«ab-97",

$5

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC USE

OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN GAME AND RECREATION AREAS

by Walter Lawrence Palmer

This study measured visitor use on State Game and Recreation
Areas open to public hunting in southern Michigan during 1961-62;
compared the hunting season use with that of spring and summer, and
also with hunting season of 1955—56; and, described several demo-
graphic and socio—economic characteristics of the hunters who used
these lands.

A stratified random sampling system was adOpted, and daytime
use was measured on several hundred sample check—days. This was
accomplished by systematically counting cars and by personally inter—
viewing hunters and/or from data supplied by hunters on questionnaire
postcards left on car Windshields.

Daylight visitor use during the 1961—62 hunting season was about
one million man-hours. Approximately 48,000 individuals hunted on
these lands that year. Hunting pressure was about 60 per cent greater
in 1961-62 than in 1955-56. The estimated kill of game increased
17 per cent, but the small game kill per 100 hours or per 100 acres
was not significantly different from 1955-56. Small game composition
showed a decided shift to forest species with a decline in farm game.

The daytime spring and summer use of State Game Areas was some-

what less than during the hunting season. But if after-dark hours

Walter Lawrence Palmer
were included, use during the warm months would be much greater.

Fishing was the most pOpular Spring and summer activity. Other
favorites were picnicking, berry picking, swimming, camping and general
sight—seeing.

From a questionnaire mailed to 4,004 hunters who had been con—
tacted on a Game or Recreation Area, 98 per cent were males. They
tended to hunt a variety of game rather than to specialize. In general,
hunters were distributed as was the pOpulation. The number of hunters
per county hunting on state lands seemed to be influenced by the pre-
sence of state-owned land, and by the prOportion of hunters living in
urban communities. hunters were apt to be rural residents; 60 per
cent of them had spent some part of their childhood on a farm or had
lived in the country. The current trend toward urbanization may ad-
versely affect the future pOpularity of hunting by making it increas-
ingly hard for hunters to reach hunting lands; and, more important,
urban youth have fewer Opportunities to deveIOp interests in hunting.

hunters tended to have middle—class incomes. Skilled and semi—
skilled craftsmen were well represented; fewer hunters than expected
were from the professional and ”white collar” occupations. The
average education level of hunters was just under grade 11. Their
age distribution was probably similar to the general pepulation, but
the sample was biased because most hunters polled were car—owners.
Hunters in certain age classes harvested some game Species more in—
tensively than did others. Game and Recreation Areas and Game Districts
were ranked according to the relative hunting pressure sustained.
Various hunting habits such as distances traveled, number of days

hunted, and problems of access to privately—owned lands are correlated

Walter Lawrence Palmer
with socio-economic factors and place of residence.
Differences in some characteristics appeared to exist in a sample
of non-respondents who were interviewed by telephone. Ethnic and

socio-economic factors apparently affect response rates to mail ques—

tionnaires.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC USE

OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN GAME AND RECREATION AREAS

By

Walter Lawrence Palmer

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1966

ACKNOWLEOGKENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Ralph A. hacfiullan, Director, Hichigan
Department of Conservation for suggesting this study and for making its'
completion possible. In addition, I am indebted to many other Department
people, too numerous to mention by name here, who helped conduct the sev—
eral hundred field checks on the Game and Recreation Areas. Dr. C. T.
Black, Biologist-In-Charge of the Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center,
East Lansing, offered many valuable suggestions and edited part of the
manuscript. L. A. Ryel, Carl L. Bennett, Jr. and Louis Dawn of the Rio-
metrics Unit of the Research and DeveIOpment Division, helped with sev-
eral statistical problems.

This was a cooperative effort between the Michigan Department of
Conservation and Michigan State University. Several Department employees
in addition to staff members of the latter institution were helpful in
designing the mail questionnaire and in data processing. Dr. Jay Artis,
Assistant Dean and Director, College of Social Science, Dr. Fred Waisanen
of the Department of Sociology and Dr. George Petrides of the Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife were especially helpful in this regard and Drs.
Petrides and Artis with Dr. Leslie Gysel, and P. I. Tack guided my entire
program of graduate study.

The assistance of my colleagues at Rose Lake who offered their help
in processing the thousands of postcards and questionnaires is also app—
reciated. Mrs. Dorothy Watling, Mrs. Ruth Bonsecours, Mrs. Marjory Van
Riper and my wife Pat all struggled with the typing and retyping of this
manuscript.

Finally, I am indebted to my wife and children, Rent and Sally, for

their encouragement and understanding throughout this endeavor.

0

i1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTIOI“. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1
GEIqEElAI-l bETIlODS OF STUDY 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4
VISITOR USE DURING THE HUIQTIIVVG SE‘AASOEI I O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7

The sampling method ....................................... 7
Stratifying, allocating and selecting the sample

of check days ............................................. 7
Conducting the field checks ............................... 10
Estimating daily use ...................................... 15
Hunter success and species composition .................... 17

RESULTS 0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 18

Rate of postcard return ................................... 18
Visitor use ............................................... 18
Hunting information ....................................... 21
Comparison of 1961-62 and 1955-56 data for

27 Game Areas ............................................. 22
Species composition ....................................... 25

TiiE SPRIL‘JG-SUI'EER SURVEY PERIOD OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 27

Results 00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOO... 27
Types Of Spring and SMler use .00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO 3O

PERSOIQAII CIIARACTERISTICS OF IIUINTTERS 0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 32

Methods ................................................... 32
Results ................................................... 33
Estimated number of peOple who hunted on state-owned lands. 34
Sex of hunters ............................................ 34
Types of hunting licenses purchased ....................... 34
Distribution of hunters by county ......................... 37
Distribution of hunters by urban and rural residence ...... 37
Marital status ............................................ 40
Income .................................................... 40
Occupations .................. ............................ 40
Education ................................................. 46
Age distribution .......................................... 46
Racial status ............................................. 4d
Hunting pressure compared between Game and Recreation

Areas and by Districts .................................... 48
Distance traveled to hunt ................................. 50

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

Kill information......................................... 53
Hunter success by age classes............................ 53
Leisure time interests................................... 56
A place to hunt.......................................... 61
Distribution of Detroit area hunters..................... 64
Ownership of private lands............................... 65
Hunter Opinions of state—owned areas..................... 66
Voluntary letters received............................... 69
Telephone survey of non-respondents...................... 69

RECOLNflvr—LEIQDATIOI\ISOOOOO.0..0...000......0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 73

surveySOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOCOO. 73
Characteristics of hunters............................... 73

SUlvfi‘IA-RY.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 75
LITERATURE CITEDOOOOOOOOOOO...0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0... 78

APPEICII'DICESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...... 79

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Levels of expected daily use in man-hours during the
hunting season survey of southern Michigan State Game
and Recreation Areas, October 13, l96l—March l, 1962....... 8

2. Data used to allocate the number of area-day field
checks by strata during the October l3-November 30,
1961 periOd for 27 State Game AreaSOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0...O ll

3. Data used to allocate the number of area-day field
checks by strata during the period December l—March
lfor 27 State Game AreasooO...OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO0.00... 12

4. Data used to allocate the number of area-day field
checks by strata during the period October 13-
November 30, 1961 for 24 State Game and Recreation

AreaSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOIOO0.0.0.0.0... l3

5. Data used to allocate the number of area-day field
checks by strata during the period December l-March
l for 24 State Game and Recreation Areas.................. 14

6. Data and computed hunting season use of 51 southern
Michigan Game and Recreation Areas, October 13, 1961-
March 1, 1962 using the car-count method.................. 19

7. Data and computed hunting season use of 51 southern
Michigan Game and Recreation Areas, October 13, 1961-
March 1, 1962 using the postcard method................... 20

8. Data and computed hunting season use of 27 State Game
Areas, October 13, l96l-March l, 1962 which were also
StUdied in1955-560000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...... 23

9. Data collected during two visitor use surveys conducted
in hunting seasons of 1955-56 and 1961—62 on 27 south-
ern Michigan State Game Areas............................. 24

10. Percentages of 6 species of small game killed as
reported by hunters on 27 Game Areas in 1955—56 and

1961-6200000000000000OIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOQCOOOOOOOOOO 26

ll. Data used to allocate the number of area-day field
checks by strata for the southern Michigan spring-
summer survey of State Game Areas......................... 28

12. Data and computed visitor use of 27 southern Michi-
gan State Game Areas, April 28-September 30, 1962.
Field data appear in Appendix VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0...0.. 29

V

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Percentages of the total number of times (2318)

various recreational activities were mentioned on

1781 postcards from people contacted on 27 Game Areas
during the Spring and summer, 1962.......................

Number of respondents to a mail questionnaire, average
number of days reported hunting, computed number of
hunter days, and the number of individuals who hunted

at least one time on southern Michigan state lands in
the 1961-62 hunting season...............................

The pr0portion of two groups of hunters purchasing
various types of hunting licenses; peOple who hunted

on State Game and Recreation Areas in southern Michi—
gan, and hunters state-wide as determined by a postcard

pOllIOOOOOOOOOOOCOOO0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000...O

County of residence of people who hunted on southern
I‘iiChigan State-WDEd lands in 1961-.6200000000000000000000

The number of individuals, married and single who
hunted more or less than the median number of days by
Strata With values Of Chi-'Square...o...............o.o...

The relationship between marital status and distance
traveled to hunt, with chi-square values by strata.......

Percentages of southern Michigan state-land hunters
and male residents occurring in five income groups.......

Percentages of southern Michigan state-land hunters
and male residents occurring in seven occupation

Classes.0.000000000000000000COOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOIOOOOO...

Percentages of southern Michigan state—land hunters
and male residents who completed various grades of
formal EducationOOOCOO0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00...

Percentages of three groups of Michigan males occurring
in various age Classes.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

The 20 most heavily hunted State Game and Recreation
Areas in southern Michigan in 1961-62....................

The percentage of hunters on state-owned and privately-
owned lands by Game Districts in 1961-62.................

vi

Pace

31

35

36

38

41

42

43

47

49

51

52

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

The average distance in miles traveled to hunt on
state—owned and privately-owned lands ...............

The reported kill in 1961—62 by strata by 3,141
respondents to a mail questionnaire who had been
contacted on state-owned lands in southern Michigan .

The computed kill by an estimated 47,970 individuals
who hunted on southern Michigan state-owned lands in
1961-62. Data are based on Table 26 ................

Game kill data for hunters checked on state-lands
compared to hunters state—wide, 1961—62 .............

Percentages of various types of refusals reported by
hunters when farmers were asked permission to hunt ..

Percentages of hunters' reasons for their Opinions of
state-owned lands as places to hunt .................

Conservation issues discussed in 121 voluntary letters

received from hunters who had responded to a mail
questionnaire 0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOCOOOOOOOCOOOOOO...0..

vii

Page

54

57

59

62

68

70

Figure
1.

LIST OF FIGURES

State Game and Recreation Areas Open to hunting inb
southern Michigan. The 27 Game Areas with names enclosed
were also Studied in 1955-56.....OOOCOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00 6

Percentage of residents of the Detroit area and out-state
areas who reported hunting four distance categories from
their homes while hunting on private and state-owned land.. 55

Distribution of small game kill by age class of hunters.... 60
Percentages of 5 responses regarding hunter Opinions of
state-owned lands in southern Michigan as a place to hunt.

About 5 per cent of the hunters did not respond to the
questionOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000000000000000....00... 67

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix BEBE.

I-A Form used to record information while conducting
field Cheeks ......OOOOOOOOOOO.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 79

I-B Reverse side of form, including instructions ......... 81
II Letter placed on car windshields asking for hunters'

COOPEration ......OOOOOIOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....00.......... 83
III Pre—addressed postcard forms distributed on parked

cars used during hunting season and spring and summer. 85

IV Daily estimates of visitor use in man-hours as
determined from car-counts and postcard returns by
strata, with stratum.means and variances for the
hunting season survey, 1961—62 ....................... 87

V Daily estimates of visitor use in car-hours from
car-counts by strata with stratum means and variances.
Spring and summer, 1962 ......OOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0... 90

VI Letter sent with mail questionnaire containing a
brief explanation of the study and an appeal for
cooperation ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.000.000.00...... 92

VII Reminder letter sent with second and third mailing
Of the questionnaire .........OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00...... 94

VIII SouthernMichigan hunter Opinion questionnaire ........ 96
IX Code book prepared for responses ..................... 99
XrA Data and computations to test the independence of

place of residence (Detroit-area vs. out-state area)
and access to private land ........................... 107

X-B Data and computations to test the independence of
access to private lands and race of hunters .......... 107

X-C Data and computations to test the independence of
place of residence of white hunters Of the Detroit
area vs. out-state area and access to private land ... 109

X—D Data and computations to test the independence Of

hunters living in cities over 100,000, except Detroit,
and other areas and access to private land ........... 109

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES (continued)

Appendix Page
X—E Data and computations to test the independence of

the abilities of white hunters from cities over
100,000, except Detroit, and white hunters from
other areas in gaining access to private lands ................. 111

XI Form used to conduct telephone interviews .............. 113

XII-A Percentage of respondents (mail) and non-respondents
(telephone) living in urban and rural areas ............ 115

XII-B Percentage of married and single respondents (mail)
and non-respondents (telephone) ........................ 115

XII—C Percentage of respondents (mail) and non-respondents
(telephone) occurring in three racial classes .......... 115

XII—D Percentage of respondents (mail) and non—respondents
(telephone) completing various levels of education ..... 115

IMTRODUCTIOE

In 1961-62 there were 56 State Game, Recreation, Forest and Exper—
iment station lands scattered throughout the 34 southernmost counties in
fiichigan. These comprised over 220,000 acres, of which almost 200,000
acres were Open to public hunting.

A multitude of questions had arisen in recent years regarding these
areas. how much are these lands used for hunting? For other purposes?
What other types of uses are there? Is the intensity of use increasing?
Are certain areas more heavily used, and if so, which ones? Where
should future state-owned lands be located? Which type of land yields
the best cost—benefit ratio ~ the low—cost, wild-land type or the high—
cost type located in agricultural areas? How many and what types of
people use these areas? Why do these people hunt on state-owned areas?
Answers to these and other questions are needed in order to manage these
areas in the best public interest.

Gordinier (l957) measured the amount of visitor use during the
1955-56 hunting season on 27 of these Game Areas. In addition, he
reported hunting success, species composition and total kill. As time
passed, it appeared that visitor use was increasing. By repeating the
earlier study in 1961—62 I hoped to detect and measure the magnitude of
the change between the two years, but in addition all Game and Recreat-
ion Areas in southern Michigan Open to public hunting were studied. A
use study was'also conducted on the 27 State Game Areas during the
spring and summer of 1962.

Aldo Leopold (1933) defined game management as "the art of making

land produce sustained annual crops of wild game for recreational use”.

But this definition is inadequate because game management also includes

1

2
the harvest of these crops by the sporting public. The manipulation of
hunting regulations and seasons to effect this harvest by the public can
be as complex a procedure as producing the game.

During the three decades since Leopold defined game management,
much has been learned about animal life histories, population dynamics
and ecological relationships. During this same span, the social sci—
ences have also made great progress. The wildlife biologist has been
preoccupied with biological problems. But despite making these important
discoveries researchers have been frustrated when the public did not acc—
ept recommendations based on scientific findings. The history Of deer
management in Michigan is a good case in point. Field investigations in
1930 showed that deer were too abundant in some districts, starving dur—
ing severe winters (Bartlett, 1950). Recommendations to reduce the herd
to a level commensurate with the carrying capacity of the range were not
adopted. Biologists realized that it was one thing to recommend solu-
tions to problems, but quite another for the public to accept those rec-
ommendations. In fact, 20 years elapsed before the hichigan public
agreed to shoot significant numbers of antlerless deer and thereby try
to reduce the size of the herd by utilizing surplus animals.

This problem of converting scientific knowledge and fact into act-
ion programs that the public will accept is an important one. And com—
munications between a resource management agency and the public can be
improved when the desires and needs of the people are clearly under-
stood. Survey techniques developed in the social sciences can be used
to keep abreast of public Opinion regarding vital issues or to detect
and attempt to correct through educational means a troublesome situation

before it has become aserious problem.

3
Southern hichigan is different from the northern part of the state-

‘

in piysiography, climate, economics and geology. hinety per cent of the
state's peOple live in southern Michigan. Moreover, more than half of
the state's residents live in three counties in the vicinity of Detroit.
Five other cities exceed 100,000 population. There are no large metro—
politan areas in the northern part of the state.

Because most of the people live in southern Michigan, this is where
the people-oriented problems are. A mail questionnaire was sent to
4,004 hunters who had been contacted on one of the Game or Recreation
Areas during the study which measured the visitor use during hunting
season. Answers to the questions provide a description of the people
who use these areas and it is hoped they permit an improved service to

them while at the same time our resources continue to be scientifically

managed.

GENERAL YETHOD OF STUDY

The study had four principal purposes:

1) to determine the volume of visitor use and the game harvest on
all State Game and Recreation Areas located in the southern 34 counties
of Michigan during the 1961-62 hunting season.

2) to compare these use and kill data with that determined on 27
Game Areas also studied in 1955-56.

3) to determine the types of visitor use made of the 27 Game Areas
during the spring and summer of 1962, and to compare the intensity of
this use with that during the hunting season.

4) to determine the number of people who hunted these lands in
1961—62 and to describe their demographic and socio-economic character-
istics, and wherever possible, to relate them to problems of resource
management.

Visitor use surveys

 

During the period October 1, 1961 - September 30, 1962, two sepa—
rate visitor use surveys were conducted on 51 state Game and Recreation
Areas open to public hunting. For each survey the areas were class—
ified (stratified) according to the expected level of daily use and sys-
tematic counts of cars were made three times during randomly selected
days. Additional data were obtained in the field while conducting the
counts (see beyond).

The two survey periods were: 1) the hunting season from the first
day of waterfowl hunting on October 13, 1961 to the last day of rabbit
season on harch 1, and 2) the spring and summer from April 28, 1962,
the opening day of trout and general fishing season, to September 30,

1962 the last day before the start of archery deer hunting. Other

4:“

methods were used to calculate the volume of visitor use during two brief
periods of tnis year when systematic counts were not made. Thus, total
use for an entire calendar year was estimated.

0n the Pte. houillee and Fennville State Game Areas and the Rose
Lake and Swan Creek Wildlife Experiment Stations, information was
obtained by local staffs using various methods of hunter checks. Con-
sequently these areas were not included in the group of Game and Recrea-
tion Areas studied (Fig. l). The 27 Game Areas which had been studied
during the 1955-56 hunting season (Gordinier, 1957) were included and
were also systematically sampled duriig the spring and summer.

The number of occupants per car, the length of time spent on the
area, type of activity and hunting data were obtained both by interview-
ing people in the field and from returned pre—addressed stamped post-
cards left on car windshields. Up to two reminder notices were sent
when car owners failed to return cards.

Characteristics of hunters

 

A 4-page questionnaire was mailed to the total of 4,004 hunters who
had been seen on one of the state—owned areas or whose car had been tal-
lied there. A randomly selected sample of about 17 per cent of the non-
respondents were interviewed by telephone to determine whether they

differed in any of several ways from respondents.

 

 

 

   

93:2: g

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

mammos mm<o
mma<Zmama<omajzmoz<mm \,
uu_=302.3.—\ m 0 m 2 O 2 00.2.0 zm—mmmm
i i .‘ km
E
\>
b
mz><a 3<zmszm43 zomxo<s zsoza<ooow<z<a<x

>ucau:&\.\l

ace—3:?

 

        

 

 

 

was .23.:

I-ZUCED
1' t m m . .
...-5&3) Am. t E x)
a H w 2 ~ > w J
.. . oz<4xao $20.5 z<xezl z o P am 5...:
5.2.3.. ...«vx «Hwy 9.322:
_ was;

 

    

       

     

 

   

0:25.23!
San

 

 

£2.50: 3.23.. “I 4 H 2 < 0 m A 4 d.

 

 

\..

   

 

 

 

 

      

 

   

  
  

 

 

 

    

.5. .955... 553 694. 303.893
m 2 o o «#2 €2.26 m. . 3:25 3.3 :3. 9.2::
”w r 4 a z o a
a. z x
22.5.: mummqafrm zonzlao :25 m <3<sso
4
m m m a 4 m m m m z m a E
xx/ |||||||||u||u||||||||.
g 3 E.
t E. _
.25. 32:98 . 3:20 2&3. rl
83-32..“ \I \/ i
\, a. o _ e 4 m o

24<DFZOZ

EH.

>><Z~w<m

 

 

 

\\\\\
\\\.\x\\\\.\

252 236 NEE I

\\.W.\\ \\\.\\\\
m<mu< zo=<qumu wh<hm \\

 

 

 

 

600...:

 

Z O m D m 8.. >ou

....325 .onummmH CH omfivaum omam 9.83 wmmoaoam weeds :33 3.6.3 memo R 98.

.cmwflnoaz cumnunom CH mewucan Cu ammo mmmu< coaummuoem pam.mamu madam .H ouawfim

 

VISITOR USE DURING THE hUhTIHG SEASOK

The sampling method

 

The method of sampling daily visitor use as reported by Gordinier
(1957) was used since he obtained reliable results. The method utilized
stratified random sampling. The basic sampling unit was the number of
cars present on an area during a check day as counted three times; mid—
morning, mid-day and mid—afternoon. Friley (1954) showed that the num-
ber of hunters in the field during the day exhibits a bi-modol distrib-
ution with peak numbers afield in mid—morning and mid-afternoon. A
mid—day low was typical. It was assumed that this distribution is a
normal one for all Game and Recreation Areas. The car-counts yielded
the number of car-hours of visitor use each check—day (see beyond) and
these were later converted to man~hours after the number of occupants
per car was obtained from interviews made in the field and from post—
cards returned.

Stratifyingj allocating_and selecting the sample of check days

 

Before the hunting season, 1961—62, it was necessary to stratify
all of the Game and Recreation Areas by each day of the hunting season
according to the expected level of man—hours of use. Nine expected
levels or strata were established for the early part of the hunting
season from October 13 (opening day of waterfowl hunting) through Nov-
ember 30 when hunting pressure was heaviest. Only four strata were
necessary for the more lightly hunted period between December 1 and
harch 1. During this latter period the expected range for stratum IV
was 141+ man-hours (Table 1).

In stratifying areas the assistance of District Game Biologists was

obtained and their special knowledge of the areas was invaluable. The

Table 1.)

Levels of expected daily use in man-hours during the
hunting season survey of southern Michigan State Game
and Recreation Areas, October 13, 1961 - March 1, 1962.

Expected visitor-hours

 

Stratum of use
I 0-30
II 31-80
III 81-141
IV 141—200
V 201-250
VI 251-300
VII 301-400
VIII 401-500

IX 501+

9
estimated amount of use dictated in which stratum each area—day would
occur according to criteria established in the 1955—56 study.

Before drawing the random sample of check days the total sample
size to be drawn was determined on the basis of the number needed to
adequately sample the total use, based again on results of the earlier
study. After this was done, the number of field checL—days was desig—
nated by strata.

As mentioned earlier, it was desirable to compare data for the
group of 27 Game Areas studied in 1955-56. Therefore, these areas
were sampled at the same intensity as before. In effect, the 24 areas
added in 1961-62 were treated as an independent survey, designed
similarly in all respects, to allow combining data according to use-
intensity strata from the two surveys. Combining the two surveys made
possible a single estimate of total use for all 51 areas with narrower
confidence limits than if the two surveys had been dissimilar.

One hundred and thirty—six field checks were necessary to duplicate
the number made on the original 27 Game Areas. Eighty checks were needed
to sample the 24 remaining Game and Recreation Areas at the same rate.
Thus, a total of 216 field checks were necessary. These were assigned
by strata by disproportionate, rather than proportionate allocation.
Disproportionate allocation utilizes data from earlier work reducing
variability (Snedecor, 1956). Specifically in this study each stratum
sample size was determined by weighting (multiplying) the average daily
man—hours of use within strata from the 1955-56 study (Column 4 in
Tables 2-5), by the prOportion of stratum area-days to total area-days
(Column 3 in Tables 2—5). These values (Column 5) were expressed as

proportions (Column 6) and were then used to prorate the number of sample

10
check days for each stratum.

This system was used to determine sample sizes by strata for the
two groups of areas for each of the two hunting season survey periods
(Tables 2-5). The actual selection of the precise check—days was made
from a table of random numbers.

Conducting the field chechg

 

Observers made three counts of cars and other vehicles on an
assigned area during the daylight period of the day. Car licenses and
starting and ending times of each count were recorded. PeOple were
interviewed at their cars and the following information obtained:
number of people in the car, length of time spent on the area to the
nearest one—half hour, type of activity, and when hunting the Species
and numbers of game bagged. When people were not at their cars, which
was most often the case, a short letter asking for c00peration and ex—
plaining the objectives of the study and a self—addressed postcard
addressed to the Rose Lake Wildlife Research Station were placed on
car Windshields. Car owners were requested to fill in and mail the
postcards. If the cards were not received within a week, the cars were
traced through the Title and Registration Division, Office of the hichigan
Secretary of State and the owner of the car was sent a reminder notice
postcard. Two reminders were sent when necessary. A sample recording
form with instructions, letter and postcards used appear as Appendices
I, II and III.

One important source of error in the method described here might be
the number of cars missed in the field. This possibility was minimized
by having local Conservation Department personnel who were familiar with

all roads and trails in the area make the counts. Efficiency could often

ll

 

 

mod mam. oH.Ho mom. swam
H NHo. om.o m.~m~ moo. NH NH
N NNo. mm.~ o.mo~ mHo. mm HHH>
N mmo. mm.~ n.m- moo. ma HH>
m moo. mm.m m.an omo. mq H>
ca qu. ho.m o.mm¢ oNo. cc >
mm mmu. on.¢H o.-~ «mo. «we >H
o mmo. wm.m o.~m moo. med HHH
om qma. NN.#H m.~o mod. Hoe HH
mm mmm. w¢.m~ m.nN ooo. mHmH H
mumuum mo coauuomoumlw modum mood mmdolmoum wumuuw Baumuum
mxomso vamwm mm oommmumxm «nu scum um: mo Hones: mp ooamfimmm
mmolmmum no mo: hafiwo muzoslcms haamo mo masonnama Hmuou mo mhmolwouw mo
aofiumooHH< wounwamz some wounwfioz haawo awe: aofiuuoaoum Renaud Hmuoa
Co Go So A3 A3 So So
.mmmH< memo oumum mm How weaken Hood .om nunsm>oz
ImH Honouuo osu wofiuso oumuuw hp mxowno oamfim amolmoum mo Hogans mnu mumooaaw ou vow: wumo .N magma

12

 

 

om ooo.H no.5H ooo.H Hmoq
o mmH. oq.m w.Ho mmo. mum >H
m sea. mo.~ m.m~ «oa. muq HHH
NH mow. oH.m n.~m mam. moo HH
5 oem. «N.¢ o.o «we. «now H
mumuum Mn cowuuomdum‘m om: mo mosum mmofi mNWolwmuw wumuum
mxomno oamfim mm ommmmumxm musoslama ecu Scum mm: mo wanes: kn omcwammm
mmolwmum «0 mm: kawmo mawww some mo musoslama Hmuou mo mhmolmmuw mo
coaumooaa< wounwfioz ouuswfimz Adamo omoz cowuuoooum nomads Hmuoa asumuum
to Go Go o: A3 A8 A:

.mmou< memo cumum mm now A noumz I H umnfimomo
moauoo osu waflusv mumuum ms mxomzo oaofim hmvlmoum mo uoaasa ecu mumuoaam ou vow: mumo .m manna

l3

 

 

oo ooo.H qw.¢o ooo.H quH

q Hoo. mm.m m.HmH omo. mm xH

H nHo. «H.H o.moH HHo. «H HHH>

m mqo. om.~ m.mmH oHo. om HH>

m omo. cm.¢ m.an mmo. Hm H>

m qu. mm.m o.mm¢ «No. mm >

w HqH. «H.m o.NmH mno. oo >H

m mmo. ow.m o.~m mmo. Hm HHH

nH «cm. Hm.mH m.Ho wmm. Nam HH

NH mom. Hm.mH w.mm on. moo H

mumuuw up coauuomoum m am: we hoaum mmmH mhmvlmoum mumuum asumuum

mxumno vamam mm commouaxw musonuama «nu aouw um: mo Henson up omamfimwm
haulmoum «0 mm: haamo mHfimo smog mo masonldma kuou mo mkdfilwmuw mo
aOHuMQOHH¢ omuzwfimz nounwamz maamv com: coauuomoum Renaud deuce

H5 H8 H3 on HC So So

.mmmu< coaumouoom vow memo ouwum «N How HomH .om umaao>oz I mH umpouoo
oowuoa on» mafluso wuwuuw %n mxumno vaofim mwolmoum mo Renaud mnu muMUOHHm ou vow: wumo .c mHan

14

oN ooo.H oN.m ooo.H momH

 

 

N owo. ow.o w.Ho mHo. mN >H
H mqo. ¢¢.o w.NN oHo. wN HHH
q moH. mm.H N.Nm omo. mm HH
mH one. NN.o o.o mHm. nHoH H
oumuum an coauuomouo m mm: xoaum mmmH ammolmoum mumuum asumuum
axomso oaofim mm vmmmmumxm mo man Scum mm: mo Hones: ma vmawwmmm
hmoImmum mo mm: hafimv muaonlama Adamo mo musoslama Hmuou mo mhmvlmmuw mo
aOHumooaa< wounwfimz coma wounwfimz AHHwo awmz defiuuomoum amoeba Hmuoa
H3 H8 H3 H3 H3 H3 H3

.mmwu< coaummuomm van mama oumum «N now H some: I H Hoaaoouo
moaned mAu waauao wumuum hp mxooso oHon honmoum mo Roofing mnu mumooaam ou own: mumo .m mHan

15
be improved when it was possible to check the presence or absence of
fresh car tracks at trail and road junctions saving time which could

be used to search other parts of the area.

Estimating daily_use

 

Two methods were used to compute the number of car—hours of visitor
use for each check-day. The car-count method as previously described
was conceived by L. L. Eberhardt in 1955-5b and used by Gordinier (1957).
The total daily car—hours based on the three car-counts were computed by

using the formula:

Car—hours = A1 + A2 + A2 + A3 +.... + £4 + 25
2 2 2
where X (4) = the number of cars tallied per count and
.L
t(i) = the elapsed time between counts. Counts K1 and X5 were

hypothetical and were assumed to be zero, representing the number of

cars just prior to daylight and just after darkness. Daylight and
darkness times were recorded by the observers in the field. Car-hours
were later converted to man—hours when the average number of occupants
per car for the day was obtained from interviews or from postcard returns.

Following 18 a sample computation based on hypothetical data:

Data recorded in the field

 

The period of daylight: 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.

 

 

 

 

Round of area Starting time Ending_time Number of cars tallied
1 (X2) 8:30 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 16
2 (X3) 11:30 a.m. 1:15 p.m. 12
3 (K4) 3:15 p.m. 5:15 p.m. 28

Average number of people per car: 3.0

1b

Computing_daily use

 

Car—hours O + 16 (3.0) + 16 + 12 (3.25) + 12 + 28 (4.0) + 28 + O (1.25)

2 "‘7'"— 2 2

[\3

167.0

167.0 x 3.0 = 501 man—hours of visitor use for the day.

Eberhardt compared this method during a seven—day period with the
number of man—hours of hunting recorded on the Rose Lake Wildlife Re-
search Station where all hunters must check in and out. The method
under-estimated the recorded use by about 12 per cent (Gordinier, 1957).
Thus, it appears that the method is somewhat conservative. In using the
method it was assumed that hunters afield during the day followed the
bi-modal distribution reported by Friley (1954) and they were scattered
throughout the area. Occasionally hunters and/or cars might not be so
distributed but this would be exceptional.

To compare results with the car-count method, I also tallied the
number of man-hours as reported on the postcard returns. But it was
necessary on most days to adjust for non-respondents because rarely
were all postcards returned even after two reminder notices had been
sent. I assumed that the average length of time spent on the area and
the average number of peOple per car of non—respondents did not differ
from respondents. The assumption seemed valid since these two statistics
did not vary significantly between original returns and those requiring
one and two reminders. After making this adjustment the number of man—
hours each day was simply the product of total people and average length
of visit.

With each method (the car-counts and the postcard returns) daily
sample means, variability within and between strata, and the confidence

interval were computed for the final estimates of visitor use for the

17

survey period on the entire group of Game and Recreation Areas and

also for the sub—group of 27 Game Areas.
hunter success and species composition

Species composition, the estimated game kill, and hunter success
per unit time and per unit area are summarized and compared with

1955-56 data.

RESULTS

Rate of_postcard return

 

Two-hundred and seven field checks were completed for the 216 days
originally selected. On the 207 check-days 4,489 parked cars were
tallied and 3,294 (73.4%) usable postcards were eventually returned.

Visitor use

 

During the part of the hunting season sampled systematically
(October 13, 1961- March 1, 1962), the car—count method produced an
estimate of 750,376 man—hours of visitor use Q: 4.82 at the .05 level),
(Table 6). Field data used to construct Table 6 are presented as
Appendix IV.

The postcard method, on the other hand, resulted in an estimate of
1,115,984 man-hours (1 18.2%) for the same period, (Tab1e7).

Both methods depend basically on the ability of field men to find
cars in the field. The discrepancy between the two estimates is due
to some other factor. It has been shown that the car-count method
yielded an estimate which was 12 per cent conservative on the average.
Even when this estimate was adjusted upward to become 840,000 man-hours
it was still considerably below the postcard tally. Although I found
no significant difference in length of visits or peeple per car between
types of respondents (original returnees, one reminder, two reminders)
the assumption that non-respondents did not differ may not be valid.

If the non-respondents exaggerated their lengths of visit, the postcard
tally would be inflated. Since the car—count method utilized a more
scientific approach with more controls, the estimate of visitor use

derived by it as presented in Table 6 should be used.

18

19

.>H xfivammm¢ cw umoaam woman ma manna mwnu guess do sumo vaHm

K
uamu you Ammunonluoufimfi> omm.omn n Acmmmv mnmm.ow “mm: wousmsou any

udmu Hon m.¢ u

 

 

mumm.ow
Nufimm.~um "one Hm>mH ucmo Hon no. can um mufiEHH moawvfimaoo 0:8

 

sz Adv "some mSu mo uouum pudendum mau mam musonlcma mmmn.ow n
234 a 3w. 3
- CG ASVWu Adams 0.7533 x
oHHo.Hm ow~m.qn mom mmmm. qamm
ma~m.- mmmn.o mwoooo. mofim.oomqoa o~.co¢ NWI. weoo. me xH
oom~.m Nmo~.o Hmoooo. nmm~.ommmm fiH.w¢m m oqoo. me HHH>
ouow.~ Nomo.o maoooo. cmmo.ommo~ wn.wc~ m Heoo. mm HH>
mmqm.o ommm.o «cocoa. mnmm.qomoo c~.mcm NH owoo. an H>
mnmm.m mamm.o wmoooo. Nuan.NmmHm mm.oo¢ mm ouoo. an >
mnwn.~ oqmw.H qmmmoo. qun.momm~ m~.mom oq wmmo. oom >H
cho.m oqwm.m~ Hoqmoo. mo~n.~o-m HN.ONN NH ammo. nwo HHH
Nnm¢.N nmao.m~ mawmmo. omoo.wch~ mm.mHH Hm mmwa. memd HH
onH.o mmmm.NH mememq. wmfiq.mwma mo.Nm on Name. mmao H
azumuum
2V 3 A E A 3 Cc A3 cs 9:
Almqldmw. AIMMINIMM_ N name musqmrdwa ammo when mmwvlmmum
amauumuuou N mawma sz asumuum ca 30030 Imoum mo
coaumasmoa Edumuum no mo no some «0 Hmuou unnasz
wuHaHm madmaum> mumsvm madmaum> anumuum nonadz mo
counwfimz dowuuomoum
«.vonuoa uczoolumo can mafia: mood .H noun: I Homa .ma wonouuo
.mmmu< coaumouomm vow meow amwfinoflz aumnusom Am mo ow: common waauaan vmuaaaoo vow mama .o manna

20

swooped N.NH + cNo.mHH H u Hemum mmmo.oNH ”on: no uHm. H> Nousceou 02H

 

q
essence N.NH u Hmseo.sH N .Ha>OH me. was he maHzHH ooze :HNaou one

 
 

 

69 W GO W ”some v.3 mo .8pr wasocmum we”. 98 2:05:29: mmmodNH
_ IAN. a
CG 0.qu Home“: OHHHENNV w

NNHH.NNH mum. NONN

NNNN.NN NNNN.N NNNoco. HNNN. NNNCNN QNN c.0NN m Neoe. ms m
omNa.N cmNH.o HNecoe. Nmi;.:¢cso Nocm.oNq N oeoo. me HHH>
NHL5.H mHNo.o NHccoc. «Hut. N:N aqu. oNN m Heoo. Nm HH>
NNNN.N NNNN. 0 access. HNNC.NNHN0 NceN.NNe NH QNQN. NH H>
NNNN.QH cmNN.o Nmacoc. cNNN.NNon H HNNN. NHN mN Nmoo. HN >
N<NN.N eHmm.N NemNco. NNNN. NNcqm No~ .HsN oq Nmmo. oom >H
NHNN.QH NNNN.NN Hoemcc. HNNN. CNNON NHNN. HON N ammo. NN HHH
eNoN. HH NeNe.N mHmmmo. egms.acm 3H NHoH.HoH Hm NNNH. NQNH HH
NNHN.H omNN.oNH memqme. meme. NNNNH NNNH.HN on NomN. NNHo H

 

Eduspum

quv quv Hav Adv sz Amv

 
 

amuse musomrsma shew mxmw mmmplmwuw
comHomHHoo madam sz Edumuum uH guano Imoum mo
GOHumHSQOQ Baum Hum we m0 m0 mama we Hmuou Monasz
ouHaHH mocdHuo> ouwvvm oocmHHm> Saumuum Hosesm mo
wouzmHoz SOHuHomoum

.Noauofi museumom ogu wch: NomH .H JUHGAuHooH .mH
Honouoo .mouHN SOHudouooH and mzmo as fHHoHH duomusow Hm we and common deuada NmHDQEOQ was mumm .m QHQNH

. Q

21

It was determined from analyses of postcard returns that 95.8 per
cent of the total visitor-hours of use was for hunting purposes, or
about 806,400 hunter-hours.

To estimate the hours of archery deer hunting taking place during
the non-sampled October 1-12 period, I checked records on file at the
Rose Lake Wildlife Research Station for three years prior to 1961—62,
and found that an average of about 4 per cent of the total hunting
effort took place during this period. If this preportion was average
for all the Game and Recreation Areas, about 33,600 hunter—hours of
archery use could be added to the 806,400 hunter—hour estimate.

In addition to the 51 Game and Recreation Areas systematically
studied, hunting was also permitted on four other areas and was re-

ported by their staffs as follows:

 

éggg ~ Hours of Hunting
Rose Lake Wildlife Experiment Station 14,506.5
Swan Creek Wildlife Experiment Station (Highbanks) 34,768.0
Fennville State Game Area 49,745.5
Pte. Mouillee State Game Area 34,515.0
133,535.0

Thus, the hunting use of state—owned areas in southern Michigan
during the 1961-62 season totaled almost 1,000,000 hunter-hours.

Hunting information

 

As reported on postcards, about 75 per cent of the hunters hunted
small game, while 25 per cent reported hunting deer, either with gun
or bow and arrow. Small game hunters averaged 4.4 hours, and deer

hunters 5.4 hours afield each day.

22

A kill of 2,881 pieces of small game and 15 deer was reported
on the 3294 postcards. The kill of small game per 100 hours was

12.7. This kill included the following:

 

 

Species Percentage
Waterfowl 30.8
Cottontail 19.2
Squirrel 16.9
Ruffed Grouse 13.3
Pheasant 12.0
Woodcock 6.1
Miscellaneous 1.7

100.0

Successful hunters (those who bagged at least one piece of game)
were no more or less apt to return postcards than were unsuccessful
hunters. The reported game kill per 100 hours by hunters returning
cards voluntarily was 12.5 compared to 12.9 and 12.6 for hunters who
were sent one and two reminders respectively.

Comparison of 1961-62 and 1955-56 data for 27 Game Areas

By considering only the 27 Game Areas studied both hunting seasons,
it was possible to note any changes which took place in hunting pressure,
success of hunters, species composition and perhaps others.

The car-count method indicated that visitor use in 1961—62 was about
466,000 man-hours compared to 288,000 man-hours in 1955-56 (Table 8).
This represents a 62 per cent increase deSpite the fact that the sale
of small game, firearm deer, camp deer and archery deer licenses in
1961-62 was down about 11 per cent from 1955-56. An upsurge in deer
hunting and longer length of visits apparently accounted for the in—
crease (Table 9).

The percentage of hunters after small game drOpped from about

67 per cent in 1955-56 to 60 per cent in 1961-62. During the 6-year

ammo use a: H was?“ $28 $2.: ”mm: emusaaoo 2a.

«mmH.¢N
uamo pom H.NH n Nmoom.oMN "Hm>mH no. wzu um wuHEHH monoprdoo use

"some moo mo uouuo pumNGMum saw was «mmH.¢N u
CIG QC w I 989: mHHHBmmV M

 

H5 H5
836 u $393 w u HNmMHNE w

23

 

moNN.Hq wNmN.Nm mmm. mmNo
mNmH.o mNoo.o mooooo. oooo.oom mo.mw H HmHoo. NH xH
NmmN.N mHmH.o HNoooo. Nmoo.m©¢¢H Nm.mmq N Hoqoo. mN HHH>
NwoN.N Humo.o mooooo. oon.wNNcH om.qu N owNoo. NH HH>
Homm.m mmmm.o Nqoooo. mmmm.omNom mm.mmN N qweoo. me H>
Nomw.¢H Non.o mqoooo. mwao.mqmmm co.m¢m «H ooNoo. He >
Non.q mem.q mwNHOO. ween.HONom No.5NN om oqmco. HHq >H
Nqu.N mooH.qq mmeoo. qmmo.wmqwq mo.HNH m Nqomo. mom HHH
ONNq.H Nomm.NH HNONqo. omoH.Hmmw mm.HN om onON. wwNH HH
mumN.o HHH¢.0N mHomNm. cmmm.mHnH mw.mm om womHo. momm H
N5 3 H 5 Nva so «5 H5 Nzo 533%
Ammagma. AMMMNMMM mzv mamas musomrama mNMN mkmv mmwvlmmum
aoHuoouHoo momma mo snumuum aH Ixomno Immum mo
:OHudeaom Edumuum mo oumnwm mo some mo Houou umnadz
muHGHm moaMHum> moamwum> enumuum umnanz mo
vmuzwwmz soHuHoaoum
.omnnmmH cH emHesum omHm mums NUHas NoaH .H scum:
IHomH .mH Honouoo .mmmu< memo manum NN mo 0m: aommom wafiuass omusmaou now mama .w mHan

24

uzoo pom

Na + mHm.mo

i
'4) H.)\

. I r...
C.. \f~

mtmmwa mo maomawm wdwu532

r

o.mm mvuuw 30H pom HHHH mama HHwam
m.qH musoz 33H Mom HHHH 056w HHmEm
33m.mm HHHJ 36mm HHmEm doudgsoo
H.m Mao Hum muwuass «o 9022:: omwuo><
m.m mpso: 2H ass: puma mo zumde oxmuo><
m.m musox 3H ads: 03mm HHsEm mo :uuQMH mmduo><
mm.mmm.m muse: wzflucss Maud wo pogfisa wouuomom

om.omm.oa

mm.

uaou Mom on H ,
omlmm

.mmoud vino

muDOS QSHHZSJ Ofiww HHmEm MO HOQSSS Umuuomom

mHUuCS:

r

poem mo SQHuuogoum
mumudsz oamw HHmEm mo coauuoaoum

mumuass mo hogan: HauOH

wwwusuuu mwuwoumom we ommusouuom

mymo dmxuwm do vaudaflpumflw mwuwouwom mo umafidz

Aam>ma mo. Oflu um Hw>umu3H moumwflwzouv
musoazsmfi SH om: Houfimfi> wmuwfiwumn

ouwuo 2mm :UH; duo: now u :0 vol 9\ :m
L r r C C \ .\ rv

05'

CH wwuoswaou mmm>unm om: HouHmH> oBu wsflunw wmuuoHHoo mumm .m magma

25
interval the computed small game kill increased 17 per cent, but the
kill per 100 hours (12.2) and per 100 acres (25.7) showed no signifi-
cant changes.

Species composition

 

Of considerable interest is the shift in small game species com—
position (Table 10). The pr0portion of pheasants and cottontails de—
clined from almost half of the kill in 1955-56 to a third of the kill
in 1961-62. 0n the other hand, such forest game as ruffed grouse and
woodcock showed substantial gains. There are probably two reasons for
this change. First, ruffed grouse and woodcock are products of the
successional changes rapidly taking place in southern Michigan. As
marginal farmlands go out of production they quickly revert to brush-
lands favored by these birds. That these changes are taking place is
reflected in the steady rise in the kill. In 1961 the kill of grouse
and woodcock in southern Michigan was more than 106,000 compared to
about 55,000 in 1955. Second, more hunters are pursuing these two
species. About 54,000 peOple reported hunting them in 1961, compared

to about 35,000 in 1955.

26

Table 10. Percentages of 6 species of small game killed as
reported by hunters on 27 Game Areas in 1955-56
and 1961-62.

Hunting Season
'Species 1955-56 1961-62

Fox squirrel 34
Pheasant 18
Cottontail 26
Ducks 5.
Ruffed grouse 10
Woodcock 4

 

 

var-"w

17 ~-v'-~r-‘ ‘V'1"I';:IT “'I'V‘.)YYT r ff‘f" ‘,
J.LL4_4 bL)llla\I\J—EJLJL.H‘IILJH1)L bU1\ ‘laE Plal\.LOD

A visitor use survey similar to that of hunting season was con—
ducted from April 25 to September 30, 1962. Although all Game Areas
in southern Michigan were included for study, and stratification was
completed on this basis (Table ll), only the results of field checks
made on 27 Game Areas studied in two previous hunting seasons are pre-
sented and compared with the previous surveys.

Stratification of areas and days by the expected daily car-hours
of use as the sampling unit and allocating sample sizes by strata was
carried out by using the same methods as for the hunting season. No
data were available from previous spring and summer surveys to help
reduce variability however, but L. A. Ryel suggested an alternative.
The mid-point value of the range in each stratum was multiplied by a
constant of 0.33 and then doubled. hese values appear as column 5
in Table ll.

Cars were counted in the field three times each day and postcard
forms were placed on Windshields as during the hunting season. Again,
car licenses were recorded in the field, and up to two reminder notices
were sent to people who failed to mail postcards. A different postcard

form was designed for this survey and appears in the Appendix.

One-hundred eighty of the 229 field checks completed were made on
the 27 Game Areas, and 2036 cars were tallied. The car—count method of
computing visitor use indicated that 384,000 visitor-hours of recreational
use (:3 per cent) occurred during the 156-day study period (Table 12).
During the lAO—day hunting season period on these areas, about 466,000
man-hours of visitor use were computed. Both estimates pertain to day-

27

28

 

 

0mm oooo.H owao.mH oooo.H womw
m memo. mem.o mm.Hmm mmoo. Hm +oom H>
cm nmmH. momH.~ mm.NmH HoHo. qu oomlHoH >
He «moH. Homm.m mw.m¢ Hmmo. mmq ooHnHm >H
qq Nan. mqmm.m mm.o~ mmoH. 0mm omIHm HHH
cw onm. Nom~.m wH.mH qum. mmmm omIoH HH
mm aomH. omom.m mm.¢ mmnq. mnmm mHIo H
COflumUOHH< coaunomwumI:NUHHHQMHum> muxmu mmmv coauuomoum. mmmu masonlumo Enumuum
mm vaunwfimz mumuum m an Immu< ea
muHHfinmfium> ammaumn vmmmmuaxm mwamu
woustmz hufiHHanum> mmmvlmmum pmuomaxm
A8 A3 A3 A3 A3 H3 AS A:
.mmmu¢ memo mumum mo hm>usw uweaamlwaaumm amwwnoaz unusuaom
map you mumuum >2 mxomso vaHm mmvlmmum no pages: mSu mumooaam ou mom: mama .HH oHan

29

.muaoenuouama> omm.smm n Anew.mmHvam.~
no umo Hum «Hmong mw.~ mums amuse .muaonlumo Nwm.mmH n A0N.vaHmmm ”mm: nouHmH> emusmaoo use

 

 

 

0N.mm
udmu Hem m no Hmo. u AmMMW4MM “Hm>mH m0. mnu um mufiefia moamufiwnoo msH
sz
comm. u Hmmemq . Aav
.NMMMNMMM names as“ mo nouns vumvcmum man mam 0~.mm a
0% szw I Emma oHQmev M.
00H 05.0 H0.¢ 0000.H Hmmm
m 0N.H 00.0 000000. ww.mwmm 0:.qu mN00. NH H>
mm mm.m NH.0 0N000. 00.0HNOH «0.00H HOH0. m0H >
0m 0¢.0 mm.0 Humoo. 0m.m0Hm 50.0m Hmmo. 0mm >H
0m mm.0 00.0 mquo. mm.0m0~ 0N.m¢ mmoH. 0N0 HHH
mm mH.0 ¢N.H mmwNH. hm.mmm Hn.HN mmmm. meow HH
mm «0.0 m0.m womom. N0.mmm mn.NH Nomq. 00mm H
as as E has A a co 3 E 533
AMMflfldMM .Nlmwdlmq. mama muaoauumo mhmvnmmum mamVImmum
wmxomnu mammm 83mmuum A30 adumuum . ea Hmuou «0
meme dowuomuuoo mo mo 00 mamma mo Hwnasz
mo aofiumasmom moamHuw> mumsvm modmflum> anumuum :OHuuomoum
amnasz «pecan nounwamz

.> xfiuamma< ea “modem mumv wamam .NomH .0m uwnaoummm
I ma kua< .mwou4 memo eunum amwanofiz auozusom hm mo ow: Houfimw> woundaoo was muma .NH magma

30
light use only. The wide variety of activities in the summer include
many which are not confined to periods of daylight, and these activities
during the summer are definitely more popular than during the fall and
winter. Therefore the above estimate is probably conservative for sev-
eral reasons. If the night~time use could be added to the estimates of
both study periods, undoubtedly the amount of visitor use during the
spring and summer would exceed that of hunting season by a considerable
amount.

Moreover, a larger proportion of the parked cars was undoubtedly
missed during the spring and summer because foliage hampered visibility.
And finally, the counts of cars made in mid-morning, mid-day and mid—
to late afternoon sampled a smaller prOportion of the total daylight
period each day than during the fall and winter. This would increase
sampling error.

Types of spring_and summer use

 

0f the total of 2086 postcards distributed in the field, 1751
(85.4%) were returned.

Respondents were asked to state what they were doing on the areas.
0n the 1781 postcards, 2313 refrremces rtrt made to many kinds of act-
ivities, (Table 13). Fishing was by far the most popular one, and
represented about one-third of the total. Other pOpular activities,
each representing about 10 per cent of the total were: berry—picking

(12.6%), picnicking (11.4%) and swimming (8.42).

Ta‘

le 13.

Percentages of the total number of times (2313) various
recreational activities were mentioned on 1751 postcards
I) A

from people contacted on r7 Gane areas during the spring
and summer, 1962.

Fishing 33.0
Lcrry picking 12.6
ricnicling 11.4
C' -'— .h— o
0?. Inning o .
Camping 7.
(‘3 _'Y‘A— ',.\
sight seeing 7.
Tusnrooning 5.
Tilti‘” 3.

f)

L.

l

t
he

— r?
.3 H
H-

m

H

m

camping friends
Bird watching and banding
Archery practice

Water skiing

Dog training

Photography

hiscellaneous

t"
O
m
m
H
"3
. . C O O
Q -.'> L.) w w U1 \1 ‘0 \o \o C) m to .E.\ N Ln ..'.\

1"
C‘-
Q [\3

TWELSCQQLL LFJJLA611391313K13 OF‘ELTTUJLHS

Hethods

A mail questionnaire was sent to the 4,004 hunters whose cars had
been tallied during the hunting season on one of the 51 Game and Rec-
reation Areas studied.

Considerable time was devoted to selecting and wording questions
and deciding upon a suitable overall format for the questionnaire. A
preliminary cepy was tested on a randomly selected group of 50 car
owners, and an important question omission detected. The final quest-
ionnaire included 25 questions printed on both sides of a sheet of bond
paper 17 x 11 inches folded to be 82 x 11 inches in size and four pages
long. The entire questionnaire package consisted of the questionnaire,
a letter asking for cooperation, a stamped self-addressed return envel~
ope and mailing envelope. The package weighed less than one ounce,
keeping mailing costs minimal.

One or two reminder notices (Appendices VI and VIIWere sent to
non—respondents to ensure the highest possible rate of response. New
questionnaires were sent with reminders. To determine whether non—
respondents had different characteristics than respondents a sample of
non-respondents was inter viewed by telephone.

Questionnaires (Appendix VIIE)were identified with the owner's car
license number in the upper right corner. First, second and third;
mailings to individuals were color coded with blue, red and red ink with
a prefix letter R respectively. The individual's name did not appear
anywhere, nor were signatures sought. This technique normally helps to
boost response rates (Artis, personal conversation).

Mailings were made in Lansing on March 19, Kay 7 and July 7, 1962.

32

’40
L)

Codirg of responses began about two nonths after the third mailing, a
reasonable waiting period.

Questionnaires were examined to ascertain responses and a code book
prepared (Appendix IX ). Demographic data, wherever possible, were
classified similarly to standards of the Census Bureau, U. S. Department
of Commerce. Key punch operators coded some responses but I personally
did all that required subjective judgment. Data were punched on 131
cards and two cards were required for each questionnaire. After punch-
ing, cards were verified to check for possible punching errors.

Results

Of the 4,004 sent out, 3350 (84%) were returned. Hot all were
usable. The unusables included: 133 from non—hunters who hadn't stated
this earlier on their postcards returned; in 202 cases the addressee was
deceased, had moved and left no forwarding address, or had imprOper add—
resses. Thirteen (13) completed questionnaires were not used because
the responses were irrelevant or contained ridiculous reSponses. Thus,
3,002 usable questionnaires were returned by hunters, (75%). Of this
total, 2,305 (76.8%) were from first mailings, 466 (15.5%) from the sec-
ond mailing, and 231 (7.7%) from the third.

If the cumulative percentage of questionnaires received were plotted
against the days after mailing from Lansing, a sigmoid curve would be
produced. Very few questionnaires were received until the third day after
mailing. They then came in at a very rapid rate for about two weeks,
after which the rate declined somewhat, but returns continued to come in
for several weeks. Almost half of the returns were received by the fifth
day, 70 per cent by the lOtn day and almost 90 per cent within a three-

week period. The rate of return of second and third mailings for any

34

period of time was consistently less than first mailings.
Estimated number of people who hunted on state—owned lands

The use made of the state-owned areas expressed in hunter—hours
becomes more meaningful in many respects if expressed in terms of people
involved. To convert the number of hunter-hours to the number of hunters
it was necessary to use data from the visitor use survey and from nail
questionnaire returns. These computations indicated that 47,970 people
hunted on State Game and Recreation Areas in 1961-62, (Table 14).

Since results of another statewide study conducted in 1961 indicated
that 862,451 individuals purchased a hunting license that year, about 1
hunter in 18 hunted on a state-owned area in southern Michigan.

Sex of hunters

 

As judged by given names, 98 per cent of the hunters were males.
Accordingly when comparisons are made later with population data, the
data pertain to males.

Types of hunting licenses purchased

 

Separate licenses are required in hichigan to hunt small game, deer
with gun, and with bow and arrow. This multiple license system has def-
inite financial advantages, but one disadvantage is that it is almost
impossible to determine the precise number of individual people who pur—
chase these licenses. ‘he proportion of this group of hunters purchasing
various licenses and combinations of licenses was compared with the pro-
portions who do so on a state—wide basis (Table 15).

Very few hunters in either group bought only an archery deer license
or the combination of firearm and archery deer licenses. On the other
hand, the two groups differed markedly in the purchase of a firearm deer

license or firearm deer and small game licenses. Many more hunters

35

cmm.aq mo.msm.sea 00am Haney

 

 

~HO.H Ha.momm a~.m mam xH
qu.H om.emmm mm.“ oaa HHH>
emo wo.mqa~ -.m mma HH>
smo.a m~.qaam mo.m mom H>
men.a om.mmao Hm.m «me >
Hma.o No.mmam~ me.m Nae >H
oo~.oa m¢.ohmem mm.m oam HHH
wwq.~H -.ommmq mm.m awe HH
amm.~a Hm.mqooe mm.m “ma H
meDUH>HMudH mflmv Hmuddn wmuuomwh mhmfi
mo mo mo
nuance panamaou gonads vmusmaoo “ensue wwmum>< mucmvaoammm adumuum

.aommwm wawuasn Nonaoma mnu aw apnea oumum nmwfinowz aumnunom no oaHu
mac ummma um pounds 053 mamsva>fiwnfi mo kebabs msu paw .mzmv Heads: mo Magnum vaunaeoo .
.mafiuass vmuuommu mzmv mo Humans ammum>m .wufimaaOfiummsv Hana m ou muqmvaommmu mo pageaz .qa manna

36

Table 15. The prOportion of two groups of hunters purchasing various
types of hunting licenses: peeple who hunted on State
Game and Recreation Areas in southern Michigan and hunters
state-wide as determined by a postcard poll.

 

 

 

Type of hunting license Southern Michigan hunters
hunters state-wide
Small game 34.9 44.2
Firearm deer 5.0 23.1
Archery deer 1.4 1.4
Small game and archery deer 3.1 1.0
Small game and firearm deer 49.8 28.5
Small game, archery deer and firearm deer 5.0 1.4
Firearm deer and archery deer 0.8 0.4
100.0 100.0

Number of individuals 47,970 862,451

studied here bought both a small game and a firearm deer license than did
hunters on a state—wide basis. It appears that the person who hunted on

state lands was more apt to hunt a variety of game rather than to spec—

Distributioa of hunters by county

 

Every county in southern Hichigan as well as several in the northern
part of the state was represented. In general, there was a linear rela-
tionship between population by county and number of hunters. Wayne
County was most often represented both by population and number of hunt—
ers using state—owned lands (Table 16).

Two factors apparently influenced the number of hunters by county:
1) the presence of state—owned land within a county and 2) the propor-
tion of the residents in the county living in urbanized areas. Jackson
and Tuscola Counties ranked second and third respectively according to
the number of hunters, but neither ranked in the tOp 10 according to pop—
ulation. both are predominantly rural. But other rural counties such as
Branch, Van Buren, St. Joseph and Laton Counties are also rural but had
few state—land hunters. They had little or no state—owned land. Count-
ies with large urban centers, regardless of the presence of state land
were well represented by state—land hunters.

Distribution of hunters by urban and rural residence

 

Since postal addresses alone could not differentiate people who
lived in rural or urban areas, they were asked to specify whether they
lived within or outside of a city, town or village. Hunters were class—
ified as rural when they lived outside of a community. The results were
compared with the urban-rural distribution of Southern Lichipan males

using 1900 Census Bureau data. However, the U. S. Census Bureau class-

38

Table 16. County of residence of peOple who hunted on southern
Michigan state-owned lands in 1961-62.

 

County Computed Percentage Rank
number of
hunters
Allegan 302 0.6 30
Barry 645 1.3 19
Berrien 521 1.1 23
Branch 23 0.1 34
Calhoun 1299 2.7 11
Cass 1357 2.8 10
Clinton 343 0.7 29
Eaton 116 0.2 32
Genesee 2606 5.4 6
Gratiot 272 0.6 31
Hillsdale 354 0.7 27
Huron 749 1.6 16
Ingham 1511 3.2 9
Ionia 1219 2.5 12
Jackson 3886 8.1 2
Kalamazoo 1164 2.4 13
Kent 3598 7.5 4
Lapeer 637 1.3 20
Lenawee 349 0.7 28
Livingston 470 1.0 25
Macomb 970 2.0 15
Montcalm 551 1.1 22
Monroe 493 1.0 24
Oakland 2970 6.2 5
Ottawa 666 1.4 18
Sanilac 697 1.5 17
Shiawassee 387 0.8 26
St. Clair 568 1.2 21
St. Joseph 5 0.1 36
Saginaw 2601 5.4 7
Tuscola 3712 7.7 3
Van Buren 30 0.1 33
Washtenaw 2325 4.8 8
Wayne 9423 19.6 1
Northern Lower Michigan 1139 2.4 14
Upper Michigan 12 0.1 35

Total 47,970

\0
\O
O

\D

U.)
a
4'

ifies an urban resident as one who lives in an urbanized area or in
places of 2,500 inhabitants or more outside urbanized areas. Thus the
classification of residents was not identical but a comparison of data
seemed justifiable.

hunters were more apt to be residents of rural areas because about
40 per cent of them lived in rural areas while only 25 per cent of the
male populace did so.

I suspected that the place of childhood residence might have influ—
enced the hunters while young, and I xpected a large proportion of them
to have had a rural background. I asked them to specify the number of
years during their first 18 years of life they lived in the follbwing
areas: 1) farm and country, 2) small and medium-sized city (less than
25,000), and 3) large city (more than 25,000).

About 60 per cent of them had lived some time on a farm or in the
country. As expected however, more of the older hunters had come from
rural areas. Almost three-fourths ( 22) of the hunters older than 65
had lived on a farm or in the country, but this percentage decreased
steadily through the younger classes until about half of the hunters
less than 19 years of age had had a rural background.

It appears from these data that urbanization could in two ways
reduce the popularity of hunting. First, increasing urbanization creates
conditions such as traffic congestion and access problems which discourage
the less avid hunters. These discouraged hunters turn to other recreat-
ional pastimes. econd, youth living in urbanized areas are probably less
apt to develop interests in natural phenomena and hunting which stay with
them throughout life. And even though these peOple try hunting perhaps
later on, they might be the less avid hunter who becomes discouraged very

easily.

Marital status

 

‘ O

The percentage of married hunters was 60.3 per cent and d d not dif—
fer significantly fron the percentage of married males (70.82) living in
Southern Xich'gan.

I used the median test as described by Siegel (1956) to determine
whether marital status had an influence on the number of days hunted.
Chi—square values computed for each of the strata indicated there was no
significant difference. (Table 17).

Moreover, no significant differences between married and single
hunters were found in distances traveled to hunting lands (Table 18).
Income

hunters were asked to select one of five income groups apprOpriate
to them. About 10 per cent of them failed to respond to the question.
Many must have felt the question was too personal.

Less than 10 per cent of the hunters earned less than $2,500 per
year compared to more than 25 per cent of the males in Southern Kichigan
(Table 19). Somewhat fewer hunters than expected earned more than
$10,000 per year, but this difference may not have been significant.
hunters definitely were middle class; more than 70 per cent earned be—
tween $2,500 and $7,500 per year compared to about 50 per cent of South-
ern Michigan males.

Occupations

 

The percentage of hunters occurring in each of seven occupation
classes shows a distribution which one would expect after ex mining the
income data. Occupations paying moderate incomes were very well repres-
ented. Almost three-fourths of the hunters were employed in some form of

skilled, semi— or unskilled labor. The percentage of farmers, on the

41

M
~J
m
{‘1

.\a
F»

MHN ”NH
om HHHp

H
O
(3
DIN
\D'W
r—ir-l
:fi cum
~:.“N--D
[\r“
mx-r
n ’W \‘I‘ ‘3‘ ‘3

 

a; a an S».
0.4 mm m qua ond L mnm H>

m3.3 0 mm awn mam : mm¢ >
0.0 no am How mam m moo >H
m.H 9 9H m mm m mma HHH
m.m ww ow vow mad m Haw HH
n.H ma mm on am 0 nma H
NA WNJU upon mNWU Homvp away anon nmww HQva haw muzmwsomwmu wo aduwuum

oawmflw dvfluymfl :mfluwm Huaasc fiwuow

.muwsvmlfiau mo modad> nufls wumuum kn m%mw mo
pagans :wwwog oLu amgu mmma Ho whoa mouzsg 0:3 mammfim van wowuuwfi .macsww>flwcfl mo Masada 039 .NH magma

42

Table 18. The relationship between marital status and distance
traveled to hunt, with chi-square values by strata.

 

Number of Marital Distance group in miles
Stratum resgondents status 1-19 20-39 40-99 X2
I 175 Single 21 9 10
Married 67 41 27 1.1
II 454 Single 54 24 17
Married 194 95 70 2.5
III 198 Single 18 5 4 .
Married 88 33 50 2.8
IV 657 Single 48 30 36
Married 216 194 133 4.4
V 717 Single 63 44 35
Married 255 160 160 0.8
VI 358 Single 37 22 12
Married 110 122 55 4.6
VII 130 Single 12 10 3
Married 49 37 19 0.6
VIII 101 Single 7 6 10
Married 25 24 29 0.3
IX 214 Single 20 17 17

Married 68 56 36 1.7

43

Table 19. Percentages of southern Michigan state—land hunters and
male residents occurring in five income groups.

 

 

 

 

Southern

Income_group Hunters Michigan males*
I Earned less than $2500 per year 9.9 25.6
II Earned $2500 to $4999 per year 25.4 24.3
III Earned $5000 to $7499 per year 45.9 26.8
IV Earned $7500 to $9999 per year 13.7 15.4
V Earned $10,000 or more per year 5.1 7.9
100.0 100.0

* 1960 U.S. Census data

£\
4:"

other hand, was similar to the population at large. The professions,
sales workers and managers were less represented than they existed in
the population (Table 20).
About 6.4 per cent of the hunters vere not gainfully employed, and
included 2.9 per cent students an” 3.5 per cent retirees.
Hunters were asked to report the number of hours worked per week
on the average during the hunting season by checking one of the following
responses: 1) more than 40 hours per week
2) between 31 and 40 hours
3) between 21 and 30 hours
4) 20 hours or less

5) did not work at all

If a hunter did not work he was asked to state whether he was re-
tired, a student, unemployed or ”other".

About 80 per cent of all hunters worked more than 31 hours per week
and this group was almost equally divided between those who worked more
and less than 40 hours. Less than 10 per cent of the employed worked
less than 31 hours. he number of retirees, unemployed and students
comprised the remaining 10 per cent of the hunters.

To ascertain whether a correlation might exist between the time
worked per week and the number of days hunted I divided the work week
into four classes: 1) more than 40 hours, 2) 31—40 hours, 3) 21-30
hours 4) 20 hours per week and less, and the number of days hunted per
individual was then recorded by work classes. Using analysis of variance
no significant difference was found between groups. Thus, the number of

hours worked per week had no bearing on the number of days hunted.

45

Table 20. Percentages of southern Michigan state-land hunters and
male residents occurring in seven occupation c1asses.*

Southern Michigan

 

 

 

 

Occupation class Hunters males
Professional, pr0prietors 9.7 14.8
Skilled craftsmen 37.2 22.7
Semi-skilled laborers 35.6 32.9
Farmers 3.6 3.7
Sales workers 4.3 6.9
Managers, clerical 5.8 13.1
Service workers 3 8 5.9
100.0 100.0

* Adapted from U.S. Census data, 1960.

46

education

The success of a dynamic wildlife management program depends upon an
enlightened public. And the amount of formal education is a measure of
the capability of a society to become and remain enlightened.

hunters were asked to check the highest grade of education they
completed, and to specify any additional special schools or colleges att—
ended. To reduce cheating they were asked to list the last school they
had attended.

Education beyond high school graduation was given a value of 13.

The mean level of education was determined by averaging the lumerical
values of the grades completed.

The mean grade level completed was 10.7. Iore than half of tne
hunters had conpleted high school, and almost 25 per cent had additional
training of some kind. Smaller percentages of hunters than other South—
ern Michigan males conpleted only grades below 8 (Table 21). The per-
centage of males attending post—high school courses was not available in

the census data.

d5? distribution

 

The average age of these hunters was 39.3 years. This mean was
probably biased because only car owners were sanplen, and the younger
hunters would not as likely appear. In comparing these hunters with
state—wide hunters and with male residents occurring by age classes, lar—

ce classes between

:5

C)

ger percentages in both hunter groups occurred in the
20 and 54 years (Table 22). The percentages of hunters represented in
the two older classes were somewhat less than enisted anon; all male
residents.

The relationship between age and hunting success is discussed later.

47

Table 21. Percentages of southern Michigan state—land hunters and
male residents who completed various grades of formal

 

 

education.

Grade Hunters Southern Michigan males*
1-4 1.5 5.0

5-6 1.5 6.4

7 3.1 6.5

8 18.7 20.0

9-11 24.9 22.5

12 27.9 22.5

13** 22.4 Unknown

100.0

* 1960 U.S. Census data

** Grade "13" represents some additional education in addition to
high school graduation.

racial status

rd

 

This group of hunters was composed of 94.4 per cent whites, 2.3 per

cent negro and 2.3 per cent “other”. In Southern hichigan in 196', 10.2
per cent of all males were non-white.

The apparent deficiency of non-whites may have been due to non-
whites responding untruthfully by reporting themselves as whites, or per—
haps disproportionate numbers of them disregarded the questionnaire and
did not respond.
hunting pressure compared between Game and Recreation Areas and by dis-
tricts

The sample size (number of check—days) used to measure the intensity
of visitor use on the Game and Recreation Areas was too small to permit
area comparisons. But from the nail questionnaire I was able to supple—
ment the data for individual areas by asking hunters to Specify as many
as three state-owned.and three privately—owned areas on which they had
hunted. These responses permitted a comparison of hunting pressure on
the various areas and administrative districts.

Few people knew the names of the state-owned areas and were unable to
tell precisely where they had hunted. They were asked to name a town or
city near their hunting area and l judged where they had hunted. This was
usually routine, but sometimes several areas were located near the city
mentioned. Other information in the questionnaire often provided a clue
which helped indicate the proper area. Otherwise it was necessary to code

he areas arbitrarily.

The 20 most frequently mentioned Game and Recreation Areas are ranked
in Table 23. The popularity of several out—state areas was surprising

because some are located quite far from population centers. It appears

49

of three groups of hichigan males occurring in

Table 24. Perce 8
various age classes.
Southern Lichigan State-wide Southern Lichigan
Awe class state—land hunters hunters* male citieens**

 

z

0)

19 2.4 13.9 1“.

b
C'
I
h
g
C \
Ln
H
H
‘40
OJ
0
H

23-34 25.7 23.5 l$.4
35-44 “a.4 21.2 20.4

43-54 25.0 10.6 16.3
55-64 9.d 9.4 2.o

65+ 5.4 4.1 11.7

i~“’ooled 1961 small game anu deer hunter postcard polls

**1960 U.S. Census data

50

that the southeastern Michigan Recreation Areas are very heavily hunted
early in the season, but their pepularity declines quickly after pheas—
ant season. On the out—state areas, in contrast, pressure apparently
was lower early in the season, but remained substantial over a longer
period. The total use of many more remote areas surpassed that of the
more accessible ones over the entire seas n.

When responses were grouped by counties and by Department manage—
ment districts, it was revealed that almost one—third of the peOple
hunted in District ll-—the "Thumb” district (Table 24). Districts 10
and 13 were somewhat less popular, but each was hunted by about 20 per
cent of the hunters.

The distribution of hunters by Districts when hunting on privately
owned land was similar. Apparently people preferred to hunt in a part-
icular area regardless of the type of land ownership.

Distances traveled to hunt

 

The air—line one way distance from the center of the respondent's
home town to the center of the stateeowned area hunted or to the city
near the privately—owned land was measured to the nearest mile on an
official hichigan highway map. When a respondent hunted near his home
town an arbitrary minimum distance of five miles was used.

After pooling reSponses in which one, two and three areas were
hunted, and considering hunting on both state—owned and privately-owned
lands, he over—all average distance between the home and the area
hunted was about 28 miles; about 29 miles to state-owned lands and 24
miles to privately-owned lands. The shorter distance to privately-
owned land probably reflected its greater availability.

People listing more than one area, traveled further to the second

51

Table 23. The 20 most heavily hunted State Game and Recreation
Areas in southern Michigan in 1961—62.

 

Rank Area County of location
1 Waterloo Recreation Area Jackson, Washtenaw
2 Tuscola State Game Area Tuscola
3 Lapeer State Game Area Lapeer
4 Gratiot—Saginaw State Game Gratiot, Saginaw

Area .
5 Barry State Game Area Barry
6 Brighton Recreation Area Livingston
7 Pinckney Recreation Area Livingston, Washtenaw
8 Bald Mountain Recreation Area Oakland
9 Fish Point State Game Area Tuscola

10 Shiawassee State Game Area Saginaw

11 Flat River State Game Area Montcalm

12 Deford State Game Area Tuscola

13 Allegan State Forest Allegan

14 Highland Recreation Area Oakland

15 Sharonville State Game Area Jackson, Washtenaw

16 Holly Recreation Area Oakland

17 Dansville State Game Area Ingham

18 Wildfowl Bay State Game Area Huron

19 Chelsea State Game Area Washtenaw

20 Maple River State Game Area Clinton

52

Table 24. The percentage of hunters on state-owned and privately-
owned lands by Game Districts in 1961-62.

 

 

 

Game District State-owned land Privately-owned land
9 11.3 15.1
10 20.6 18.8
11 29.6 30.4
12 7.5 4.2
13 21.3 24.5
14 9.7 7.0

 

 

UI
L2.)

area than the first and still further to the third. “his was true for
both types of land ownership (Table 25).

.1

Residents of the densely—populated southeastern counties, particu-
larly Wayne, hacomb and Oakland traveled further to hunt than did resi-
dents of other counties. Less than one-fifth of these residents hunted
on privately-owned lands and only one-tenth of them hunted on state—
owned areas within 20 miles of hone. 0n the other hand, 80 and 65 per
cent of the residents respectively of other counties hunted on privately
owned and state—owned lands within 20 miles (Fig. 2). Whereas about 35
and 21 per cent of the Detroit area people drove more than 60 miles to
hunt on privately—owned and state—owned areas respectively, less than

five per cent of out—state residents drove this far to hunt.

Kill information

 

The game kill as reported by 3,141 respondents and the computed
kill for the estimated 47,970 hunters are presented in Tables 26 and 27
respectively.

Species composition agreed closely with state-wide data (Table 28).
The cottontail was the leading game species reported. Hunters who used
state—owned lands had better hunting success than did hunters state—
wide. They averaged 8.4 days afield which was probably more than the
average.

Hunter success by age classes

 

To determine whether hunting success was related to age, the per-
centage of the small game bagged by species was plotted against the per—
centage of hunters occurring by age classes (Fig. 3). The several res-
ulting curve patterns were similar, i.e. the percentage of the total kill

taken by hunters in an age class was similar to the percentage of total

54

Table 25. The average distance in miles travelled to hunt on
state-owned and privately-owned lands.

§£a£g_ Private
One area specified 28.1 23.3
Two areas specified; average of second 32.4 25.3
Three areas specified; average of third 34.5 26.2

Average 29.4 24.2

55

HUNTING ON PRIVATE LAND

 

eo— \
\ Out-state residents

\

\ Detroit area residents

0)
o
I

  
 

 

Percentage of total hunters
A
o
I

no
0
I

\

\
l l .TIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIlfi

v

 

80—
HUNTING ON STATE-OWNED LAND

 

Detroit area residents

\2510” residents

40—

Percentoge of total hunters

20—

 

\.

I 1 I
I9 20-39 40-59 60+
Distance from home in miles

 

_-fi

Figure 2. Percentage of residents of the Detroit area and out-state
areas who reported hunting four distance categories from
their homes while hunting on private and state-owned land.

hunters in that class. but exceptions occurred. hunters in the 25-34
and 35-44 age classes killed more ducks and pheasants, and hunters in

the 45—54 class bagged more ruffed grouse th

J

-n hunters in other age
classes. Hunters over 65 were less successful in bagging all species.

Leisure tine interests

 

P1

ihe 40-hour work week is standard tonav. Leisure is more available
than ever to a mushrooming human pOpulation. It is possible that free
time will increase.

Types of leisurcfitine activities favored by the public are 0§_99“T Ax
cern because shifts in interests affect management of recreation facil—
ities and planning.

hunters were asked how they preferred to spend leisure time.
Responses were expected to be biased toward hunting, fishing and other
types of outdoor recreation because of the peOple sampled. Responses
were grouped into three categories:

3

1) "Field and stream' types of activities like hunting,

fishing, hiking, camping and related interests.

2) Commercial, spectator or org nized Sports interests
like golfing, baseball, football and bowling.

3) Domestic or non-sporting interests like carpentry,
cabinet-making, cooking, loafing, reading, painting,
photography, movies and television.

About 93 per cent of the respondents listed activities in the first
category, while slightly less than one per cent listed activities in
caterories 2 and 3. Of respondents who listed activities in more than

a

one category, about 65 per cent were in categories 1 and 2 and about 43

per cent in categories 1 and 3. About 12 per cent listed activities in

57

 

 

em on mmm aw wqca Nma sew moo mcm ma 0mm Ma
oa m ema m qma an qaa mam Nmm aa oaa aaa>
a na N aom 0 mm we moa mwa moq om oqa aa>
mm a man aa hem ama eam mm“ aNma mm mom a>
me an 3saa mm amca mam mmm :a a mmom Naa mom >
maa we omwa em use mme amaa mama mama ana amo >a
mm 3 3mm ma mew on aam «mm Nwoa an mom Haa
an em 3mg a: «mu nau one mama moqm an mcq aa
aa 0 mum ma mma mm on «ma mmaa an 2a a
menu eaauw aoeuaswm ommou gone xooowoou museum udeweozb aame:0eooo muo use: me:oudoawmu Edewuum
demand anwmme ooam :3 we
we noeenu

Heafidm

.zwmazoa: sumausom 2a muama amaze: oum em :0 we

... nomucoo deep
33: 0:3 enamsaoauwmsv aawa e 0e muzousoamou ara m \3 menu em N: Nola) a Ca aaa. weaponeu 03H .

\ O
(‘J

magma

\...r._

58

 

 

som.m mae.m mem.~ emw.ee mmm.q eem.He www.ma eem.sm mam.oaa mee.em~ smo.e cem.me Hmuoa
oaa aaa com ooaa New Nmao Nmo oqoa Nmmw awmm an Naoa Na
cw moa am eaoa mm coca nmm omaa mama «mom CNN «maa aaa>
Ne cm a qu mm Mma «mm mmq new moan wma one aa>
on no m oomm am mwm amm 0mm omwa Ncmm mam qmoa a>
mma mNN mna mmmN Nwa «mam omm «cum coqq «mmm amm mama >
mmq omaa Noe oaoma qmm mwmq nmaq cocoa amoma mmomm qwqa ammo >a
oqm mama o mmqma mwm mooma omen wnmoa omamw moomm wmaa oomoa aaa
mmm mama «mm wsamm owma mmoom 05mm aomma mmqam mwnmo mama quwa Ha
wmw awn qaq nqcmm Nuaa ammNa mnom macma mmnmm ammmm mama mmwma a
amen when umacm amuuadwm mmmmo mxodo xooowooa mmsouu uammmmsm aamuaouuouj mumuasz muwucan adumuum

vmmwam

mmaommm 5n aaax umuaaaoo

.om manna no wmmmn mum mumn
umumum amwanoaz sewnuaom so weeds: 0:3 mamsva>anaa 0mm.n¢ nonmaaumu am an aaax vmunmaoo age

asmmmmuonmap cousaaoo

.Nolacma ma mvcma cacao

.mN maan

59

.maoaumusmsoo

emoau pow new: mmB muonss: ucwmmega we “mean: emu .fisosx eon mmB mueuasz mo umnESS mmaooum e3u oosame

 

oo.a
amqa. mm.o swm.moa
mo.o No.3 sea.m u
ma.o ma.a oma.mos
ma.o ms.a oou.meo
em.o mi.“ seq.eee
mm.o me.N osw.oma.a

coauuomoam «ueucsa\aaau aaax

mueuaza ouazlououm

 

ss.a
aaqm. aq.s smn.oa euooeooe
ma.o sm.a moq.mv asoeuuume
oa.e ma.a sea.sm omsoue emeese
ma.o an.a emw.se Houuasem
0a.: om.m mam.oaa “message
as.o sm.s esm.emm HamueOHaoe

soaunomone poa:3e\aaae Haas mmammmm

wumecsa wzdaleumum :mwacuam dueausom

.Nolaoma .ewaslmemum wheeze; 0e weanmioo mzamaloumum do meeoeso weaned: now meme aaaa wade .wN magma

Per cent of total game bagged

60

 

 

 

 

40 '_ Cottontoil

—— Pheasant

---—- Ruffed Grouse

—-— Squirrel

—--— Ducks
35 — coco-noooc-ol Woodcock

. Percentage of hunters in age class
30 —
25 -
20 —
l5 —
IO —
5 .—
L l I l l l A
<l9-l9 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55—64 65+

Age class of hunters

Figure 3. Distribution of small game kill by age class of hunters

all three categories.

A place to hunt

 

When a landowner refuses to grant a person permission to hunt, he
usually gives a reason. A question asked of the hunter was: ”If a land—
owner would not let you hunt, and he gave a reason, what reason did he
give?” The responses probably represented a summation of all of the
individual's previous eXperience, not merely that of the 1961—62 season.

About three-fourths of all farmers reported by hunters refused per—
mission because they saved the right for their friends and relatives or
they were fearful of crop or other prOperty damage. Ten per cent of the
hunters said the farmer gave no reason; he merely said no when permiss—
ion was sought. About 6 per cent of the hunters indicated that they
seldom or never were refused permission to hunt (Table 2)).

Evidently a sizeable reduction could be made in the number of
refusals by farmers if hunters would learn to respect the property rights
of the farmer. About 40 per cent of the refusals were based on fears of
property damage. Much of the property damage may be due to ignorance on
behalf of hunters rather than being purposeful, malicious destruction.
As I have previously discussed, fewer hunters today have a rural back—
ground than was true in the past. Education might be helpful in making
hunters more aware of farm problems.

In some localities landowners seem to have banded together and
strangers are not permitted to hunt. Zorb (1959) reported that the
hunter access problem was most severe in southeastern counties. To de—
termine whether other problem localities xisted and their location, a
question was asked: "How easy or hard was it for you to find a place to

hunt?” Respondents selected one of the followinn'

t,"

62

Table 29. Percentages of various types of refusals reported by
hunters when farmers were asked permission to hunt.

Type of refusal Percentage

 

Was fearful of crap or other prOperty damage 39.8

Didn't let strangers hunt, saved rights for relatives

and friends 34.6

No reason given, farmer merely refused 9.8

Too many hunters out already, come back later 5.8

-Tenant couldn't give permission 3.7
No game to hunt 3.5

Crops in field yet, come back later 2.7

Wanted fee to hunt 0.1

 

100.0

63

l) I never asked for permission to hunt.

2) I found it very easy to get permission to hunt.

3) I usually found it easy to get permission to hunt.

4) I sometimes found it hard to get permission to hunt.

5) I almost always found it hard to get permission to hunt.

6) I never got permission to hunt.

Almost two—thirds of the hunters said it was very easy (response
number 2) or easy (response number 3) for them to obtain permission,
while slightly more than one—fourth of the hunters had trouble obtaining
permission or never got it (response 4, 5 and 6). The other hunters did
not respond to the question.

More than half the hunters who had trouble finding a place to hunt
lived in the Detroit area (Nayne, haconb or Oakland Counties).

In testing the independence of responses for Detroit area and out—
state residents against the access responses grouped into "easy” and
"hard” categories, a Chi-square value of 145.4 was computed, which for
one degree of freedom indicated that there was a significant difference
in the ability to obtain permission to hunt between residents of the two
areas. Detroit area hunters had more trouble finding hunting places
(Appendix X-A).

In a similar manner, to ascertain whether a difference existed
between white and negro hunters' chances of obtaining permission to
hunt, I tested the independence of race and responses to the access
question. A Chi-square value of 44.6 was obtained which for one degree
of freedom indicated there was a significant difference between races
in the ability to find a place to hunt. Iegroes had more difficulty

than did whites (Appendix X—B).

Since negroes tend to live in urban areas I removed them from the

‘ H

sample, and again tested the independence of "”

easy” and hard” reaponses
against the place of residence. Still, he Detroit area hunters had more
difficulty obtaining permission. (Appendix X—C).
Hext, I hypothesized that all residents of cities over 100,000 would
differ in ability to obtain permission to hunt than did other residents.
A chi-square value of 15.1 indicated that the residents of cities of over
10”,000 population did have more difficulty in obtaining permission than
residents of other areas. (Appendix X-D).
Finally, I again removed the Legroes from the sanple and then com-
pared he abilities in finding places to hunt between residents of cities
over 100,000 with residents of other areas. In this case the value of
chi-square was no longer significant (3.7). (Appendix K-E).
The results of these various tests indicate that:
1) Residents of the Detroit area, regardless of race, had more
difficulty finding a place to hunt than did residents of
other areas.

2) Residents of the five other large cities with populations over
100,000 had more trouble finding a place to hunt than did
other residents, only when negroes were included in the sample.

Apparently two types of Southern Michigan residents have consider~
able difficulty finding a place to hunt on privately—owned land-—the
resident of the Detroit area and the negro.

Distribution of Detroit area hunters

 

It was pointed out earlier that residents of the three counties near
Detroit traveled further to hunt than did other residents. Plotting the

distribution of Detroit hunters by county indicated that these residents

C.
U1

Mn” 0

tended to hunt in the rnumb” countie.. Probably the good pheasant pOp—
ulations in that area influenced this distribution. When these thousands

’ on opening day and weekend of pheasant

of hunters invade the “Thunb'
season, it is understandable that access is a problem. If some of these

hunters could be induced to hunt in other areas to the northwest, west or
southwest of Detroit the access problem for them at least could be eased.
And with less competition, their hunting would be as good or perhaps even

1 7‘ ‘ H
fluid!) o

Ilrfi

better than in the

Otnership of private lands

 

hunters listed the number of days they hunted on each of the follow—

types of land:

H-
,5
U l

a) Land owned by self
b) Land owned by friends, relatives and/or neighbors
c) Land owned by strangers

Almost two-thirds of the respondents (Q32) hunted on lands of only

\1

one type of ownership; 33 per cent hunted on two types of ownershiI, and
only 4 per cent hunted on all three types.

Of the individuals who hunted on lands of only one type of owner—
ship, 60 per cent hunted on lands owned by friends, relatives or neigh—
bors and about 33 per cent did so on strangers' land. About 7 per cent
hunted only on their own land.

When respondents had hunted on lands of two types of ownership, 76
per cent said they hunted on friends, relatives and/or neighbors' land
and strangers' land. Twenty per cent hunted on their own land that
owned by friends, relatives and/or neighbors. And inally, 4 per cent
hunted on their own land and a stranger's land.

The number of da's hunted accordine to t'wes of land ownershin was
C) t

1

examined. People who knew the landowner, i.e. responses 3 and b above,
hunted more the: did peOple who asked a stranger's permission. Pespon-
dents hunting on their own land averaged 8.2 days afield, while those
hunting on friends, relatives and/or neighbors' land averaged 7.3 days.
hunters who only asked at a stranger's farm averaged 6.6 days afield.

hunter Opinions of state—owned areas

 

hunters were asked to give their Opinions of state lands in South—
ern hichigan as a place to hunt by selecting one of the following:
Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor.

About five per cent of then did not respond. About seventy per
cent rated the areas as fair, good or excellent. Almost equal numbers
thought the areas were either poor or very poor compared to good or
excellent (Fig. 4).

I attempted to learn why the hunters ranked the areas as they did
by following up the question on their opinions with an Open-ended one
which asked: ”What reasons do you have for your answer above?” The
responses were grouped into several categories (Table 36), and also
classified as complimentary and uncomplimentary. The complimentary re-
sponses included:

1) Areas had good cover and food, variety of game.

4) Areas offered freedom, did not need permission to hunt, they
were nearby.

3) Game was abundant and had good luck.

The uncomplimentary responses were:
1) Areas lacked game, had poor food and cover.

2) Areas were over-crowded, too much hunting pressure.

3) Predators were too abundant, need more control.

Percentage of hunters

 

Figure 4.

67

    

Excellent Very Poor

Percentages of 5 responses regarding hunter opinions
of state-owned lands in southern Michigan as a place
to hunt. About 5 per cent of the hunters did not
respond to the question.

68

Table 30. Percentages of hunters' reasons for their Opinions
Of state-owned lands as places to hunt.

 

ReSponse Percentage
Areas lacked game, had poor food and cover 34.8
Areas had good cover and food, variety of game 27.7
Areas were over-crowded, tOO much hunting pressure 15.7

Areas offered freedom, did not need permission to

hunt, they were nearby 9.0
Some areas were good, others poor 5.0
Irrelevant responses 2.2
Respondent did not feel qualified to judge areas 1.1
Predators tOO abundant 0.8
Miscellaneous responses 3.7

 

100.0

About 36 per cent Of the hunters gave complimentary responses, 32
per cent uncomplinentary, while 12 per cent could not be so classified.
Only one per cent of the hunters felt they were unqualified to juuge the
areas because Of limited experience.

Hunters who had had any kind Of a pleasant experience on the areas
were prone to Offer compliments. Being a successful hunter was seldom
the most important criterion for giving favorable responses. About 22
per cent of the hunters who thought the areas were excellent, and 19 per

cent who thought they were good gave complimentary responses because

they enjoyed the freedom Of hunting where permission from the landowner

y" H I

was not required. when the habitat looked vamey'

C)

or where it had been
inprovee with food patches, brush piles, or bulldozed strips, hunters
were apt to feel lack Of success was due to their poor luck, to bad
weather, or some other factor beyond the state's or their control.

Voluntary letters received

 

At the end Of the q estionnaire a statement invited the respondent
to make additional comments. Several hundred of them jotted a few
words along the margins, and 265 took the time to write separate letters.
Comments covered a multitude of subjects. The contents Of 121 letters
had responses which could be classified as ”for” or ”against" various
conservation issues (Table 31). The remaining 144 could not be so
classified, and contained a variety Of comments.

Telephone survey of non—respondents

 

In a mail survey it is hoped that all questionnaire will be re-
turned. This rarely happens when sample size is larne. But the higher

0

the rate of return, the less the chance Of making erroneous assumptions

70

Table 31. Conservation issues discussed in 121 voluntary letters
received from hunters who had responded to a mail

questionnaire.
.lggug §2£_ Against
Shooting of antlerless deer 9 21
More predator control ( but no mention of bounty) 13 O
Longer small game season 7 6
Increase hunting and fishing fees 5 7
Improve habitat on state—owned lands 9 2
More law enforcement 11 0

Introduce new game Species; live—trap and

move game 8 0
Fox bounty 3 2
Allow Sunday hunting in all counties 3 0
Longer archery deer season 3 0
Artificial feeding of deer 3 0

Miscellaneous 9 0

71
en resgoaeents and non—-espondents.
I decided to contact a portion of the 654 non—respondents by
telephone, and by asking 6 socio—economic questions I hoped to
ascertain whetner they differed from the reSp ndents in one or were
ways. The questions pertained to income, race, education, marital
status, occupation and wnetner or not the person was a rural or ur—

ban resin at.

('0

P\

I arbitrarily decided to try to complete IOU interviews.

(“'-

-ae

number of names and numbers needed was not known. Uith no previous

data, I decided to draw 225 names at random. tsing directories

filed in the Lansing Public Library, 109 list’ngs were found.
Station-to-station calls were placed between 7 and 9 p.m. ”t

was felt that this was the best time to reach most hunters, and

reduced rates were in effect then too. Information was obtained

from relatives or friends who could answer the questions when the

hunter himself could not be reached. When an interview could not

be completed on the first call, one later attempt was made. An inter-

schedule and recordin form was used and appears as Appen-

viewing

8
dix KI. Following are basic data obtained:

Telephone listin 3 located (interviews attempted) ..........109
Contacts mad ............................................... 70
Interviews completed ....................................... 53

The 56 calls attempted in which interviews were not completed

included the following:

No contact made even after two tries (included 12 busy signals.. 2

I)
J

Correct person reached but was not a hunter .................... 13

Contact made but to wrong person (number changes, etc.) ........ 16

Telepnone had seen disconnected ............................ 4

In three characteristics there appeared to be differences be-
tween respondents and non—respondents. About 70 per cent of the
non—respondents contacted by telephone lived in urban areas, con~
pared to about 40 per cent of the respondents, (Appendix XII—A).
Urban residents apna ently were less apt to respond to the nail
questionnaire.
iarried hunters seemed to disregard the mail questionnaire more
also. They represented almost 90 per cent of the n n—respondents
compared to Be per cent of the respondents, (Appendix XII—B).

And finally, negroes were better represented among the non—
respondents (7.82) than they were among the respondents (2.82),
(Appendix XII—C).

There did not appear to be significant differences betveen
the two groups in average education levels, incomes and occupation

classes, (Appendices XII-D, and XIII—A,B).

RLCOMHENDATIONS

Surveys

A survey of the public use of state—owned lands should be made
periodically. Changes in the intensity of use or other distribution
patterns would be readily recognized. If possible, sample size should
be increased however, justifying area to area comparisons. Also, better
hunting statistics would be obtained.

New methods should be tried during the spring and summer. Perhaps
by adding one more count of cars during the evening twilight hours
(making a total of four counts) the car-count method would be more satis-
factory at this season. The use of traffic counters placed at strategic
or random locations should be explored, as should the use of aircraft in
searching for parked cars on pre-selected transects.

Characteristics of hunters

 

Because of the pOpulation explosion in recent years state-lands have
been and will continue to be increasingly used. It will be necessary to
purchase additional lands whenever and whereever they are available.
Information presented in this report indicate that most hunting is done
relatively close to the hunter's home. Thus, top priority for land pur-
chases should be given areas near p0pulation centers. The most critical
need, quite obviously, is in the southeast where about half of the southern
Michigan peOple live. However, Game Areas are managed primarily for
hunters and are kept undevelOped as much as possible. Near large cities
conflicts between hunters and other day-users arise. It is necessary to
establish Game Areas near p0pulation centers, but yet distant enough to
reduce pressure from other intensive-type users. In other words compromise

73

74
is needed. Possibly the central ”Thumb" area is the best area in which
to establish or enlarge Game Areas for several reasons. Detroit-area
residents already tend to hunt there, and the area is also very access-
ible to Flint and Saginaw. Also the geographic position of the ”Thumb”
in relation to other parts of Michigan and Ontario is such that there
is probably little likelihood that land use changes resulting from popu-
lation will deve10p there in the near future. Thus, new Game Area lands
purchased in the "Thumb", particularly in Lapeer, Tuscola and Sanilac
counties would be subjected to less competition from other intensive—
type users than other areas in the region. The hunter would be getting
maximum benefit from his investment.

Finally, additional surveys of public Opinion, attitudes and motiva-
tion are needed. Data presented here are largely and admittedly descrip-
tive. And they describe one important group of hunters only--those peOple
who hunted on southern Michigan state land. Information of this nature
for all Michigan hunters would be more applicable and would give more

meaning to the data in this report.

SUMMARY

During the 1961-62 hunting season the total visitor-use of southern
Michigan State Game and Recreation Areas furnished about one million
man-hours of daytime use. About 96 per cent was for hunting purposes.
Hunting pressure in 1961-62 was about 60 per cent greater than in
1955-56 as measured on a sub-group of 27 Game Areas.

Visitor-use during daylight hours in hunting season was almost 20
per cent greater than during Spring and summer 1962 but if after
dark activities were included the spring and summer use would pro-
bably greatly exceed the other.

Between 1955-56 and 1961-62 the game kill increased 17 per cent,

but the kill per 100 hours and per 100 acres did not change signi-
ficantly.

Species composition has shown a decided shift toward forest game.

An estimated 47,970 peOple hunted on southern Michigan state-owned
lands in 1961-62 and averaged 8.4 days afield--probably more than
average.

These hunters were characterized by being 98 per cent males; averaged
39.3 years of age. About 80 per cent were married and 94.4 were
white although evidence indicated this percentage, as reported on
mail questionnaires may have been low. Most hunters earned middle
class incomes. The professions and managers occupation class was
relatively poorly represented. Eighty per cent of the gainfully
employed worked more than 31 hours per week. The average level of
formal education was just below grade ll.

Two types of southern Michigan residents had considerable difficulty

75

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

76
gaining permission to hunt on private land; the Detroit resident and
the negro.
The percentage of total game harvested by age classes of hunters was
similar to the percentage of hunters in that age class except for
hunters in age classes 25-34 and 35-44 who seemed to harvest more
ducks and pheasants and age class 45—54 who took prOportionately
more ruffed grouse. hunters older than 65 years took less than
their share of all game.
The most heavily hunted game and recreation areas, season-long,
were not necessarily located near pOpulation centers.
Hunters tended to hunt relatively close to home—-an average of 28
airline miles, one way. Detroit area hunters traveled significantly
greater distances than did out—state residents.
The presence of state lands and also the preportion of urban—dwelling
peOple within a county both influenced the distribution of hunters
by county.
About 40 per cent of the hunters lived in rural areas compared to
about 25 per cent of male residents of southern Michigan.
Sixty per cent of all hunters had lived some of their first 18 years
on a farm or in the country. The percentage was highest among the
oldest hunters (72%) and lowest among the youngest (50%).
Types of refusals given by farmers when asked permission to hunt
were listed. Almost 40 per cent of them involved cr0p or preperty
damage. Slightly fewer farmers (34.6%) said they did not let
strangers hunt, but saved the right for friends and relatives.
Hunters' Opinions of state—owned areas were summarized. Most hunters

thought they were "fair" for hunting. Almost equal numbers thought

17.

18.

19.

77
they were good and excellent as poor and very poor.
Various Opinions of state lands are summarized.
The most pOpular conservation issues as discussed in voluntary
letters accompanying questionnaires returned are listed.
Results of sampling a segment of the non-respondents by telephone
interviewing suggested that peOple in certain sociO-economic and
ethnic groups responded differently to mail questionnaires than they

did by telephone.

LITERATURE CITED

Bartlett, 110 H. 1950. Michigan deer. Game Division, Michigan
Department of Conservation. 50 pp.

Friley, Charles E. Jr. 1954. Daily patterns of pheasant hunting
pressure. Journal Of Wildlife Management. 18(2) : 255-259.

Gordinier, Earl J. 1957. Yield and public use of Michigan state
game areas. Transactions of the 22nd N. A. Wildlife Conference.

Leopold, Aldo. 1933. Game management. Charles Scribner's Sons.
481 pp.

Siegel, Sidney. 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral
sciences. McGraw—Hill. 312 pp.

Snedecor, George W. 1956. Statistical methods applied to experiments
in agriculture and biology. The Iowa State University Press,
Ames, Iowa. 534 pp.

Zorb, Gordon L. 1959. Hunter permission survey, pheasant seasons,

1958 and 1959. Game Division Report NO. 2250. Michigan Depart—
ment Of Conservation.

78

79

Appendix I—A. Form used to record information while conducting
field checks.

Nate weather

L

;ame or Recreation Area

80
GAME AREA USE SURVEY

Checker

 

 

Trip #1
starting time

 

Ending-time

Zard Number ‘License

Tally of Moving Cars

Remarks;

Trip #2
Starting time

Ending time

d Number License

Tally of Moving Cars

Remarks:

Trip #3
Starting time

 

Ending time

 

Card Numbe Car License

Tally of Moving Cars

Remarks:

 

TO: Assigned Game Division Personnel
FROM: Welter L. Palmer, Game Biologist

SUBJECT: Instructions for Conducting Game Area Use Survey

This survey is based on a random selection of areas by day of the seaon and each
area or part of areas was previously stratified into one of nine strata of estimated use.
Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the areas chosen for checking must be checked on
the assigned day despite what you might expect in the way of use.

 

Please mail your material immediately after the checks (that evening or the
following morning at the latest) to:
Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center
Route 1, East Lansing, Michigan

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Make three trips around your area or portion of the area assigned for the day.
These trips should be made during mid-morning, mid-day, and late afternoon.
Do your best to "cover" all possible parking places on the area, but we don't
want you to spend a lot of needless time searching out each last trail and
thereby miss hot spots such as lakes, etc.

2. Place one of the self-addressed post cards under the windshield wiper of each
parked car on your area. write the car license number in the upper right
corner of the post card.

3. Record the post card number and the car license number in the appropriate
trip column. On second and third trips be sure to record 211 cars on the
area even though you tallied them before. This is the only—fiay‘fiE'can com-
pute car-hours of use.

4. At the botton of each trip column keep a tally by trips of the number of cars
you see "cruising" the area which you feel are using the area for recreation
(sight-sears, etc.). Don't bother to record license number of these moving
cars, however.

5. we suspect there will be alot of use this spring and summer which won't be
from parked cars -- such users as a large group of boy scouts, horseback
riding, etc. Try to estimate this use each day you run a check and include
such a statement along with your data sheets.

6. Notice that we don't need a mid-point thme now. Just note the starting and
ending time of each "Trip."

7. Write plainly!

Thanks.

Appendix I—B. Reverse side of form, including instructions.

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

82
Assigned Game Division Personnel
Whlter L. Palmer, Game Biologist

Instructions for Conducting Game Area Use Survey

This survey is based on a random selection of areas by day of the seaon and each

area or part of areas was previously stratified into one of nine strata of estimated use.
Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the areas chosen for checking must be checked on
the assigned day despite what you might expect in the way of use.

Please mail your material immediately after the checks (that evening or the

following morning at the latest) to:

3.

4.

Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center
Route 1, East Lansing, Michigan

gns'nwcnons

Make three trips around your area or portion of the area assigned for the day.
These trips should.be made during mid-morning, mid-day, and late afternoon.
Do your best to "cover" all possible parking places on the area, but we don't
want you to spend a lot of needless time searching out each last trail and
thereby miss hot spots such as lakes, etc.

Place one of the self-addressed post cards under the windshield wiper of each
parked car on your area. write the car license number in the upper right
corner of the post card.

Record the post card-number and the car license number in the appropriate
trip column. On second and third trips be sure to record 211 cars on the
area even though you tallied them before. This is the only-way'fiE'can com-
pute car-hours of use.

At the botton of each trip column keep a tally by trips of the number of cars
you see "cruising" the area which you feel are using the area for recreation
(sight-sears, etc.). Don't bother to record license number of these moving
cars, however. -

We suspect there will be alot of use this spring and summer which won't be
from parked cars -- such users as a large group of boy scouts, horseback
riding, etc. Try to estimate this use each day you run a check and include
such a statement along with your data sheets.

Notice that we don't need a mid-point time now. Just note the starting and
ending time of each "Trip."

Write plainly!

Thanks.

GAME AREA USE SURVEY

Date weather ' Checker

L

 

Game or Recreation Area

 

Trip #1 Trip #2 Trip #3
Starting time Starting time Starting time

 

Ending time Ending time Ending time

Card Number 'License d Number Car License Card Numbe Car License

Tally of Moving Cars ' Tally of Moving Cars Tally of Moving Cars

Remarks: Remarks: Remarks:

 

83

Appendix II. Letter placed on car Windshields asking hunters'
COOporatiou.

84

“if. _'
‘§,..7.‘ ‘

Dear Mr. Hunter‘

This letter and self-addressed post card his been left on your
car by a field representative. We would like you to fill out the
post card and drop it in a mail box on your way home.

We spot check all of the game areas in southern Michigan and

 

information received from several thousand hunters helps us evaluate
the many game management practices that are being carried on.

For this survey to work we need your help.
mail the card, EVEN IF Ygg DIDN' T BAG ANY GAME.

Please fill in and
very truly yours,

GAME DIVISION

Department of Conservation

85

. Ere—addressed postcard forms distributed on parked
cars used during hunting season and sprin
summer.

and

(T
C)

86

 

Number of hunters in party

Length of hunt in hours (to the nearest i hour)
Upland

Number of animals bagged Pheasant Woodcock
by the party:
Ruffed Grouse Ducks

Fox Squirrel Geese
Rabbit Deer
Other(Write in)

2967

Thank you

 

What game were you hunting? Game Waterfowl Deer

 

Appendix IV.

87

uily estimates of visitor use in tun—hours as

Lt

determined from car—counts and postcard returns

by strata, with stratum means and variances for

the hunting season survey, laol-sz.

 

om.NaN eN.nm nm.o
wo.oaN nN.Noo mN.mN
ow.qu NN.HN mm.mo
an.NeN so .ch No.NN
NN.NNN mm.oo «N.NNN
me.NoN NN.NN¢ o¢.om oo.aN
9N.NNN ow.moN NN.NNH om.NNH
mo.NNN mo.n¢~ on. o-H 0N.NN
wq.oqm N3.NNN me. NH 0
3N.NQN om.NN mo.Nn No.0q
N¢.¢¢N No.NNN oo.mo ma.qm
N¢.mmm NN.HNN mN.oaN NH.N
S .:.m oh.mmN qm.mN o
mo.ne NN.N¢N NN.¢NN oo.N
om.om\ no.NmN oo.o¢N om.Nm
no. NQNN NN.NmN aq.Nm oe.oN
N .HNN NN.NNN NN.oN no.0N 0N.NN mm.om
Nm.n w 8. N NN.NNq oo.NN Nm. Nm Ne.N
:3.Heo mm. NN.meN 0N.HH on. NB mN.mo
No. ooN Nq.Ho om.qu mm.q om.mm mN.mN
Nm.mnm oo.NNN om.oHn so. man mN.oo oq.oq
sq. QNN mm.ouN NN.NH¢ N.NN NN.weN m .N
3N.qu qo.qom NN.NNN ON. flea No.nm N¢.N
om.mmN am.emH mm. m om.moq om.ooe N¢.enN mN.N mm.Nm
NN.<NN om.omq NN.qu NN.NN¢ NN.NQN NN.NNQ om.ee 3N.mH
0N.NNN om.sNH «N. NNN om.NNe NN.NNN Na.Nm Ho.ooN NN.HN NN.NN
oo.¢aN an.m.N 0N. \NN em.q3N mN.NNN NH.mN ow.omN o.mN mN.N
m8.mo om. N n om.mm NH.Hmo om.emN mN.aN om.NeN ”N .Nm NN.HN
UN HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH NH H

 

.upuwmfiwm

.moodmNum> use manna Enumuum coax .mumuuw ma umo you mummmsooo Ho
ummzds ecu one mussooluoo aoum wosfluuouoc mm musozlzuavdfl om: NouN :m >mo mouoaaumo mason

89

00.0H

 

 

sesaeu 00v rpfi

mN.o

o

o

Na.m¢

19H».38NqSH mmoc.omommmfi .oq m 0N..Nq 9N.m
soca.xuNNNq .Nem m om.m om.Nm

mmNN.¢NomH¢ NCN m mN.oN mN.q

emom.mmmac N mom NH NH.@ 0

uNHq.uo\Nc NNNH.¢NNNNNN ooq NN o o
mNON.NN:HoNN ocN as o mm.qH

Nnom.oeNeoNN QNN NH oe.o om.NH

momo.eNNoHN 4. mHN am a No.om

mafia. mwmfi mNQH.ququ No.um om NN.mN o
u. NN.¢ o

Nuw m a 2.3 Be:

om.H mH.NHN

mm.NNN o

om.Noo om.q

mm. HNH 00.0N

o¢.NHN mq.NHN mN.m

NN.NN om.mm~ No.m

om.mN «N. NN om.H

MN.NN n.qom mN.mN

mn.oeN oe.oo. N¢.Ne

...NNN mm. «N oo.om

«H.0NN «q. mm 00.0“

om.oNN N.No oo.m

NH» >H HH H

90

Appendix V. Daily estimates of visitor use in car-hours from
car-counts by strata with stratum means and var-
iances. Spring and summer, 1962.

Daily esti

 

91

mates of visitor use in

Co. r-
1V<“
J'UA S

 

hours as determined from

 

H
H‘C‘

9.00
41.33
0
1

O
. k".

\IH

H-bt—‘CD
-.’-\\I\OC'\

O
J‘fotQNC5 151C

\‘WKFNN
e

[‘0

'Obbfi . ‘.v
O-C‘NCJUJU1L2JU10CJC9L)

CO
C.)

U)

H
UJCWONK‘JCj
e

H
O C O

\l (5“

C‘ KO CI- Ln U‘. \l

O
Q U1 U1 to

147.71
39.00

43.29
2.00

o
443. 63

car counts, spring and summer, urvcy of 27 0a 0 Areas.
3 atL-
II II(Co1t.) III IV V VI
90.13 50.63 5.37 20.03 05.50 04.25
34.03 0.30 70.66 4.13 152.25 341.25
31.03 12.06 37.03 30.6 03.96 90.“
33.57 2.92 59.29 90.22 103.50 62.25
10.46 ( 49.50 101.67 50.00 229.25
15.00 “ 9“ 2.71 119.44 56.77 26.92
0 4.67 2.25 90.37 114.27
7.53 6.60 79.00 6.76 120.54
19.63 2.75 29.51 313.25 0.83
0 10.64 95.30 105.67 25.38
16.56 61.75 33.57 7.75 118.21
0 7.50 50.63 35.24
3.37 11.63 14.75 18.54
0 7.79 7.08 63.00
6.53 26.08 79.34 151.16
29.70 62.00 0 28.92
0 32.46 "2.70 24.50
C 18.59 149.04 468.09

 

 

 

30.00 161.25 119.96
0 24.38 33.42
16.50 64.60 0
125.17 22.96 5.46
80.25 7.00 152.75
101.50 7.00
32.16 6.54 I
90.51 34.81
17.59 167.50
9.88 199.50
39.93
171.88
121.50
25.38
2.71
92.90
11 : 1:4 82
23 12.73 292.69 3851.0407 233.02
57 21.71 1237.48 70118.4568 772.37
III 36 45.26 1629.42 145509.0760 2050.25
30 58.07 1742.11 193016.6500 3167.30
25 104.04 2601.05 659326.0800 6216.99
9 143.49 1291.40 255612.6000 28.83

92

I

Appencix VI. Letter sent with mail questionnaire containing a
brief explanation of the study and an appeal for
c00peration

COWISSION:

10"?" P. RAHILLY. CHAIRMAN
HIV-"RY

“R? F. DRIVITZ
DATTLI alum

ITANLIY A. CAIN
ANN Am

PETIR J . CALCATIRA
“WAY

LAWRENCE J. OO‘I'ICHALL
mama

GIORGI A. GRIFFITH
DRAYLIRC

93
STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

STAFF

OURWARD DODSON
MILD Abuumevna'non
A. I. COOK
new we ”mamas
O. 3. Hanna!
roam!"

H. D. RUHL
OAHI
W. L. DAOUDT
BIOLOGICAL ”RWY
CHARL" I. HILLAR
LAND.
ARTHUR C. ILHIR
PARKS AND RICRIAYION

 

CLARINOI J. Hues!!! LANSING 26 L “91%. cannon
“m“ '°"“" GERALD e. eoov. ouucroe "no W'W‘

CLIFFORD KITCHAM

 

OAYLORD A. WALKER. emu clam unscrew JUSTIN w. LEONARD

ADIIITANT “'0' V DIRECTOR

Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center "."“"°"

“cm“w new It. rum
Route 1 , East Lansing, Michigan Ann-“rm mam! outmo-
Imufltm AND ”LTD"
Dear Sir:

Since your car was counted this hunting season on one of our southern
Michigan Game or Recreation Areas, we would like you to cooperate with us
by filling in the accompanying questionnaire. If someone used your car on
the day or days it was tallied (and a post card form was placed on the car),
would you please have that person complete the questionnaire.

As our population grows, we will need to plan more and more for future
recreation needs. For example, it is becoming more difficult for hunters to
find a place to hunt. From some of the answers here we hope to learn more
about this problem and ways to solve it. Your answers will be put together
with answers from thousands of other hunters that we are sampling.

Some of the questions in the questionnaire may not seem important to you,
but because people's needs, habits, and opinions are different depending on
age, occupation, and other factors, we need to know a few facts of this kind
about you.

Please notice that this questionnaire does not call for your signature.
Your answers are strictly confidential, and we never mention the names of
peOple questioned.

Your car license number'appears on the first page, and will be used to
determine whether or not you have returned your questionnaire, so that
follow-up notices can be sent if necessary.

Please fill in the questionnaire promptly, place it in the stamped
addressed envelope, and mail it.

If you have any comments, please write them on a separate sheet and
enclose with the questionnaire.

Thank you

'Walter L. Palmer, Game Biologist
Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center

WLP:dew

94

Appendix VII. Reminder letter sent with second and third
mailing of the questionnaire.

95

COMMISSION: STATE OF MICHIGAN STAFF:
ROBERT F. IREVITZ. rmmum DURWARD ROBSON
“m “u" JOHN B. SWAINSON. GOVERNOR A ."figs:“'”"'”"°"

STANLEY A. CAIN

ANN Alt-on
E. M. LAITALA
m

CLARENCE J. MISSNIR
one.“ POINTI

JOSEPH P. RAHILLY
mm

new no III-Hunts
T. E. DAw
roam
H. D. RUHL
CAME
w. L. DAOUST
GMICAL sown
CHARLES E. MILLAR

 

 

use.
ARTHUR c. ELMER
AUGUST SCHOLLE PARK. AND ntcnu'nou
mu OAK
HARRY H. WHITILEY LANSING 26

ROGERS CITY

 

JUSTIN w. LEONARD
GERALD E. EDDY. ountcron Murmur outrun DIRECT ‘l

GAYLORD A. WALKER. cmlr perm alnzcron "““3'°“
FARLEY F. TUBES

CLIFFORD KETCHAH AIIISTANT 0mm mate 3

”HART

Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center 'WMW mo W? >
Route 1, East Lansing, Michigan

Dear Sir:

A short time ago we sent you a questionnaire which we wanted you to
fill out and send back to us. Perhaps you mislaid it or forgot to com-
plete it.

At any rate, we have not received your questionnaire as yet and
would like to remind you of the importance of sending this in.

‘we are trying to gather information about people who have used our
public lands in southern Michigan so we can adapt our land buying and
management programs to better fit your desires and needs. It is, of
course, impossible to contact all of you people, so we must use a random
sample. Because this questionnaire can be sent to only a portion of the
total people we tallied on state lands this year, it is very important
that we get a completed questionnaire back from each of you.

‘we are enclosing another questionnaire in case you lost the first
one. ‘Would you please fill this one in and return it to us as soon as
possible?

Thank you

‘Walter Palmer, Game Biologist
Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center

Wszjm

96

Appendix VIII. Southern Michigan hunter Opinion questionnaire.

97

SOUTHERN MICHIGAN HUNTER
OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

1.

What do you consider to be the most satisfying ways to use your leisure
time?

 

 

 

 

 

2. How many years have you hunted? years.
3. Did you hunt a year ago? (The 1960-1961 season) Yes No
ALL OF THE REMAINING QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO YOUR HUNTING IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

ARE

4.

5.

ABOUT YOUR HUNTING THIS PAST HUNTING SEASON ONLY (FROM OCT. 1961 T0 MAR. 1962)

 

Please place a check in front of the hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses
you purchased for the 1961-1962 season.

Small Game Fishing Firearm Bow and Arrow
Hunting License License Deer License Deer License
waterfowl Trout Bear Beaver and Otter General
Stamp Stamp Stamp Trapping License Trapping

On how many days did you hunt this season for the following types of game?

a. I hunted waterfowl (ducks and geese) on days.
b. I hunted deer on days.
c. I hunted upland small game on days.

(pheasant, rabbit, grouse, etc.)

 

Total days hunted ‘ days.

How many of each kind of game did you bag this hunting season?

Deer __ Woodcock
__ Bear __ Ducks
‘_____ Cottontail Rabbit ‘_____Geese
__ Snowshoe Hare __ Snipe
Pheasant Squirrel (Fox, Gray, Black)

Ruffed Grouse (Patridge) Other (write in)

 

SOUTHERN MICHIGAN HUNTER OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

Of the total number of days you hunted this year, on how many different
days did you hunt on a State Game or Recreation Area in Southern Michigan?
By southern Michigan we mean south of Highway M 20 which extends from
Muskegon to Bay City. You can tell these state lands in this part of the
state because they are posted with signs which read "State Game Area -
Open £2 Hunting" or "State Lands - Open to Hunting" or something similar.

 

 

 

I hunted on state lands in southern Michigan on different days.

 

10.

Please write in the Game or Recreation Areas you hunted on, and the number
of days hunted on each. If you don't know the names of these areas,
describe where they are located.

 

 

 

 

(Sample: I hunted on state lands near Lapeer on __;__ days.)
a. I hunted on state lands near on _____ days.
b. I hunted on state lands near on _____ days.
c. I hunted on state lands near on _____ days.

Speaking yet only of these state lands in southern Michigan, what do you
think of them as a place to hunt? (Check one))

Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor

What reasons do you have for your answer in Number 9 above?

 

 

 

 

 

98

SOUTHERN MICHIGAN HUNTER OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

IN THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUESTIONS WE ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR HUNTING 0N PRIVATE
LANDS SOUTH OF HIGHWAY M 20 ONLY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. If you hunted on private land in this part of the state, in which area
or areas did you hunt? Please give the name of the city or town and
the number ofi days hunted at each location.
(Sample: I hunted on private land near Caro on 5 days.)
a. I hunted on private land near on days.
b. I hunted on private land near on days.
c. I hunted on private land near on days.

12. Some people hunt on their own land or land owned by friends or relatives.
Others ask permission to hunt on a stranger's land. How many days did
you hunt on each type?
a. I hunted on my own land on days.
b. I hunted on relatives, friends, and neighbor's land on days.
c. I hunted on stranger's land on days.

13. How easy or hard was it for you to find a place to hunt? (Check one)
a. I never asked for permission to hunt 1:}.
b. I found it very easy to get permission to hunt 1:7
c. I usually found it easy to get permission to hunt ‘£:7
d. I sometimes found it hard to get permission to hunt ‘£:7
e. I almost always found it hard to get permission to hunt ‘£:7
f. I never got permission to hunt ‘£:7

14. If a landowner would not let you hunt, and he gave a reason, what reasons

 

did he give?

 

 

 

SOUTHERN MICHIGN HUNTER OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

15.
16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

What was your date of birth? Month Day Year

 

 

Are you: (Check one) ____ Married ‘____ Single ____ Divorced ‘____ Widowed

How many dependents do you have at home who are less than 18 years old?

Check one: a. I live outside the limits of a city, town, or village .
b. I live within the limits of a city, town, or village .

Are You: Negro White Other (Specify)

 

What is your occupation? What sort of work do you do?

 

 

About how many hours did you work each week on the average during the past
hunting season? (Check one)

More than 40 hours Between 31 and 40 Between 21 and 30
per week hours per week hours per week
20 hours per week Did not work at all
or less
If you did not work at all, check one: Retired Student
Unemployed Other (write in)

 

Please cross out the highest grade you completed in school.
(none) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
College or other special school in addition to the above. 1:7.

What was the last school you attended?

 

Would you please check your approximate income before taxes.
Less than $2500 Between $2500-$4999 Between $5000-$7499
Between $7500-$9999 More than $10,000

Where did you live until you were 18 years old? (Notice that the total should
add up to 18 years. We are only interested in your first 18 years.)

a. I liveion a farm or in the country for ____ Years
b. I lived in a small city (less than 5,000 population) for ____ Years
c. I lived in a medium-sized city (5,000-25,000) for '____ Years
d. I lived in a large city (more than 25,000) for ____ Years

Total _l§__Years

IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO MAKE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO.
PLEASE PLACE THIS COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE STAMPED ENVELOPE AND MAIL.

I. _ mnanv unn

99

‘7'

Appendix A. Code book prepared for responses.

100

SOUTHERN MICHIGAN STATE LAND
HUNTER QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

 

 

 

CODE BOOK

Card No. 1

Column Number Question Number Punching Instructions

1-4 -—-- Questionnaires numbered serially
in upper right corner.

5 ---- Number 1, 2 or 3 below questionn-
aire number is number of mailing,

6 l and 3 Questions 1 and 3 combined as
follows:

0- No re9ponse to questions 1 and 3.
1- Hunting, fishing and related
interests, and also a "yes" to
question 3.
2— hunting, fishing and related
interests, and a "no” to ques-
tion 3.
3- No response to question 1 and
a ”yes" to question 3.
4- No response to question 1 and
a "no” to question 3.
5- Hunting, fishing and related
interests, and no response
whatever to question 3.
7 l and 3 O- No response to questions 1 and 3.
1- Boating, swimming, travel, water
Sports, spectator sports.(0ut—
door-type activities other than
hunting, fishing, etc.) and a
"yes" to question 3.
2- Same interests as above but a
”no" to question 3.
8 l and 3 0- No response to questions 1 and 3.
1- "Indoor" or "home—type" interests
like carpentry, painting, reading,
loafing and a ”yes" to question 3
2- Same interests as above plus a
"no” to question 3.
9-10 2 (years hunted) Number of_years reported hunting,
ll 4 (license data) Small game license data:
O- No small game license purchased.
1- Small game license.
2- Small game license plus water-
fowl stamp.
12 4 (license data) Fishing license data:
0- No fishing license.
l-Fishing license purchased.
2- Fishing license plus trout
stamp.
3- Trout stamp only.

Column Number

 

13

101

guestion Number

 

4 (License data)

Punching Instructions

 

Deer and bear license data:

O-No firearm deer, archery deer or bear
stamp purchased.

l-Firearm deer license.

2—Archery deer license.

3-Bear stamp .

4-Firearm deer and archery deer licenses.
S-Firearm deer license and bear stamp.
6eArchery deer license and bear stamp.
7-Firearm deer license, archery deer and
bear stamp.

 

l4

4 (License data)

Trapping license data:

O-No trapping licenses purchased.
l-Beaver and otter trapping license.
2—General trapping.

3—Beaver and otter andggeneral trapping;

 

15-16

5

Number of days reported hunting water-
fowl.

 

17-18

5

Number of days reported hunting deer.

 

19-20

5

Number of days reported hunting upland
smallggame.

 

21

6 (Hunting)
(success)

O-Failed to bag deer or bear.
l-Bagged deer.

Z-Bagged bear.

3~Bagged deer and bear.

 

22

6

O-Bagged no small game.
l—Bagged at least 1 piece of small game.

 

23-24

7 (Days hunted)

Punch number of days hunted in southern
Michigan.

 

25-26
27-28
29-30

83 (State land)
8b
8c

Areas will be coded l-57; punch number

Punch code number
II II II

 

31-32

83

Distance traveled from respondents home
town (arbitrary geographic center) to
area as stated in question 8a.

 

33-34

8b

Distance as stated in 8b.

 

35-36

8c

Distance as stated in 8c.

 

37-38

8a

 

39-40
41-42
43

44

8b

8c

9 (Opinion of
Game or
Recreation
Areas)

10 (Reason for
opinion)

Number of days reported in question 83.
II II II II II II 8b.
II II II II II II 8C0

O-No response to question.

l-Excellent.

2-Good.

3-Fair.

4-Poor.

S-Verygpoor.

O-No response to question.

l-No game; had poor luck; poor cover,

food, no water.

2-Enjoys freedom; don't need to ask for

permission; keep up the good work.

Column Number

 

Question Number

 

102

Punchiegglnstructions

 

3-Good cover; had good luck; variety of
habitat or game available.

4-Too many hunters; over hunted.
S-Irrelevant reSponse.

6-Poor accessibility; no roads.

7-Some areas good, others poor or good
one day, bad another.

8—Not qualified to ieege.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45—46 11a (Private Distance as stated in lla
land)
47-48 llb ” ” ” ” llb
49-50 11c " " " " llc
51—52 lla Deye as stated in lla.
53-54 llb " " ” " llb.
55—56 llc " ” " " llc.
57-58 12a ” ” " ” 12a.
59—60 12b ” ” ” ” 12b
61—62 12c ” ” " " 12c.
63 13 (Hunter O—No response to question.
access) l-Never asked for permission to hunt.
2-Found it very easy to get permission
to hunt.
3-Usua11y found it easy to get per-
mission to hunt.
4-Sometimes found it hard to get per-
mission to hunt.
S-Almost always found it hard to get
permission to hunt.
6-Never get permission to hunt.
64 14 (hunter O-No response to question.
access) l-Farmer doesn't let strangers hunt;
(Farmer's saves rights for friends or relatives.
reasons 2-Fears or has had crOp damage.
for 3-Come back later; too many hunters
refusing out already.
permission) 4—No game to hunt.
S-Just said "no,” no reason given.
6-Cr0ps in field yet.
7-ReSpondent did not answer question;
he volunteered a response regarding
how easy it is for him to get permis-
sion.
8-Farmer or land owner wanted fee.
9-Farmer or land owner not located or
miscellaneous reasons for refusals
given.
65-66 15 Age in years.
67 16 and 17 O-No response to question.
(Marital 1-Married with 1 dependent less than
status) 18 yrs.

Z-Married with 2 dependent less than
18 yrs.

Column Number

,Question Number

 

 

103

Punchiegglnstructions

 

3-Married with 3 dependent less than
18 yrs.

4-Married with 4 dependent less than
18 yrs.

S—Married with 5 dependents less than
18 yrs.

6-Single.

7-Divorced.

8-Widowed.

9-Married with no dependents less
than l8_yrs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68 18 O—No response to question.
l—Lives outside the limits of a city,
town or village.
2-Lives within the limits of a city,
town or villege.
69 19 O-No response to question.
(Racial l-Negro.
status) 2—White.
3-0ther.
70 20 O—No response to question.
(Occupation) l-Professional, business prOprietor.
2-Skilled labor.
3-Semi-or unskilled labor.
4-Farmer.
S—Student.
6—Sales.
7-Miscellaneous office, white collar.
8—Municipal, state or Federal service.
9-Retired.
71 21 (Work week O-No response.
during l-Worked over 40 hours per week.
hunting 2- " 31-40 " " "
season) 3- " 21—30 ” " "
4-Worked 20 " " " or less.
S-Retired.
6-Student.
7-Unemployed.
8-On vacation all or part of hunting
season.
72-73 22 (Education Punch grade number 1-12.
completed) Punch 13 only when schooling listed is
by a high school graduate.
74 24 (Income) O-No response.
l-Earned less than $2500.
2-Earned $2500—$4999.
3-Earned $5000—$7499.
4-Earned $7500-$9999.
S-Earned $10,000 or more.
75-76 25a (Childhood Punch number of years lived on farm

residence)

and country.

 

104

 

 

 

 

Column Number Question Number Punchieg Instructions

77-78 25b and 25c Number of years lived in small and
(Childhood medium sized cities.
residence)

79-80 25d (Childhood Number of years lived in large city.

residence)

 

105

Code for State Game and Recreation Areas in Region 3.

l—Barry
2-Cannonsburg
3-Chelsea
4-Crane Pone
S-Dansville
6-Deford
7-Edmore
8-Erie
9-Fennville
lO-Fish Point
ll—Flat River
12-Fulton
13-Gourdneck
14-Grand Haven
15-Gratiot-Saginaw
l6—Gregory
17-Langston
18-Lapeer
19-Lowell
20—Maple River
21—Middleville
22-Minden City
23-Murphy Lake
24—Oak Grove
25—Onsted
26—Petersburg
27—Pittsford
28-Point Mouillee

29-Port Huron
30—Portland
31—Quanicassee
32-Rogue River
33-St. Clair Flats
34-Sharonville
35-Shiawassee River
36—Stanton
37-Three Rivers
38-Tuscola
39-Vassar
40-Wi1dfow1 Bay
4l-Rose Lake
42-Swan Creek
43eA11egan Forest
44-Bald Mountain
45—Brighton
46-Fort Custer
47-Highland
48-H011y
49-Island Lake
SO-Metamora
51-Ortonville
52—Pinckney
53-Pontiac Lake
54-Waterloo
55-Proud Lake
56-Rochester-Utica

57-Big Rapids-White Cloud Area

106

Card Number 2

 

 

 

Column Number Question Punching Instructions
1-4 ---- Serial number of questionnaire
5 Stratum number

6—7 6 (Game kill) Number of cottontails bagged
8—9 ” " snowshoe hares "

10 " " pheasants "
11—12 " ” ruffed grouse "
13-14 " " woodcock "
15—16 " " ducks "

17 II II geese II
18-19 " " snipe "
20-21 ” " squirrel "
22—23 County of residence coded as follows:

Punch county or region number

 

 

 

1. Berrien 10. Jackson 19. Oakland 28. Ottawa
2. Cass 11. Calhoun 20. Macomb 29. Montcalm
3. St. Joseph 12. Kalamazoo 21. St. Clair 30. Gratiot
4. Branch 13. Van Buren 22. Lapeer 31. Saginaw
5. Hillsdale 14. Allegan 23. Genesee 32. Tuscola
6. Lenawee 15. Barry 24. Shiawassee 33. Sanilac
7. Monroe 16. Eaton 25. Clinton 34. Huron
8. Wayne 17. Ingham 26. Ionia 35. Region 2
9. Washtenaw 18. Livingston 27. Kent 36. Region 1
24 (Home town Size of respondent's home city (1960)
size) l-More than 100,000 pOpulation
2-25,000 to 100,000 "
3-Less than 25,000 ”
25—26 lla County of private land hunting, coded
as above 1-36
27—28 llb County as reported in llb

 

29—30 llc County as reported in llc

Appendix X—A.

X-B o

107

Data and computations to test the independence'
of place of residence (Detroit area vs. out-
state area) and access to private land.

Data and computations to test the independence
of access to private lands and race of hunters.

hypothesis: Hunters from the Detroit area (Tayne, Oakland and
Macomb counties) differ from out—state hunters in
their reported ability in gaining access to private
land.

Keeponse to a question regarding access to private land

 

 

 

Lasy Lard Total
Place Detroit area 331 351 742
of
residence Other area 1171 33s 1307
Total 1502 687 2249
A = 4443 (I (5:1)(530) — (1171)(351)| -

O n
E2AL>
f

 

(1562)(d€7)(1507)(742)

I

1w5J42>Cu6 for 1 d.f.f.hypothesis is accepted

 

Hypothesis: Negroes and white hunters differ in their reported
ability to gain access to private lan .

 

 

Race
Legro Vbite Total
Response to a Easy 24 1459 1483
question regard—
ing access to hard 49 615 664

 

private land
Total 73 2074 2147

I‘.)

.,
x 2147 ( I (24)(c15) — (49)(1459)| — 21472“
2

(73)(2074)(l483)(664)

44.6 :> 6.6 for l d.f.,fl,hypothesis is accepted

Appendix X—C .

X—D o

109

Data and computations to test the independence
of place of residence of white hunters of the
Detroit area vs. out-state area and access to
private lands.

Data and computations to test the independence
of hunters living in cities over 100,000, except
Detroit, and other areas and access to private
lands.

Hypothesis:

110

Detroit area white hunters differ from out-state
white hunters in their reported ability in gaining
access to private lands.

 

 

 

Responses to a question regarding access to
private lands
Easy_ Xard Total
Place
of Eetroit area :77 31b 693
residence
Other area 11G2 324 1436
Total 1539 040 2179
'r 2 - ,— n h 2
L = 2179 ( I (3/7)(324) - (310)(1164)] — 4179
v

 

(1339

)(G40)(1486)(693)

O
SIS

127.9 which for 1 d.f. > (3.6 .3 accept hypothe

 

hypothesis:

Place
of

residence

r)
fr!-
1\

Residents of cities exceeding 1C0,00U except Detroit,
differ from residents of other areas in their report-
ed ability in gaining access to private lands.

Responses to a question regarding access to
private lands

 

 

 

Easy 32rd Total
Cities 100,‘OU 267 177 46'
Other areas 1262 567 1709
Total 1549 684 2233
= 2233 ( | (287)(SO7) — (177)(1262)| - 2233

 

(1549)(664)(1709)(464)

15.1 which for 1 d.f. )’6.6 /.accept hypothesis

111

Appendix X—E. beta and computations to test the independence
between the ability of white hunters from cities
over 100,000 except Detroit, and white hunters
from other areas in gaining access to private
lands.

112

hypothesis: ho difference existed in the reported ability of
white hunters from cities over 130,000 except Detroit
and hunters from other areas in gaining access to
private lands.

?eSponses to a question regarding access
to private lands

 

 

 

Easy hard Total
Cities over 1C0,CCO 279 140 419
Oth=r areas 1247 497 1744
Total 1526 637 2163

k
r
I!

v?- (1 (279x497) - (140><1247)i...t.._)_2 63 2

(1526)(637)(1744)(419)

3.7 which for 1 (1.13. (6.6 . . accept hypothesis

113

Appendix XI. Form used to conduct telephone interviews

114

nun‘e: Motivation burvay
n a “I. " C ‘
teleuna e latervxeus Date

 

 

Interviewer

 

Car License No.
Did you contact person to whom the oriOiual questionnaire was sent? Yes No
If no but the person to whom you talked was able to answer, what was the relation-
ship of this person to the "respondent"?

 

 

If you are satisfied that the person to whom you are talking can respond, begin
the questioning.

1. Did you hunt last hunting season? Yes No
2. (Ask this question only if you got a "yes" to No. 1 above.)

What do you consider to be the most satiufying ways to use your leisure time?
(write in responses as given.)

 

 

3. How old are you?

4. Are you married or single? A#. If single, have you been divorced or
widowed? .

 

 

5. Do you live inside the limits of a city, town or village or outside the limits
of a city, town or village?

6. What is your race? White Negro Other

 

 

 

7. What is your occupation? What sort of work do you do?

 

8. About how many hours, on the average, did you work each week during last
hunting season?

 

9. What is the highest grade you completed in school?

 

10. We are interested in where you lived as a child until you were l8 years old.

a) Were any of your first l8 years spent living on a farm or in the
country? If yes, probe for number of years. years.

b) Did you spend any of these 18 years living in a city or town less
than 25,0GO population? If yes, probe for number of years. years.

c) Did you live any of this time in a city larger than 25,000 pOpulation?
If yes, probe for number of years. years.

 

ll. Thank you Mr. (Mrs.) for your cooperation so far. The last quest"
ion is quite personal and you might not want to answer it. If so, we understand.
The information, however, is considered confidential. It has to do with your
income. What was your l962 income before taxes? ?

 

 

Many of the questions we‘ve asked here may seem unrelated to hunting. We
believe, however, that information such as this, if compfled from hundreds of
people like you, will help us carry on programs better aimed to satisfy you.
m; PP.” . . 1 ' __
roe us for your time and cooperation.

Good—bye.

Appenoix

t—j‘
r‘1

A1) p e no

Appendix

Appendix

:{II_!‘L0

‘;‘r ‘v n
, _ I.
4‘.II .‘J o

XII-C

XII-D

115

Percentage of respondents (mail) and non- eSpon—
dents (telephone) living in urban and rural areas.

Urban
Rural

36.8
01.2

100.0

Telephone
ilztc rviaws

mg
29.4
no.0

Percentage of married and single respondents (mail)
and non-respondents (telephone)

Darried
Single

[ail

re CflT‘OIlSCS

Telephone
interviews

 

33.5
11.5
100.0

Percentage of respondents (mail) and non-respondents
(telephone) occurring in three racial classes.

Knite
Kegro
Other

 

hail Telephone

resgons intervieis
94.4 92.2
2.3 7.8
2.2 0.0
100.0 lu“.0

Percentage of respondents (mail) and non—respondents

(telephone) completinn various

0

Grade 6 or less
Grade 7—8
Grades 9-11
Grade 12

Education beyond high school

levels of education.

 

Pail Telephone
rcsgpnscs interviews
3.0 [+08
21." 14.3
24.9 35.7
27.9 35.7
“2.4 ,.5
100.0 100.0

Appendix XIII~A.

Appendix XIII—B.

116

Percentage of respondents (mail) and
respondents (telephone) occurring in five
income groups.

 

Respondents Eon—respondents
- 1 1‘. 1' WHO“.-- /A
Less tnan QZJCG per year 9.9 9.4
$3000— $7429 45.9 46.9
$7500- $9999 13.7 15.6
310,00q + 5.1 6.3

Percentage of respondents (mail) and non-

respondents (telephone) gainfully employed
occurring in 7 occupation classes. Figures
in parentheses are numbers of individuals.

 

 

 

Occupation class Respondents Non—respondents
Semi—skilled 35.6 36.0 (13)
Skilled 37.2 34.0 (17)
Professional, proprietors 9.7 8.0 (4)
Farmers 3.6 0.0 (0)
Sales workers 4.3 10.0 (5)
Managers, clerical 5.8 2.0 (1)
Service workers 3.8 8.0 (4)

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
||HIIWIWIIHII\lllllllIllMll!MIIIIWIWIIWII
31293100983885