lists. Three blank questionnaires were returned
with notes indicating that the respondent didn't feel it was
necessary to complete the questionnaire and two were return-
ed unanswered with no explanation. This represents a lack
of interest on the part of the respondents and most land-
owners with a similar lack of interest probably neglected
to return the questionnaire. Speculation could undoubtably
uncover other reasons for non-response. However, with less
than 13% of the census population failing to return a usable
questionnaire no such speculation was entered into.
Data Processing

Responses were coded onto standard computer coding forms.
The forms were then spot checked for errors and the error rate
found acceptable. Keypunching and verification were carried
out by the Data Preparation Service at Michigan State
University computer laboratory. Analysis was completed
using the SPSS program on Michigan State University's Control
Data Systems 6500 computer. Cases with anomalous values
for variables were separated out and the errors corrected.
Subgroup Composition

In most cases results presented in tables are broken
down into five subgroups. The subgroups are:

(1) All respondents: this group includes
responses from all current and past partici—

pants in the Public Access Stamp Program who

21

returned a usable questionnaire. N=522.

(2) All participants: this group is made up of
all respondents who have not dropped out of
the PAS program and who either definitely
intend to renew their PAS lease when it
expires or are not sure if they will renew or
not. N=446.

(3) Dropouts and non-renews: this group includes
respondents who have either dropped out of
the program or who do not intend to renew
their lease. N=76.

(4) Non-urban fringe participants: this group is
made up of participants (as defined under
group 2) who have no property in a township
into which.the boundaries of a city with a
population of at least 50,000 intrude (type 1
township) or property in a township adjacent
to such a township (type 2 township)1 N=387.

(5) Urban fringe participants: this group is come
posed of participants (as defined under group
2) who have property in'a township into which
the boundaries of a city with a population of
at least 50,000 intrude (type 1 township) or
a township adjacent to such a township (type

2 township). N=83.

 

1
For a complete list of cities and Type 1 and Type 2
townships see Appendix C.

22

Data on "all respondents" is provided to give an over-
view of study results and to allow readers to compare this
study's respondents to rural landowners in other studies of
a similar nature. It also serves as a proxy "general popula-
tion" of past and present program participants with which to
compare other subgroups.

The next two subgroups are the "all participants" and
the "dropouts and non-renews". These subgroups were establish-
ed for two reasons. First, it was thought that such a
dichotomy might provide information with which to identify
landowners likely to remain in the program, or conversely,
those likely not to remain in it. Second, it was felt that
by isolating those respondents who had dropped out or did
not intend to renew their lease the problems associated with
program discontinuation might be pinpointed. In short, it
‘was thought that this dichotomy might provide information on
who drops out and why.

The final two subroups are ”non-urban fringe partici-
pants" and "urban fringe participants". This dichotomiza-
tion was an attempt at market segmentation. If different
concerns or characteristics were identified for those two
groups, the DNR's approach to enrolling them could be
structured to take these differences into account. This
potential dichotomy is important because the DNR is
especially interested in enrolling increased numbers of

near urban landowners in the PAS program.

CHAPTER IV

GENERAL FINDINGS

 

Data Presentation

Data presentation in this chapter is broken down into
five sections: demographic data, socio-economic data, hunt-
ing, hunter relations, and program participation. The sec-
tion on demographic data presents a breakdown of the sex and
age of census respondents. Under the socio-economic heading
data on income, land ownership, and "social orientation" are
presented. In the sections on hunting and hunter relations
data on who was allowed to hunt prior to program participa-
tion, hunter numbers, the landowner's relations with hunters,
and hunter related problems are discussed. Finally, the sec-
tion on program participation deals with neighbors' opinions
of the program, participants' satisfactions and dissatisfac-
tions with the program, suggested changes in the program,
and reasons for continuing or discontinuing participation
in the program.

Demographic Information

 

Most of the respondents were male (92% overall). The
average age ranged from 55.5 for the "dropouts and non-renews"
subgroup to 58,3 for the "urban fringe participants" sub-

group. Households averaged three residents for all groups.

23

24

The average ages for the subgroups are somewhat higher
than the 1974 average age for farm operators of 51.7 years
(Census of Agriculture: 1974). Whether this represents a
difference between PAS participants and farm operators, or
a general shift in average age of rural landowners cannot be
determined.

Socio-Economic Data

Distribution of respondents' income around the $18,000
median income used in this study is depicted in Table 1.
"Urban fringe participants" is the wealthiest group with
44.0% having incomes above $18,000; "non-urban fringe parti-
cipants" have the lowest number (36.0%) of respondents with
incomes above the median; and "dropouts and non-renews"

fall in between with 40.3% having incomes above $18,000.

TABLE 1

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT'S INCOME WAS ABOVE
OR BELOW STATE MEDIAN OF $18,000, BY SUBGROUP

 

 

NufiEer of’ Above Below
subgroup Responses Number Percent Number Percent
A11 respon-
dents 483 183 37.9 300 62.1
All partici-
pants 411 154 37.5 257 62.5
Dropouts &
non-renews 72 29 40.3 43 59.7
Non-urban
fringe
participants 356 128 36.0 228 64.0

Urban fringe
participants 79 35 44.3 44 55.7

 

25

This pattern is repeated, but reversed, in Table 2
which summarizes the percent of income respondents derive
from farming. An average of 38.2% of the income of "non-
urban fringe participants" comes from.farming, and an average
of 33.4% of the income of "dropouts and non-renews" comes
from.farming, "Urban fringe participants" reported the

lowest (32.4%) average percent of income from farming.

TABLE 2

PERCENT OF RESPONDENT'S INCOME
COMING FROM FARMING

 

Mean Percent Median Percent

 

Number of Income From Income From
Subgroup Respondents Farming Farming*
All respondents 468 36.7 20.0
All participants 399 37.3 20.0
Dropouts &
non-renews 69 33.4 10.3
Non-urban fringe
participants 346 38.2 20.4
Urban fringe
participants 72 32.4 10.1

*Half of the respondents received less than this percentage
of their income from farming and half received more.

 

Table 3 shows the percent of respondents indicating each
of four primary reasons for ownership. Farming is the most
frequently specified reason for all groups. The next most

important reason for ownership of PAS leased lands is for

26

masmuonzo How common HOnmfi one soon whoa nowmwommm mononcoamon muons momma
.hnowoumo :Hoauo: Gnu cw uncommon Ono mo New haoumEonHamm How uooooom monsoemmu oaawuasz
N

moancooh ou can NOCH Hmavo uo: has mamuou unmouom moouwoom
a

 

 

m.n~ w.m~ o.o~ ~.H m.~m om mucmaaoausma
owoauw coon:

~.N~ m.s~ A.HH H.N m.am mam nonmaaoauuma
owcwum conuoacoz

H.H~ m.- m.wH N.q m.mm Ha mameOA-EOe a musoaoso
B.H~ o.mN m.~H o.~ m.mm ass mossesuauuma HH<
s.H~ a.¢~ m.mH m.~ «.mm Han muemeeoammu HH<
unmoumm unmouom unmouom unwouom mooanSm

 

 

 

unmouon monsooommom
Numnuo cocoonom unmaumo>cH oowummuoom Cashew mo Hooeoz

 

~Z<moomm m<m MIR ZH whammomm ho mHmmMMZBC
mom mhzmazommmm Wm zm>HU zom<mm NM<ZHMm

m @432.

27

residence purposes, followed in order by "other"1, invest-
ment, and recreation. Differences between groupings are
generally quite small.

Mean and median acres of land owned by respondents are
displayed in Table 4. It is important to note that 2 or 3
'extreme values have raised the mean acreages for the "drop-
outs and non-renews" and "urban fringe participants" groups.
Without those extreme values "dropouts and non-renews" would
have a mean acreage of 182 acres and the mean for "urban
fringe participants" would be reduced to 199 acres.2 Be-
cause of this distortion, the median is probably to be pre-
ferred for making acreage comparisons among subgroups.3
Table 4 shows that "non-urban fringe participants" have the
largest median acreage (159.8 acres), "urban fringe partici-
pants" the next largest (153.0 acres), and "dropouts and
non—renews" the smallest median acreage (120.2 acres). Even
after adjustments are made for the bias introduced by the

large holdings, the average respondent owns considerably

 

1

The "other" category was used for all respondents who
selected more than one response to this questionnaire
item. For example, a respondent listing both farming
and recreation as the primary reason for ownership would
have been coded as "other".

2

These are not the true means and should not be substituted
for Table 4 means. They are presented for illustration
purposes only.

3

The.median is that number in an array of numbers which
divides it in half. 50% of the numbers in an array are
below the median and 50% are above it.

28

more than the 81 acres owned by the average southern lower
Michigan rural landowner (Kitchel, 1978).

It was hypothesized that landowners differed in other
ways than those discussed thus far. One such characteris-
tic which might prove useful in classifying landowners is
that of "social orientation".“ It was concluded that member-
ship in organizations would provide an indicator of respon-
dent social orientation. Respondents have a strong agri-

cultural orientation in their organization membership.

TABLE 4

MEAN AND MEDIAN ACREAGE OWNED BY RESPONDENTS
IN SOUTHERN LOWER MICHIGAN BY SUBGROUP

 

 

Number of Mean Median*
subgroup Responses Acres Acres
All respondents 495 236.3 157.0
All participants 423 229.8 159.6
Dropouts and non-

renews 72 274.0 120.2
Non-urban fringe

participants 366 224.2 159.8
Urban fringe

participants 79 249.0 153.0

*Half of the respondents own less than this number of acres
and half own more.

 

(See appendix for complete breakdown). Forty-eight percent

 

4,

Social orientation in this case refers to how landowners
interact in society based upon their economic, moral
and other circumstnces.

29

of all respondents belong to at least one agricultural or-
ganization, while only 11% belong to at least one sporting
organization, and less than 4% belong to any environmental
organizations. As can be seen from Table 5 the Farm Bureau
alone can claim from 25.9% to 41.7% of each subgroup and the
Soil Conservation Society (SCS) from 11.1% to 18.1%. The
"dropouts and non-renews" subgroup has the largest membership
in both those organizations. In fact, the "dropouts and
non-renews" subgroup has the highest percentage of organiza-
tion membership overall. Only 44.4% of dropouts and non-
renews" subgroup members do not belong to any agricultural,
sporting or environmental organization. On the other hand,
64.2% of the "urban fringe participants" subgroup members do
not belong to any of these kinds of organizations.

What people read also provides insight into their social
orientation and provides a potential vehicle for communicat-
ing with them” Table 6 shows the five sources respondents
cited most often when asked where they found information
about their land. Three of the five are magazines. The per-
cent of respondents who indicated one of the magazines as
one of his or her most important sources of information

ranged from 29.7% for Michigan Farmer to 9.5% for Successful

 

 

Farming. Of the two other sources, the Grand Rapids Press,

 

a daily newspaper, was specified by 13.9% of "all respondents"
and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

(ASCS) by 10.9%.

30

 

~.¢o mm H.HH m _ m.n~ am am muamaaoausma
owowuw coon:

 

 

 

m.ms ans a.ss «m o.mm and mom muamasosusma
omawnm cookouaoz
¢.q¢ mm H.wa ma m.Hq on Nu mzooouuno: a moooaoua
o.es sma N.¢H cs m.em «ma «ms muemaaosuuma HH<
m.ms emu m.sH me m.am «no «as mucoeeoammu asa
unmouom Hooaoz unmouom Hoofibz unmouom Homeoz noncommom . moonwoom
Dooz mom zoomsm Show mo umofioz

 

mDomumDm wm .UZOAmm mBzmnzommmm mmH ho
Hzmommm ZMH z<mH mmoz :UHI3 OH monB<NHz<UmO

m mAm<H

31

TABLE 6

RESPONDENTS' FIVE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION
ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO THEIR LAND

 

Sources ' ‘ ‘Number‘ Percent
Organization

ASCS 47 10.9
Magazines

Farm Journal 56 13.0

Michigan Farmer 128 29.7

Successful Farming 41 9.5
Newspaper

Grand Rapids Press 60 13.9

 

The relatively high readership for the Grand Rapids

 

Press is probably due to the fact that 95 (18.2%) of the 522
respondents to the study questionnaire live in Kent County
where Grand Rapids is located. On the other hand, the per-

centage of respondents considering the ASCS, Farm Journal,

 

Michigan Farmer, and Successful Farming to be important

 

 

sources of information is lower than might be expected given
the rural residence of most participants. A partial explana-
tion for this, as well as for the similarly moderate figures
for Farm Bureau and Soil Conservation Society membership may
be that, as mentioned earlier, only 28.3% of "all respondents"
consider farming to be their primary reason for land owner-

ship.

Summary: Demographic and Socio-Economic Data

 

In summary, most PAS program participants are male and

somewhat older on the average than rural landowners in general.

32

Participants tend to own moderately large amounts of land in
southern lower Michigan when compared to the average rural
landowner. More than half of all participant households
have incomes below $18,000 per year. Farming accounts for
an average of 37.3% of this income and is the primary owner-
ship reason for 38.9% of participants. Organizational mem-
bership and participants' major infomration sources reflect
a similar level of agricultural orientation. After this de-
lineation of the demographic and socio-economic characteris-
tics of the census population the next step in the study was
to examine the respondents' attitudes toward hunting and
their relations with hunters.
Hunting

In an effort to discover to what degree the PAS program
opened up previously closed land to hunting, participants
and dropouts were asked whom they allowed to hunt on their
land prior to program participation. Although the differences
are surprisingly small, the results, displayed in Table 7
show that "dropouts and non-renews" had generally been the
most restrictive subgroup. However, 74.3% of them had al-
lowed anyone either with or without permission to hunt on
their lands prior to participation. "Non-urban participants"
had been the least restrictive subgroup, 79.1% allowing any-
one with or without permission to hunt on their lands. This
probably indicates the program primarily attracts landowners
who already feel comfortable about public hunting on their

lands.

33

.wofinanou ou can ooH Hmuou uo: use muooouomk

 

 

w.ma m.mm m.mH m.~ o.o Hm muamawowoumm

mwowum coon:

H.©H m.Ho H.H~ m. m. mum muommaoauumm

ownwum amouaaooz

o.oa m.qo ¢.H~ ¢.H m.N cu m3oaou

noon a musomoua

A.BH s.He w.o~ a. n. ems msemaaoauuma HH<

m.mH w.ao a.om w. w. mom moose

loommmu HH<

oooouom oaoouom unmoumm unmonmm unmoumm muoooaoamom asouwnom

 

 

 

scammfishmm aoqmmwahom mm>aomamm wumocoz
ooonuHS onoun< :uH3 oaoho< new anomaum wcwmmm

Doc 02 mo Hooeoz

 

«mDOMUmDm rm .ZOHH<mHoHHm<m m<m OH MOHMm QZ<A
MHmmh zo 823m 09 am3044< mfizmnzommmm 0:3

5 m4m<fi

34

It is possible that the PAS program encourages hunting
on previously open land by providing certainty of acceptance
and information about location to hunters who have not pre-
viously hunted on these properties. To get some estimate
of the impact of all the program's services (i.e. Opening
new land, providing certainty, and locating parcels), land-
owners were asked if they serviced any new hunters, and if so
how many. Table 8 summarizes responses to whether or not
participants had any hunters hunt on their land for the first
time during the 1978-79 hunting season. Approximately 95% of
"non-urban fringe participants" and 98.8% of "urban fringe
participants" had new hunters. Only 86.2% of the "dropouts
and non-renews" subgroup reported new hunters during the
1978-79 season (the figure for "dropouts and non-renews"
may be depressed by those that left the program prior to the
1978-79 season). These figures would indicate that the pro-
gram does provide services other than opening previously
closed lands and that these services do increase hunting
opportunities. However, there is a possible self evaluation
bias with this data. Respondents may have felt that answer-
ing "no" to the question could adversely affect their parti-
cipation intie PAS program, If this bias is present more
landowners may be reporting new hunters than actually had

them.

35

TABLE 8

RESPONSES BY SUBGROUP ON WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS
HAD ANY HUNTERS HUNT ON THEIR LAND FOR THE 1978—79
HUNTING SEASON WHO HAD NOT HUNTED ON IT BEFORE

 

 

Number of Egg N9
Subgroup Responses Number . Percent vNumber Percent
All respon-
dents 505 475 94.1 30 5.9
All partici-
pants 440 419 95.2 21 4.8
Dropouts &
non-renews 65 56 86.2 9 13.9

Non-urban fringe
participants 381 361 94.8 20 5.3

Urban fringe
participants 82 81 98.8 1 1.2

 

. The average number of new hunters served by "all respon-
dents" (23.5) is shown in Table 9; Multiplying this figure
by the total number of participants and dropouts (609) gives
a total of 14,312 first time hunter visits. This data could
be affected by both recall problems and self evaluation bias.
While recall problems would probably have no consistent bias
associated with them, self evaluation bias would prObably
inflate estimates of numbers of new hunters.

Respondents were also asked for estimates of the number
of new hunters who came back at least once. Roughly half
of the new hunters did so. The same biases which could have

affected "average number of new hunters" data could influence

the above results.

36

Since no question on the number of new

hunter return visits was asked, estimates of the total number

of new hunter visits on PAS land cannot be made.

TABLE 9

NUMBER OF HUNTERS WHO HUNTED ON RESPONDENTS'
PROPERTIES DURING THE 1978-79 HUNTING SEASON

WHO HAD NOT HUNTED ON THEM IN PREVIOUS
YEARS, BY SUBGROUP

 

 

Number of Mean ‘Median*
Subgroup Responses Number .Number
All respon-
dents 453 23.5 12.4
All partici-
pants 395 23.3 14.0
Dropouts &
non-renews 58 25.1 10.5
Non-urban fringe
participants 345 21.1 12.3
Urban fringe
participants 67 32.0 14.9

*Half of the respondents had fewer than this number of new
hunters and half had more.

 

In order to discover how hunting use was distributed

over time, three periods were formulated reflecting early,

peak, and late season hunting opportunities.

Results,

displayed in Table 10 show that approximately 80% of hunting

use on program lands occurred between October 20th and

March lst.

Only about 20% of hunting use occurred between

37

.aommmm coma Mano ow muowumu OEHHQ map on naaos muwoomu
.wcaucon How manuafim>o mum moaooam mamw 3mm .uowuoa mwsu waauso

m

new Home 3ouuo was 30m

.commom xmoa noaamo on uanE_OH

.xooonoo3 was smoouw .Houuaoum .uwoomu .Aoowuonm was
30A nuoov some .uomwmona

”wsfioaaooa common 3% who moaomam osmw umoE .nowuom mwnu magnum
:

.GOmmom haumo Gnu ooaaoo on unwaa OH .ammwnoaz
cumnusom aw 3ouum now 303 sows moon was machuwovm onus cu Hmwoa ma ufl .nowuom menu wcwuon
m

.ouos we:
was: was oowuom co>ww a fig ems mo smouomouoa manu mono Duos no: muconoommmu sou mo was:
N

was mo ufioouom noumHH hauooavmum umoz
a

 

 

mm.om o.om oo.mm wo.¢m o.om mo.o¢ w.mH o.oH mm.ma omq muoonaoammu

HH<

«Gowns: Home: new: Namfinoz Hmoo: new: «moans: Hmoo: one: momcoammm moouwnom
ma soumzroo mHl.>oz bMH .>oz ou 0N .oob an .uoo ou ma .umomlmo Hooasz

 

DOHmmm wm mm: DzHHZDm ho HZMUMmm
OH mqm<a

38

September 15th and October 19th. While recall problems
could affect the accuracy of this data, the popularity of
PAS program lands during the late season (Novembe 15 - March
1) is still noteworthy.
Hunter Relations

Respondents' perceptions of the quality of their re-
lations with hunters are another important parameter of the
landowner/hunter interface. Responses to a question on
hunter relations prior to PAS participation reflect an atti-
tude similar to that shown by responses to the question
asking who was allowed to hunt on participants' lands. More
than.65% of the respondents in all subgroups reported good
or excellent hunter relations. Further, as shown in Table
11, only 10.3% of all respondents felt their relations with
hunters had been poor or very poor prior to participation.
The subgroup with the lowest percentage (5.6%) of poor or
very poor hunter relations was ”dropouts and non-renews".

Not only were respondents' relations with hunters
generally good before participation, but their attitude to-
‘wards hunting itself proved largely positive. Table 12
breaks down attitude towards hunting into three categories.
The categories are: generally disapprove, support hunting
of all legal species, and support hunting, but not of all
legal species. Roughly 79% of the "non-urban fringe parti-
cipants" and 75/6% of "urban fringe participants" subgroups

support hunting of all legal species. However, only 60.3%

39

.woanooou ou

moo GOH Hmovo uoa xma mamuou unmouoms

 

 

 

 

 

~.H ~.o o.m~ a.me o.H~ Hm muemaaoauuma

owoaum coon:

m.H m.a m.m~ A.mm m.e~ mam muemasoasuma

mwcwum amouoccoz

q.H N.¢ w.o~ H.m¢ o.om Nu mzooouuooo a mononoun

B.H s.a o.m~ o.os o.e~ was mueeaaosussa HH<

e.H a.w s.- s.os e.e~ eon muemeeoammu H~<

unmoumm ooooaom ucommom unwouom uooouom momcoamom mooumnom
Hoom huo> Hoom MO . noou oooaaooxm mo Hoosoz

 

#onH<mHUHHM<m m<m mmommm mMMHZDm
:HH3 monemdmm mfizmnzommmm

HH mum<a

40

 

 

 

a.o~ as o.ma No a.m m mm muemaaoausma Omeasm cans:

H.~H me “.ma oom N.s so Ham Hucmasosunma

owcaum cmnuoucoz

0.0m ma m.co so ~.ma ca mm mzoaouncoo a monomoun

o.wH as ~.ms «an m.m an ass muamasosusma HH<

H.ma mm o.ma mam m.m as man muameaoawms Hua

unmouom Hmosoz unmouom Hmmsoz unmouom Hoofioz

mowoomm Hmwmq
Ham mo uoa

use waaucom mmfioomm amwmq Ham moaucoz mo noncommom asouwnom

uuomamm

wawuosm uuoaaom

o>oumaomwn,%HHmumcou two Honesz.

 

ADOMOmDm Mm GZHHZDE mam<309 mQDHHBH< .mhzmazommmm

NH mqm<H

41

of the "dropouts and non-renews" subgroup does so, and 13.7%
of this subgroup generally disapprove of hunting. "Dropouts
and non-renews" are evidently much less likely to unreservedly
support hunting than those who continue to participate in
the program.

Table 13 summarizes response to a question on whether
or not respondents experienced any significant problems with
hunters. Sixty-six percent of the "dropouts and non-renews"
indicated that they had experienced such problems. This is
nearly double the percent reported by participants who plan
to remain in the program. The high percent of "dropouts and
non-renews" reporting problems with hunters combined with a
tendency to be less receptive to hunting (see Table 12) pro-
bably helps to account for their decision to discontinue
participation. However, these results contrast with these
landowners' description of their relations with hunters prior
to participation (see Table 10) in which they indicated
generally better hunter relations than the other subgroups.

As a follow-up to the question on whether or not they
had any significant problems with hunters, those respondents
who answered "yes" were asked to indicate the nature of the
problem they considered most important. The problems re-
ported included: property damage, trespass, litter, personal
injury, and "other". Space was provided beside "other" for
the respondent's particular problem to be written in.

Separate columns were provided so that the respondent could

42

TABLE 13

RESPONSES BY SUBGROUP ON WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS
FELT THEY HAD SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH HUNTERS

 

 

Number of Yes No
Subgroup Responses Number__Percent NumEEr Percent
All respon-
dents 497 195 39.2 302 60.8
All partici-
pants 427 149 34.9 278 65.1
Dropouts &
Non-renews 70 46 65.7 24 34.3
Non—urban
fringe
participants 371 131 35.3 240 64.7
Urban fringe
participants 79 25 31.7 54 68.4

 

indicate whether the problem was experienced before PAS par-
ticipation, after, or both. It should be remembered when
using Table 14 and 15 that only about 1/3 of "non-urban"
and "urban fringe participants" felt they had significant
problems with hunters.

Table 14 pairs the before and after percents for each
problem category. In the case of property damage, trespass,
and litter, responses for all subgroups indicate a decrease
in problem incidence following participation in the PAS pro-
gram. In the case of personal injury, problem incidence
after participation drops to 0%. "Other" is comprised of

a wide variety of responses including driving over fields,

43

fence or gate damage, game violations, etc., none of which
was supplied by more than 12 respondents. It generally de-
creased by only a small amount after participation and in
the case of "dropouts and non-renews" increased somewhat.
Since, with the exception one problem type for one group of
respondents, problems with hunters were less following
joining the PAS program, it appears that participation in
PAS has reduced hunter related problems.

A word of caution must be interjected on the interpre-
tation of these results because of their relative time
frames. Hunter problems experienced in the past could have
occurred as long ago as the respondent could remember. How-
ever, problems experienced during PAS participation could
only have occurred in the last one or two years.

In order to better identify the specific problem land-
owners felt was the worst, respondents were asked to describe
their biggest problem with hunters. As in the case of the
question on what problems were significant, only those
who indicated that they had significant problems were asked
to respond. The results are displayed in Table 15. Tres-
pass, cited by 43.3% of "all respondents", ranks as by far
the biggest problem for all subgroups except "urban fringe
participants:. Only 30.4% of this subgroup consider trespass
to be one of their biggest problems while 34.8% consider
fence and gate damage to be significant. The category "other
bad behavior" is comprised of trespass on neighbors property,

hunting in the wrong place, game violations and other problems.

44

 

 

o.m~ H.NN 0.5m o.H~ ¢.¢N Houm< unmouom
N.wq m.mm ¢.no 0.0m H.qm whomom onoouom
Hmong;
n.o¢ m.~¢ n.mm m.wm H.mq Houm< ocoouom
o.mo m.ow w.¢m «.55 m.wm whomom unmouom
mmommoue
m.wH m.ma 0.0H o.mH w.¢a Houm< unmouom
m.o¢ m.o¢ H.mm o.mm m.mm muommm unmouom
owofima auumnoum
na.¢m mw.mm mm.oc qw.om qo.o¢ mamaooum
unmoamsemam ass:
moouwnnm mo oooonom
anooum wofiumowoow unmoumm Boaooum
a~-z Hmauz muses Benz Noa-z ao~-z
mucmawowuumm awowuuwm m3oaouuaoz mucmmfiofiuuom muoonoommom
owowum omen: owoaum one muooaoua HH< HH<

nonhonooz

 

unwouwnom

 

mnemomsm we .mmmezam
39H: mzmumomm az<oHeHonm ma: sums some om: mezmnzommmm
we ona<mHoHem<m m<m mmem< nz< mmommm amuzmHmmmxm mzmomomm so memes

«a mqm<fi

45

_mmwoo ouoz mmmaommou GHQHOHME omomoon 00H Hoses uoo HHHB muooonmme

 

 

 

m.¢H H.N~ ~.HN m.mH o.H~ Houm< uooouom
N.NN m.mm N.mH o.m~ o.m~ muomom uooouom
scene
0 o o o o Houm< unmouom
o m.m ¢.¢ m.H ¢.N ouomom unmouom
zusmaH Homemuom
Emsooum.wflaumownow_pcoouom. . . anooum
muuz Hmanz onuz Noauz aomuz
muommwoauumm mucmmaoauumm mamoouuooz muomaaoauumm monsoooamom
owcahm coon: mwofium mom muaoaoun AH< HH<
conuoucoz
smackwosm
AucOOV «a mam<H

46

.uoooamaowam

 

 

ma Oahu anooum mafia mono mafiuuomou muconcommou mo newspamouoa uoomoumou mumoaozs
H.0N m.o~ ~.~H c.HN «.ma How>m£om mom Hosuo
s.s s.HH ¢.N m.cH m.w «menu new
mnaoam um>o waw>wua
a.m w.m~ m.aa o.sH o.mH mesuoonm mamasmo
m.m H.m N.~H m.n m.m owmfimn mo amaze assoc
n.4m s.HH m.aa a.mH o.m~ smegma some new mucus
o.ma o.mH «.ma «.ma «.ma Houufiq
¢.q m.m m.~ c.m ¢.q muoucom has: OOH
«.om H.m¢ m.o¢ m.m¢ m.mq mwmamouH
Emanomm wmwumoancw ucoouom anooum
mmuz mmauz Henz mmauz omauz
mucmaaoauuom muommwoauumm m3ocmunaoz muomaaowuumm muamnaommom
omcaum coon: owcwhm w monomoun HH< HH<

amnuaucoz

 

mmoouwnom

 

kmsomumbm Mm .mMMHZD: EHH3.mqumomm HZ<UHmHZUHm
Q<= Mmmfi HANK 0:3 mHzmnzommmm ho mEMAmOMm HmmuuHm

ma mqm<5

47

Although this "other" general class of problems was frequently
selected by respondents, no one specific problem was mentioned
by more than seven respondents.

Even respondents who did not feel they had significant
hunter problems might feel they had some problems. Because
of this and to establish a rank ordering of hunter problem
importance, thosereceiving the questionnaire were asked to
select the most important problem from each of six pairs of
problems. The problems selected for ranking were: damage,
trespass, litter, and overcrowding. These four problems were
selected for ranking because previous research indicated them
to be significant. In the event that the respondent felt the
problems were of equal importance, he or she was asked to so
indicate. Each time only one problem was checked in a pair,
it received 1 point. When both problems in a pair were
cehcked they each received .5 point. The four problems could
receive a possible score of from.0 to 3 (o, .5, l, 1.5, 2, 2.5,
d). The scoring process was carried out by computer for each
questionnaire, scores were tabulated. These results were
then averaged for each problem. The mean scores are dis-
played in Table 16. The higher the score, the more important
the problem.

Litter received the highest score for all respondent
groupings, and overcrowding received the lowest ranking for
all groups of respondents. The differences between problem
scores are generally not large, ranging from 0.0 to .73 on

a scale of 0.0 to 3.0. However, "urban fringe participants"

48

..-0—
mm woauoom one SH nonoaocH ouo3 axooao Ham monsoon m.H coop mmoa ma whoom owmuo>o Ham

uwo>o .:m: on :o: Scum swoon mouoom oaoammom .noxooco mumz coon ma comm ou unwom m was:
new Emaooua noxuoco moo cu newness mm3 uaaom moo .uomuuomaa zaamovm oneB hocu ma soon
so .o3u Ono mo oomuuomam once moo xomco oo moxmm mocowaonmmn was confine mums mamanoums

 

 

mm. m¢.H HH.H m¢.a mm muomQHOHuumm ownwum coop:
mm. os.H mH.H os.a awn sweamwemmmmwwmmm
mm. mm.a qm.H om.H on msoomuuao: @ monomoua
Hm. c¢.H mH.H q¢.H one muomaaowuumm HH<
Hm. mq.H mH.H Nq.a awn muconcommon Had
wamwmwmommw Emmmms Idhlhwomewé .Ahlwoma.m.a wfimmmm seas

 

kmbomumam Wm mZmamomm A<HBzmHOm mo UZHMZ<M .mfizmnzommmm
ca mAm<H

49

rated both damage and litter higher than any other subgroup
by a small margin and ranked overcrowding below any other
subgroup by a somewhat larger margin. This subgroup gave
both damage (1.45) and litter (1.48) a rating almost twice
as high as they gave overcrowding (.75).

It is difficult to understand why trespass, which ranks
so highly in other questions on problems has lower scores
than litter and damage for most subgroups. Part of the dif-
ference arises because responses from all landowners regard-
less of whether or not they have any significant problems
were included in the results presented in Table 16. In
order to assess differences in rankings between the 195 re-
spondents who reported significant problems with hunters
and the 302 who reported no significant problems, the two
groupings were analyzed separately. As shown in Table 17,
these groups have different perceptions of the relative
importance of trespass, and litter.

It seems likely that a high percentage of respondents who
reported no significant problems with.hunters have trespass
problems but do not consider them serious. Some Othhese
respondents may even have as many, or more trespasses than
those reporting significant problems. A comparison of the
data in Tables 16 and 17 suggests that landowners attitude
towards trespass, rather than the frequency with which.they
experience it, may be a key factor influencing responses

tabulated in Tables 13, 14, and 15.

50

TABLE 17

CROSSTABULATION OF MEAN SCORE FOR PROBLEMS BY
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT HAD SIGNIFICANT
PROBLEMS WITH HUNTERS

 

. ' Significant Problems
Problems Yes (n=l95) ' No (n3302)

 

Damage Mean Score 1.43 1.43
Trespass Mean Score 1.60 .96
Litter Mean Score 1.31 1.54
Overcrowding Mean Score .92 .91

 

After the questions on hunter relations and problems,
respondents were asked if their relations with hunters had
been the same, better or worse since they began participa-
ting in the PAS program. The responses are summarized in
Table 18. Over 37% of the "non-urban fringe participants"
and 25.9% of the "urban fringe participants" indicated that
their relations with hunters were better. In contrast only
13.0% of the "dropouts and non-renews" felt that their
relations were better, and 15.9% of them felt their rela-
tions had worsened. Only about 1% of "urban fringe partici-
pants" felt that hunter relations had become worse. Re-
spondents who had characterizied prior hunter relations as
very poor or poor accounted for 61.5% of the improvement in
relations. More than 80% of "all respondents" in the very
poor and poor categories before program participation felt

their relations were better. No respondents in the very

51

.wcaocbou on can ooa ou no new uoc ace udoouoms

 

 

 

N.H H m.~a an m.m~ am am mueHAHOHOsma assaum uses:
a N oH m.oe ANN H.5m ass own momma

:Howuuoa omaquw amou91aoz
m.mH HH o.Hm an o.ma a me m3ocouuooa w muooaouo
m.~ as H.No New «.mm was was muemaauausma Hua
m.s NN «.me Hum «.mm «on son mesmeeoaHms HH<
unmouom Hocabz unmouom Hoossz ufioouom Hoosoz noncommom msouwoom

omuo3. mamm Houuom mo nmcasz

 

*mnomumbm Na .ZOHH<AHUHHm<m Z<muomm mMHm< mmmhzam
.mfizmazommmm ZH mwz<mo

EBHS monH<Amm

ma mqm<H

52

“poor to poor categories felt the program worsened their re-
lations with hunters. Only 4.7% of "all respondents" in the
O.K. to excellent categories felt that relations had worsened.
Summary: Hunting and Hunter Relations

To summarize, before program participation most respon-
dents (77.55%) allowed public hunting on their land and only
34.9% of all participants felt they had significant problems
with hunters before or after program participation. However
65.7% of the dropouts and those not intending to renew their
lease felt they had such problems.

Most respondents (67.0%) reported good or excellent re-
lations with hunters prior to program participation. In
addition, 75.6% of the respondents support hunting of all
species. Of the "dropouts and non-renews" subgroup, however,
only 60.3% support hunting of all species and 13.7% of this
group generally disapprove of hunting.

For those who felt they had significant problems with
hunters, trespass was by far the most frequently cited pro-
blem (78.5%) of all respondents. It was followed by litter
(54.1%) and property damage (37.3%). When respondents were
asked to specify their biggest problem, trespass was again
the leader by a wide margin (43.3% over all), except among
the "urban fringe participants" who rated it below property
damage (30.4% and 43.5% respectively). When potential pro-
blems were ranked by both landowners who did and did not
have significant problems however, damage and litter scored

above trespass for all groups except the "dropouts and

53

non-renews".

For over half (63.3%) of the respondents program.parti-
cipation left relations with hunters unchanged. When rela-
tions did change 32.3% of all respondents reported that they
improved, while less than 5% felt they had worsened. Among
"dropouts and non-renews" only 13% reported improved rela-
tions and 15.9% reported worsened relations.
Program.Participation

A question on whether neighbors commented to the res-
pondent on his or her participation in the program and what
these comments were was included in the questionnaire to give
some indication of program impact on adjacent landowners.
Table 19 shows the breakdown of responses to the first
question. Both the data in Table 19 and in Table 20 could

be affected by self-evaluation bias and recall problems.

TAHUZlB

RETKEEESIMISUHEKUP(IJWHEHHTLORBKH'
IMRTHHTANTTSNEEREflRIIIflENHfl)ONIUBIHESBMUHCIHUHON*

 

 

Numxn'of Yes N3
Siugoup Requmes Nuflxanenman: Nudxn'IHament
All respondents 513 130 25.3 383 74.7
Allgmutichmmts 4M) 100 22J7 340 7713
Dropouts & Non-renews 73 30 41. l 43 58 . 9
anqnienzfiunge
participants 383 88 23.0 295 77.0
tkbmifrhme
participants 80 17 21.3 63 78.8

*Hamenflsnayrxmuaiiup‘UJlOOche.uazrmnihgn

 

54

Except among "dropouts and non-renews" only about 25%
of respondents indicated that one or more neighbors had com-
mented on their participation. Of the "dropouts & non-renews"
subgroup 41.4% stated that they had received a comment of
some kind. As Table 20 shows, 38.3% of neighbor comments were
positive or neutral for the "all participants" subgroup and
61.7% were negative. "Dropouts & non-renews" reported 17.9%
positive or neutral comments and 82.1% negative comments.
This means that approximately 1/3 (30.3%) of the "dropouts
and non-renews" subgroup received negative comments from
neighbors about the program or program participation, while
only 12.6% of the"all participants" subgroup received nega-
tive comments .

Table 21 summarizes response to a question which asked
respondents what they liked best about the program. Money
and controls were the best liked and were rated about equally
for most subgroups. They were selected by roughly 30% to
40% of those responding in each subgroup. However, in the
"urban fringe participants" subgroup money (31.8%) and con-
trol (43.5%) differed by almost 12%. The ability to provide
hunting opportunities was one of the best liked program

features for approximately 15.0% of the "urban fringe'

 

5

"Control" includes permission requirements; limits on hunter
numbers; know who, how many, when and where hunters
were; hunter sign in; and control responses.

55

 

98 9% TE 3 BEFORE BEE can:

 

mam HS 3: Na Bananas mafia E382

H .mm m. AH mam mm BEETS: a $88.5

5.3 mdm HAN g mafiaaowunom :4

«.8 9mm «.3 «NH Bananas HH...
uHUonwm uomonom

Hafiz swam Hg 3% as...

9.8 Regimen mo ucooUm

 

g8 Mm EEEUHHM’E 25395 20 mag 885.52 mo 5%
ON g

56

.oonoo mum...» «magma c.3338 monsoon cod Hogs no: 433 380.8%.»

 

m.~ quuoz

 

 

o o. «.3 n.

9m.” OK m6. 9w m.« 3385
_ mama Uuuom Ho
«SUBHOm assume
«.3 o.m 95 ed To 8.33.8va
wanes «BETH
or» o.m o mé mrw 3.8on «308
m6.» m.«¢ w.¢« «.3. ¢.«¢ H9380
mém «.13 04m «.«q . ad.» .882
8.390 wfiwuooaom ox. _ omen Bx: 33 pg

wouz ammuz «muz $ng 3.14

monomwoaunmm mugmfioeuumm $8.782 35303.3,“ mugged
mash Ens BEE as 388.5 . HH< H2
£35182 , .
mg

 

«NE

grm.§g4§6§§§

57

participants" and "dropouts & non-renews" subgroups. A re-
latively high percentage (13.6%) of the "urban fringe parti-
cipants" subgroup also indicated better relations or better
class hunters as a best liked feature. While about a fifth
(19.3%) of those in "dropouts & non-renews" subgroup respond-
ing to this question reported "nothing" indicating they found
nothing good about the PAS programi

In addition to being asked what they liked best, respon-
dents were asked what they liked least about the programi
The results are displayed in Table 22. Except in the case
of the "dropouts and non-renews" subgroup, a considerably
smaller proportion of each subgroup responded to this ques-
tion than answered the question about what was liked best
about the programn Because the response rate for this ,
question was especially low, information on the percent of
each subgroup which responded to it is included in Table 22.
Hunter problems (24.5%) and too little money (20.3%) are the
most frequently cited dislikes for "all respondents". How-
ever there was considerable variation among subgroups with
hunter problems ranging from 38.7% for "dropouts & non-renews"
to 21.2% of "non-urban fringe participants", and too little
money ranging from.26.5% for "dropouts & non-renews" to
13.5% for "urban fringe participants".

From 6.1% for "dropouts & non-renews" to 21.2% for non-
urban fringe participants" gave "nothing" as their response

to this question. Only 58.4% of the "dropouts & noncrenews",

58

.vonoo 9.8.3 Uncommon mania: 03803 03 «was uo: H33 unwouwms

 

 

 

 

c .H« wda m.q« c .H« o . N.« may or} «m Egfiofiuma

swat”... :35

H .«« « . H« m . ma m .3 « . H« w . 3 m . mm ««« SEEM—Hum

. owfium 83.5182

mdm an «.«H «.«H «.mm m.o« méo 3 msmfinugc a 3890.5

SN HaH 2H EH H.- HaH as as BEHODBH HH...

SN :H 92 HRH has now «.8 8a 888%..“ HH...

uaoonom unmouom Squawk unwoumm uHOoUm ufioumm wfinsammm “Magma H5838 .
850 $282 a m age EOHSE «m8: 98.3% mo Hafiz

305. can owns Honour 3on3 mo unwoumm

“room

OOH.

 

figmmfiugsggggfig

««§

59

37.5% of "non-urban fringe participants", and 33.8% of the
"urban fringe participants" subgroups gave a response other
than "nothing".

Despite the low percentage of responses to the question
on what was liked least, another question asking respondents
to indicate whether they felt each of several suggested im-
provements was important or unimportant received a high res-
ponse rate. Table 23 lists the suggestions and shows the
percentage of each subgroup selecting them as being important.
Free court representation and increased per acre fees were
considered to be important most often, with approximately
75% of each subgroup selecting them. Free property damage
insurance followed closely, with from 64.4% for "urban fringe
participants" to 72.3% for "dropouts and non-renews" indicat-
ing that they felt it was important. Increased enforcement
patrols and free habitat improvement received considerably
less support with approximately 40% of each subgroup checking
them as important.

In order to further clarify the relative importance of
each improvement suggestion, respondents were asked to rank
the three suggestions they considered most important. Each
time a suggestion was ranked first it was awarded 3 points;
and each time it was ranked third it received 1 point. If a
suggestion was not ranked at all, it received 0 points. The
average point score for each suggestion is displayed in

Table 24.

60

638 9.83 328de 333:: $383 03 H8? uoc :3 3508mm“

 

 

 

 

 

 

SK Ta 9% can 93 fl muéaouua «mat fins

9mm «.8 QR m.o¢ Him Nmm figfiofluma owfium gngucoz

Wan mJK was ad.» wdm #0 mamfiHnaoc .w 338.5

0.3 93 at «.8 «.8 8.» Santana H2

«.3 NS 9:. 93 #8 E mu8e8mm8 a.

unwoumm ufiouom ufioumm uaooumm “508m mwmconmmm goumasm

womb grandma. 833835 ”.563qu 30.3mm mo 252
98¢ Mom omemn uuboo umuEmm ugouomcm
@8835 Dumaoum 8mm comm 39835
03m

 

Egg gnaw—,8 ”Hag 5H5»
in .93 2H g ammom

mum—4mg

.353 ouwu Bug mg Exam.“ uoa mums £0.33
983 .ufifi m 8m ”.58 :80: 25 ...n88m.. m 8m 8&3 95 3.35.. a you Bu? 8? 358 8.5
senses $8 :32”... .8 ..e88m... :35: ”.589: 833$ s2”. 983 x5» 8 Exam 9.8: 38955

 

61

 

$4 84 a: i. S. Banners“; want 535
$4 34 an; a. a... mafiaoflua mmfib Enséz
$4 84 cm; 3. 8. 268.“.8: a 388.5
a: :4 m: 8. d. 3833”.an :4
$4 24 o: mm. am. 38288“ H?
moon 88.33 833589an ugoug 305mm gamma
whom Mom mwmamm 5.38.5 9500 umuHAm: gram—5033
@9835 monk monk 8E commend—fir

 

«mafiammgm BEBE Sm mxz<m macaw—Bu
«N Mum—<9

62

The results of the ranking procedure generally substanti-
ate impressions likely to be gained from Table 23. Increased
per acre fees and free court representation rank highest.
Next comes free property damage insurance followed by in-
creased enforcement patrols and finally free habitat improve-
ment.

As a double check on the improvements questions respon-
dents were asked in an earlier question whether or not they
thought the program.could be improved. If they responded
positively they were asked hOW‘it could be improved. Table
25 summarizes responses to this question. Response rate to
this question was low. This should be kept in mind when
reading the table. While money was still the improvement of
choice (31.8% for "all respondents") for all groups, better
boundary signs (10.7% for all respondents) and better program
information distribution to hunters, participants, and land-
owners in general (16.6% for "all respondents") received
significant amounts of support.

Table 26 shows the percentage of each subgroup willing
to participate in the PAS program.without remuneration. In
ViEW'Of the high interest in increased fees, it is not
surprising that the percent of respondents willing to parti-
cipate in the program without fees is very low. "Dropouts
and non-renews" are the least willing to participate for free
(5.9%) and "urban fringe participants" the most willing
(13.9%). There is a strong probability that self-evaluation

bias has had a downward effect on the percent of respondents

63

. . . .

 

nfl #2 do do «.2 mdm mm fifiafifihm

swash 93.5

E: E Z 9: 9?. 93 N3 assassinate

mmfififlugfifiaTssn

H.m m.¢ q.~ m.m m.mm m.mm No msmcmuycoc

a 38995

m.mH H.m H.m o.HH ¢.Hm H.n¢ oHN mucmmwowuuwm HH<

93 g .2 ES Q: 33 N3 «Hangman 3....

83gb? unmfiwogomfim . 950 «swam . .38: ginseng . agenda gwnsm
533 m8: xooum 96.55 9.8: gm mo g

mo uaouom

 

m N mafia.

monHmmeDw Hzm2m>omma Hzmsommm Hmoz m>Hm .whzmazommmm

64

$5.958 ou map OCH 3 a: 8m uoa but 380.6%»

 

 

 

2 N mam 8 93 S S mufifioflsa «word. fins
9m 2 1% 2m 93 3 Km 38.33% «mat finééz
o.o o 13 so 3 s 8 288?? a 3863
3 S 1% 8m #2 cm was flfifioflua 3.
.3 S was s? 3H 8 8s 382%..“ 3.
uncommon 252 ugoummluoaaz uaoumhulg moms-0&9” gamma
38s Page oz new mo .85

 

§E§§E§2m53<fiugmg§mm§
gggmgmogagwm magma

mag

65

who express a willingness to participate for free.

Respondents were asked if they intend to renew their PAS
program lease when it expired. Ninety percent of "all res-
pondents" subgroup indicated that they would renew their
lease, 5.6% did not know and only 4.3% stated that they would
not renew.

Dropout and non-renewal rates were cross tabulated by
urban fringe status in order to discover if the "non-urban
fringe" and "urban fringe" subgroups differed. Results,
shown in Table 27, indicate that there is little difference
between the two groups in terms of dropout and non-renewal
rates. What differences there are suggest that "non-urban
fringe participants" are slightly more likely to drop out
or fail to renew their lease.

Respondents who had dropped out were asked why they had
done so in an open ended question. Fifty-five (96.5%) of
the dropouts responded. Not enough money and too many hunters
tied for the most frequently cited reason with each being
mentioned by 16% of those responding. The second most com-
mon reason given was sold, leased or rented land which was
listed by 13% of the respondents. A complete breakdown of
responses can be found in Table 28.

Respondents were also asked why they intended or did not
intend to renew their lease. Reasons for renewal, which
were largely a reiteration of what respondents liked best
about the program, are summarized in Table 29. Money was

mentioned by 45.5% of "all participants". Control features

66

 

is N 32 a 8 Bantams“ swans fins
33 . D 5.: S :s Eggs award 5.5.82

mm.m ma BN.HH on mus

mucmucommou HH<

 

unwoumm “oneoz , unmonmm ,ummemz. womoomwom.
«33 68a “so Rescue . mo .8952
uDZ.fifiEé GSNS

953m

 

mDH<Hm muzmmmnzamms Mm mm<mu.MHmmlemzmm OF_QZMHZH 502 on ozz mo
Uzamuomm m<m MIR mU.HDO ammmomn m>€:.o:3.mhzmnzommmm.mO.ZOHH¢g:m<H_mmomo

RN mum<H

67

TABLE 28
WHY DROPCUI‘S DISCONTINUED PARTICIPATION

 

 

Reason Nunber Percentk
N-SS . . . . . , . . . _ , , . . . 4 .
Program Associated 27 49
Not enough money 9 l6
Dmfltlikeprogramoritstoonmchtrouble 4 7
Loss of Control 4 7
No me to issue tags 4 7
Posting signs 3 5
Issuing tags 3 5
Hunter Associated 22 40
Too many hunters 9 16
Detroit and South Michigan hunters 4 7
Misuse of land 3 5
Trespass 3 5
Upset with hunters 3 5
Sold , leased or rented land 6 1.3
Other . 17 30 .

 

*Percents will not equal 100 because multiple respanses were coded.

68

.368 «B3 momsoamou 393d...— omnmooa 8H Hugo no: .33 38939...

 

 

5.3 «6 mK .850
m.~ 5N m.~ HoHEoo 35w
2 .2 am .892 muses was:
as 4.2 mm 833588 mouse masons
ed or» «6 ”So 33% @603 p.93
9: ms» 9m $3.3m ways—E 30.34
9n 5m 0..» «45303 oz
am 3: «.2 Ensign
«so am ~.m fiflmfin Shea bfio
ck up up 95%.
imam.“ 93qu no nevus—E 3.330 .853
mm.” {om NAN HoHEou
ad.» in.» 9? .88:
Samoa wfiumofig unmoumm comomm
:nz mwmnz owmuz
3536me mugfiowuumm figfiofiuflwm
swede. Sf: «was 3.
EBay—oz
a;

 

Eggfiogmwm .ggmfiugggg
mag

69

of the program.also accounted for a relatively high percent-
age of renewals (23.2%) as did previde hunting opportunities
(12.9%). Better relations or better class hunters were cited
as reasons for renewal by 8.2% of the "all participants" sub-
group. Differences between the "non—urban" and "urban fringe
participants" subgroups tended to be small, exceeding 5% in only
three instances. Respondents who did not intend to renew
thier lease accounted for only 19 (3.6%) of the returned
questionnaires. Insufficient monetary compensation was cited
by 9 (47.4%) of respondents as the reason for not renewing
their lease. No other response was given bmeore than 2
respondents. Additionally, the responses given resist meaning-
ful grouping. Table 30 displays a breakdown of reasons res-
pondents do not intend to renew their lease.

Summary: Program Participation

 

In summation, few neighbors made any comment on the pro-
gram, 25.3% for all respondents, but when comments were made,
they were negative 66.4% of the time. Among the 41.1% of
"dropouts and non-renews" who received comments, 82.1% were
negative.

Over 40% of all respondents felt control (42.4%) or
money (40.8%) was the best program feature. Again "dropouts
and non-renews" were different, with preference for each of
these two program benefits falling to about 30%. Participants
‘with land on the urban fringe also rated money as the best

liked feature in about 30% of cases. Again in common with

70

.....

 

 

Reascn

N=19 Nurber Percent
Insufficient money 9 47.4
Too many strangers 1 5.3
Too mny hmters 2 10.5
Risk of damage 1 5.3
Hunter misconduct 2 10.5
Overkill of game 1 5.3
Too much trouble 1 5.3
Phone calls at all hours 1 5.3
Takes too much time 1 5.3
Too many cmtrols ‘1 5 . 3
DIR's decision 1 5.3
Too old or sick 1 5.3
Renting, rated 1 5.3
Dm't know 1 5.3

 

*Percent will total more than 100 because multiple responses were coded.

7l

"dropouts and non-renews" they considered providing hunting
opportunities best.

About one-quarter (24.5%) of all participants responding
to the question on what they liked least about the program
consider hunter problems to be the least liked characteristic.
An even larger percentage (38.7%) of "dropouts & non-renews"
felt this to be the case. Also disliked by a large percentage
(19.1%) of those participants responding to this question are
the low per acre fees. An even greater percentage (26.5%) of
those who had left or intend to leave the program dislike them.
However, even of the low percentage (58.4%) of those respond-
ing to this question 17.1% either didn't know what they dis-
liked or they disliked nothing in particular about the PAS
program.

Increased per acre fees (75.1%) and free court repre-
sentation (77.5%) were the most preferred of a list of possible
program changes for all respondents. When asked to suggest
their own improvements "more money" (31.8%) came in first for
all respondents by a wide margin. Approximately 17% of all
respondents suggested better information as a needed improve-
ment. Among urban fringe participants, better enforcement
also received a large response (15.1%).

Not surprisingly, 88.5% of all respondents stated that
they would not participate in the program for free. Among
"dropouts and non-renews" this figure rose to 94.1%.

Approximately 90% of all respondents plan to renew their

lease, 6% don‘t know, and only about 4% are not planning to

72

renew. Of those not intending to renew their lease, almost
half (47.4%) cited low per acre fees as a reason. No other
single reason was specified by more than 10.5% of respondents
in this group.

Among those who do intend to renew their lease, money
was mentioned as a reason by 45.5%. Control features of the
program.were indicated by 23.2% of respondents and "providing
hunting opportunities" was a reason to continue for 12.9%.
Thirteen percent stated that they were continuing simply be-

cause they liked the PAS program.

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION OF SUBGROUPS

Because of the large amount of data and high number of
variables examined in the analysis chapter, this section has
been included to clarify and emphasize the findings on the
two basic subgroup dichotomies.

The two dichotomies are: "dropouts and non—renews"/"a11
participants" and "non-urban fringe participants"/"urban
fringe participants? While comparisons among all, or between
any two, subgroups could be made, the above pairs are be-
lieved to be most important. The first pair of subgroups
provides information on who drops out of the PAS program and
why and the second pair may provide data allowing the DNR to
segment the landowner market into urban fringe and non-urban
fringe landowners. As was stated previously this segmenta-
tion could allow the DNR to recruit the higher proportion of
urban fringe landowners it desires.

Results discussed in this chapter are found in Table 31.
For exact statistics the reader should refer to the original

tables in the analysis chapter.

Z3

74

TABLE 31
(IIfl¥flUEKbICE’SUBGROUP'RESUETS

 

 

All Non-urban Urbm
Subgroups ' ' Participants ‘ Dropouts Fringe Fringe
Sex (% male) 92% 91% 93% 88%
Age (average) 57.6 55.8 56.5 58.3
Incare above $18 , 000 38% 40% 36% 44%
Median % Incane frcm
farming 20% 10% 20% 10%
Median Acreage 160 ac. 120 ac. 160 ac. 153 ac.
Organization Warship
Farm Bureau 37% . 42% 38% 26%
$08 14% 18% 15% 11%
Nme 46% 44% 43% 64%
Primary Reason for land
Ownership
Farming 39% 34% 40% 337.
Inves meat 13% 18% 12% 20%
Residenc' e 25% 23% 24% 29%
Who Hunted Prior to PAS
Participation
No one 1% 3% 1% 2%
Paying Hunters 1% 1% 1% 3%
Friends and Relatives 21% 21% 21% 19%
Anyme with Permissicn 61% 64% 62% 59%
Anyme without Per-
missicn 17% 10% 16% 20%
New Hunters (average #) 23 25 21 32
PIE-Progran
Hunter Relations
Excellent * 26% 31% 26% 21%
Good 40% 43°. 39% 46%
(K 23% 21% 23% 26%
Poor 9% 4% 10% 6%
Very Poor 2% 1% 2% 1%
Attitude Towards Hunting
Disapprove 4% 14% 4% 4%
Approve 78% 60% 78% 76%
Approve with Qualifi-
cations 18% 26% 17% 21%

Significant Problems (% yes)35% 66% 35% 32%

75

 

 

TABLE 31 (cont)
All . Non-urban Urban
Subgroups ' Participants ' Dropou' ts ' Frmg’ ' e Fringe '
Probl-s
Damage
Before 37% 39% 41% 41%
After 14% 20% 15% 18%
Trespass
Before 77% 85% 86% 63%
After 39% 59% 43% 41%
Litter
Before 51% 67% 56% 48%
After 21% 37% 22% 30%
Change in Relations
Better 357. 137. 377. 267.
Sane 67% 71% 60% 73%
Worse 3% 16% 3% 1%
Biggest Problem .
Trespass 43% 46% 43% 30%
Too Many Hunters 4% 7% 3% 4%
Litter 12% 12% 13% 13%
Fence and Gate
Damage 14% 20% 11% 35%
Other Damage 8% 12% 8% 9%
Careless Shooting 14% 20% 14% 9%
Driving Over Fields 11% 2% 11% 4%
Other Bad Behavior 22% 12% 20% 26%
Problen Rank
Danage 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5
Trespass 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1
Litter l. 5 1.4 1.5 l . 5
Overcrowding 9 1. 0 .. 9 . 8
Neighbor Garment
Yes 23% 41% 23% 21%
No 77% 59% 77% 79%
Cannmts
Positive and Neutral 38% 18% 43% 50%
Negative 62% 82% 57% 50%
Liked Best
Mmey 42% 32% 44% 32%
Control 44% 30% 43% 44%
Social 5% 0% 5% 5%

Providing Hmting
Opportmities 9% 16% 8% 15%

76

-TABLE_._31 (cmt)

 

 

 

- A11- - - . . - Non—urban Urban
Stingr‘oup's' ‘ " " Paticip'amts‘Dropou ts"Fr‘ing‘e"""Fr1ng‘ e
Liked best (cont)
Better Hmta Re—
latims or
Better Class
Hmtas 9% 4% 7% 14%
Nothing 1% 20% 1% 0%
Liked least
Too little money 19% 27% 20% 14%
Hmta Problems 22% 39% 21% 27%
Program Problems 34% 24% 30% 46%
Nothing 19% 6% 21% 11%
Otha 22% 30% 22% 22%
Inprovement Suggestions
(‘1. score)
Increased Enforcamt
Patrols 38% .6 51% 1.0 38% .6 44% .6
Free Habitat Improve-
sent 40% . 6 43% . 5 40% . 6 40% . 7
Free Court Represen-
tatim 78% 1.5 79% 1.4 78% 1.5 74% 1.4
Damage Insurance 68% 1.1 72% 1.3 68% 1.1 64% 1.2
Increased Fees 75% 1.5 72% 1.6 76% 1.5 78% 1.7
Respondents Suggestions
More may 31% 33% 34% 18%
Better signs 11% 10% 127. 67.
Stock Game 7% 2% 7% 6%
More mforcamt 15% 10% 8% 15%
Betta Enforcenent 13% 7% 19% 15%
my Renew lease
Mmey 45% 47%
Control 24% 18%
Better Hunter Relations
or Betta Qualitity
Huntas 8% 7%
Other Progran Benefits 3% 4%
Like the program 14% 10%
No Problems 4% ’.6%
Allow Hunting Anyway 4% 11%
Can't Keep Huntas Out 4% 6%
Provide Hmting Opportunities 13% 10%
Makes Huntas Happy 2% 3%
Game Control 3% 3%

0th”. .__‘-......57°. 13%

 

77

"Drgpouts and non-renews" and "all participants" subgroups

The "dropouts and non-renews" (dropouts) and "all parti-
cipants" (participants) subgroups are predominantly male,
have an average age slightly above 55, and live in three
member households on the average. In tenms of demographic
characteristics there is little to separate them" With
respect to annual income, participants and dropouts are also
similar, approximately 60% of both groups having incomes be-
low $18,000 per year.

Differences begin to appear when their relationship with
the land is examined. Participants own more land and depend
more on farming for their incomes than do dropouts. Con—
tinuing this trend, a higher percentage of participants feel
farming is their most important reason for land ownership,
but a greater percentage of dropouts belong to agricultural
organizations such as the Farm Bureau and S08.

When data on hunting and hunter relations are examined,
a much stronger dichotomization begins to emerge. While
both participants and dropouts differ only slightly in re-
gard to whom they allowed to hunt and in pre-program hunter
relations, their attitudes toWard hunting show strong dif-
ferences. The percentage of dropouts who do not approve
of hunting is over three times that for participants.
Dropouts are also much more likely to disapprove of hunting
some species, even though they otherwise approve of hunting.

These differences are reemphasized in responses to

whether or not the landowners had significant problems with

78

hunters. Almost twice as high a percentage of dropouts report
significant problems as participants. When respondents with
significant problems were asked what problems they had, a
considerably higher percentage of dropouts reported damage,
trespass, and litter than did participants. These differences
persisted during program participation. Although problems

for both groups decreased after they began participating in
the PAS program, dropouts averaged a 14% higher reported
incidence for the three problems. Despite the decrease in
problems during participation, dropouts are less than half

as likely to report that the program improved their relations
with hunters as participants. Dropouts are also more than
four times as likely to report that the PAS program worsened
hunter relations. Despite the above differences, these two
groups generally differed only slightly in terms of which
problems they considered most important.

Not only are the dropouts negative in their feelings
about the program's effects on their relations with.hunters,
but two and a half times as high a percentage of them
received negative neighbor comments than did participants.
This probably reinforced their already negative attitude
Umwards the program.

The dropouts' lack of enthusiasm for hunters and hunting
relative to participants is further highlighted by what each
group dislikes about the program. Almost twice as high a
percentage of the dropouts cited hunter problems, such as
trespass and rudeness, when asked what they liked least about

the program. Participants, on the other hand, were considerably

79

more likely to cite program associated problems, such as the
bother of issuing tags and poor sign quality. In addition,
dropouts were much.more likely to complain about low program
fees than participants, and much less likely to respond that
there was nothing to dislike about the PAS program.

Participants and dropouts also differed considerably in
terms of what they liked about the program. While both
groups indicated money and control more often than any other
feature, a considerably higher percentage of participants
indicated each. In conflict with other findings, a somewhat
higher percentage of dropouts liked providing hunting oppor-
tunities than did participants. Still, a higher percentage
of participants cited better hunter relations or better
class hunters as a best liked feature.

Generally speaking, both.groups expressed similar in—
terest in a variety of suggested changes in the program.
Participants, however, were less interested in increased
enforcement patrols than dropouts.

In conclusion, while they are similar or differ only
slightly in many reSpects, these two groups display major
differences in their attitudes toward hunters and hunting.
These differences, though not consistent for all relevant
variables (hunter relations, attitude towards hunting,
significant problems, etc.) give a strong indication that
dropouts are not leaving the PAS program simply because of
its faults. Rather, they seem.to be discontinuing partici-
pation, at least in part,because of long-standing problems

with hunters reinforced by a generally negative attitude

30

towards hunting. Participants, on the other hand, tend to

like hunters and hunting, and as a result the PAS program,

better than the dropouts.

"Urban fringe participants" and "non-urban fringe partici-
pants" subgroups

As in the case of the "all participants" and "dropouts
and non-renews" subgroups the "urban fringe participants"
(urban fringe) and "non-urban fringe participants" Cnon-
urban fringe) subgroups have many similarities. Average age
for both groups is between 55 and 60 and both.groups are
predominantly male. However, a somewhat higher percentage
of urban fringe landowners have incomes above $18,000 per
year.

Also in similarity with the dropouts and participants
subgroups, median percent of income from farming is consi-
derably lower for one of these groups than it is for the
other. Those on the urban fringe have a much lower median
percent of income from farming than non-urban fringe parti-
cipants. This difference is not however, associated with a
large difference in median acreage.

In terms of organization membership, urban fringe parti-
cipants are a great deal less likely to belong to any organi-
zations than non-urban fringe participants. They are also
considerably less likely to belong to the Farm Bureau, though
percentages for SCS membership are not very different.

Non-urban fringe participants are somewhat more likely to

81

cite farming as their primary ownership reason and somewhat
less likely to cite investment or residence.

No strong differences (510%) are found in whom these
two groups allowed to hunt prior to PAS participation. How-
ever, program participation brought 50% more new hunters to
urban fringe landowners than to non-urban fringe landowners.

Pre-program hunter relations were largely sflmilar for
non-urban fringe and urban fringe participants, but non-
urban fringe landowners had higher percentages at both ex-
tremes (excellent, and very poor). The similarity in hunter
relations is repeated in these groups' attitudes towards
hunting, with more than three quarters of each group support-
ing hunting of all legal species.

Only about one third of each of these groups report
significant problems with hunters. When significant problems
are present, higher percentages of non-urban fringe partici-
pants report trespass and litter before participation. How-
even.during participation these percentages show at least a
50% drop for the non-urban fringe landowners. Urban fringe
landowners generally report a smaller, but still significant
drop. This situation is reflected in the change in hunter
relations reported by each group. A much higher percentage
of non-urban fringe participants report an improvement in
relations than do urban fringe participants. Surprisingly
a slightly higher percentage of non-urban fringe landowners

also report worsened relations.

82

When respondents were asked to specify their biggest
problem.with hunters, these two subgroups gave generally
similar responses. However, a much higher percentage of non-
urban fringe participants cited trespass and three times as
high a percentage of urban fringe participants cited fence
and gate damage. Both groups gave similar ranks to a list
of possible hunter problems, ranking litter and property
damage highest.

About the same percent of each group received comments
from.neighboring landowners, with the percent of negative
comments being somewhat higher for non-urban fringe partici—
pants.

In regard to what they like best and least about the
program, urban-fringe participants are about twice as likely
to cite providing hunting opportunities and better hunter
relations or better class hunters but only three-fourths as
likely to cite money as are non-urban fringe participants.
Complaints about too little money are more likely to be
from.non-urban fringe participants. On the other hand, com-
plaints about hunter associated and program associated problems
are more likely to come from urban fringe participants. In
addition, only half as high a percentage of urban fringe
participants felt there was nothing to dislike about the
program as non-urban fringe participants.

Generally, proposed changes received only slightly dif-
ferent amounts of interest from each group. Increased en-
forcement patrols received somewhat more interest from.urban

fringe than from non—urban fringe participants. Still, it

813';

received the same rank score from both groups.

When respondents were asked to suggest their own changes,
almost twice as high a percentage of non-urban fringe parti-
cipants suggested more money than did urban fringe partici-
pants. However, this difference was not repeated in the
section where respondents selected and ranked items from a
list of possible improvements. In that case urban fringe
participants ranked increased fees very slightly higher than
non-urban fringe participants.

In the section in which.respondents wrote in their own
suggestions for improvements, about twice as high a percent-
age of non-urban fringe participants suggested better signs.
This relationship was reversed for better enforcement, which
was cited by a much.higher percentage of urban fringe parti—
cipants.

When asked why they were renewing their lease, responses
for these two groups were quite similar. Close to half of
each group state that money is the main reason. Control is
cited more often by non-urban fringe participants, while the
fact that they allow hunting anyway is cited by a higher
percentageof urban fringe participants.

Non-urban fringe participants and urban fringe partici-
pants do not differ nearly as much as dropouts and partici-
pants do. In cases where they do differ, there seems to be in-
sufficient consistency to isolate any trends. Key differences
include urban fringe participants' lower median income from

farming and lower farm organization membership. More

84

significant in terms of the PAS program.are urban fringe
participants higher number of new hunters coupled with a
lower percentage of improved hunter relations and generally
greater dissatisfaction the program than non-urban fringe

participants.

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first
section presents conclusions based on study results. The
second is composed of recommendations for improvements to
the PAS program. Possibilities for further research are
discussed in the final section.

Conclusions

 

The program attracts landowners somewhat older than the
average rural landowner. Participants own considerably more
land on the average than rural landowners in general. Those
who have dropped out or who do not intend to renew their
lease approach Zone III averages for these two variables more
closely than continuing participants.

Larger landowners are probably more prevalent among
participants for two reasons. First, the DNR only accepts
parcels over 40 acres in size in order to provide sufficiently
large continuous hunting areas. Second, landowners with
larger acreages are more likely to favor such a program
(Parker, 1975) and larger acreages provide more significant
amounts of income, thus encouraging program entrance and
continued participation.

The fact that most participants both allowed hunting and
had relatively good relations with hunters prior to partici-

pation probably indicates that landowners who are in favor

83

86

of public use of their land and already enjoy good relations
‘with.hunters are more willing to take the risk of entering

a public access program. They are also more likely to view
the income as profit since less change in their behavior is
required by participation. Because the fees are quite low,
$.50 to $2.50 per acre, the amount received is unlikely to
overcome the unwillingness of those who do not allow hunting
to allow it. Neither is it likely to be large enough to
enlist those with poor hunter relations in a program which
promises to bring more hunters to their land.

These remarks must be tempered in view of the fact that
the dropouts and non-renews subgroup, which could be thought
of as being on the margin between participants and non-par-
ticipants enjoyed somewhat better relations with.hunters prior
to participation than did those who continue to participate.
On the other hand, about 60% of "all participants“ felt they
had no significant hunter problems while only 34.3% of the
"dropouts and non-renews" felt this to be the case.

Generally speaking, the program.appears to have de-
creased significant problems with hunters by a considerable
amount and improved landowners relations with hunters for
a third of the respondents. This shows that the programs
control features, and probably the hunter‘s assurance of
acceptance, work to promote better hunter behavior and
relations. The simple fact that hunters usually ask per-
mission (possibly because they know it will be given) on

program lands is probably a major factor in the improvement

.379

of relations.

As far as can be judged from the study, impact on
adjacent landowners is not common, but where it exists it
is likely to be negative.

The finding that money does not rate above control as
the best liked program feature probably reflects the low
payment as well as the already mentioned positive program
influence of improving landonwer/hunter relations. As the
study shows, however, poor hunter behavior is still a major
problem for some participants, as well as being a common
cause of participants dropping out or not renewing their
lease. Low per acre fees are frequently cited as the least
liked feature of the program and are the major reason for
lease non-renewal as well as an important cause of program
dropout.

Free court representation, increased per acre fees, and
free property damage insurance head the list of improvement
suggestions. This is not surprising considering the concern
many landowners express about liability and property damage.
Among improvements suggested by the respondents themselves,
higher fees ranks first, while better information is second,
and improved signs and more enforcement vie for third. Re-
spondents feel the need for more hunter and landowner
education about the program‘s responsibilities and benefits.
The poor visability and short life span of PAS program
boundary signs is also in need of remedy. Finally, more

enforcement patrols and closer contact between the DNR and

88

participant landowners is needed to control hunter viola-
tions of game laws and program rules.

Despite expressing some real dissatisfactions with the
program most respondents feel the program has positive
benefits for them.

Recommendations

 

The results of this study have several implications for
program improvements, they are:

l. The fee structure should be revised upward
to compensate for inflation and to attract
increased numbers of landowners both.who do
and do not currently allow public hunting.

2. Program information dissemination procedures
should be broadened and strengthened to in—
clude:

a. information to the general population
of Zone III landowners on PAS program
control and improved hunter relation
benefits. Routes of access include the
Farm Bureau, Michigan Farmer, and area
newspapers.

b. information to hunters on program bene-
fits especially location of program
parcels and on hunter responsibilities
in terms of permission, courtesy and
good hunting behavior. (Litter problems,

a real concern of many landowners, can

89

best be addressed by hunters themselves).

3. Effort should be made to include additional liabi-
lity protection beyond the waiver currently pre-
sent in the enabling act.

4. The possibility of providing property damage in-
surance should be investigated.

Further Research

 

This study was originally intended to include a sample
of non-participating landowners as well as current and for-
mer participants. Non-participant landowners were to be
broken down into two groups, those with property adjacent
to PAS properties and southern lower Michigan rural land-
owners in general. However, the familiar limitations of
time and cost reduced the study to current and former parti-
cipants.

Fortunately, Pat Lineback, also of the Park and Recrea-
tion Resources Department at Michigan State, has conducted
a mail survey of landowners adjacent to PAS participants.
Results of that study will soon be available. The study
should provide information on positive and negative impacts
of the PAS program.on adjacent landowners. It may also
serve as proxy for a general rural landowner study for some
types of data. However, in areas where the program impacts
adjacent landowners the data will not be useful for this
purpose.

Because of these gaps, a study of the general population

of southern lower Michigan rural landowners is strongly

90
recommended. Information is needed, both to compare non-

participating rural landowners with participants and to in-
vestigate the availability of hunting opportunities on
private land. Only by comparing the characteristics of
non-participating landowners with PAS participants can the
difference between the two groups be identified. Once

these differences are discovered the DNR can concentrate

its recruitment efforts on those landowners most likely to
participate in the PAS program. A measure of the availability
of southern lower Michigan hunting opportunities is required
to assess the need for the PAS program as well as to measure
its effectiveness in increasing hunting opportunities.

There are two additional groups which merit study, DNR
Wildlife Division personnel and hunters. The attitudes and
opinions of Wildlife Division staff are important in any
effort to evaluate or improve the PAS program. Personnel
see the program from a different perspective than landowners
and can provide insight into program problems at two levels.
The first level is internal to the DNR and involves bureau-
cratic processes. The second level is external, involving
recruitment and retention of landowners in the program. In-
formation is needed in both these areas.

Hunters are the target group of the PAS program. They
must be sampled to find out who uses program lands, how
often, and where and when this use occurs. Without this in-
formation the program cannot be accurately evaluated nor can

necessary improvements relating to hunter use be identified.

91

In conclusion three major research areas remain to be
investigated: Zone III rural landowners, Wildlife Division
personnel, and Zone III hunters. Data from all of these

groups are required to successfully evaluate or improve the

PAS program“

APPENDIX A

92

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE

PM "8716!?” ma WEST 1M!“

Ilot county do you livo in? county
{minding m". bunny f-i‘ly “on Hvo in yur hm?
Ibo old on you? Yours

Inst is your sos? holo __ I.“

Is you- hoosohoio‘s mi incoo ohovo «- hoioo tho stoto locus of $18,000? Ahovo____lo1u
has my scans of Ions do ya on in mm Lou mum Southorn Iooor hichigon is osoontiofly
tho oroo of tho southorn Poninsuio soufi o? H-ZD.‘ {$3- pboloo right) kros

P1ooso list tho porcols of loud you an in south" ion-r hichign by soctioo. tououshio and county and
givo' thoir ocmntoo. a!" you nooo ooro spoco. plo‘oso list on o soporoto shoot of popor. PLEASE CIEE

Suction Township County kros

   

Do you hoIono to any of tho oroonixotions iistoo polo-n (Piooso chock as any as oppiy. a. suro to
crack H'. tho lost to- ih tho list. if m apply. )

‘0 "1&1.” un‘m Mt,” c1“ (m)000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOIIO.... )
.0 Mt‘ml "in. “806108109(M)...-u."noun-nun”...n...........

I “a unl'“tdl..0 ..... O... O ...... 00....00....00.00.000.0000000000IOOOIO

0 TM unli-‘m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00......IOOOOOOIOOOOIIOOIOOOOOOOO

. Loco! hunting or fishing club (plooso n-o)
55m c1ub... ......... 00...... OOCOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOO
East or Host Michigan EnviroI-ntol ktion Couoci 1.. ............. .....
F." an" OOOOOOOOOOOOOO l 0... 0.0.0.0.... ..... O... OCOQOOOOIOOOOOOOO
hfiml F‘m Waiutid. (m)OOOOOOIOOOOOOOIO OOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD
::Icmsm.t1m mi.”- OOIOOIIOCOO O.IOU...O...I000...OOOIOOOOOOOOOCOOOO

 

RQHSP‘MDCD

....... .00... 00...... O. .0. 0.00.00.00.00 0... CW 0.

L. My". othor for-ing. consomtion. or sporting organization plooso list

 

N. no ...... ( )

Doos onyono in your i-ooioto fanny hunt? Yos I ho (IF no. 60 TD WEST!!! H) J
Doosonyoooinywri-ooiotofooflyhuntoothoionoyouhovointhoPASPI-ooru? Yos ho
mich of tho foliouino stat-oats host ooscrihos your ottitmio towards Mating?

 

 

A. Gonorolly disopprovo of huntino" .
I. Support hunting oi'oli logo! spocios ...................
C. Gonoroliy support hunting but not of m logo] spocios. .......

Is this ottitudo shoroo by m tho othor odors of your housohold? Yos ho

Did any Mtors hunt on your land this hunting sooson (1978-79) who hovo not inntoo on it in post you-s?
Yos Approxi-toly ha any? | No (IF no. 60 TO OJESTIDN 15) I

Did any of thoso Motors hunt loro thon ono doy on your Ions? Los_Aporoxi-to1y ho- nny? : No—
nooso ostinoto tho poroontogo of total hinting uso of your Ions which occumo during such porioo bolas:

(Mg m UP T0 100%)

 

“go ‘5 . “CM I’oooooo oooo oooooo ‘
-m1‘00000000000000 z
legion»:o 15 - Hot-chi ...... . ........... 1

TOTAL TOD—1

10.
I7.

18.

1’.

21.

2‘.

93

 

um you no ony significant probl- with Motors in post yours? Yos I No (on TD ovation 19)]

Int kinds of significont oral- hovo you hod with Mouton in post yours?
Iota; you ontorod Aftor you ontorod
__'.m'_-_.

 

A. M” 1‘1“,” ‘uwu‘1mkoooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo
.o Tmnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo
Co L‘mnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo
:0 m oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo

'0 00000000000O0 0000000000000...

"looso H“ In) '
nooso hriofly doscriho tho gust significont probl- ut of thooo you Iistod in Duostion 17.

 

 

 

Tho fonoui suction consists of six poirs of orchids inich ny ho incl-toot ntto
usoofyou' ond. FRGIEAOiPAIAgL'tK TRENT“? ISM! mmmm.1aummm
inortontit-in porovon no svory mttoyou. hothifhothorooaloliy
inortont to you.
‘o In M. aMoooooooooooooooooooooooooooz m:

illich do you disiiho III-o?

0 TmMooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
‘0 10 W0000000000000 {V2
20 h mt0000000000

In 'A' tho oorsm oust-rind dislihod
hoodochos urn thon soro throots.

I. I. Who............. 2V;
2. Benetton" .......... V

In ’D' tho prson moon-ins disiihod
hoodochos and hockochos oouoIIy.

 

2. Littorino...

C. I. 0.9 to mun....................... I

no '0 Tm'000000000000000.000000000000000000000i
z. Lim~000000000000000000000000000000.0000.

E. I. Tmposs.....................................z

0 ”0000000000000000.000.000.000.0000

 

 

 

zwwwwww

hamldyoodoscrihoyonrnolotioos withiuntorsm oIItorodthoPAs Progroo?

3: «”3333333333::§ g "° ”"5 1

Co 00‘000000000000000000

hichofthosostotmnts hostdoscrihodyourroiotionswithhuntorsmohntodonywriondmyw
onurod PAS m2 (Plooso chock only ono o! tho folluing onswors. )

A. fly rolotions with humors howo boon tho sun sinco
mum thoP mar-L )(IF you area 'A'. m m oursnon 5T]

0. fly rolotions with huntors hon boon worso sinco
law m P” m0000000000000000000000000( )

C. fly roiotions with inntors hooo boon h‘ottor sinco
Iontorod tho PAS

‘0 "00000000000

 

hoteusodyournlotionswithiuntorswholuntodonyourlondtochonoo?

 

 

 

Doyflfol'lony‘lohfl Yos IND (IFM.GOTDGIESTIMZS)I

DoyoofononyofthoiondyouhvointhoPASProor-I Yos ho
During tho Inst fivo yours shout last montoooofyourtotol incao coon fra for-ing? t

31.

94

Blot oro your throo oost inortont sourcos of informtion on nttors of inortonco to your Iond?
(Audio shows. orgonizotiovs. nminos. otc. Piooso oivo typo of sourco ond its n-o. For can":
nowopupor. Dotroit Proo Pross)

A.

I.

c.

Didonyouofruthofllcoitoctyoouprovidoyouwithinfo-tionoothoPASProor-ortoromost
yorpurticipotioo? Yos lo

NotionohusthuiondyouhouoorhodiothoPASProoI-uhooninyorf-flyt Yours
MyouoryuolflyourspuuthosoloonorsofmomtyyuhoNinthoPASProor-r

You [In If no. has any individuns othor thon you ond your
spam shoro in tho worship of tho Iond you huvo
in tho PAS Prooru?

lion—nyothorthunyworyolrspousoshonin
docisions ooouttho ondyouhovo inthoPAS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inst is m‘ooot ioportont rouson for rotoinino onlorship in tho 1ond m RAVI; II TI! PAS mom
(PLEASE on one.)

‘0 F.m"0000000000000000.0000

.0 ”mt1m000000000000000000
0 Imm000000000000000000
0 h . 9“. “1'"0000000000
Iiuvon't ho. ohlo to soil...
. Dthor (plooso 'spocify) ( )

‘99“

 

 

Is m tholondyouonuinciudod inthoPASProor-t Yos (SDTDwESTIm 33) lo
IIydidyoudocidonottoputitoll inthom‘l

 

 

 

\Mchoi'thofoflowino stot-onts hostdoscrihoshovmchofthoyouryouiivoonormorthoiondyou
huvo in tho PAS Prowa? (Piouso chock only ono.)

I do not Iivo on tho 1ond tint I hovo in tho PAS Progn-
I muol‘ly spond only wootonds on tho Iond I hovo in tho PAS Proor........
c. I Iivo your road on tho Iond I hovo in tho PAS Prooroo
I "vs noor but not on tho loud I hovo in tho PAS Prooroo
I don't Iivo thoro out I hunt o rosidonco on tho propo-ty
. Dthor (plouso osploin)

Illichofthofonowingstotmntshostdoscrihoswhoyolonoodtohuntonyooriondbofwoyouworoin
thoPASProoruo?

 

>

0 :1“. 'r1“' .M "“t‘mCOODOOO00.00.00.0000000000 ;
'0 m m .sm m‘,"m00.000000000000000.00000.0
. Anyono whothor thoy oshod uornission or not.......... 3

90

. Ranting club “on who Iousod Iond
‘0 mm m ”‘d . f“00000000000000000000.0000000000

haywtoppodoutofthoPASPi-ooroot Yos [ho (IFm.DDTDwESTIalJ7)|

Wydidyfldmout?

 

 

*GOTOQESTIMQ

DoyouplutoronowyouriousowiththoflflwhonitospirosIYos_ |M_(IFND.SDTDGJESTIOISDH

lly doyou plon to continua?

 

 

 

my don‘t you plus to continuo?

 

 

07.

49.

510

95

Houu your noighhors osprossod any opinions ohout your purticipotion in tho PAS Progroo?
Yos ho ____ (IF no. SD TD DIESIIUI 42)

how any houo soid whut‘I

 

 

Inot doyou Iilno host ohout tho PAS Prograr

 

 

hutdoyoulikoloostohoutthoPASPn-ogroot

 

 

DoyathinkthoPASProgr-aoouldhoiau-ouod‘! You No (“10.6me3110“)
Na could it to iarouod?

 

 

 

 

HaldyonporticiputuinthoPASProorawithontthooorocrofoos? Yos No

A Pow indivionols huuo ado on suggostions for chongos in tho PAS Progroo. It ay or ay not to
possihio for tho DIR to ako thoso chonoos. Hoavor. your opinion is iaortont in holoing tho DIR
docido whot kinds of chongos to considor.

Piouso ontor o chock ark undor oithor iqnortont or not iaortont for ouch ita. 1'on hovo on
odditionul suggostion. plooso writs it in bosido 'othor'. PPM at tho outta oP tho i).st PIooso do

notronkitasontilyouhovoroodmustion MD. M BPS—fl

‘0 xm00d “mat "m1‘000000000000000000000000. 000000000 000 000000000000
.0 Fm "b‘ut ‘mn000000000000000000000000 000000
c. Proo con-t nuprosontotion in coso of o low suit.......
D. Froo insuronco ogoinst proporty daogom... ..
E. Incrooso por ocro foos..
F. Dthor (plouso list)

0 00000000000 000000000000
0000000 00000 000000000000

00000000000 000000000000
000000000000 000000000000

.. .......... ..........( )

 

 

 

Plousoronkthoitasyouconidorodiaortontinthoohovoonostion. Usothocoinanonthoforright in
thotuhIoohovoarkod'Ronk‘ ondusoo'I'toindicotothoOREitayouconsidondnostiooortont.o "2
forthoggitooyouconsidoandasti-nortontondo'rfor thomgitayouconsidorzrdoostiaortont.

Piooso chock tho onswor trot host doscrihos how ofton yon issuod groon tugs. (Piooso chock only ono of
tho font-ring onswurs).

A. Inouurissuodgroontogstolunntors................ H F 'A' I

I. I soatias issuod groon tugs to lunniursmumm. ,
c. I oIoost oIays issuod gran tugs to hnuntors........ i 1:

PIooso doscriho your systa for issuing toos or poruission to hunt on tho Iond you hovo in tho PAS Progroo.

 

 

 

i
i
i

 

 

 

If you hovo ony odditionol coaunts about hunting. huntors. tho PAS Progroo or this quostionnoiro. piooso
you” this spoon to lot us know ndnot thoy oro. If you hood odditionol spoco. plooso uso o soporoto shoot

THANKS PM You: TIME AID CMERATION!

APPENDIX B

97

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT or PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 48824
NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

March 12» 1979 INITIAL DROPOUT COVER LETTER

Dear Michigan Landowner:

You have been chosen to take part in a study of the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources' Public Access Stamp (PAS) Program. Since only a
small number of landowners have been selected, your cooperation in
filling out the enclosed questionnaire is very important. The Wildlife
Division has notified us that you have withdrawn from the PAS Program.
We are very concerned with obtaining information which could help ime
prove the program. To do this it is necessary to find out from both
current and former participants what their satisfactions and dissatis-
factions with the program are. Please take a few minutes of your time
now to complete and return the enclosed questionnaire. A stamped,
self-addressed envelope has been included.

‘Michigan State University has been selected by the DNR to conduct an
objective evaluation of the PAS Program. It is very important that the
person who actually signed the contract with the DNR answers the
questions or that they be answered as if he or she were answering them.
We want to find out how you feel about the program and a little bit
about you as well.

While the survey is being conducted, a record will be kept so that we
can send remainders to those who might have forgotten to return their
questionnaires. However, once the results are in, our mailing records
will be destroyed and there will be no record of who returned question—
naires. This will guarantee your anonymity. We will assume when we
receive your questionnaire that you have consented to be in this study.

Thank you for your time and help.

Sincerely,

David G. Feltus Donald F. Holecek
Graduate Assistant Associate Professor
Project Coordinator Project Director
DGF:lh

Enclosures

98

REMINDER POSTCARD

Dear

Two weeks ago we sent you a questionnaire
on the Wildlife Division's Public Access Stamp
program. We have not received yours yet.
Completion and return of these questionnaires
is vital to our research and your responses and
opinions are very important to us. We need your
help and cooperation to make this study success-
ful and useful. Please take the time now to
complete and return your questionnaire. If you
have already done so thanks and please disregard
this notice.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

David G. Feltus Donald F. Holecek
Research Assistant Associate Professor
Project Coordinator Project Director

99

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824
NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

April 5, 1979
FOLLOW-UP PARTICIPANT COVER LETTER

Dear

Last week we sent out post cards as reminders to landowners who had not
returned their questionnaires. Some landowners have contacted us and
expresses willingness to help us, but said that they had not received
a questionnaire or that it had been misplaced. As a result, we are
mailing an additional questionnaire to all landowners who we have not
as yet heard from.

Your opinions and responses are important to us and the DNR. We need
your help to identify PAS program problems and strong points. Only

if you provide this information can the program be improved. Help us
and take a few minutes of your time to fill.out the enclosed question-
naire. Please return your questionnaire even if you don't answer
every question.

If you do intend to complete a questionnaire for us, please take the
time to do so now as this is the last reminder we will be sending you.
If you have already returned a questionnaire, thank you and please
throw away the one enclosed.

Sincerely yours,

David G. Feltus Donald F. Holecek
Graduate Assistant Associate Professor
Project Coordinator Project Director
DGF:fp

Enclosure

100

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824
NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

FOLLOW-UP DROPOUT COVER LETTER
April 5, 1979

Dear

Last week we sent out post cards as reminders to landowners who had not
returned their questionnaires. Some landowners have contacted us and
expressed willingness to help us, but said that they had not received a
questionnaire or that it had been misplaced. As a result, we are mail-
ing an additional questionnaire to all landowners who we have not as
yet heard from.

Our records indicate that you have withdrawn from the PAS program. We
found that people who have withdrawn from the program are the least
likely to return our questionnaire. However, landowners who have with-
drawn are very important to this study. we need to know what makes them
drop out. If problems with the program are the cause, we need to find
out what they are. Only if you return your questionnaire can the DNR
identify and solve program problems and improve program strong points.

we want and need your responses and Opinions, even if you don't answer
every question. Please help us and take a few minutes of your time to
complete and return the enclosed questionnaire.

If you do intend to complete a questionnaire for us, please take the
time to do so now as this is the last reminder we will be sending you.
If you have already returned a questionnaire, thank you and please throw
away the one enclosed.

Sincerely yours,

David G. Feltus Donald F. Holecek
Graduate Assistant Associate Professor
Project Coordinator Project Director
DGF:fp

Enclosure

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C
LIST OF CITIES AND TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 TOWNSHIPS
TYPE 1 TOWNSHIP: a township which is entirely included in an urbanized
area or one into which an urbanized area extends.

TYPE 2 TOWNSHIP: a township immediately adjacent to Type 1 Township.

TYPE 3 TOWNSHIP: a township or townships which satisfies both of the
conditions above.

 

 

 

CITY
COUNTY URBANIZED AREA CODE TYPE 1 TOWNSHIP TYPE 2 TOWNSHIP
Barry Battle Creek 1 Assyria
Johnston
Barry
Bay Bay City 2 Portsmouth Merriot
Frankenlust Hampton
Hampton MOnitor
Bangor Kawkawlin
Calhoun Battle Creek 1 Battle Creek Convis
Bedford Fredonia
Emmett Leroy
Pennfield Marshall
Newton
Clinton Lansing 3 Bath
Dewitt
watertown
Eaton Lansing 3 Windsor
Delta
Genessee Flint 4 Burton Atlas
Flint Clayton
Genessee Davison
MOunt Morris Flushing
Forest
Gaines
Grand Blanc
MOntrose

101

Mundy

 

COUNTY URBANIZED AREA
Genessee Flint

Ingham Lansing
Jackson Jackson

Kalamazoo Kalamazoo

Jackson-
Kalamazoo

Jackson-
Kalamazoo-
Saginaw

Kalamazoo Battle Creek

Kent Grand Rapids

102

CITY
CODE

4

6

13

14

9

TYPE 1 TOWNSHIP

 

Delhi
Lansing
Meridian

Blackman
Summit

Kalamazoo
Portage

Grand Rapids

TYPE 2 TOWNSHIP

Richfield
Thetford
Vienna

Alaiedon
Aurelius
Vevay
Williamston

Henrietta
Leoni
Liberty
Napoleon
Rives
Sandston
Spring Arbor
Tompkins
Columbia
Hanover

Alamo

Brady
Comstock
Cooper
Oshtema
Pavilion
Prairie Ronde
Richland
Schoolcraft
Texas

Bellevue
Charleston
Climax
Ross

Alpine
Plainfield
Caledonia
Cannon
Ada
Cascade
Caledonia

COUNTY

Kent

Macomb

Muskegon

Oakland

Ottawa

Ottawa

Saginaw

Saginaw

URBANIZED AREA

 

Grand Rapids

Detroit

Muskegon

Detroit

Grand Rapids

Muskegon

Bay City-
Saginaw

Saginaw

103

 

CITY
CODE TYPE 1 TOWNSHIP
9
7 Sterling Heights
warren
8 Laketon
Muskegon
Norton Shores
7 Bloomfield Hills
Novi
Quakerton
Southfield
Troy
9
8
12 Portsmouth
10 Buena Vista

Saginaw
Spaulding
Portsmouth

TYPE 2 TOWNSHIP

 

Gaines
Byron

Clinton
Macomb
Ray
Shelby
washing

Cedar Creek
Dalton
Eggleston
Fruitland
Fruitport
Sullivan

Avon

Bloomfield
Commerce
Farmington
Oakland

Pontiac

Orion
Whitelake

West Bloomfield

Georgetown
Jamestown
Tallmadge
wright

Springlake

Kochville
Carrolton

Albee
Blumfield
Bridgeport
Kochville
Swan Creek
Taymouth
Thomas

St. Charles
Tittabawassee
Carrolton

COUNTY

URBANIZED AREA

 

washtenaw Ann Arbor

wayne

Detroit

104

CITY
CODE

11

TYPE 1 TOWNSHIP

 

Ann Arbor
Pittsfield
Scio

Detroit
Livonia
Westland

TYPE 2 TOWNSHIP

 

Lima

Lodi
Northfield
Salem
Saline
Superior
Webster
York
Ypsilanti

Browston
Canton
Huron
Plymouth
Romulus
Van Buren

APPENDIX D

105

 

 

2 m. o.o A. s. .30 SERVES Efio
«A m. o.o a. e. .wuo REESE Efio
o.o 2 o.o .3 .3 .95 wfifiam 650
an an an an E .35 was??? Efio
do or” m...” an 3” EEO
9: mi: 3: 92 9.: 538m 833893 mom
3 m... z N... 9e 833ng Smash ~93sz
9mm 9% 53 92 gm Haas sham
.3. 3 .3 .3 .1 2.058 833. is 836E
3 m... .1 an an .38 323s .8 335: H83
«4 m. as m. .G. Boga: ”Boa.
.3. 3 o.o .3 3 Enaflfi £95
2 a... 2 e... .3 8338....4 38a 33sz
em 2 as To 2 3:8 .28 “OBOE €332

mucmmfiowuumm mucmdeowuumm msmcmuucoz. munmnaoauumm mucvaOQOOm anouwnnm
swans «mg a 3685 H2 H2

Hes $33.82

 

mnmmmmeZEAaflzuaNHz<uzoLEHHHBmH
Nmnfldwar
QHanzmmm€

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods, Belmont: Wadds-
worth Publishing, 1973.

Barrett, Paul M. "Number 9 Wire: Symbol of a Trend."
'Michigan Conservation, XXIV, No. l (1955), 19-20. as
Cited by Richard Westfall in LandownerWillingness to
Allow Public Access for Three RecreationaI Activities:
A Study Of Rural LandOWners ianent County, Mich.
Master‘s Thesis Department of’ParE andiRecreatiOn Re-
sources, M.S.U. 1975.

Belyea, Glenn Y., and Lerg, John M. Public Use of Southern
Michigan Game and Recreation Areas. Michigan Dept. Of
Natural Resources WiIdIife Division Report No. 2754,
Jan. 1976.

 

Boyce, Arlo. "Public Access the National Picture." Paper,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife
Division. April 4, 1975.

"Lands No Longer Available for Hunting in Michi-

 

gan.9 Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Wildlife
Division unpublished internal memorandum” April 4,
1975.

Harris, Charles D. "Who Pays for Wildlife?" Michigan Natural
Resources Magazine. Sept.-Oct. 1977.

 

Holecek, Donald F. and westfall, Richard D. Public Recrea-
tion on Private Lands - The Landowners' Perspective.
Research Report Station, East Lansing,MicHigan, 1977.

 

Kitchel, Daniel S. Recreation on Private Land, Michigan

Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan,
1978.

Mahoney, Edward M. "Land Procurement Techniques Currently
Being Employed by State Recreational Agencies" Tech-
nical paper M.S.U. Dept. of Parks and Recreation Re-
sources, 1975.

Nie, Hull, et. a1. SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences) 2nd ed} lMcGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
N.Y., I975.

106

107

Palmer, walter L. An Analysis Of the Public Use of Southern
Michigan Game and Recreation Areas. ‘Micfiigan Dept. of
Natural Resources, Research and Development Report NO.

102, March 14, 1967.

 

 

Parker, Jon M. Thumb Area Wildlife Enterprise Analysis,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1975.

 

Shanda, William E. and Healy, Robert G. The Lands Nobody
wanted. Washington D.C. The ConservatiOn Foundation,

 

U.S. Bureau of Census. Census of Agriculture: 1974, Vol. 1.

 

Westfall, Richard D. Landowner Willingness to AllOW’PubliC
Access for Three RecreatiOnal Activities: A Study offl
Rural Landowners in Kent County, MiChigan. Master‘s
Thesis DEpt. of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan
State University, 1975.

 

 

Womach, Jasper, "A Test of the Assumptions Behind the USDA's
Pilot Public Access Program", unpublished paper, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1975.

, "An Evaluation of the ASCS Pilot Public Access
Program”, Resource Document, U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Washington, D.C., 1975.

 

"’IIIIIII'IIIIIIIT