I 70-20,501 MONCRIEF, Lewis Whitfield, 194-3AN ANALYSIS OF HUNTER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE STATE OF MICHIGAN'S ANTLERLESS DEER HUNTING POLICY. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970 Agriculture, forestry and wildlife U niversity M icrofilm s, A XEROX C o m p an y, A n n A rbor, M ich ig an AN ANALYSIS OF HUNTER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE STATE OF MICHIGAN'S ANTLERLESS DEER HUNTING POLICY By Lewis V / h i t f i e l d M o n c r ie f A THESIS Submitted to Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements f o r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Resource Development 1970 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF HUNTER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE STATE OF MICHIGAN'S ANTLERLESS DEER HUNTING POLICY By Lewis W h i t f i e l d M o n c r i e f In Michigan one o f t h e m a jo r reso urce development c o n t r o v e r s i e s In v o lv e s t h e management o f the d e e r h e r d . N a tu r a l The Michigan Department o f Resources f o r most o f the l a s t seventeen years has used a n t l e r - less deer h u n t i n g ( t h e h u n t i n g o f does and fawns) population control in many areas o f t h e s t a t e . as one de v ic e f o r As is the case in many n o r t h e a s t e r n and midwestern s t a t e s , a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f the h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n opposes th e p o l i c y . Research was conducted using 398 randomly s e l e c t e d hunters Ingham, Alpena and M a r q u e t te C o u n t i e s . re search was t o d e t e r m in e : from The m ajor t h r u s t o f th e 1) w h et h er t h e r e a r e d i s c e r n i b l e p a t t e r n s o f s u pp or t and o p p o s i t i o n among the t h r e e regions o f th e s t a t e and among v a r i o u s socio -ec ono mi c s t a t u s (SES) grou ps , and 2) w he th er s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s may be i d e n t i f i e d as b e in g r e l a t e d to th e kind and i n t e n s i t y o f a t t i t u d e which The study results i n d i v i d u a l h u nt e rs form. indicate that indeed t h e r e ar e d i f f e r e n c e s th e degree o f s u p p o r t o f o r o p p o s i t i o n regional oppo sitio n t o th e p o l i c y . The g r e a t e s t is found in M a r q u e t te County in the Upper Pen in ­ s u l a w h i l e th e g r e a t e s t s u p p o r t is in Ingham County In sout he rn M ic hi g an . The h i g h e s t s o ci o -e c o n o m ic s t a t u s group is by f a r the most s u p p o r t i v e o f the t h r e e SES groups c o n s i d e r e d , w h i l e the lowest SES group was lea st supportive. in Lewis W h i t f i e l d M o n c r ie f D e t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n was given to the i n f l u e n c e o f numerous peer groups on h u n te r a t t i t u d e s both on t h e ba sis o f county o f residence and SES. I t was found t h a t i n d i v i d u a l a ttitu d e s are d e f i n i t e l y li n k e d to the a t t i t u d e s o f r e l a t i v e s and h u nt in g companions both when region o f residence and SES are co n s i d e r e d . The i n d i v i d u a l ar e a ls o very s i m i l a r to those o f t h e i r immediate f a m i l y but the d i r e c ­ t i o n o f i n f l u e n c e was d i f f i c u l t to su rm ise . and s o c i a l formation. o ffic ia ls , hunter's a ttitu d e s N ei g hb or s, f e l low-workers acquaintances do not seem t o be very i n f l u e n t i a l In terms o f less common c o n t a c t s Department o f N a tu ra l in a t t i t u d e in c l u d i n g government Resources employees, o t h e r h u n t e r s , sportsman club o f f i c i a l s , none seemed to have much d i r e c t In fluence, b u t when hunters t a l k e d t o DNR employees who opposed the p o l i c y that d i d seem t o have some b e a r i n g on th e a t t i t u d e s which th e h u n te r h e l d . Several concepts were t e s t e d as to t h e i r apparent i n f l u e n c e on the a t t i t u d e s which the h u n te r formed. These concepts s t a t u s symbolism a s so c ia t ed w i t h h u n ti n g success, h u n ti n g success to the h u n t e r , general includ ed a l i e n a t i o n , t h e importance o f peer group i n t e r e s t in h u n t i n g , and the i n f l u e n c e o f mass media upon a t t i t u d e . C learly, the g r e a t e s t i n f l u e n c e on a t t i t u d e s came from primary s o c i a l group in fl u e n c e s and not from mass media o r secondary s o c i a l group i n f l u e n c e s . There is a weak r e l a t i o n s h i p between the a t t i t u d e s h e ld by i n d i v i d u a l hunters and the general pe e r s . of However, when the r e l a t i o n s h i p in terest is considered in h u n ti n g o f h is in the c o nt e xt region o f re sidence and socio-economic s t a t u s gr ou p, observed d i f f e r e n c e s are e x p l a i n e d by t h i s v a r i a b l e . little o f the Lewis W h i t f i e l d M o n c r i e f The f a c t t h a t some h u n te rs tend to ta k e t h e i r h u n t i n g more s e r i o u s l y th an o t h e r h u nt e rs d i d not seem to i n f l u e n c e a t t i t u d e s much e x ce p t in th e n o r t h e r n lower P e n i n s u l a . In t h a t r e g i o n , t h e more Im p o rt a n t h u n t i n g and h u n t i n g success were to th e respondents th e more l i k e l y were to oppose th e p o l i c y . status c o n fe rra l function Th is they in t u r n seemed to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a in t h a t r e g i o n . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am In de b te d to my f r i e n d , Mr. In many ways throughout t h i s s t u d y . Gal e Jamsen, who a s s i s t e d me Special asked f o r , was a l s o always r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e pa rt me nt o f N a t u r a l Mr. recognition Louis In t h i s from t h e Research and Larry R y e l, c h ie f b i o m e t r ic ia n , e s p e c ia ll y should be c i t e d f o r his w i l l i n g n e s s t h e i r assistance from t h e Michigan De­ Resources and p a r t i c u l a r l y Development D i v i s i o n . Grateful a s s i s t a n c e , when i t was to h e lp . is a l s o gi v e n research. to my d o c t o r a l committee f o r The committee i n c lu d e d P r o f e s s o r F. T w a r d z i k , Chairman; P r o f e s s o r M i l t o n Steinmuel l e r ; P h i l l i p M. Marcus; P r o f e s s o r Sanford S. B ar lo w e , and Dr. Professor Fa rness; P r o f e s s o r R a l e i g h Ralph B lou ch , e x - o f f i c i o committee member. A g r a n t from t h e Federal Aid in W i l d l i f e R e s t o r a t i o n Program, Michigan P r o j e c t W-9&-R, funded a m a jo r p a r t o f this rese ar ch e f f o r t . 171 t h o u t t h i s support the res e ar ch would no t have been p o s s i b l e . TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF T A B L E S ................................................................................................................... Page vi LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................... fx LIST OF APPEMDIX TABLES................................................................................................. x PREFACE....................................................................................................................................... xv Chapter I. II. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 The Problem....................................................................................................... E c o l o g i c a l P r i n c i p l e s o f Deer Management ...................................... 1 2 Adaptab M i t y ............................................................................................. Food and C o v e r ....................................... ................................................. M o r t a l i t y Among Deer ........................................................................... I n f l u e n c e o f Herd S i z e on the Range........................................... 2 k 5 10 A H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e ...................................................................... The E v o l u t i o n o f a Management P o l i c y .......................................... The F a c t i o n s .................................................................................................. 11 21 S up po r t. ................................................................. O p p o s i t i o n .................................................................................................. 21 23 The L e g i s l a t u r e ............................................................................................. 31 THE ISSUES AND THE RESEARCH PROBLEM.................................................... 3*» A More D e t a i l e d A n a l y s i s o f th e I s s u e s ...................................... 3^ Types o f Hunter A t t i t u d e s ................................................................. R e c u r ri n g Arguments by Opponents ............................................... The P o i n t o f View o f the Department o f N a t u r a l Resources The Research P r o b l e m ....................................................... II. 3** 39 51 58 RESEARCH DESIGN FORMULATION.................................................................... 60 Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e ...................................................................... 60 ii i IV . V. V I. V II. B i o l o g i c a l Research L i t e r a t u r e .................................................... H u n te r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s L i t e r a t u r e ................................ H un te r M o t i v a t i o n L i t e r a t u r e ........................................................ Game Management C o n t r o v e r s i e s L i t e r a t u r e ............................ 60 64 70 73 Conceptual Foundations ........................................................................... Communications and A t t i t u d e s . . . ............................................... Summary................................................................................................................. An Ass umption.................................................................................................. H y p o t h e s e s ....................................................................................................... 79 82 8$ 89 89 Regional D i f f e r e n c e s ........................................................................... Socio-Economic S t a t u s ........................................................................... 89 81 RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION AND SOME GENERALFINDINGS...................... 93 The I n t e r v i e w Schedule ........................................................................... The Sample C o u n t i e s .................................................................................... The Respondent Sample................................................................................ Conducting the I n t e r v i e w s ....................................................................... Response and Non-Response...................................................................... General Fi ndi ngs ......................................................................................... 93 94 .97 98 99 102 Sex..................................................................................................................... Age..................................................................................................................... R a c e ................................................................................................................ H un tin g E x p e r i e n c e ................................................................................ O c c u p a t i o n .................................................................................................. I n c o m e ..................................... Educat i o n ....................................................................................................... 102 103 10 4 106 107 Ill 114 S u m m a r y ............................................................................................................ 117 TESTING THE HYPOTHESES.................................................................................... 119 An Assumption..................................................................... Data A n a l y s i s .................................................................................................. 119 121 A t t i t u d e Toward An t i e r l e s s Deer H un tin g P o l i c y . . . . Regional D i f f e r e n c e s ........................................................................... 122 124 TESTING THE HYPOTHESES CONTINUES............................................................. 154 Socio-Economic S t a t u s ................................................................................ S t a t u s D i f f e r e n c e s .................................................................................... 154 158 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 174 C o n c lu s io n s ....................................................................................................... Recommendations.............................................................................................. 174 176 iv BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................... 182 APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 192 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. 219 APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................................... . 25*» APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................................... . 256 v L I S T OF TABLES Ta bl e 1. Legal 1 9 3 1 ............................................................................ Page 9 P r o p o r t i o n o f d e e r h u nt e rs to t h e male p o p u l a t i o n between 15 and 6 *» ye ars o f age in I 960 ............................................................. 25 Number o f b i g game h u nt e rs by se x , age, and p l a c e o f r e s id e n c e in 1 9 6 5 .............................................................................................. 65 Comparison o f m a jo r f i n d i n g s o f the 1955, I 9 6 0 , and 1965 n a t i o n a l surveys o f h u n t i n g .................................................................. 66 Motives s a t i s f i e d by h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g (n 1956 as compared w i t h I 9 6 0 ................................................................................................................ 72 I n t e r v i e w s completed and reasons f o r uncompleted i n t e r v i e w s by c o u n t y ................................................................................................................ 100 7. Age d i s t r i b u t i o n by c o u n t y ............................................................................ 104 8. R a c ia l c o m p os it io n by county ......................................................................... 105 9. Length o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r h u n te r s . . 106 10. Length o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n by c o u n t y ......................................................... 107 11. Occupation o f respondents f o r s e v e r a l 12. O cc u p at io n al c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e h u n t e r sample and the g e n e r a l male p o p u l a t i o n f o r Ingham, A lp e n a , and M a rq u e t te C o u n t i e s ............................................................................................. 110 13* Income d i s t r i b u t i o n 112 1*». The Income d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e de er h u n te rs and g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n s o f Ingham, Alpena and M a r q u e t t e Counties . . . 113 E d u c a ti o n a l l e v e l s f o r th e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n and f o r the h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n f o r Ingham, Alpena and M a rq u e t te C o u n t i e s ................................................................................................................ 115 Median income f o d e e r hu nte rs and g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n f o r Michigan c o u n t i e s .............................................................................................. 117 2. 3. J*. 5. 6. 15. 16. deer k i l l since for from s e v e r a l studies s t u d i e s .................................. two s t u d i e s ......................................................... vi 108 17* H un te r o p in io n s between 1956 and 19 66.................................................... 122 18. A ttitud e . 125 19. An i n d i c a t i o n o f a l i e n a t i o n among the c o u n t ie s ............................. 127 20. A t t i t u d e toward th e p o l i c y among th e u n a l i e n a t e d and th e al t e n a t e d ................................................................................................................ 128 21 . The importance o f success t o h u nt e rs from th e t h r e e c o u n t i e s 131 22 . The e f f e c t o f the importance o f success upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s 132 23 . S ta t u s o f success among th e c o u n t i e s .................................................... 134 24 . Deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t in the t h r e e c o u n t i e s ...................................... 136 25 . The e f f e c t o f deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t upon a t t i t u d e s toward the pol i c y ............................................................................................................ 1 36 26 . P r o p o r t i o n o f f e l l o w - w o r k e r s who hunt among the c o u n t i e s 138 27 . The p r o p o r t i o n o f c lo s e f r i e n d s o f th e respondents who hunt from the sample c o u n t i e s ........................................................................... 133 The a t t i t u d e o f r e l a t i v e s toward the p o l i c y in t h e t h r e e c o u n t i e s ................................................................................................................ 143 The comparison o f h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s w i t h the a t t i d u e s o f r e l a t i v e s ................................................................................................................ 144 The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between respondent and the a t t i t u d e s o f r e l a t i v e s r e g a r d in g a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g in Ingham C o u n t y ..................................................................................................................... 145 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent and a t t i t u d e s o f r e l a t i v e s in Alpena County ...................................................................... 145 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent and th e a t t i t u d e s o f r e l a t i v e s in M a r q u e t te County.................................................................. 146 33* Socio-economic s t a t u s ........................................................................................ 154 34. A t t i t u d e toward a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g p o l i c y among th e SES g r o u p s ........................................................................................................... 157 35. A l i e n a t i o n among d i f f e r e n t SES g r o u p s ................................................... 158 36. The importance o f success to respondents from th e v a r i o u s SES g r o u p s ........................................................................................................... 160 SES d i s t r i b u t i o n among the c o u n t i e s ....................................................... 171 28. 29 . 30. 31. 32. 37. toward a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g p o l i c y by county . vi I . . 38. 39. kO. A t t i t u d e toward the a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n ti n g p o l i c y by county f o r low SES r e s p o n d e n t s ........................................................... 172 A t t i t u d e toward the p o l i c y by county f o r medium SES respondents.......................................................................................................... 172 A t t i t u d e toward th e p o l i c y by county w i t h i n gr oup.................................................. 173 the high SES L I S T OF FIGURES Figure 1. The famous p i c t u r e o f George The Orphan Fawn which has c r y s t a l l i z e d so much o p p o s i t i o n to the A n t l e r l e s s Deer H u n ti n g Pol i c y ................................................................................................... 2. 3. Page 55 A l e t t e r h e a d e x e m p l i f y i n g th e e m o ti on al appeal o f th e A n t l e r l e s s Deer H un tin g Is s u e . ................................................................ 57 Survey study c o u n t ie s and Michigan Department o f N a t u r a l Resources a d m i n i s t r a t i v e re gions ........................................................ 95 L I S T OF APPENDIX TABLES Ta b le 1. A t t i t u d e toward th e p o l i c y among th e u n a l i e n a t e d and the a l i e n a t e d in Ingham County 2. 3. Page . A t t i t u d e toward t h e p o l i c y among t h e u n a l i e n a t e d and the a l i e n a t e d in Aipena County .......................................................................... 219 219 A t t i t u d e toward the p o l i c y among th e u n a l i e n a t e d and the a l i e n a t e d In M a rq u e t te Co u n ty .................................................................. 220 The e f f e c t o f the importance o f success upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s in Ingham County . .................................................................................... 220 The e f f e c t o f th e importance o f success upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s in Alpena C o u n t y .............................................................................................. 221 The e f f e c t o f the importance o f success upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s in M a r q u e t t e County......................................................................................... 221 7. The i n f l u e n c e o f status symbolism upon h u n t e r a ttitu d e . . . 222 8. The i n f l u e n c e o f status symbolism upon h u n t e r a ttitu d e . . . 222 9. The I n f l u e n c e o f s t a t u s symbolism upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s Alpena C ou nt y .......................................................................... 5. 6. 10. 11. 12. 13. l*t. 15. In 223 The i n f l u e n c e o f s t a t u s symbolism upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s in M a rq u e t te C o u n t y .............................................................................................. 223 The i n f l u e n c e o f deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t upon a t t i t u d e s in Ingham Cou nty ....................................................................................................... 22*t The i n f l u e n c e o f h u n t e r I n t e r e s t upon a t t i t u d e s in Alpena C o u n t y ..................................................................................................................... 22k The i n f l u e n c e o f h u n t e r i n t e r e s t upon a t t i t u d e s in Ma rq ue tt e C o u n t y ......................................................................................... 225 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent a t t i t u d e s and t h e p r o ­ p o r t i o n o f f e l low-workers who h u n t ...................................................... 225 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent a t t i t u d e s and th e pr o­ p o r t i o n o f c l o s e f r i e n d s who h u n t ........................................................... 226 x 16. The p o s i t i o n o f f e l l o w - w o r k e r s toward t h e p o l i c y among th e c o u n t i e s ........................................................................................................... 17* The e f f e c t 18. The e f f e c t o f work group a t t i t u d e s upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s in Ingham County. . . .............................................................................................. 19■ 20 . 21. of work peer group a t t i t u d e s upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s The r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n d i v i d u a l and f a m i l y a t t i t u d e s co nc e rn in g th e p o l i c y ........................................................................................ 27 . 28 . 29* 30. 31. 32. 22 21-8 The p o s i t i o n o f ne igh bor s toward the p o l i c y among the c o u n t i e s ........................................................................................................... 23. 26 . 227 The e f f e c t o f work group a t t i t u d e s upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s in M a r q u e t te C o u n t y .................................................................................................. The e f f e c t o f the a t t i t u d e o f neighbors upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s 25* 227 The e f f e c t o f work group a t t i t u d e s upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s in Alpena C o u n t y ................................................................................... 22 . 2k. 226 229 229 ♦ 230 The e f f e c t o f th e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t i n g companions upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s .................................................................................................. 230 The e f f e c t o f the a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t i n g companions upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s in Ingham County............................................................ 231 The e f f e c t o f th e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t i n g companions upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s In Alpena County............................................ The e f f e c t o f th e a t t i t u d e o f h u n t i n g companions upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s in M a r q u e t t e C o u n t y .............................................. . 2 232 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e a t t i t u d e s expressed by govern­ ment o f f i c i a l s and the a t t i t u d e s o f h u n te r s w i t h whom they had t a l k e d ....................................................................................................... 232 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e a t t i t u d e s expressed by employees o f the DNR and the a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t e r s w i t h whom they had t a l k e d ......................................................................................................................... 233 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the a t t i t u d e s expressed by s o c i a l ac qu a in ta nc es and the a t t i t u d e s o f hu nte rs w i t h whom they have t a l k e d ................................................................................................................ 233 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the a t t i t u d e s o f o t h e r h u nt e rs whom th e respondents have t a l k e d to and th e respond en ts' a t t i t u d e s .................................................................................................................... 23*» The p o l i c y p o s i t i o n o f sportsman club o f f i c i a l s who have t a l k e d t o respondents from t h e v a r i o u s c o u n t i e s ............................ 23k xi 33. 3**. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39- 40 . 1*1. 1*2. 1*3> The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p o s i t i o n toward the p o l i c y which the magazines t h a t the h u n t e r s read have taken and h u n t e r s ' a t t i t u d e s ................................................................................ 235 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e p o s i t i o n toward th e p o l i c y taken by th e newspaper which the h u nt e rs read and h u n t e r s ' a t t i t u d e s .............................................. 235 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e p o s i t i o n toward the p o l i c y ta ken by l o c a l r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s and hunters' a t titu d e s . . . ........................................ 236 A t t i t u d e toward the p o l i c y among th e u n a l i e n a t e d and the a l i e n a t e d in th e low SES g r o u p ............................................................. 236 A t t i t u d e toward the p o l i c y among th e a l i e n a t e d and un­ a l i e n a t e d in th e medium SES g r o u p ......................................................... 237 A t t i t u d e among the u n a l i e n a t e d and a l i e n a t e d in th e high SES gr ou p................................................................................................................. 237 The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a l i e n a t i o n among th e SES groups f o r those who s t r o n g l y oppose the p o l i c y ............................................... 238 The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a l i e n a t i o n among the SES groups f o r those who m o d e r a te ly oppose t h e p o l i c y ................................ 238 The e f f e c t o f th e importance o f success upon a t t i t u d e s in the low SES g r o u p ............................................................................................. 239 The e f f e c t o f the importance o f success upon a t t i t u d e In the medium SES g r o u p ..................................................................................... 239 The e f f e c t o f t h e importance o f success upon a t t i t u d e In the high SES g r o u p ......................................................................................... 21*0 1*1*. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t a t u s v a l u e among the SES groups. 1*5. The e f f e c t o f s t a t u s symbolism upon a t t i t u d e s among low SES resp on d en ts................................................................................................... 241 The e f f e c t o f s t a t u s symbolism upon a t t i t u d e s among medium SES re sp on d en ts ................................................................................................... 241 The e f f e c t o f s t a t u s symbolism upon a t t i t u d e s among h ig h SES r e s p on d en ts ................................................................................................... 242 48. Deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t among the SES g r o u p s ......................................... 242 49. The e f f e c t o f de er h u n t e r i n t e r e s t upon a t t i t u d e s among low SES h u n t e r s ............................................................................................................ 243 The e f f e c t o f d e e r h u n t e r i n t e r e s t upon a t t i t u d e s among medium SES h u n t e r s ......................................................................................... 243 46. 47. 50. xl 1 . . . 21*0 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. The e f f e c t o f deer h u n t e r I n t e r e s t upon a t t i t u d e s among high SES h u n t e r s .............................................................................................. 244 The p r o p o r t i o n o f f e l l o w - w o r k e r s who hunt deer among the SES g r o u p s ............................................................................................................ 244 The p r o p o r t i o n o f c l o s e f r i e n d s who hunt deer among t h e SES g r o u p s ............................................................................................................ 245 The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p o s i t i o n o f r e l a t i v e s o f respondents from the t h r e e SES g r o u p s .............................................................................. 245 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a t t i t u d e s o f low SES hu nte rs and the predominant a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r r e l a t i v e s . . . . . 246 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e a t t i t u d e s o f medium SES h u nt e rs ................................. and the a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r r e l a t i v e s 246 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the a t t i t u d e s o f high SES h u nt e rs and th e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r r e l a t i v e s ............................................... 247 The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p o s i t i o n o f f e l l o w - w o r k e r s o f h u nt e rs from the t h r e e SES g r o u p s ........................................................................... 247 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e a t t i t u d e s o f low SES hu nte rs and th e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r f e l l o w - w o r k e r s ...................................... 248 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e a t t i t u d e s o f medium SES h u n te r s and the a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r f e l l o w - w o r k e r s ...................................... 248 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e a t t i t u d e s o f high SES h u n te rs and t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r f e l l o w - w o r k e r s ...................................... 249 62 . The p o s i t i o n o f ne igh bor s among t h e SES g r o u p s ............................ 249 63. The e f f e c t o f th e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t i n g companions upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s among low SES resp ond en ts. . . . . . . . . . . . 250 64 . The e f f e c t o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t i n g companions upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s among medium SES r e s p o n d e n t s ............................ 250 The e f f e c t o f the a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t i n g companions upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s among high SES r e s p o n d e n ts ................................. 251 The e f f e c t o f the a t t i t u d e s o f Con s e r v a ti o n Department employees upon the a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t e r s w i t h whom they had t a l k e d from the low SES g r o u p ........................................................ 251 The e f f e c t o f the a t t i t u d e s o f C o n se r va tio n Department employees upon the a t t i t u d e s o f h u n te r s w i t h whom they had t a l k e d from t h e high SES g r o u p .................................................... 252 57* 58. 59. 60 . 61 . 65. 66. 67* xi 11 68. The e f f e c t o f the a t t i t u d e s o f Con ser va tio n Department employees upon th e a t t i t u d e s o f hu nte rs w i t h whom they had t a l k e d from t h e medium SES g r o u p ......................................... 'i 69. - The p o l i c y p o s i t i o n o f " o t h e r h u n t e r s " w i t h whom the respondents from th e v a ri o us SES groups have t a l k e d . xi v 252 > - . . . 253 PREFACE In J a n u a r y , tion la s tin g a ll 1966 s e v e r a l hundred de er h u n te rs st ag e d a demonstra­ one n i g h t on t h e grounds o f th e C a p i t o l the Michig an Department o f N a t u r a l po licy. Resources' an tlerless T h at was my f i r s t exposure to t h e i s s u e . knowledge o f the issue, I have been ve ry course o f my g r a d u a t e s t u d i e s controversy. deer h u n t i n g Since t h a t f i r s t i n t r i g u e d by i t . I d i d two small s t u d i e s These small e f f o r t s to p r o te s t In the relatin g to the r e p r e s e n t e d t h e seeds o f my t h i n k i n g which have grown i n t o the study r e p o r t e c h e r e . In p o l i t i c a l c ip lin e s , s c i e n c e , economics, s o c i o l o g y and o t h e r a l l i e d d i s ­ i n c l u d i n g reso urc e deve lo pm en t, much is s a i d about the I m p l i c a t i o n s o f p u b l i c and p r i v a t e p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s upon the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l attem pting forms which e v o l v e . Much e f f o r t has a l s o been s p e n t in to d e f i n e th e a l t e r n a t i v e s p o lic y matters a v a i l a b l e to policy-m akers in rang ing from p u b l i c w e l f a r e programs to reducing th e m ilita ry -in d u s tria l complex to t h e subsidy programs to induce farmers and landowners to adopt v a r i o u s land management p r a c t i c e s . has been done co nc e rn in g why i n d i v i d u a l citizen s which th ey h o l d c o n ce rn in g the m yriad p o l i c y Less work de velop t h e a t t i t u d e s issues and p u b l i c d e c i s i o n s which c o n f r o n t them and upon which they make b a s i c d e c i s i o n s as to support o r o p p o s itio n . One obvious e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the a t t i t u d e s which a person holds co nce rning a p u b l i c p o l i c y bi as h i s thinking is t h a t a p e r s o n ' s v e s t e d i n t e r e s t s in c e r t a i n d i r e c t i o n s . xv But what o f th e dozens and perhaps even hundreds o f d e c i s i o n s which c i t i z e n s make conce rn ing p o l i c i e s when no d i r e c t b e n e f i t s course o f a c t i o n which ac crue to them p e r s o n a l l y from the is f i n a l l y s e t t l e d upon o r when b e n e f i t s a r e c a n c e l l e d by added c o s t s . The a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g c o n t r o v e r s y Is such an is s u e . everybody wants more d e e r (an obvious ad vantage t o a l l Almost hunters) but th e q u e s t i o n a r i s e s as to what course o f a c t i o n can b e s t accomplish th is goal. No p r e s e n t l y o p e r a t i v e o r proposed p o l i c y has won the endorsement o f a l l this factions issue t h a t t h i s in a c h i e v i n g t h i s wo rthy g o a l . research is d e d i c a t e d . However, made in th e u l t i m a t e hope o f g a i n i n g deeper i n s i g h t s gene ral aspects o f a t t i t u d e It is to the e f f o r t is i n t o t h e more f o r m a t i o n c o nc e rn in g such p o l i c y issues. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem One o f t h e m ajor n a t u r a l The herd is po int. resources o f Michigan im p o r ta n t from both a r e c r e a t i o n a l is i t s deer h e rd .* and an economic s t a n d ­ Between 57 5* 000 and 6 5 0 , 0 0 0 d e e r h u nt e rs have purchased l i c e n s e s each y e a r f o r th e l a s t s i x y e a r s . These h u n te r s have a n n u a l l y spent an e s t i m a t e d $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 t o hunt d e e r d r u i n g t h i s p e r i o d . About $3 , 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 o f t h i s amount is spent each y e a r t o purchase de er h u n t i n g licenses. Much o f t h i s revenue is in t u rn used by th e s t a t e f o r the management o f th e d e e r r e s o u r c e . S e v e r a l key Issues a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h resource. One o f th ese m ajor issues th e management o f t h i s is w h e t h e r a p o l i c y o f h a r v e s t i n g Th ere a r e two sp e c ie s o f deer found in th e U n it e d S t a t e s . Both a r e c l a s s i f i e d in t h e genus Odocoi i e u s . These sp eci es a r e known as ( 0 . vt r g i n ianus) the w h i t e t a i l and (0. hemionus) the mule d e e r . Each o7" these sp ec ie s has a number o f su6 - s p e c l e s which a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t enough f o r our purposes t o discuss h e r e . The o n l y sp e c i e s found in Michig an is the w h i t e t a i l , so any r e f e r e n c e made t o Michigan d e e r in t h i s study w i l l concern th e w h i t e t a i l . A d e ta ile d technical discus­ s io n o f de er and t h e i r ec ol o gy is found In W a l t e r P. T a y l o r ( e d . ) , The Deer o f North America ( H a r r i s b u r g , Penn .: The S ta c k p o l e Company and The W i l d l i f e Management I n s t i t u t e , 1 9 5 6 ) , 668 pages. For a les s t e c h n i c a l t r e a t m e n t see A. H. C a r h a r t , Hun ting North American Deer (New Yor k: The M a c M ill a n Company, 19467"^ 232 pages. 2 The e s t i m a t e is based on th e av er ag e annual expense ($ 64 ) o f b i g game h u n t e r s surveyed In t h e U. S. Department o f t h e I n t e r i o r ' s 1965 N a t i o n a l Survey o f F i s h i n g and H u n t i n g . 1 2 a n t l e r l e s s d e e r 1 in a d d i t i o n to a n t l e r e d bucks should be f o l l o w e d in M ic hi g an . Under most c o n d i t i o n s now p r e v a i l i n g deer h u n ti n g Is a necessary management to ol point. in M ic h ig an , a n t l e r l e s s from the b i o l o g i s t ' s vie w­ However, o t h e r f a c t o r s must be c o n si d er ed such as the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l biological i m p l i c a t i o n s o f such a p o l i c y . It is w i t h these non- aspects t h a t the g r e a t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m p le x it y l i e s . One a d m i n i s t r a t o r p i c t u r e d the s i t u a t i o n t h i s way, Deer managers and o t h e r c o n s e r v a t i o n a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f t e n go so f a r as t o say t h e r e is no re a l deer problem; i t is a problem o f pe ople. This i s n ' t r e a l l y t r u e o f cour se. I t is j u s t t h a t th e d i f f i c u l t i e s o f o b t a i n i n g p u b l i c support and understanding overshadow the problem o f a c t u a l l y managing deei— which is p l e n t y hard enough.^ Th is rese ar ch focuses o f deer management. upon th e s e s o c i a l Special emphasis w i l l and p o l i t i c a l be gi v e n to a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v io r o f hu nt e rs w i t h regard to a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g . th e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n major b i o l o g i c a l its e lf aspects However, is d e d ic a t e d to a b r i e f ov e r v ie w o f some o f the concepts upon which th e management o f th e resource rests. E c o l o g i c a l P r i n c i p l e s o f Deer Management Adaptab i 11ty Deer a r e amazingly v e r s a t i l e c r e a t u r e s . They have adapted w e l l to the i n t r u s i o n s o f man i n t o t h e i r once remote domains. In f a c t , they a r e so a d a p t a b l e to human s e t t l e m e n t and human a c t i v i t y they o f t e n l i v e in very c lo s e p r o x i m i t y to urban a r e a s . that Two s i t u a t i o n s A n t l e r l e s s deer ar e d e f i n e d f o r purposes o f t h i s study as any deer w i t h o u t a n t l e r s o r w i t h s h o r t spike d a n t l e r s less than 3 inches in l e n g t h . About t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f a normal a n t l e r l e s s h a r v e s t would be fe males. 2 David H. Jenkins and 11o H. B a r t l e t t , Michigan W h i t e t a i l s (Lansing: Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t io n , 1 9 5 9 ) , p. 8 . from d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f t h e c o u n tr y e x e m p l i f y t h i s deer-human c o m p a t i b i l i t y . in the Hollywood H i l l s and m il e s It c h a r a c t e r is tic of is r e p o r t e d t h a t a small w i l d herd l i v e s c o m p l e t e l y surrounded by m e t r o p o l i t a n Los Angeles from the n e a r e s t open c o u n t r y . Also, in New J e r s e y , T i l l e t t observed a s i m i l a r c l o s e i n t e r a c t i o n between d e e r and humans. book e n t i t l e d controversy Doe Day, which d e a l t w i t h t r e e s and o t h e r p l a n t i n g s on p r o p e r t i e s , many o f which were lo c a t e d subdivisions. in r e s i d e n t i a l T i l l e t t a t t r i b u t e s much o f the s u p p o r t o f urban and suburban p r o p e r t y owners f o r a d e e r - o f - e i t h e r - s e x to th is de er h u n t i n g in New J e r s e y , T i l l e t t c i t e s numerous examples o f de er doing e x t e n s i v e damage to ornamental resid en tial the a n t l e r l e s s In h i s law as a r e a c t i o n damage in c u r r e d upon t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s . ^ Although deer a r e c a p a b le o f doing e x t e n s i v e damage t o a g r i c u l jl t u r a l and ornamental plantings, they have been t o l e r a t e d ne ar po pu la­ t i o n c e n t e r s more than most o t h e r b i g game s p e c i e s . because deer p r e s e n t no r e a l Perhaps t h i s that liv e In c o n t r a s t , in t h e same kin ds o f areas t h a t humans u s u a l l y i n h a b i t in l a r g e numbers a r e o f t e n dangerous. less t o l e r a n c e is u s u a l l y shown toward them. In o r d e r not t o o v e r s t a t e a p o i n t , however, t h a t d e e r , as w e l l is danger t o humans e x c e p t perhaps an o c c a s io n a l s e m i - w i l d buck d u r i n g th e r u t t i n g season. o t h e r b i g game sp eci es •' Hence, i t should be s t a t e d as most game s p e c i e s , a r e s e n s i t i v e t o u n c o n t r o l l e d h u n ti n g and to w h o le s a le h a b i t a t d e s t r u c t i o n . An example o f t h i s s e n s i t i v i t y o c c u r r e d in so u th er n Michigan d u r i n g th e i n i t i a l p e r i o d where a s i z a b l e settlem ent indigenous n a t i v e he rd was n e a r l y e x t e r m i n a t e d . ' p a u l T i l l e t t , Doe Day {New Bru nswick, N . J . : P re ss, 1 9 6 3 ) , pp. 2 6 - 2 9 . Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y k This example w i l l be discussed in g r e a t e r d e t a i l f i c e he re t o say t h a t la te r. It w ill i f gi ven a re asonable chance to t h r i v e , most c o n d i t i o n s , deer w i l l do j u s t suf­ under that. Food and Cover Deer a r e b a s i c a l l y browsers alth o ug h they do a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f g r a z i n g d u ri ng the summer. They do not t h r i v e o r in a co m p le te ly f o r e s t e d a r e a . is a g r e a t v a r i e t y o f the f o r e s t is in e i t h e r a p r a i r i e They a r e most abundant where t h e r e low growing shrubs and young tre e s and where i n t e r s p e r s e d w i t h open a r e a s .^ tr e e s and shrubs ar e not deer browse. However, a l l The w h i t e t a i l low growing can e x i s t on ly on c e r t a i n sp eci es o f v e g e t a t i o n and even then they must have v a r i e t y in thei r d i e t . There is u s u a l l y no s h or ta g e o f food excep t d u ri n g the w i n t e r , and then on ly able. if t h e r e a r e too many deer f o r the amount o f food a v a i l ­ In many areas o f Michigan t h i s is the case whenever th e s n o w f a ll is deep and l a s t s f o r more than a few weeks. W inter stress is p a r t i ­ cu larly important d u ri n g the more s e ve r e w i n t e r s because th e d e e r then migrate i n t o c o n if e r o u s swamps known as deer y a r d s . These yards o f f e r p r o t e c t i o n from the wind because they a r e l o c a t e d in low l y i n g t e r r a i n and a r e g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by dense t h i c k e t s o f c o n if e r o u s t r e e s . Another f a c t o r a ls o c o n t r i b u t e s the y a r d s . The t h i c k c o n i f e r s t o th e more te mperate c o n d i t i o n s o f in these yards tend to absorb more he a t from t h e sun than th e ba re hardwoods and less dense c o n i f e r s o f the h i g h l a n d s , thus r a i s i n g the tem pe ratu re somewhat. V o r a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s io n o f n u t r i t i o n a l re qu ir e m e n ts , and o f the d i e t and cover requirements o f the w h i t e t a i l , see T a y l o r , pp. 189-217. W inter stress is c r e a t e d because th e s e d e e r yards c o n s t i t u t e o n l y about 10 p e r c e n t o f th e t o t a l range in t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a ' and 7 t o 8 p e r c e n t in th e n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a . heavy snows o f long d u r a t i o n a r e e x p e r i e n c e d , c o n f i n e d almost e x c l u s i v e l y food source a r e a s . If t h e e n t i r e herd is t o 10 p e r c e n t or le s s o f I t s n a t u r a l th e he rd I s sustain, d u r i n g th e w i n t e r . if th e q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y o f browse in the yards Is d e c r e a s in g a n d / o r i f th e browse w i l l This means t h a t in c r e a s i n g a t a f a s t e r r a t e than the c o n d i t i o n o f the herd w i l l As m a l n u t r i t i o n increases, deteriorate th e weaker and s m a l l e r animals begin t o d i e o f s t a r v a t i o n . M o r t a l i t y Among Deer What a r e t h e common causes o f death among w h i t e t a i l s and how do the se rank In importance? annual B a rtle tt i n d i c a t e d th e magnitude o f the loss and some o f th e prominent causes o f m o r t a l i t y when he stated, I t is a f a c t t h a t y e a r in and y e a r o u t 30 p e r c e n t o f M ic h ig a n ' s deer a r e removed from t h e he rd by s t a r v a t i o n , l e g a l h u n t i n g , i l l e g a l h u n t i n g , road k i l l s , wanton k i l l i n g by dogs, p r e d a to r s and n a t u r a l m o r t a l i t y . 3 The m ajor is s u e , however, how do th ese v a ri o u s f a c t o r s h a r v e s t i n g th e herd? t o losses? is not what k i l l s rank in importance. Are h u nt e rs o v e r ­ Are d i s e a s e and p a r a s i t e s a major c o n t r i b u t o r Or is s t a r v a t i o n th e p i v o t a l f a c t o r which causes t h e s i z e ' I . H . B a r t l e t t , Michigan Deer (L an s in g : v a t i o n , 1950) , p. 16. ^ B a rtle tt, the d e e r , b u t r a t h e r Department o f Conser­ p. 28. ^1. H. B a r t l e t t , "Where We Stand A f t e r E i g h t Y e a r s , " Mi ch igan Co n s e r v a ti o n ( N o v . - D e c . , I 9 6 0 ) . o f th e herd t o f l u c t u a t e ? Many rese ar ch e f f o r t s have been c a r r i e d out in an a t te m p t t o de te r m in e t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the v a r i o u s f a c t o r s t h a t B a r t l e t t l i s t e d as w e l l as o t h e r p o s s i b l e causes which he d i d n o t mention. Disease and p a r a s i t e s have been found t o be an i n s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r as the p ri m ar y cause o f d e a t h . However, t h e r e is e v id e nc e t h a t in cases where deer have been i n j u r e d o r where they a r e in a s e v e r e l y weakened c o n d i t i o n due t o m a l n u t r i t i o n , d i s e a s e and p a r a s i t e s can be a s i g n i f i c a n t secondary cause o f d e a t h . ^ Also, v e h ic u la r c o llis i o n s w i t h de er account f o r a r e l a t i v e l y small p a r t o f the e s t i m a t e d t o t a l m o rtality. In 1968, 7 , 8 9 5 d e e r were r e p o r t e d k i l l e d w i t h motor v e h i c l e s . 2 in c o l l i s i o n s These d a t a a r e d e r i v e d from s e v e r a l in c l u d i n g r e p o r t s o f v e h i c l e k i l l e d sources deer from s t a t e and l o c a l p o l i c e a g e n c ie s , dead deer found by road crews and Department o f N a t u r a l Resources employees, and r e p o r t s by the p u b l i c . to th e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources In summary, t h e few thousand de er k i l l e d by v e h i c u l a r c o l l i s i o n have an i n s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t upon t h e herd as a w h ol e. L ittle is known about th e e x a c t number o f deer t h a t a r e k i l l e d by w i l d p r e d a t o r s , b u t number is information in s ig n ific a n t. play a s i g n i f i c a n t 3 Is s u f f i c i e n t to i n d i c a t e t h a t the However, McNeil suggests t h a t dogs may I. r o l e as a p r e d a t o r In so ut h er n M ic h ig a n . But ^ T a y l o r , pp. 169* 176 . This p o i n t pp. 52-5**, f o r th e Michigan h e r d . is a l s o co nfi rm ed by J e n k i n s , 2 Personal communication from D. A. A r n o l d , b i g game s p e c i a l i s t , Michigan Department o f N a t u r a l Resources, March 13, 1969. ^ T a y l o r , p. 185. If R. J. M c N e i l , P o p u l a t i o n Dynamics and Economic Impact o f Deer In Southern M i c h i g a n . Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n . Game D i v i s i o n Report No. 23 9 5 , 1962, p. 5 8 . when the herd as a whole is c o n si d er ed in r e l a t i o n and to c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f domestic dog p o p u l a t i o n s , p r e d a t i o n o f any k in d is it is u n l i k e l y in i t s e l f p r e s e n t l y a l i m i t i n g Michigan C o n s e r v a ti o n Department o f f i c i a l s , ^ co nt e m p or ar ie s t o human p o p u l a t i o n s in agencies o f n e i g h b o r i n g s t a t e s , that facto r. as w e l l as t h e i r ag re e t h a t h u n t i n g and s t a r v a t i o n a r e t h e two f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e he rd s i z e the most. The q u e s t i o n which w i l l s tu dy is "which is th e most im p o rt a n t? " two t y p e s - - l e g a 1 legal k ill, hunting. be c o n f r o n t e d o v e r and o v e r ag a in and i l l e g a l . b u t very little Good d a ta H u n ti n g can be cl a ss ed the I g e a l is known about th e e f f e c t o f k ill. 2 ille g a l For examp le , exceeds the c a p a c i t y o f the ra nge, ille g a l k ills ille g a l role. k ill problem l i e s n o t so much in t h e t a k i n g o f th e animals th e m s e lv e s , but th e o t h e r hand, possibly Regardless o f t h e e x a c t f i g u r e , The s e ri o us ne s s o f th e i l l e g a l management c o n t r o l . ille g a l k ill most a u t h o r i t i e s who a r e c l o s e to th e m a t t e r agree t h a t h u n t i n g does p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t into is a v a i l a b l e on the annual I t has been e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e t o t a l equals o r exceeds in t h i s in th e co mplete la c k o f in areas where t h e s i z e o f th e herd these k i l l s taking place may be b e n e f i c i a l . On in areas where the range is understocked would o b v i o u s l y have a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t upon the h e rd . There a r e two m ajo r types o f as poach ers, ille g a l hunters. One t y p e , known p r e m e d i t a t e d l y takes deer i l l e g a l l y both o u t o f season. In c o n t r a s t , it in season and is q u i t e common f o r a s e m i - s k i l l e d ^The name o f t h e Department o f C on s e r v a ti o n was changed In 1969 t o th e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources (DNR) and th e agency h e r e a f t e r w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o by the new name. 2 J e n k i n s , p. 80. 8 nimrod t o shoot f i r s t and then look to see what i t was a f t e r w a r d s . second type o f h u n t e r , i f he happens t o k i l l an a n t l e r l e s s animal and does not have a p e r m i t , has committed an i l l e g a l cumstances, the d e e r is u s u a l l y le ft act. l y i n g where i t p ro b ab ly many more o f th e second type o f Th is ille g a l Under th ese c i r ­ fe ll. There a r e h u n t e r than o f the firs t. Through a v a r i e t y o f means th e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources has d e r i v e d e s t i m a t e s o f th e annual s i n c e 1931. legal k ill These annual e s t i m a t e s a r e gi v e n How do th es e e s t i m a t e s o f l e g a l as a cause o f m or ta l i ty„? deer k i l l f o r th e e n t i r e s t a t e in T a b le 1. compare w i t h s t a r v a t i o n Data a r e v e ry l i m i t e d co n c e rn in g th e a c t u a l number o f animals which s t a r v e each y e a r , e x c e p t d u r i n g those years In which dead deer searches have been conducted in t h e de er yards the sp rin g .^ evident. g r e a t deal m o rtality From th e d a t a t h a t a r e a v a i l a b l e , s e v e r a l F irst, facts are t h e annual m o r t a l i t y due t o s t a r v a t i o n f l u c t u a t e s a depending upon th e s e v e r i t y o f th e w i n t e r . rate in S eco ndly, is h i g h e s t among fawns and s m a l l e r a n i m a l s . the T h ird ly , the r a t e o f m o r t a l i t y v a r i e s from a r e a t o a r e a , depending upon the s i z e o f th e deer p o p u l a t i o n and upon th e amount o f ov er br ow si ng t h a t Is o c c u r r i n g . The magnitude o f the problem o f s t a r v a t i o n is in an e s t i m a t e t h a t more than 9 0 , 0 0 0 an im al s s t a r v e d ?n 1951* was one o f th e arguments which was used t o j u s t i f y the reflected 2 This in itia tio n of the l a r g e - s c a l e use o f a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g as a way o f l i m i t i n g deer p o p u l a t i o n s , which was begun in 1952. *See L. A. Ryel and C. L. B e n n e t t , J r . , " T e c h n i c a l Report on th e F a l l 1981 and S p r in g 1982 Dead Deer S e a r c h e s , " Game D i v i s i o n Report No. 2 3 9 6 , M ic hig an Department o f N a t u r a l Resources, O c t o b e r , 1982, pp. 3 2 - 3 3 . 2 J e n k i n s , p. 21 . 9 T a b l e 1. Legal d e e r k i l l Total Year s i n c e 1931a K i 11 Year Total K ill 1931 2 3 .5 0 0 1950 83,650 1932 2 0 ,5 0 0 1951 81,600 1933 25.500 1952 16 2, 1 60 193^ 2 7 ,0 0 0 1953 97,100 1935 3 0 ,0 0 0 1954 67,260 1936 42,000 1955 7 3 ,7 7 0 1937 3 9 ,7 6 0 1956 7 3 ,6 1 0 1938 44,390 1957 7 7 ,1 3 0 1939 44,770 1958 98,890 1940 5 1 ,3 8 0 1959 115,22 0 1941 5 6 ,2 5 0 I96 0 7 5 ,3 6 0 1942 61,580 1961 58,030 1943 5 0 ,8 9 0 1962 95,830 1944 5 1 ,0 1 0 1963 12 4 ,1 1 0 1945 8 4 ,2 6 0 1964 141,34 0 1946 89,510 1965 112,210b 1947 81,480 1966 9 4 , 190b 1948 63,730 1967 101,620b 1949 7 7 ,0 2 0 1968 89 »750c C. L. B e n n e t t , J r . , L. A. R y e l , L. J . Hawn, "A H i s t o r y o f Michigan Deer H u n t i n g , " Research and Development Report No. 85 (Lans ing Department o f N a t u r a l Resources, 1 9 6 6 ) , pp. 3 2 -3 3 * ^ F ig u re s f o r 139, p. 2. 19 65- 67 r e p o r t e d in Research and Development Report P r e l i m i n a r y e s t i m a t e s , based on road counts f o r th e 1968 season. 10 The e f f e c t o f m a l n u t r i t i o n upon r e p r o d u c t i o n is perhaps o f equal o r g r e a t e r im po rta nce t o th e de er p o p u l a t i o n than a c t u a l Jenkins summarized t h e p r i n c i p l e f e d does w i l l ones starvatio n .* in a r u l e o f thumb t h a t , "Ten w e l l produce a t l e a s t as many fawns as f i f t e e n h a l f - s t a r v e d m2 I n f l u e n c e o f Herd S i z e on t h e Range The i m p l i c a t i o n s o f o v e r p o p u l a t i o n a r e more s e r i o u s than j u s t ha vi n g a c e r t a i n number o f an im a ls d i e . o f th e h a b i t a t resource, th e h a b i t a t When t h e r e its e lf is ov ercr owd ing is d i s t u r b e d sometimes to the p o i n t o f b e in g i n j u r e d f o r t h e l i f e o f t h e s t a n d o r even l o n g e r if t h e r e a r e ad ve rs e e f f e c t s micro-environment. upon th e s o i l o r some o t h e r p a r t o f the The f o l l o w i n g examples have b r o a d e r i m p l i c a t i o n s , U n f o r t u n a t e l y de er t a k e the p r e f e r r e d sp e c i e s f i r s t and even though some browsing p r e s s u r e Is removed by k i l l i n g more d e e r , th e rem ain in g de er s t i l l work on p r e f e r r e d fo ods. To d a t e , sp e c ie s showing sig ns o f re co ve ry a f t e r l o c a l w i n t e r herd r e d u c t i o n have been second and t h i r d c la s s ( f o o d s ) . Continued heavy browsing o f p r e f e r r e d foods in many area s is g r a d u a l l y e l i m i n a t i n g some o f them from t h e f o r e s t . Ground hemlock is p r a c t i c a l l y gone and In areas ceda r has almos t reached a p o i n t where i t can no l o n g e r be c o n si d er ed as a p a r t o f th e d e e r food p i c t u r e . ^ Louis J . Verme documents t h i s e f f e c t in two d i f f e r e n t r e p o r t s o f r e c e n t research in M ic h ig a n . "R e p r o d u ct io n S t u d ie s on Penned W h i t e - T a i l e d D e e r , " The Jo u r n al o f W i l d l i f e Management, V o l . 2 9 , No. 1, J a n u a r y , 1965, pp* 7^“ 79 and " I n f l u e n c e o f E x p e ri m e n ta l D i e t s on W h i t e - T a i l e d Deer R e p r o d u c t i o n , " Research and Development Report No. 100, Michigan Department o f N a t u r a l Resources, March, 1967, 15 pages. 2 Jenkins, p. A l . Jenkins, p. ^ 5 . 3 II A H isto rical P er spe cti ve^ Before the coming o f the w h i t e man, n o r t h e r n M ic h ig a n , which is now conside red " d e e r c o u n t r y , " was not i d e a l range. 2 It is on the n o r t h e r n edge o f North A me ri ca' s de er range and th e i n t e n s i v e cold and heavy snows make s u r v i v a l o f the deer i m p o s s ib le , ex cep t where the p r o t e c t i o n o f th e deer yards factor is a v a i l a b l e . However, the l i m i t i n g in n o r t h e r n M ic h ig a n , b e f o r e the w h i t e man, was th e mature stands o f c o n i f e r s and hardwoods t h a t covered most o f t h e Upper Pen in su la and th e n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a . As was discussed e a r l i e r , the deer a r e dependent on the e a r l y stages o f p l a n t succession t h a t are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by low growing v e g e t a t i o n and openings forest. Since t h e r e was l i t t l e in th e h a b i t a t o f t h i s ki nd in v i r g i n f o r e s t s , t h e r e were very few deer because t h e r e was very l i t t l e food. This c o n d i t i o n d i d not e x i s t evi dence t h a t All in southern M ic h ig an , however, and t h e r e is 3 i t co n ta in e d a f a i r l y s i z a b l e h e rd . th e s e c o n d it io n s changed in the l a s t h a l f o f th e 19th c e n t u r y . Between 1850 and 1890, almost a l l c o n i f e r s were cut o f th e v i r g i n pi ne and o t h e r v a l u a b l e in no rt h e r n Michigan and much o f th e v a l u a b l e h a r d ­ wood resource was being h a r v e s t e d th roughout t h e s t a t e . an ide al In adverten tly, deer h a b i t a t management program was i n i t i a t e d and by 1870 ^For i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e deer herd in Michigan th e a u th o r r e l i e d h e a v i l y upon m a t e r i a l s from Wh i t e t a i I s , 1938, pp. 7“ 12; and Michigan W h i t e t a i l s , 1959, pp. 10 -1 3 . 2 G e o g r a p h i c a l l y Michigan c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e r e g i o n s , the Upper Pen in su la which is a p e n in s u la j u t t i n g o u t in an e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n from W is co ns in , and n o rt he r n and so uthern Michigan in t h e Lower Pe ni ns u la w i t h the t r a n s i t i o n between these two regions u s u a l l y thought o f as being an imaginary l i n e between Muskegon and Bay C i t y . ^McNei1, pp. 7“ 13» 12 deer wer e p l e n t i f u l In t h e n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a , and th e herd was growing as r a p i d l y as the f o r e s t s were b e in g c u t in th e Upper P e n i n s u l a . The o p p o s i t e s i t u a t i o n developed in so ut h er n Michigan where the b u l k o f th e deer were o r i g i n a l l y lo cated. Th is ar e a was almost a l l pre­ empted f o r a g r i c u l t u r e by 1 8 7 0 , and s i n c e t h e r e were no e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l s on he rd h a r v e s t , the deer were almost e x t i n c t by th e time s e t t l e m e n t was c o m p le t e . in so ut h er n Michigan u n t i l in t h a t a r e a Deer remained r e l a t i v e l y scar ce about 30 ye ars ago even a f t e r s t r i n g e n t c o n t r o l s on h a r v e s t were e s t a b l i s h e d and e n f o r c e d . In n o r t h e r n M i c h i g a n , th e herd has had i t s ups and downs s in c e 1870. As l o g g in g o p e r a t i o n s c o n t i n u e d - - t h e c o n i f e r s be ing ta ken f i r s t and then th e hardwoods— a p a t t e r n o f c l e a r c u t t i n g developed which c o m p le te ly e l i m i n a t e d d e e r c o v e r . The problem was compounded by the f a c t t h a t these c u t o v e r areas c r e a t e d Ideal t i n d e r boxes. An average o f about 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ac res burned a n n u a l l y between 1870 and 1900. In t h i s c o n n e c ti o n B ra nd re th has p o i n t e d o u t t h a t , Th ere is no p r o t e c t i o n on b u r n t o v e r l a n d s , and t h e h a b i t s o f t h e w h i t e t a l l demand t h a t he have c o v e r , e s p e c i a l l y throughout th e ri g o ro u s n o r t h e r n w i n t e r s . Whereas feed is r i c h and p l e n t i ­ f u l as is o f t e n a t t e s t e d by t h e w e i g h t o f bucks s h ot in th e v i c i n i t y , th e exposure o f th ese d e s o l a t e d regions to t h e f u l l sweep o f wind and storm d r i v e s th e d e e r to seek more s h e l t e r e d environments a f t e r the f i r s t heavy f a l l o f snow. Occasionally on f i n e days they w i l l move o u t o f green t i m b e r to go f o r a g i n g in an o l d " b u r n i n g 11 but i f t h e c o u n tr y o f t h i s c h a r a c t e r is e x t e n s i v e i t is h a b i t u a l l y shunned by t h e w h i t e t a l l In c o ld w e a t h e r and j u s t so many ac res a r e thus l o s t t o him when he needs them most.1 I t shou ld be p o i n t e d out t h a t one b u rn in g is not n e c e s s a r i l y bad i f a m aj or goal is to c r e a t e de er h a b i t a t . W ith o u t f i r e , much o f the p i n e c o u n tr y would have r e v e r t e d back to p i n e r e p r o d u c t i o n which would ^Paul B r a n d r e t h , T r a i l s o f Enchantment 1 9 3 0 ) , p. 9 . (New York: G. Howard W a t t , 13 have u l t i m a t e l y r e c r e a t e d th e o r i g i n a l conditions. s t i m u l a t e d p l a n t r e p r o d u c t i o n which c r e a t e d id e a l However, deer h a b i t a t . problem o f t h e r e c u r r e n c e o f th e s e f i r e s made the b e n e f i t s c r e a t e d o f very s h o r t lim itin g term v a l u e . f a c t o r in th e w i n t e r d u r i n g th e s e y e a r s plagued w i t h th e f i r s t the in te r­ The problem is most ac u te f o r t h r e e o r f o u r y e a r s a f t e r each b u r n i n g . in a d d i t i o n serious The t h a t were As B ra n d re th p o i n t e d o u t , m i t t e n t f i r e s was not fo o d , b u t c o v e r . fire s threat. to the h a b i t a t prob lem, h u n t i n g p r e s s u r e became a With no c o n t r o l s on t h e number o f deer t h a t could be k i l l e d o r on th e methods used, and w i t h the development o f markets the lumber camps, deer meat became a cash commodity. a g gr av a te d when markets f o r hides de vel op ed . T h is problem was However, th e p r es su r e came when th e r a i l r o a d s were completed t o l i n k n o r t h e r n areas to th e burgeoning c i t i e s in intense these remote o f D e t r o i t , Chicago, and Milwaukee among o t h e r s . A spor tsme n's congress h e l d in Saginaw in 1882 produced e v id e n ce t h a t o v e r 100,0 00 deer carcasses were sh ip p ed south from n o r t h e r n Michigan f o r the meat m ar ke t d u ri n g t h e f a l l of i88 0.* When i t is co ns id er ed t h a t market h u n t i n g f o r meat was o n l y one a s pe c t o f t h e total harvest, effects. It is not d i f f i c u l t to c o nc e iv e o f p o s s i b l e adverse In a d d i t i o n to commercial h u n t i n g , k i l l e d and u t i l i z e d thousands o f deer were l o c a l l y and many a d d i t i o n a l thousands o f deer were s l a u g h t e r e d d u ri n g th e warm months f o r t h e i r hides and the meat le ft to r o t because o f a la c k o f r e f r i g e r a t i o n . U n c o n t r o l l e d h u n ti n g p r e s s u r e and r e c u r r e n t bu rni ng s had a p r e d i c t a b l e e f f e c t . The herd reached an a l l ^ B a r t l e t t , Wh i t e t a i I s , p. 12. In time time low s in c e 14 b e f o r e th e appearance o f the w h i t e man, between 1890 and 1915. The s ta g e was s e t f o r th e l e g i s l a t i v e developments which f o l l o w e d . The E v o l u t i o n o f a Management P o l i c y * The f i r s t game law came i n t o e x i s t e n c e under the E n g l i s h system of law d u r i n g the r e i g n o f Canute in England in 1016. t h e r e have been numerous a t te m p ts Sinc e then t o impose c o n t r o l s on w i l d l i f e h a r v e s t , both in England and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Michigan's e x p e r i­ ence w i t h c o n t r o l s o f the h u n t i n g o f d e e r began in 1859* year, th e l e g i s l a t u r e passed an a c t to th e l a s t f i v e months o f the y e a r , 1873* l i m i t i n g th e de er h u n t i n g season i n s t e a d o f yeai— round. th e season was reduced t o 45 days. methods t h a t could l e g a l l y be used t o k i l l Shooting deer forbidden. In t h a t The f i r s t In r e g u l a t i o n s on deer were imposed in 1881. in w a t e r and using t r a p s , p i t f a l l s , and p i t s were In a d d i t i o n , de er could be k i l l e d o n l y f o r food and could not be shipped o u t o f s t a t e . These were the f i r s t e f f o r t s to i n t r o ­ duce t h e elements which most h u n te rs now take f o r g r a n te d as i n h e r e n t in th e c h a r a c t e r o f h u n t i n g ; j_ . ;e ., sportsmanship in g i v i n g t h e de er a re a s o n a b le chance o f escape and th e m i n i m i z a t i o n o f w a s te . The 1881 measure a l s o fo r b a d e th e t a k i n g o f an animal w h i l e s p o t t e d o r red c o a t . to "s potted coat" in For purposes o f t h i s s t u d y , t h e phrase r e f e r r i n g Is v e ry im po rta nt because t h i s r e p r e s e n t e d th e f i r s t a t t e m p t to l i m i t h a r v e s t on t h e b a si s o f th e a g e -s e x f a c t o r , which is *Much o f the d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n in t h i s s e c t i o n was taken from B e n n e t t , e t a l . , pp. 9 “ 15» and was supplemented w i t h m a t e r i a l s from Michigan D e e r , 1950, pp. 1 0 - 1 2 , 2 2 - 2 5 , 3 4 - 3 9 , and 4 1 - 4 8 ; Whi t e t a i 1s . 1938, pp. 1 2 -1 6 ; and Michigan W h i t e t a l l s . 1959, pp. 1 4 -2 4 . 2 Mi chael B ra n d e r , The Hun ting I n s t i n c t (London: O l i v e r and Boyd, 1 9 6 4 ) , p. 23. 15 so much a p a r t o f the p r e s e n t issue over a n t l e r l e s s h u n t i n g . the uses o f dogs and a r t i f i c a l In 1887, l i g h t s were added to t h e l i s t o f r e ­ s t r i c t e d methods o f t a k i n g de er. In 1891, th e f i r s t two c o u n ti e s in Michigan were closed a l t o g e t h e r to deer h u n t i n g — A l l e g a n and Van Buren. S i x more co un tie s were closed to hu n ti n g in 18 9 3• By t h i s time t h e deer herd was d i m i n i s h i n g a t such a f a s t the l e g i s l a t u r e began to take d r a s t i c steps individual claims on the re so ur ce . in l i m i t i n g rate that the sportsman's Before 1895 t h e r e were no bag l i m i t s on the number o f deer t h a t could be taken w i t h i n th e season. However, t h a t y e a r a l i m i t o f f i v e was placed on the number o f deer t h a t could be taken in any one season by one person. l i c e n s e was r e q u i r e d f o r the f i r s t l i m i t s were r e s e t a t t h r e e , time. Also, In 1901, two, and one d e e r , 1901, market h u nt in g was d e c la r e d ille g a l. the purchase o f a 1905, and 1915, resp ectively. the Also, S p e c ific provisions in included a b o l i t i o n o f the p r a c t i c e o f s e l l i n g venison in any form o r the s e r v i n g o f venison where a charge is made f o r the meal. The Conservation Department (now th e Department o f N a tu r a l Resources) was e s t a b l i s h e d as a department o f s t a t e government in 1921. One o f i t s firs t o ffic ia l a c t i o n s was to endorse the "buck law" which l i m i t e d the game e l i g i b l e e x te n d in g a t l e a s t t h re e t h a t same y e a r . L ittle inches above the head. in s t a t i n g th a t The measure was passed is known about p u b l i c r e a c t i o n to the deer laws passed p r i o r t o the "buck l a w . " p lic it t o be taken to bucks w i t h a n t l e r s However, the l i t e r a t u r e is q u i t e ex ­ the 1921 buck law s t i r r e d up an o p p o s i t i o n very s i m i l a r to t h a t which was encountered when a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n ti n g was r e in t r o d u c e d f o r a s u b s t a n t i a ] arguments were used to appeal p a r t o f the s t a t e in 1952. Several f o r hu n te r support by the new Department. 16 The most s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d appeal was t h a t herd. i t would in c r e a s e the deer Seco nd ly, arguments were made based on em ot io n al appeals on b e h a l f o f does as females o f th e sp ec ie s and t h e i r fawns as b a b i e s . And t h i r d l y , t h e r e were ap pe al s based on s a f e t y . on how acceptance was f i n a l l y Jenkins comments achieved, The buck law was f i n a l l y passed in Michigan in 1921 a f t e r much c o m p la in in g . The sportsmen would no t "buy" i t as a means to increase deer. i t was f i n a l l y " s o l d " as a s a f e t y measure, " I f you have t o see h o r n s , you w o n ' t shoot a m a n . " ’ The new law was r a t h e r q u i c k l y a c c e p t e d , however, as i n d i c a t e d by a p o s tc a r d survey in 1925 which showed t h a t 42 p e r c e n t o f th e h u n t e r sample su pp orted th e "bucks o n l y " law. 2 The DNR was g i v e n d i s c r e t i o n a r y power in recommending deer management p o l i c i e s t o th e l e g i s l a t u r e in 1925* But t h i s a u t h o r i t y d i d not e x te n d to t h e l i b e r a l i z a t i o n o f the "bucks o n l y " law. 1921 and 1941, no changes were made in th e a n t l e r l e s s p o licy. A new e x p e r i m e n t a l Between de er h u n t i n g phase f o r t h e p o l i c y was begun in 1941. That y e a r , h u n te r s were a l l o w e d t o ta k e a n t l e r l e s s d e e r in A l l e g a n County because o f th e damages b e in g done by de er to th e a r e a ' s intensive a g r ic u lt u r a l crops. A lso, r i z e d a p a r t y o f f o u r o r more h u nt e rs th e camp deer la w , which au th o ­ to ta k e one buck f o r camp use, was changed t o a l l o w the t a k i n g o f one d e e r - o f - e i t h e r - s e x . In 1942 t h i s camp d e e r - o f - e i t h e r - s e x r e g u l a t i o n was r es c in d ed by th e L e g i s ­ l a t u r e because o f th e wid e s p re a d o p p o s i t i o n an tlerless deer h u n t i n g c o n ti n u e d it generated. in A l l e g a n County. This However, represented the f i r s t t im e t h a t th e C o n s e r v a ti o n Department had e v e r had the ^ J e n k in s , p. 2 70. Personal communication from L. A. R y e l , Michigan Department o f N a t u r a l Resources b i o m e t r i c i a n , March 10, 1969. 17 a u t h o r i t y to l i b e r a l i z e deer seasons beyond a buck season and i t s f i r s t a t te m p t t o do so was p a r t i a l l y thwarted. In 19^8, the whole s t a t e was opened f o r h u n ti n g f o r the f i r s t time s in ce 1891. A ll the c o u n ti e s south o f th e Bay City-Muskegon l i n e had been close d f o r the most p a r t s i n c e 1926. co un tie s In f a c t , a l l the in th e s t a t e had been clo se d t o h u n ti n g f o r from one to f i v e years e x c e p t those in the Upper P e n i n s u la and a few c o u n ti e s in the extreme n o r t h e a s t e r n t i p o f th e Lower P e n i n s u la . In 19^9, a second a t t e m p t was made to i n s t i t u t e a p o l i c y o f a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n ti n g on a l i m i t e d s c a l e in th e f r u i t the no rt hw e st er n t i p o f th e Lower P e n i n s u l a . co un try o f Here a g a i n , as in 19^1, I t was i n i t i a t e d because o f widesp read damage being done t o high val ue a g r i c u l t u r a l crops. From t h i s p o i n t , a new phase in the e v o l u ­ t i o n a r y process o f t h e p o l i c y was e n t e r e d — t h e phase we a r e s t i l l and t o which t h i s research addresses its e lf. in In 1950 and ag ain in 1951* a s p e c i a l any deer season was tacked on to t h e end o f r e g u l a r season in s e ve r al In 1952, ity co un tie s in th e n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a . the L e g i s l a t u r e gave th e C on ser va tio n Commission a u t h o r ­ to s e t deer h u n ti n g r e g u l a t i o n s , f o r t h r e e years f o r the e n t i r e i n c l u d i n g a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g , lower P e n i n s u l a . That y e a r t h e Con­ s e r v a t i o n Commission opened th e l a s t t h r e e days o f th e r e g u l a r session to a n t l e r l e s s h u n ti n g w i t h no p e r m it r e q u i r e d . k ill o f 162,16 0 --w it h stands as th e a l l This resulted 115,280 o f them being a n t l e r l e s s de er.^ time k i l l record f o r M ic hi g an . tn a This This was the f i r s t time t h a t the h u n ti n g o f a n t l e r l e s s deer was used as a management ^B en ne tt, e t a l . , 1966, p. 32. 18 t e c h n i q u e on a wi de sp read s c a l e to h a r v e s t excess d e e r . s i t i o n was c r e a t e d t o the p o l i c y , th e herd would be e x t e r m i n a t e d . B i t t e r oppo­ the cr ux o f th e o u t c r y b e in g t h a t In 1953 and 195^*, th e p o l i c y o f t a k i n g a n t l e r l e s s de er was c o n t i n u e d , but on a more r e s t r i c t e d s c a l e as is r e f l e c t e d by t h e k i l l in those y e a r s . The t h r e e y e a r a u t h o r i z a t i o n o f the L e g i s l a t u r e t o th e Commission for fu ll discretion in 1955. ?n the management o f the d e e r herd was n o t renewed A l l e g a n County was the o n l y ar ea t h a t th e L e g i s l a t u r e p e r ­ m i t t e d a n t l e r l e s s h u n t i n g in 1955. From 1956 to th e p r e s e n t the Commission has had d i s c r e t i o n a r y power, b u t used i t o n l y as e x t e n s i v e l y as they f e l t th ey co uld w i t h o u t j e o p a r d i z i n g th e program. In 1961 a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g was suspended by t h e Commission f o r one y e a r except in two small areas. This was due to t h e p u b l i c r e a c t i o n t o a mediocre season in I 960 a f t e r an e x c e p t i o n a l l y good season in 19 59* N in e te e n s i x t y - f o u r was a rem ar kab le deer season d u ri n g which an estim ated k i l l of 144,280 was rec o rd ed . P u b l i c acceptance o f a n t l e r ­ less deer s h o o t in g seemed to be on the r i s e , b u t th e s t a g e was s e t f o r a s e r i o u s s e tb a c k On p a p e r , k ill in 1 9 6 5 . th e 1965 season looks good, and i t was. o f 11 5, 3^*0 was th e f o u r t h o f the a n t l e r l e s s The e s t i m a t e d l a r g e s t s i n c e t h e widespread a d op tio n de er h u n t i n g p o l i c y in 1952. U nfortunately, ce rta in circu ms tanc es developed b e f o r e and d u r i n g the 1965 season which caused the g r e a t e s t hue and cry antlerless deer h u n t i n g . in ye a r s to emerge in th e condemnation o f The hard w i n t e r o f 196^-65 r a t h e r s e r i o u s l y d e p l e t e d t h e 1964 fawn c r o p , which r e s u l t e d th e number o f y e a r l i n g bucks buck k i l l in the f a l l in a n o t i c e a b l e drop in o f 1965. Since the y e a r l i n g accounts f o r a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f th e t o t a l buck k i l l , the 19 o p p o r t u n i t y t o shoot a buck under these c o n d i t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced. This re du cti on is doubly im portant when h u n te r pr ef e r e n c e s are taken i n t o account. There is an overwhelming p r e f e r e n c e among hunters to shoot a buck. Since t h e r e were fewer bucks a v a i l a b l e , tempers rose. A l s o , the opening and c l o s i n g dates o f t h e season were a l t e r e d from previous y e a r s . Deer season had t r a d i t i o n a l l y opened November 15 and closed November 30 in th e Lower P e n i n s u l a . However, in 1965 the opening dates were changed to c o ns e cu tiv e S a tu rd a y s — November 13 in the Upper Penins ula and November 20 in th e Lower P e n i n s u la . would not have been p a r t i c u l a r l y c r u c i a l This except t h a t the l e g i s l a t i v e r e s o l u t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g t h e change was not passed u n t i l which a p p a r e n t l y d i s r u p t e d the plans o f many p e o p le ; l a t e June, » many workers are r eq u ir e d t o s p e c i f y t h e i r v a c a t io n d a t e p r e f e r e n c e s e a r l y y e a r and had planned t h e i r v a ca t io n s in the to c o i n c i d e w i t h previous openings o f h u nt in g season. Another f a c t o r t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d to h u n te r disenchantment was the overcrowding o f c e r t a i n areas in th e s t a t e . This has always been a problem, but i t was e s p e c i a l l y acute t h a t y e a r because the Saturday openings put more hunters during the week. Also, in th e f i e l d than i f th e season had opened in t h i s c o n n e c ti o n , some hunters s t a r t e d the season in the Upper Pe ni ns u la the f i r s t Sat urday and then came down and hunted the Lower P eni nsu la when i t s t a r t e d on November 20. A f o u r t h f a c t o r is a l s o r e l a t e d to th e c o l l e c t i v e b e h a v i o r , but the magnitude o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p is d i f f i c u l t to d e te r m in e. I t has been observed t h a t du ri ng the season f o l l o w i n g an e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y successful season t h e r e is l i k e l y t o be widespread a g i t a t i o n a g a i n s t 20 "doe h u n t i n g " r e g a r d l e s s o f th e h u n t e r success t h e second y e a r . exam ple , both 1959 and 1964 were e x c e p t i o n a l l y good se asons. o t h e r hand, For On the I9 6 0 and 1965 were avera ge o r above average seasons. Yet, in I 960 and 19 65 * o p p o s i t i o n was f a r g r e a t e r than would have been ex pe c te d from t h e success o f the seasons 1961 the success was th e lowest th emselves. in in a number o f ye a r s and th e success d u r i n g th e 1966 season was lower than in 1964 o r no c o n t r o v e r s y d e ve lo p e d . In c o n t r a s t , 1965. Despite t h i s , The r e l a t i o n s h i p between success and c o n t r o ­ ve rs y can be d e s c r ib e d d i a g r a m m a t i c a l 1y as f o l i o w s : Cycle 1 Year Success Cy c le 2 1959 I9 6 0 1961 1964 1965 1966 excellent good poor excellent good average none he at e d none none he a te d none C o n tr o ve rs y P a r t o f the l a c k o f c o n t r o v e r s y in 1961 and 1966 is undoubtedly due t o th e f a c t t h a t a n t l e r l e s s h u n t i n g quotas were almost e l i m i n a t e d 1961 and were reduced in 1965. Even w i t h th is seem to be more reasons f o r a c o n t r o v e r s i a l number o f ani mals fa c t considered, in there season than s im pl y th e th a t are o r are not k i l l e d in any gi v e n y e a r . No s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r o v e r s i e s have developed s i n c e 1965* and t h e r e are in dication s t h a t the Department is g a i n i n g i t s a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g p o l i c y . Thus, in c re a s e d s u pp or t f o r the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the h i s t o r y o f t h e e v o l u t i o n o f the a n t l e r l e s s h u n t i n g p o l i c y , sketchy, Is co mp le te . although The e v o l u t i o n o f t h e p o l i c y has ta ke n th e p a t t e r n o f a r e v e r s a l o f d i r e c t i o n and o f a c o n s t a n t s t r u g g l e o f b a c k - t r a c k i n g f o r t h e DNR. The change from a proponent p o s i t i o n f o r a "bucks o n l y " p o l i c y to a p o s i t i o n o f be ing in th e f o r e f r o n t o f those a d v o c a t i n g a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g has not been ea sy . 21 The Fa ctions T h e o r e t i c a l l y t h e Con ser va tio n Commission, a group o f f i v e i n t e r e s t e d in c o n s e rv a ti o n who ar e g u b e r n a t o r i a l a p p o i n t e e s , laymen fu n c t io n s as th e p o li c y -m a k in g body f o r the Department o f Con ser va tio n as was a u t h o r i z e d by the 1963 C o n s t i t u t i o n . ve ry n a tu r e o f i t s co mp os it io n , The p o l i c y - m a k i n g body, by the is dependent upon the p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f o f th e Department f o r recommendations and s u p p o r ti n g d a t a . These recommendations a r e u s u a l l y f o l l o w e d . l e g i s l a t u r e e x e r c i s e s a g r e a t deal o f c o n t r o l However, in r e a l i t y the over p o l i c y by v i r t u e o f being a b l e t o review and to a l t e r the Commission's d e c i s i o n s . Control is a l s o m a in t ai n ed by th e l e g i s l a t u r e because o f i t s power to a u t h o r i z e a l l appropriations. Thus, the L e g i s l a t u r e is the f i n a l de ci s io n - m a k e r and the Department o f t e n must a c t as an i n t e r e s t group in a t t e m p t i n g t o e l i c i t a d e s i r e d response. This dependency on the L e g i s l a t u r e has c r e a t e d many headaches f o r t h e Department concerning a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g . Support The Department has a number o f a l l i e s who supp ort i t s approach to deer management. Some o f these a l l y i n g groups a r e h i g h l y o r g a n i z e d , w h i l e many o t h e r s u pp or te rs a c t groups o f h u n t e r s . but i n f l u e n t i a l i n d i v i d u a l l y o r in l o o s e l y o r g a n iz e d Primary support Is drawn from w i d e l y d i v e r s i f i e d croups. The Michigan Chamber o f Commerce, w i t h the e x c e p ti o n o f a few d i s s i d e n t lo c a l chambers, has s t r o n g l y supported the DNR in i t s management p o l i c i e s . ^ ^For example, see the Michigan S t a t e Chamber o f Commerce S p ec ia l Report e n t i t l e d "T h is Is Not The Time To P a n i c , " , December 2 7 , 1965. 22 An o th er a l l y , th e Michigan U ni te d C o n s e r v a ti o n Club s, d a t i o n o f many c o n s e r v a t i o n clubs body. Its is a c o n s o l i ­ i n t o one s t a t e - w i d e c o o r d i n a t i n g pr im a r y purpose is t o f u r t h e r th e cause o f c o n s e r v a t i o n through p u b l i c i z i n g c o n s e r v a t i o n needs and through lobbying f o r appro­ p riate p o litic a l secretary, action . Mr. James Rouman, who serves as e x e c u t i v e t o l d th e a u t h o r organizations in an i n t e r v i e w t h a t o f the o v e r one hundred r e p r e s e n t i n g some 10 2,0 00 members (1363 membership) in Michig an U n i t e d C on ser va tio n C lu b s, t h e r e were l e s s than a dozen v o t i n g d e l e g a t e s who opposed a r e s o l u t i o n e n d o rs i n g t h e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources' a n t l e r l e s s deer p o l i c y a t t h e 1365 c o n v e n t i o n , s e s s i o n in which th e issue was brou gh t in to serious discussion. A t h i r d s t r o n g endorsement o f t h e o v e r a l l i n Mic hi g an has come from t h e Federal W ild life natural in th e Department o f t h e resources agencies less de er h u n t i n g program. M ic h ig a n . methods being employed Bureau o f S po rt F i s h e r i e s and In te rio r. In a d d i t i o n , a l l th e in n e i g h b o r i n g s t a t e s supp ort th e a n t l e r ­ In f a c t , some o f th e s e have modeled programs a f t e r the one used in M ic h ig a n . im p o rt a n t a l l y th e l a s t The f i f t h and perhaps most is t h e ou td o o r e d i t o r s o f t h e m ajo r newspapers in No m a jo r d a i l y newspaper has r a i s e d a s t r o n g o b j e c t i o n to t h e ir policy in many y e a r s . The Department o f N a t u r a l Resources makes t h e f o l l o w i n g c l a i m : 1 Who su pports t h e Commission and Department in management o f deer? L e t 's take a look. The ou td o o r e d i t o r s o f Michigan w i t h few e x c e p t i o n s s u pp or t them. The Michigan U n it e d C on ser va tio n C lu b s , l a r g e s t c o n s e r v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n o f i t s ki n d in th e c o u n t r y , g i v e s i t s co n fi d e n c e and b a c k i n g . The Michigan 8e a r Hunters A s s o c i a t i o n , and th e Bow H u n t e r s . The Fe derated Garden Clubs o f Michigan a r e on t h e i r s i d e . 1362 . * 1 . H. B a r t l e t t , "Ten Y e a r s , " Mtchiqan C o n s e r v a t i o n , N o v . - D e c . , ------------------ 23 Every c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y in M i c h i g a n , in t h e Unit ed S t a t e s , i f not in the w o r l d , t h a t teaches w i l d l i f e management is on t h a t same ground. The U. S. Fo re st S e r v i c e , th e S o i l Conser­ v a t i o n S e r v i c e ; a l l f e d e r a l agencies i n t e r e s t e d In such t h in g s a re on i t . There is th e supp ort o f powerful non-government o r g a n i z a t i o n s the Farm Bureau, th e Grange, the N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n , the W i l d l i f e Management I n s t i t u t e , t h e W i l d l i f e S o c i e t y , th e S o c i e t y o f American F o r e s t e r s , t h e Michigan N a t u r a l Resources C o u n c i l , the Michigan Academy o f S c i e n c e , A r t s , and L e t t e r s . By formal r e s o l u t i o n o r in for ma l ex p r e s s io n many o t h e r or g a ­ n i z a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h e i r agreement. The Department has st ack s o f “ keep up th e good work" l e t t e r s from concerned i n d i v i d u a l s . Every r e s p o n s i b l e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c i a l in ev ery s t a t e and p r o v i n c i a l agency in the U n it e d S t a t e s and Canada is a l s o on t h a t ground. For a long time the t a k i n g o f a n t l e r l e s s de er has been p a r t o f game management in Maine , P e n n s y l v a n i a , M in ne so ta , most w es ter n s t a t e s and a l l o f Canada. Basic to t h e e n t i r e Issue is th e law o f the land which p e r ­ mits the Commission t o manage the de er h e rd . This Is th e w i l l o f t h e people as expressed by t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s in th e L e g i s l a t u r e o f M ic h ig a n . I t must be added as a f i n a l point that this to a c o n f r o n t a t i o n o f o r g a n i z e d groups and t h e i r ers. issue is not l i m i t e d i n s t i t u t i o n a l s u p p o r t­ The r o l e o f a di s p e rs e d and unorganized p u b l i c which supports the Department o f N a t u r a l Resources has a l s o been c r u c i a l . W it h o u t t h i s g r as sr oo ts support which has r e p e a t e d l y a r i s e n when th e issues have i n t e n s i f i e d to th e p o i n t o f in s titu tio n a l a llie s imminent c r i s i s , the Department and i t s could not have w i t h s t o o d t h e p o l i t i c a l pressures t h a t have p e r i o d i c a l l y been brought t o b e a r . Oppos i t i o n It is much more d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e e x p l i c i t l y who th e d i s s e n t e r s are concerning a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g . There a r e v e s t i g e s o f an o r ga ni ze d o p p o s i t i o n t h a t appear p e r i o d i c a l l y . However, none o f these o r g a n i z a t i o n s have a t t a i n e d such f o r m i d a b l e dimensions as to s i n g l e handedly pose a s e r io u s t h r e a t t o t h e p r e s e n t deer management pol i c i e s . 2i» T he re seem t o be r e g i o n a l differences s u p p o r t and o p p o s i t i o n t h a t e x i s t . tions that Is being t e s t e d in r e l a t i v e l y more o p p o s i t i o n This in t h e amount and kinds o f is one o f t h e m ajo r p r o p o s i ­ th is research. Apparently, t o de er management p o l i c i e s P e n i n s u l a and t h e n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a than t h e r e there is in the Upper is in so uth er n if th ey do Mi c h lg a n . What f a c t o r s could account f o r these d i f f e r e n c e s exist? One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n in g e n e r a l is g r e a t e r is r e l a t e d to o p p o s i t i o n . is t h a t in some areas the than in o t h e r s and t h a t in terest The p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n which hunts deer f u r n i s h e s one measure of this in te r e s t. p r o p o r t i o n o f d e e r h u nt e rs in i 960 in r e l a t i o n p o p u l a t i o n from which almost a l l The i n t e r e s t i n t e r e s t o f th e p o p u l a t i o n Ta b le 2 i n d i c a t e s the t o t h a t p a r t o f th e t o t a l h u n te rs come (males between 15 and 6 k ) . t h a t prompts h i g h e r pe rc en ta ge s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n in th e n o r t h e r n two re gions t o hunt may a l s o p r e d is p o s e them t o a s t r o n g e r in terest in th e way th e h e rd is managed. A s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t o f the p o p u l a t i o n o f th e s e two n o r t h e r n r e g i o n s , th e e x a c t p r o p o r t i o n b e in g indeterm inable, is o b v i o u s l y opposed to a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g . The i n t e n s i t y o f t h i s o p p o s i t i o n v a r i e s , b u t Is n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n s i s t e n t l y ev i d e n t . A second f a c t o r which may c o n t r i b u t e they do e x i s t , a r e d i f f e r e n c e s s t a t u s quo (c o n s e r v a t is m ) in values to r e g io n a l differences, If toward maintenance o f t h e as c o n t r a s t e d w i t h change. S ev e ra l s t u d i e s suggest t h a t p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l c o n s e r v a t i s m Is g r e a t e r in r u r a l than in urban a r e a s . * Th ere is a l s o e v id e n c e t h a t t h e urban i n f l u e n c e V 0 . Key discusses th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s In m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s , c i t i e s , towns, and r u r a l areas in P u b l i c Opinions and American Democracy (New York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, 1963) pp. 1 1 0 -1 2 0 . Key makes s e v e r a l p o in t s t h a t tend t o q u a l i f y t h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n : 25 T a b l e 2. P r o p o r t i o n o f de er hu n te rs to the male p o p u l a t i o n between 15 and 64 ye ar s o f age in I 960 H un te r Residence Upper P e n i n s u l a ( Reg I on 1) Number o f Deer Hunters3 47,009 Male Pop ulatio n® 15 -64 Years Proportion 88,645c *53 N o r th e r n Lower Peni nsula (Region 11) 101,179 163,140 .6 2 Southern Michigan ( Reg i on I I I ) 294,246 1,996,719 *15 Data taken from 1 960 F i r e a r m Deer Survey which 2 1 /2 p e r c e n t sample o f a l l Michigan de er h u n t e r s . pp. is based on a ^Data taken from th e i 960 Census o f t h e P o p u l a t i o n * 13 1 -1 5 2 . Vol. 24, According to the i 960 census, t h e r e were 3 0 5 , 9 5 2 r e s i d e n t s o f the Upper P e n i n s u l a . The county p o p u l a t i o n s ranged from M a rq u e t te County w i t h 5 6 ,1 5 4 r e s i d e n t s , to Keweenaw w i t h 2 , 4 1 7 * I96 0 Census o f Popu1a t t o n s , V o l . 2 4 , p. 2 4 , 14. The p r o p o r t i o n o f the male p o p u l a t i o n t o t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n in th e n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a and so uth ern Mic hig an a r e comparable t o the p r o p o r t i o n in th e U .P . ( 1 ) On most issues th e o p i n i o n s o f r u r a l r e s i d e n t s a r e n o t o f t e n s h a r p l y s e t o f f from t h e o p in io n s o f r e s i d e n t s o f M e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s . R ath er people w i t h a i i shades o f o p i n i o n i n h a b i t both the c i t y and th e c o u n t r y . (2 ) Whatever d i f f e r e n c e s in o p i n i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n s e x i s t between d i f f e r e n t types o f p o p u l a t i o n a r e a s , th e s e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e pr o b a b ly becoming le s s and less d i s t i n c t . (3) On many is s u e s , th e p o p u l a t i o n s i z e continuum from m e t r o p o l i t a n ar eas t o r u r a l areas does not produce c o n s i s t e n t e v i ­ dence t h a t c o n s e rv a ti s m in cr e as es w i t h a de cr eas e in p o p u l a t i o n . For ex ample , on governmental f i s c a l m a t t e r s small c i t i e s tend t o be more c o n s e r v a t i v e than e i t h e r v i l l a g e o r farm p o p u l a t i o n s . ( 4 ) The key independent v a r i a b l e may not be p o p u l a t i o n s i z e a t a l l , b u t r a t h e r th e p r o p o r t i o n o f th e p o p u l a t i o n in v a r i o u s types o f o c c u p a t i o n s . Examples o f o t h e r s t u d i e s which document o r a l l u d e to th e phenomenon o f r e l a ­ t i v e l y g r e a t e r co ns e rv a ti s m among r u r a l as compared t o urban p o p u l a t i o n s are: I r v i n g C r e s p i , "The S t r u c t u r a l Basis f o r R i g h t - w i n g Con servatism: The Goldwater Ca s e, " P u b l i c Opinio n Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . XXIX, W i n t e r 1 9 6 5 - 6 6 , No. 4 . , pp. 5 2 3 -5 4 3 and D. Bel I (Edi t o r ) , The Radical R ig h t (New York: Doubleday and Company, 1 9 6 3 ) . 26 on c o n s e r v a t i v e a t t i t u d e s urban c e n t e r s . diminishes w ith in c re a s e d d i s t a n c e from these I f th ese g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s ar e t r u e w i t h s e r v a t i s m in t h e case o f a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u nt e rs rega rd t o con­ In M i c h i g a n , d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e could re a s o n a b ly be p r e d i c t e d s i n c e so uth ern Michigan h e a v i l y u r b a n iz e d and the n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a has no r e a l regional centers. is urban The Upper P e n i n s u la is more d i f f i c u l t t o c l a s s i f y . The c i t i e s o f S a u l t S t e . M a r i e and M a rq u e t te a r e much more cosmopolitan and i n f l u e n t i a l s ize . for th eir regi o n than a r e most c i t i e s o f comparable The G r e a t Lakes Locks g e n e r a t e t h i s influence in th e case o f t h e fo rm er and M a rq u e t te has been im po rta nt f o r ov er one hundred y e a r s , f i r s t as a t r a d e c e n t e r and and o t h e r n a t u r a l T h ird ly, toward n a t u r a l resources l a t e r as a h e a d q u a rt e rs f o r m i n i n g , t i m b e r in terests. economic c o n d i t i o n s may be an i n f l u e n c e on a t t i t u d e s resources management. The economies o f th e Upper P e n i n s u la and th e n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u la have lagged s u b s t a n t i a l l y behind the highly in dustrial so ut h er n Michig an economy. The a l r e a d y depressed economies o f many o f these c o u n t i e s depend h e a v i l y on the i n j e c t i o n s o f t o u r i s t and h u n t e r d o l l a r s t o keep these ar eas f i n a n c i a l l y s o l v e n t . When th e h u n t i n g season is bad, o r presumed t o be bad, d o l l a r s which o t h e r w i s e would have been taken i n a r e l o s t , o r f e a r e d l o s t . a f t e r a record h u n t i n g season In t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a , In 1964, the M a r q u e t te Chamber o f Commerce prepared a r e s o l u t i o n commending t h e Department on a jo b w e l l done in managing the de er herd o f M ic h ig a n . th e f i r s t o f f i c i a l This represented commendation o f th e D ep ar tm e nt 's work e v e r made by such an o r g a n i z a t i o n from th e Upper P e n i n s u l a . Added t o th e s t i n g o f the p r e s e n t economic d i s p a r i t i e s among the regions is t h e r e v e r s a l In economic f o r t u n e s . In t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f 27 s t a t e h o o d the e x p l o i t a t i o n o f n a t u r a l resources which was dominant in the n o r t h e r n t w o - t h i r d s o f MichIgan s u p p l i e d a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e e a r l y economic muscle. regions, When t a l k i n g to residents In these n o r t h e r n the c o m p l a i n t is r e g u l a r l y vo ice d t h a t so ut h er n Michigan has e x p l o i t e d and is c o n t i n u i n g to e x p l o i t n o r t h e r n Michigan w i t h o u t an e q u i t a b l e exchange o f b e n e f i t s . resources This s i t u a t i o n seems to f i t most o f th e d e s c r i p t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a l i e n a t i o n ^ based on these n o r t h e r n Mic hig an r e s i d e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f themselves as experiencing re la tiv e deprivation . 2 This a n t i p a t h y may be one o f th e reasons t h a t Upper P e n i n s u la pe op le f e e l that an a p r i o r i The thought r i g h t to t h e de er r e s o u r c e . local r e s i d e n t s have is o f t e n im plied, i f not ex p r e s s e d , t h a t h u nt e rs from th e Lower P e n i n s u l a a r e a a r e i n t r u d e r s coming in to ta ke game which belong t o the people o f the Upper P e n i n s u l a . A l i e n a t i o n in t h i s c o n t e x t takes on a c h a r a c t e r much l i k e M ar x' s concept o f " E x p l o i t a t i o n " as discussed in D an iel B e l l , The End o f Ideology (New York: Pree P r e s s , 1 9 6 2 ) , pp. 3 6 4 - 6 7 . However, one o f Seemarvs f o u r t y p o l o g i e s o f a l i e n a t i o n which he d e f i n e d as p c w e r l e s s ness seems to b e t t e r f i t t h i s s i t u a t i o n than M a rx 's r a t h e r extreme characterization o f e x p lo ita tio n . M e l v i n Seeman, "On t h e Meaning o f A l i e n a t i o n , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 24: 7 8 3 ~ 9 I » Dec. 1959. Powerlessness in t h i s case is based on (1) an in t e n s e f e e l i n g t h a t th e a n t l e r l e s s deer h u nt in g p o l i c y is h a r m f u l , and ( 2 ) a f e e l i n g t h a t r e s i d e n t o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p o l i c y ts not gi ve n f a i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and ( 3) t h a t no cour se is a v a i l a b l e f o r them as an o p p o s i t i o n group t o a l t e r th e p o l i c y through p o l i t i c a l channels because o f downstate supp ort o f the Department o f N a t u r a l Resources and because o f bu reau­ c r a t i c entrenchment o f t h e Department by p r o t e c t i n g i t s e l f from outside counter-pressures. 2 R e l a t i v e d e p r i v a t i o n is d e f i n e d as " t h e d i f f e r e n c e s in the sense o f loss t h a t a r e f e l t by persons who compare t h e i r c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n w i t h t h e i r p r e v io u s s i t u a t i o n . " John T. Zodronzy, D i c t i o ­ nary o f S o c i a l S ci e nc e (Washington, D . C . : P u b l i c A f f a i r s P re s s , l £ £ 9 ) , p. 2^3. The concept can be broadened t o i n c lu d e a sense o f loss t h a t Is f e l t when a person compares h i s g r o u p 's s o c i a l as se ts and l i a b i l i t i e s w i t h o t h e r groups and p e r c e i v e s s i g n i f i c a n t d i s ­ advantage f o r h i s group which is beyond t h e g r o u p 's immediate c o n t r o l t o change. 28 A f o u r t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which might c r e a t e r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s is p r o v id e d by d i f f e r e n c e s in s e t t i n g . Sinc e so ut h er n Lower Michigan is h i g h l y u r b a n iz e d and has a s t r o n g a g r i c u l t u r a l little o f th a t p a rt o f the S ta te tio n. In c o n t r a s t , is land use b a s e , very in a ' ’n a t u r a l " e c o l o g i c a l c o n d i­ th e n o r t h e r n regions o f th e S t a t e have a much more " n a t u r a l " v e g e t a t i v e c o v e r . Th is s e t t i n g leads many Upper P e n i n s u la and n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u la r e s i d e n t s to f e e l a r e much n e a r e r to n a t u r e than t h e i r so ut h er n co u s i n s . to n a t u r e a l s o prompts many o f th es e r e s i d e n t s t h a t they This p r o x i m i t y to f e e l t h a t they know more about th e de er he rd than th e " a r m c h a i r DNR a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who s i t in an o f f i c e down in L a n s i n g . " An im p o rt a n t p a r t o f th e a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a g e n e r a t e d study w i l l be t o d e t e r m in e i f behavior w ith S eco ndly, will if interest differences in a t t i t u d e s there are regional in t h e f o l l o w i n g variatio ns in a t t i t u d e s , an a t t e m p t th es e a t t i t u d e s a r e r e l a t e d to r e g io n a l independent v a r i a b l e s : in h u n t i n g , and b) d i f f e r e n c e s a) ge ne ra l in th e p r o p o r t i o n o f the h u n t i n g p o p u l a t i o n which f e e l s a l i e n a t e d from the p o l i t i c a l e s p e c ia lly w ith r ega rd to the a n t l e r l e s s Although they have n o th i n g d i r e c t l y natural and regard t o a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g do in f a c t e x i s t . be made t o de te r m in e I f differences regional in t h i s resources, ment programs.* de er h u n t i n g c o n t r o v e r s y . t o do w i t h c o n s e r v a t i o n o r th e county boards o f s u p e r v i s o r s P e n i n s u la have been e s p e c i a l l y a c t i v e in th e Upper in condemning the deer manage­ Perhaps one o f t h e m ajor m o t i v a t i o n s f i c a t i o n o f th e DNR w i t h the process, i s th e id en ti­ i n t e r e s t s o f the Lower P e n i n s u l a , rather than th e s t a t e as a w h ol e. * I n t e r v i e w w i t h David A r n o l d , b i g game s p e c i a l i s t , Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , Fe bruary 2 3 , 1966. Michigan 29 The most o r g a n i z e d and vocal o p p o s i t i o n has come from the n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a . For many y e a r s , t h e G r e a t e r Michigan Sportsman's Club was the l e a d i n g o p p o s i t i o n group from t h i s a r e a . S in c e 1965, th e most prominent o f th es e groups has been t h e Mic higan Deer Hunters A s s o c i a t i o n , which is based in Oscoda, M i c h i g a n . been a c t i v e This o r g a n i z a t i o n has in c o l l e c t i n g money, promoting l e t t e r w r i t i n g campaigns, and cond ucting meetings to g e n e r a t e o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e D ep artm en t' s deer management program. and p a r t i c i p a t i n g This o r g a n i z a t i o n was a c t i v e in o r g a n i z i n g in th e d e m o n s t r a t io n t h a t was h e l d by s e v e r a l h u nt e rs on th e grounds o f to p r o t e s t a n t l e r l e s s the S t a t e c a p i t o l in Lansing e a r l y hundred in 1966 de er h u n t i n g . Southern Michigan has i t s o p p o s i t i o n eleme nts too. Several DNR employees have mentioned t o the a u t h o r t h a t w h i l e manning de er check statio n s, they observed t h a t the D e t r o i t a r e a h u nt e rs b e l l i g e r e n t than h u n t e r s from any o t h e r a r e a . in te n s ity o f opposition On th e o t h e r hand, from d i f f e r e n t ar ea s v a r i e s In 1965, th e p ri m ar y o p p o s i t i o n tend to be more the from y e a r t o y e a r . in so ut h er n Michig an came from the F I i n t - G e n e s e e County a r e a . There a r e indications t h a t o p p o s i t i o n seems to be p a r t i c u l a r l y high among th e membership o f c e r t a i n union l o c a l s . w ill be checked in t h i s research. These impressions Fi gur es on the t o t a l hu nte rs who a r e union members a r e n o t known, but it number o f is known t h a t 1964 11% o f t h e h u nt e rs were from Wayne County a l o n e . ^ in Seventy p e r ­ cent o f th e l i c e n s e s s o l d were from th e so ut h er n t h i r d o f t h e s t a t e . ^Michigan Department o f N a t u r a l Resources "1 96 4 L i c e n s e Sales by C o u n t i e s , " S t a t i s t i c a l B u l l e t i n 1355, O c t . 1965* 30 It is ve ry l i k e l y t h a t a l a r g e p e rc e n t a g e o f the h u nt e rs from th e s e areas a r e union men. in F e b r u a r y , During t h e C o n s e r v a t io n Commission meeting 1966 f o l l o w i n g th e o p p o s i t i o n a g i t a t i o n o v e r th e 1965 seaso n, Mr. August S c h o l l e , p r e s i d e n t o f t h e Michigan AFL-CIO and a member o f the commission, commented on th e g e n e r a l men co ncerning a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g . * a t t i t u d e o f union He discussed th e then c u r r e n t a g i t a t i o n o v e r "doe h u n t i n g " w i t h i n c e r t a i n l o c a l s and p o i n t e d o u t t h a t these union members can s c a r c e l y be reasoned w i t h on o c c a s i o n . Meetings o f th e union l o c a l and i n t e r a c t i o n o f workers w h i l e on the jo b p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e x p r e s s i n g mutual g r ie v a n c e s about such t h i n g s as not g e t t i n g a deer o r n o t even s e e in g as many d e e r as in ye a r s p a s t . The a u t h o r has been p r e s e n t on s e v e r a l occasions when such di s c u s s io n s e s c a l a t e d ment o f N a t u r a l in to b i t t e r denunciations o f the D epart­ Resources. Aside from union o p p o s i t i o n , o t h e r r e g i o n a l ch aracteristics have pr o b a b ly had an e f f e c t upon s u pp or t and o p p o s i t i o n M ic h ig a n . The h e a v i l y urban n a t u r e o f southern Michigan, in so ut h er n in a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , has had some i n f l u e n c e on h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s . Urban c e n t e r s a r e more im me dia tel y dependent upon government s e r v i c e s than a r e r u r a l areas. iatory Th is c o ul d i n f l u e n c e h u n te r s from urban ar ea s to be more c o n c i l ­ toward t h e r o l e o f t h e DNR. envir onme nt in which th e de er urban m i l i e u ; thus, On the o t h e r hand, the r u r a l resource is found is f o r e i g n to the th e r e s o u r c e ' s needs may be more e a s i l y misundei— stood by these urban us e r s . S t a t e m e n t s made by August S c h o l l e , one o f th e f i v e C on s e r v a ti o n Commissioners and P r e s i d e n t o f t h e Michigan AFL-CIO a t th e F e b r u a r y , 1966 meeting o f th e commission. 31 The L e g i s l a t u r e As mentioned e a r l i e r , cant and a c t i v e In f a c t , role th e l e g i s l a t u r e can and does p l a y a s i g n i f i ­ in i n f l u e n c i n g the management o f n a t u r a l i t would be a s e r i o u s m is ta k e to c o n c e p t u a l i z e th e r o l e th e l e g i s l a t u r e has p la ye d in t h e d e e r management c o n t r o v e r s y as t h a t o f a p a s s i v e ju d g e w a i t i n g f o r th e f a c t s Department has both w ithin re s o u r c e s . in o r d e r t o pass judg ment . i t s s t r o n g s u p p o r t e r s and I t s the l e g i s l a t u r e . The b i t t e r enemies However, most l e g i s l a t o r s n o m i n a l l y s u pp or t the Department because o f its professional e x p e r t is e . S till, they a r e c a p a b l e o f b r i n g i n g p r e s s u r e t o be ar in o r d e r t o r e v e r s e a manage­ ment d e c i s i o n if i t appears t o be more p o l i t i c a l l y e x p e d i e n t to do so. In a c t u a l i t y , ke yn o te rs s e v e r a l members o f th e l e g i s l a t u r e have s e r v e d as in t h e c o n t r o v e r s y and have a l s o se rv ed as r a l l y i n g p o i n t s fo r estab lish ing co ntinu ity opposition. f o r t h e v e r y d i s p e r s e d and un or ga ni zed The f o l l o w i n g n o te is an example o f a c t i v e o p p o s i t i o n o u t s i d e t h e normal l e g i s l a t i v e ch an n el s .^ A c i r c u i t c o u r t summons was se rv ed t h i s week upon Conser­ v a t i o n D i r e c t o r Ge ra ld E. Eddy and Commission S e c r e t a r y C l i f f o r d Ketcham to show cause why a n t l e r l e s s deer s h o o t in g shou ld n o t be cancelled th is f a l l . The summons in cl ud ed a b i l l o f c o m p l a i n t f i l e d in the Ontonagon County c i r c u i t c o u r t by S e n a to r Charles 0 . McManiman, o f Houghton, which d e c l a r e s the proposed s h o o t i n g o f a n t l e r l e s s d e e r i l l e g a l . . . . Because o f the pending c o u r t a c t i o n , h u nt e rs w i l l r e c e i v e w i t h t h e i r p e rm it s a w a r n i n g t h a t they c o u ld be i n v a l i da te d . Although t h e s u i t was d i s m i s s e d , t h e f a c t t h a t in t h e f i r s t p l a c e by a l e g i s l a t o r p o i n t s th e a c t i o n was e v e r taken to t h e i n t e n s i t y o f c e r t a i n le g is la t iv e opposition. ^Department o f N a t u r a l Resources news r e l e a s e , October 2 5 , 1962. 32 In 1965 and e a r l y 1966, two unique f e a t u r e s he lped c r e a t e the c l i m a t e o f a c t i v e a g i t a t i o n among l e g i s l a t o r s . t i o n a l l y been a R ep ubl ica n s t a t e . Michigan has t r a d i ­ In 196*1, l a r g e numbers o f Democratic o f f i c e h o ld e rs were swept i n t o o f f i c e as a backwash e f f e c t from the la n d s lid e v i c t o r y o f the n a tio n a l party t i c k e t . With 1966 b e in g a n o th e r e l e c t i o n y e a r , many o f these ca nd id a t e s were g r a s p i n g f o r would h e l p s o l i d i f y t h e i r bi d s f o r r e e l e c t i o n . was p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l Sev eral certain su ited issues which A n t le r le s s deer hunting to use as a "wh ip p in g boy" a t t h a t ti m e . Department employees have i n d i c a t e d t o th e a u t h o r t h a t le g is la to rs have t o l d them p r i v a t e l y D e p a r tm e n t' s g e ne r al management program. ments a t c e r t a i n c r u c i a l Another group o f d e s c r i b e d as o p i n i o n t h a t they s u p p o r t the However, t h e ir public s ta te ­ times have r e f l e c t e d an o p p o s i t i o n s t a n c e . l e g i s l a t o r s has a c te d in what could b e s t be in itia to r roles. In o t h e r wo rds, th ey have a t te m p te d t o i n f l u e n c e p u b l i c o p i n i o n i n s t e a d o f t h e more c o n v e n t i o n a l ta c k o f r e a c t i n g t o such o p i n i o n . This groups o f p o l i t i c i a n s has c o n s i s t e n t l y been opposed to t h e Department p o l i c i e s '^jry c o n t r o v e r s i a l overtones. sound t h e a la rm w h e th e r These l e g i s l a t o r s t h a t have had a r e th e firs t to i t be about t i m b e r , w a t e r , parks o r w i l d l i f e . One example o f an a t t e m p t by a l e g i s l a t o r to i n f l u e n c e p u b l i c o p i n i o n oc cu r r ed d u r i n g th e 1965 season. A l e g i s l a t o r from th e Upper P e n i n s u la recorded a tape f o r b r o a d c a s t on e v e r y r a d i o s t a t i o n d i s t r i c t d i s c u s s i n g the poor h u n t i n g season. This In h is tape was br oa d c a s t d u ri n g th e f i r s t week o f the season between November 13 and 21 . At t h a t t i m e , carcass counts a t Mackinac B ri d g e were running ahead o f 196*», a record y e a r . ^ ^Ar no ld, Following the f i r s t in tervie w , February 2 3 , 1966. few days, t h e r e was a 33 re la tiv e ly la r g e r hunter outm igration based on e a r l y k i l l rates. than would have been e x p ec te d Of course, i t would be m i s l e a d i n g to c l a i m t h a t these b ro ad ca sts could have c r e a t e d th e t o t a l th in g , effec t. For one i t was t o be expec ted t h a t many hu n te rs would m i g r a t e t o the Lower P e n i n s u l a f o r i t s November 21 o p e n in g . Nonetheless, these bro ad ca sts a t t h e time they were made could have m a t e r i a l l y decreased th e number o f h u n t e r days by ca using pe op le t o l e a v e e a r l y . In a d d i t i o n , some h u n te rs who would o t h e r w i s e have come from the Lower P e n i n s u la to ge t in on th e e a r l y season pr o b a b ly d i d not make the t r i p because o f th e h i g h l y p u b l i c i z e d "poo r s e a s o n . " In c o n c l u s i o n , t h r e e f a c t o r s seem t o p l a y a s u b s t a n t i a l in flu e n cin g l e g i s l a t i v e behavior. F irs t, role the l e n g t h o f t im e s e r v e d in e l e c t i v e o f f i c e seems t o be a b e t t e r i n d i c a t o r than p o l i t i c a l p a r t i s a n s h i p o f s u pp or t o r o p p o s i t i o n . The les s th e more l i k e l y hunting p o l i c y . lik e ly th e l e g i s l a t o r S eco nd ly, T h irdly, is to oppose th e a n t l e r l e s s deer leg isla to rs refle cts some l e g i s l a t o r s opposition th a t ships tenure, g e n e ra lly , from c e r t a i n areas a r e more t o oppose "doe h u n t i n g " than those from o t h e r a r e a s . prob ab ly p r e t t y w e l l it is Th is th e s e n ti m e n ts o f t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n c i e s . a r e so d i l i g e n t and te n a c io u s In t h e i r improbable t h a t e i t h e r one o f th e above r e l a t i o n ­ is a complete e x p l a n a t i o n . to have pe rsonal in Some o f th es e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s seem "axes to g r i n d " w i t h th e D e p ar tm e nt , and a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g p r o v id e s a ready-made is s u e . CHAPTER I I THE ISSUES AND THE RESEARCH PROBLEM A More D e t a i l e d A n a ly s i s o f th e Issues Thus f a r , the a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n ti n g has been d e sc r ib ed In broad general terms. (doe h u n ti n g ) c o nt r ov er sy However, more d e t a i l must be added in o r d e r to understand t h e frame o f r e f e r e n c e o f th e v a ri o u s interests in v o lv e d . th is chapter w i l l A d e s c r i p t i o n o f these v a r io u s p o i n t s o f view in in c lu d e d e t a i l the v a ri o us f a c t i o n s r e g a r d in g t h e assumptions made by in vo lv ed and I n c l u d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the kinds and sources o f a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t have been used to a r r i v e a t the v a ri o u s conclusions t h a t have been drawn. Types o f Hun ter A t t i t u d e s In th e p r e l i m i n a r y stages o f t h i s tu nities to t a l k state o f f i c i a l s , research, the a u t h o r had oppor­ to many deer h u n t e r s , s t a t e game b i o l o g i s t s , and o t h e r and academic p r o f e s s i o n a l s w i t h an i n t e r e s t o r e x p e r t i s e in the ar e a o f resource user a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r . In a d d i t i o n , an e x t e n s i v e review o f the Department o f N a t u r a l Resources' file s con­ t a i n i n g correspondence from both those who su p p o r t a n t l e r l e s s hu nti ng and those who oppose i t was completed. F in ally , a lite ra tu re a p p r o p r i a t e s t u d i e s was in c lu d e d . l i t e r a t u r e covered v a r io u s as­ pects o f t h e issues related natural This review o f in vo lv ed In th e management o f both deer and o t h e r r es ou rce s. The s i t u a t i o n s 3k in s t a t e s o t h e r than Michigan 35 were a l s o r ev ie w ed . d is tin c tiv e In c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s background m a t e r i a l , s e v e r a l hunter a t t it u d e types seem to be d i s c e r n i b l e . M o t i v a t i o n s f o r Support A small p e rc en ta ge o f h u n te r s s u p p o r t th e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources because t h e D ep artm en t' s cla im s concur w i t h t h e i r o b s e r v a ­ tions. The f o l l o w i n g l e t t e r demonstrates t h i s type o f m o t i v a t i o n . ^ Dear S i rs : W h il e I was h u n ti n g s q u i r r e l I saw a l i t t l e doe not b i g enough f o r a good s i z e d fawn. She had two l i t t l e fawns t h a t were almost s t a r v e d to death and no wonder as t h e r e was n o th i n g to e a t e x c e p t a c o r n s , no grasses e x c e p t f e r n s . Not enough browse to feed h e r l e t a lo n e a h e r d . D ur ing the h u n t i n g season I k i l l e d a l i t t l e buck t h a t had t i n y horns t h a t were b i g on the base and l i t t l e stub sp ik e s less than t h r e e inches long about k o r 5 ye ars old. In a person i t would be c a l l e d m a l n u t r i t i o n . I saw a long neck doe t h a t p r o b a b ly h a d n ' t had a fawn f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . Noth­ ing to e a t . I went w i t h a f r i e n d to g e t h i s t r a i l e r a f t e r the snow came and saw a doe t h a t was about s t a r v e d to d e a t h . Thinner than a sn ake. I doubt i f she e v e r l a s t e d the w i n t e r . Years ago when t h e r e were wolves and bobcats and foxes th e herd took care o f i t s e l f and ba la n c e d i t s e l f and t h e r e were n i c e b i g deer . . . . S incerely: (Signature) W a l k e r v i 11e Michigan R . F . D . No. 1 This h u n t e r reco gnizes s t a r v a t i o n as a ve ry re a l many o t h e r h u n t e r s , le tte r he makes recommendations ( p a r t not qu ote d) for problem. Like in t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f the 1 improving t h e s i t u a t i o n which t h e D e p a r t ­ ment argues a r e e c o n o m i c a l l y u n f e a s i b l e on the massive s c a l e t h a t required. Nonetheless, Department t h a t there the main p o i n t is t h a t he agrees w i t h is the is a s e r i o u s problem. The second type o f h u n t e r t h a t supp ort s do i t on th e b a s i s o f personal th e Department does not o b s e r v a t i o n s about de er h a b i t a t s t r e s s . This type o f h u n t e r s im p l y b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e Department is In t h e b e s t ^ L e t t e r r e c e i v e d by t h e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources March 11, 1957 amended to t h e " S p e c i a l Deer Survey" p o s tc a r d f o r the 1956 season. 36 p o s i t i o n to understand resource needs and t h a t i t should have both the r i g h t and th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f managing the herd as i t sees f i t . The f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t from a l e t t e r illu s tra te s this a t titu d e ,^ D ear S i r : Why should you men, t r a i n e d in game management, have to ask me, an average d e e r h u n t e r , what I t h i n k about s p e c i a l seasons on deer? T h a t ' s 1 i ke a d o c t o r as ki n g the average person what they t h i n k about an o p e r a t i o n , any o p e r a t i o n . . . . I do n't think people would have much f a i t h in t h e medical p r o f e s s i o n i f they did t h a t , do you? But maybe I'm wrong, maybe the c o n s e r v a ti o n d e p a r t ­ ment is c o n t r o l l e d by p o l i t i c i a n s . I f i t i s , i t ' s time the s p o r t s ­ men d i d something about i t . But i f i t i s n ' t , I d o n ' t see where anyone has a r i g h t to q u e s t i o n what th e Conser va tion Department does as f a r as game management is concerned. P e r s o n a l l y , I t h i n k you f e l l o w s a r e doing a wonderful job . . . Since r e l y (Signature) This type o f h u n t e r accepts th e claims o f t h e Department o f N a tu r a l Resources p r i m a r i l y o u t o f r e s p e c t f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r t i s e and not on the basis, o f the issue i t s e l f . A t h i r d type o f h u n t e r who supports the Department does so not so much as ou t o f r e s p e c t f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r t i s e or because they see i t a method o f b e t t e r managing the h e r d , but because o f t a n g e n t i a l considerations. The example below demonstrates the p o i n t . 2 Dear S i r : In regards to your s p e c i a l deer survey f o r l a s t y e a r . This is my o p i n i o n on q u e s t io n t h r e e . I am f o r any deer season f o r the simple reason I t h i n k i t would do away w i t h the i l l e g a l k i l l o f deer t h a t is l e f t in th e woods t o s p o i l . I have s a t on runway and seen deer come th ro ug h , they were shot a t b e f o r e they got to me and a f t e r they went b y . And they were not Bucks . . . S incerely yours, (S i g n a tu re ) L e t t e r r e c e iv e d by the Department o f N a t u r a l Resources March 1 5 1957; a l s o amended to the " S p e c i a l Deer Survey" postcard f o r the 1956 season. 2 , L e t t e r r e c e iv e d by th e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources March 16, 1957; a l s o a t t a c h e d to th e p o s tc a r d co ncerning the 1956 season. 37 Among t h i s type o f s u p p o r t e r s , a t one t i m e , the argument was q u i t e common t h a t " a l l you see in the woods a r e does and fawns. T h e r e f o r e , th e season should be opened t o a n t l e r l e s s h u n t i n g so t h a t h u n te r s can have more o p p o r t u n i t i e s tioned to get a d e e r ." This p o i n t was commonly men­ In t h e correspondence o f th e 19 50' s , b u t d u r i n g t h e s i x t i e s argument has been much less f r e q u e n t l y ment ion ed. conditional supporters b e lie v e s re as on a bl e d e v i c e when harm t h a t de er to crops this An o th er group o f should be taken through any is a s e r i o u s problem o r when deer become a ha zard t o a u to t r a f f i c . Reasons f o r O p p o s i t i o n Reasons f o r opposing a n t l e r l e s s a r e u s u a l l y used as a s e r i e s Thus, it is d i f f i c u l t d e e r h u n t i n g a r e more numerous and r a t h e r than fo c u s in g on any one p o i n t . to f i n d one o r a c l u s t e r o f p o i n t s t h a t a r e used in a m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e sense t o d i s t i n g u i s h o p p o s i t i o n t y p e s . t h e r e do seem t o be a t l e a s t t h r e e meaningful However, c a t e g o r i e s o f h u n te r s who oppose doe h u n t i n g . The f i r s t o f these h u n t e r types a t t r i b u t e s Department o f N a t u r a l Resources One common charge l e v i e d In promoting a n t l e r l e s s to the deer h u n t i n g . is t h a t t h e Department pushes a n t l e r l e s s deer hu nt in g as a d e v i c e to s e l l itib ility u l t e r i o r m otive s more l i c e n s e s . There Is an a i r o f c r e d - to th e charge In many p e o p l e ' s minds because l i c e n s e s a l e s have in f a c t I n c r e a s e d d r a m a t i c a l l y s i n c e "doe h u n t i n g " was i n s t i t u t e d on a broad s c a l e . The issue is not a m a t t e r o f a n t l e r l e s s h u n t i n g pe rm its producing revenue in and o f themselves s i n c e t h e r e is no e x t r a charge f o r l i c e n s e buyers who a r e chosen to r e c e i v e a n t l e r l e s s perm its. 38 However, opponents see such pe rmits as an i n s i d i o u s de vice to lend i n c e n t i v e f o r pu rchasing l i c e n s e s . ^ Another common argument o f t h i s group o f opponents is t h a t "Bi g Timber I n t e r e s t s " a r e paying o f f t h e DNR to have th e deer herd " k i l l e d o f f " so t h a t th e t r e e s w i l l grow b e t t e r . The number o f hunters who a t t r i b u t e d i s ho ne s t designs t o th e Department, such as these which have been mentioned, is q u i t e l a r g e , perhaps amounting to a m a j o r i t y o f the hunters who oppose "doe h u n t i n g . " A second group o f h u n t e r s , many o f which a r e opposed t o Depart** ment's deer management p o l i c i e s j u s t as s t r o n g l y as those who f a l l in the cl a s s discussed above, do not a t t r i b u t e q u e s t i o n a b l e motives to management p o l i c i e s . They f e e l t h a t the Department is u n d e r s t a f f e d and o t h e r w i s e hi nde re d t o th e p o i n t t h a t i t cannot g e t the i n f o r m a t i o n nec­ essar y t o d is p r o v e the e v id e n c e upon which i t has f o r m u la t e d i t s man­ agement program. These h u nt e rs f e e l h o n e s t l y mistaken in i t s p o l i c i e s . p o s s i b l e to k i l l does and s t i l l t h a t th e Department is simply This group cannot see how i t is have adequate fawn pr o d u c ti o n and they cannot understand t h e Department's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t it is p o s s i b l e to have bo th . The t h i r d group is not n e c e s s a r i l y m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e o f the o t h e r groups because they share some o f th e same reasons f o r opposing the a n t l e r l e s s h a r v e s t program w I t h o t h e r h u n t e r s . However, t h i s group seems to be d i s t i n c t enough in c e r t a i n o f i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to be V h i s was one among many o f t h e charges made by Sena tor Joseph Mack o f Ironwood in th e Upper P e n i n s u la d u ri ng a te le ph on e I n t e r v i e w w i t h the author on J u ly 10, 1968. Sena tor Mack is an outspoken opponent o f the Department o f N a t u r a l Resources on many resource management q u e s t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y having to do w i t h the Upper P e n i n s u l a . 39 worthy o f s p e c i a l ment ion . This g r o u p 's p r im a r y o p p o s i t i o n seems t o be d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedures a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n ti n g r a t h e r than w i t h de er should be t a k e n . the a c t u a l q u e s t i o n o f w h e th e r a n t l e r l e s s E xc e rp ts from two l e t t e r s illu s tra te d ifferen t aspects o f the same p o i n t . Dear S i rs : I saw yo qr ite m in th e D e t r o i t News o f O c t . 2 0 - 6 8 , about Deer Hunting. I f o r on e, am not in f a v o r o f t h e way the C o n se r va tio n Department handles t h i n g s . I have bought a l i c e n s e f o r o v e r 40 y e a r s , and I have a p p l i e d e v e r y y e a r f o r a doe p e r m i t , and n e v e r r e c e i v e d one. (emphasis in the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e ) . I f they want does and fawns k i l l e d why d o n ' t th e y g i v e e v e r y ­ one a chance? I see t h i s y e a r , anyone can a p p ly f o r areas away up N o r t h V/hat more a r e they t r y i n g to t e l l us to do? L e t the o u t o f s t a t e pe op le t r a v e l . I would l i k e to see someone check and see who has had Doe perm ltts [sic]? 3680 permi t t s t h i s y e a r . That I s a l o t o f hu n te rs f o r t h a t a r e a . I am about fe d up on d e e r h u n t i n g . Thank you . (Signature) H a r r i s o n , M ic hig an 48625 th e second c o r r es po n de nt expresses a d i f f e r e n t c o m p l a i n t . Th er e a r e c e r t a i n ar ea s in Mic higan t h a t a r e o v e r gr aze d and o t h e r areas t h a t a r e n o t . I am s t r l c k l y [s 1c ] a g a i n s t the p r e s e n t way t h a t the season on any d e e r is b e in g ha n d le d . There a r e to o many deer b e in g ta ke n o u t o f some ar ea s and n o t enough be ing taken o u t o f o t h e r s under the p r e s e n t system . . . Yours s i n c e r e l y (S i g n a t u r e ) ^ Grosse l i e , Michigan R e c u r ri n g Arguments by Opponents One does n o t have t o t a l k to many o l d e r h u nt e rs b e f o r e some r e f e r e n c e such a s , "Why I remember in th e good o l d days s e ei n g f i f t y * llnsol I c i t e d l e t t e r 2 r e c e i v e d by the a u t h o r on O ct ob er 2 4 , 1968. Note a t t a c h e d to " S p e c i a l Deer Sur vey " p o s t c a r d f o r the 1956 season, and r e c e i v e d by th e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources March 2 0 , 1957. ko d e e r per d a y , " o r some such s t a te m e n t u s u a l l y f o l l o w e d by a c o n t r a s t w i t h It Such a s t a t e m e n t is th e "p o o r " contemporary seasons. can be p r e d i c t e d w i t h a high degree o f c e r t a i n t y w ill t h a t such c o n t r a s t s be f o l l o w e d by a d e n u n c i a t i o n o f "doe h u n t i n g " as the cause o f the decrease in d e e r . it is made. Such recounts from o l d - t i m e r s a r e i n t e r e s t i n g , bu t is f a s c i n a t i n g t o he ar young h u n te rs whose h u n t i n g e x p e r i e n c e could not p o s s i b l y p r e d a t e th e i n i t i a l to those same "good o l d d a y s . " years o f a n t l e r l e s s One is o f t e n le d t o b e l i e v e by such remarks from young h u nt e rs t h a t t h e a n y - d e e r p o l i c y vintage. The f o u n d a t i o n f o r such o b s e r v a t i o n s dissemination o f f o l k in Chapter I stopped w i t h 1920's. is o f ve ry r e c e n t fs pr ob ab ly as much the t a l e s as o b s e r v a t i o n s made o f b i o l o g i c a l The d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l early deer h u n t i n g r e f e r re a lity . tr en ds o f th e Michigan d e e r herd th e s t a t e o f the herd in t h e l a t e teens and The d i s c u s s io n o f r e c e n t herd tren ds w i l l be completed he re so as to b e t t e r r e l a t e it Although the d e e r were s t i l l d u r i n g th e 19 20' s and 3 0 ' s , years d u r i n g th e 1 9 ^ 0 ' s . pa rtment o f N a t u r a l t o contemporary a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r . s c a r c e In the s o u th e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a t h e herd as a whole e x p e r ie n c e d Dr. I t s peak Ralph A. MacMullan, D i r e c t o r o f the De­ Resources, had t h i s t o say about the herd po pu la­ tion o f th at era.^ The Michigan de er herd p ro b ab ly reached i t s peak sometime d u r i n g t h e 19 ^0 ' s . I say p r o b a b l y , because we d o n ' t r e a l l y know how many de er we had d u r i n g those lush years when i t was not a t a l l unusual to see them by th e t w e n t i e s , f i f t i e s , and hundreds. We used to say we had a m i l l i o n deer in Michigan in those days. I su sp e ct now t h a t we had a t l e a s t tw i c e t h a t many, and q u i t e l i k e l y more. That was th e Golden Era o f d e e r . ^Speech made by Dr. Ralph A. MacMullan to th e Michigan Bear Hunters A s s o c i a t i o n a t t h e i r annual conve ntion on January 2 2 , 1966, p . 6 . k) Th is d r a m a t i c r i s e in th e de er p o p u l a t i o n between t h e f i r s t two o f th e 20 th c e n t u r y and th e e a r l y fo rtie s decade o r is t r u l y amazing. The one management p o l i c y t h a t the p u b l i c a s s o c i a t e s most w i t h spectacular in c re a s e o f w h i t e t a i l s was the in s titu tio n o f t h e "buck l a w . " However, qu ic k to p o i n t o u t t h a t t h i s was o n l y one o f c o n t r i b u t e d to th e p o p u l a t i o n growth. control o f de er h u n t i n g enforcement d u r i n g th is period. scene ar e key f a c t o r s t h a t Among th e o t h e r im p o r ta n t f a c t o r s us u ally c i t e d are th e e f f e c t i v e control careful and enforcement those c l o s e to t h e b i o l o g i c a l several o f massive f o r e s t f i r e s and the In g e n e r a l , through r e g u l a t i o n and However, stand the c o nf u si o n t h a t e x i s t s . If it it is not d i f f i c u l t is assumed t h a t to under­ lim itin g a n tle r­ less h u n ti n g was th e p r im a r y f a c t o r which a l l o w e d Michigan to b u i l d s u b s t a n t i a l de er p o p u l a t i o n , it policy w i l l U n f o r t u n a t e l y on th e s u r f a c e t h i s supported by r e c e n t t r e n d s . its is not a very b i g lea p in l o g i c to assume t h a t any a l t e r a t i o n o f t h i s herd. this ag a in j e o p a r d i z e the c o n c l u s io n seems t o have been These trends were s t a t e d c o n c i s e l y by MacMullan when he s a i d : ^ The e s s e n t i a ] b a s i c f a c t s about Michigan de er can be summed up In two o r t h r e e s e n t e n c e s . V/e d o n ' t have as many de er as we used t o ha ve. We p r o b a b ly a r e going t o have few er y e t b e f o r e we have more. And t h e r e Is n o t h i n g p r a c t i c a l t h a t we can do to produce a l o t more r i g h t now. The Department o f N a t u r a l Resources argues t h a t th e herd Is d e c r e a s in g no t because o f a n t l e r l e s s h u n t i n g b u t in sp? te o f is t h a t the l i m i t i n g T h e i r argument f a c t o r is not h u n t i n g p r e s s u r e but r a t h e r an i n ­ c r e a s i n g sh o r ta g e o f deer browse. deer fo o d , it. there w i l l * MacMul1a n , p. 4. Simply s t a t e d , if there be few d e e r , h u n t i n g o r no h u n t i n g . is l i t t l e 42 The f a c t remains t h a t th e h e r d , as a w h o l e , has decreased concur­ r e n tly with In c re a s e d a n t l e r l e s s c o in c id e n c e in the eyes o f t h e Department o f N a t u r a l c o n vi nc in g ev id e n c e t o opponents hunting. h u nt in g p r e s s u r e ; an u n f o r t u n a t e Resources, b u t in t h e i r arguments a g a i n s t a n t l e r l e s s The DNR can p o i n t to ev id e nc e to c o u n t e r t h i s c l a i m t h a t h u n ti n g p r e s s u r e is the p r im a r y cause o f a d e c r e a s in g h e r d . In th e Upper P e n i n s u l a and in areas where t h e r e a r e many h u n t i n g clubs a n t l e r ­ less h u n t i n g p re s su re has been r e l a t i v e l y p o p u l a t i o n has d i m i n i s h e d s t e a d i l y f a r f a l l e n m os tl y on d e a f e a r s . ve ry l i g h t , but s t i l l in th e s e a r e a s . the This p o i n t has thus Opponents charge t h a t a n t l e r l e s s hu n ti n g is th e cause o f he rd d e c l i n e even in areas where heavy. The f a c t t h a t some a n t l e r l e s s it is not h u n ti n g has been p e r m i t t e d makes i t d i f f i c u l t t o r e f u t e t h e c h ar ge . Another commonly heard q u e s t i o n a l e n t why i s n ' t t h e r e more e v id e n c e th e woods?" The D ep ar tm e nt 's dence in th e de er yards Is t h a t , " i f s t a r v a t i o n is so pr ev in t h e form o f s t a r v e d animals In response is t h a t t h e r e is p l e n t y o f e v i ­ in n o r t h e r n Michigan d u r i n g and imm e di a te ly f o l l o w i n g se ve re w i n t e r s . U nfortun ately, th e hu nte rs seldom i f e v e r see t h i s e v id e n c e because f o r t h e most p a r t , th ey a r e o n ly d u r i n g the de er season which comes in t h e f a l l shortages have been e x p e r i e n c e d . in th e f i e l d b e f o r e any food The e v id e n c e q u i c k l y di sap pea rs by s p r in g w i t h scavenger c l e a n u p , and i t Is as if the m o r t a l i t i e s never occurred. The Department has had many f i e l d i n t o these d e e r yards to show h u n te rs trip s in t h e very e a r l y s p r i n g th e a f t e r m a t h o f s e ve r e w i n t e r s , but o n ly a few hu nte rs have had an o p p o r t u n i t y Even among those who do a t t e n d to a t t e n d such e v e n t s . t h e r e a r e o f t e n s k e p t i c s who charge 43 that the Department has ri g g e d the de monstration area by p l a n t i n g dead carcasses ga the re d from e l s e w h e r e . Other arguments a l r e a d y mentioned a l s o a r e o f t e n en u n c ia t e d in t h i s c o n t e x t such as: o f food; look a t a l l th e green p l a n t s . " Such st ate me nts are o f t e n made during the lush growing season and perhaps w i t h in which deer cannot y a r d d u ri n g the c r i t i c a l S ta tis tic s cia lly "There's plenty r e f e r e n c e to areas n i n e t y days o f w i n t e r . have playe d an impo rtan t r o l e in the c o n t r o v e r s y , espe­ among the more s o p h i s t i c a t e d opponents o f a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g . Several key c la ss es o f da ta and the methods by which they a r e d e r i v e d have been t r a d i t i o n a l targets fo r c r i t i c i s m . focused upon the m a t t e r o f lo ca l and upon l o c a l P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n has and s t a t e w i d e deer p o p u l a t i o n f i g u r e s and s t a t e w i d e deer k i l l estim ates. I t should be emphasized t h a t th e DNR has been i n t e r e s t e d kind o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r a long ti m e . in t h i s T h e i r i n t e r e s t has n o t been m o ti v at e d by an at te m pt to "p rove t h e i r p o i n t " a f t e r t h e f a c t , but to help in g u id in g p r e s e n t and f u t u r e management d e c i s i o n s . specifies in broad terms the kinds o f C a r h a rt i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t a r e needed f o r good management in th e st at e m e n t which f o l l o w s : ^ The f i r s t st ep in a management pl an f o r deer is to secure a good e s t i m a t e o f th e number o f deer on a gi ve n range. This is the game census. The ne x t st ep is to determine what kinds o f foods a r e th e primary p r e f e r e n c e s o f de er in t h a t ar ea and the a p p r o x i ­ mate c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y o f those de er foods. Ta king a qu ick glance a t the range and ju d g i n g food supply by the t o t a l fo ra ge is not enough. Then plans must be made to b r i n g t h e animals and t h e i r food supply i n t o b a l a n c e , and m a i n t a i n them t h e r e . F i n a l l y , having these f a c t o r s w e l l d e te r m in e d , the annual d r a i n on the herd popu­ l a t i o n by h u n t i n g , poach ing, p r e d a t o r s , and a l l o t h e r causes must be a d j u s t e d . There should be less than th e annual increment taken where th e range is un de rstocked; t h e annual inc re as e should be k i l l e d where c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y is balanced w i t h the herd popu­ l a t i o n s , and more than t h e se aso n's inc re as e i f t h e range i f o v e r ­ loaded w i t h d e e r . ^C arhart, p. 190. kk Such a f o r m u l a t i o n as C a r h a r t ' s e r s t h a t he was o u t l i n i n g a g e n e r a l T h at g e n e r a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y s t a t e d these p r i n c i p l e s is most m eaningful when one c o n s i d ­ set o f c r i t e r i a is r e i n f o r c e d when i t in a book o f n a t i o n a l a p p l i c a b l e anywhere. is observed t h a t he scope ( H u n ti n g North American D e e r ) . The f o l l o w i n g summary o u t l i n e s Mic higa n Department o f N a t u r a l 1 d e e r seasons: the actual Resources uses procedures t h a t the in s e t t i n g a n t l e r l e s s Procedure I. Data c o ns id er ed in recommending season: 1. Ph ys ic a l d a t a on c o n d i t i o n o f the herd This I n f o r m a t i o n is c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the c u r r e n t season; age r a t i o s * a n t l e r development* h u n t e r suc­ ce ss , i n f l u e n c e o f w e a t h e r * and h u n t i n g p r e s s u r e a r e cons id e r e d . 2. W i n t e r I n s p e c t i o n o f de er Yards F i e l d b i o l o g i s t s spend a high p e rc en t ag e o f t h e i r time d u r i n g the w i n t e r examining w i n t e r de er range t o d e t e r m in e th e s t a t u s o f th e number o f d e e r in r e l a t i o n to th e amount o f deer food p r e s e n t . 3. F o r e s t c u t t i n g records D e t a i l e d records a r e k e p t on t h e commercial f o r e s t c u t t i n g on s t a t e * f e d e r a l * and p r i v a t e l a n d s . These records a r e e v a l u a t e d in r e s p e c t t o t h e i r d i s ­ t r i b u t i o n and the amount and q u a l i t y o f de er food provided. The e f f e c t s o f c u t t i n g on the deer range are also e v a lu a te d . *». D e f i n i t i o n o f deer problem ar ea s Throughout th e w i n t e r * t h e e x t e n t o f the deer problem a r e a is d e te r m in e d . The problem ar e a can be d e f i n e d as t h e t o t a l range oc cupied by deer d u r i n g the f a l l t h a t is i n f l u e n c e d by ar ea s o f food shor tag es o r crop damage. 5. Study o f d e e r p r o d u c t i v i t y r a t e s Through th e l a t e w i n t e r and s p r i n g months, a c c i d e n t a l l y k i l l e d does a r e a u t o p s ie d by f i e l d personnel t o de te r m in e p r i m a r i l y the r e p r o d u c t i v e r a t e s o f t h e de er in q u e s t i o n . Th is d a t a is used t o e s t i m a t e the s i z e o f the coming fawn c r o p . David A. A r n o l d * Procedures f o r S e t t i n g A n t l e r l e s s Deer Seasons, B u l l e t i n r e le a s e d A p r i l 13* 19^7* by the Game D i v i s i o n o f t h e Michigan Department o f N a t u r a l Resources. ks 7. P op u la t io n in di ce s a. The deer p e l l e t count This is a comprehensive survey o f the n o r t h e r n deer range in Regions I and I I which measures the o v e r w i n t e r deer popula tio n s , b . Summer deer counts This is a count made by a l l f i e l d p e r ­ sonnel and is done by keeping records o f the number o f hours spent in the f i e l d from May through October ( i n r e l a t i o n to the number o f deer s e e n ) . This provides a mea­ sure o f the tr e n d in the deer p o p u la ti o n and is based on o v e r 5 0 ,0 0 0 hours o f o b s e r v a t i o n each y e a r . c. H i ghway dee r k i 11 Number o f deer k i l l e d by cars in re­ s p e c t to t r a f f i c volume and we ather co nd i­ t i o n s is a f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n o f th e tr e n d in deer numbers. An e v a l u a t i o n o f w i n t e r losses ( i f any) V h e n l o s s e s appear t o be e x t e n s i v e and manpower c o n s i d e r a t i o n s p e r m i t , a formal s t a t i s t i c a l l y designed dead deer search is conducted. This y e a r , however, th e procedure has been t o have f i e l d personnel e s t i ­ mate the e x t e n t o f w i n t e r losses on t h e b a si s o f t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e and judgment. Pe ta l 1 ‘ ’ * previous y e a r ' s k i l l in th e h u n ti n g T T T T are c o n si de r ed . The s p e c i a l season k i l l , th e r e g u l a r season k i l l , h u n te r success in both seasons, hunti ng p r e s s u r e , t r e n d in th e k i l l , and a l l the r e l a t e d m at te rs ar e c o n s i d e r e d . ilopment o f deer recommendations from the above d a ta : F i e l d b i o l o g i s t s , who have the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n i t i a t i n g the f o r m u l a t i o n o f f i e l d recommendations, c o n t i n u a l l y make p u b l i c co n ta c ts in regard t o the op in io ns and i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t can be gathe red on the deer s i t u a t i o n . They a l s o work very c l o s e l y a t a l l times w i t h o t h e r department persons and people o f o t h e r agencies concerned w i t h d e e r , such as the U.S. Fo rest S e r v i c e and the S o i l Conservation S e r v i c e . Meetings a r e h e ld w i t h County Board o f Supervisors o r w i t h i n d i v i d u a l members o f these boards a t the pl ea s ur e o f th e boards. Formal c o n ta c t Is made a d v i s i n g th e lo ca l governmental u n i t s th a t d e p a r t ­ ment people a r e a v a i l a b l e . Departmental meetings a r e held a t the d i s t r i c t le v e l to discuss th e accumulated da ta from th e w i n t e r and spring. Departmental meetings a r e h e l d a t th e r e g io n a l l e v e l to c o o r d i n a t e the recommendations o f the d i s t r i c t s . 46 5. The accumulated d a t a and the recommendations o f the d i s t r i c t s and re gio ns a r e then c o n s i d e r e d by the s t a f f and t h e recommendation to the Con ser va tio n Commission is f o r m u l a t e d . This is then pr es e n t e d to th e Commission. ( A t th e J u l y me et in g t h i s y e a r . ) The Commission co n s i d e r s t h e d e p ar tm en ta l recommen­ da ti o n s and a c ts t h e r e o n . The Commission then pres en ts i t s a c t i o n to t h e I n t e r i m Committee o f the Legi s 1a t u r e . This procedure has s a t i s f a c t o r i l y u t i l i z e d t h e manpower r e ­ sources o f t h e Dep artment, has sampled and c o n s i d e r e d p u b l i c o p i n i o n a t a l l l e v e l s , has a d e q u a t e l y c o n si d er ed t h e b i o l o g i c a l aspec ts o f d e e r management, and has l e f t the f i n a l d e c i s i o n w i t h the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the p e o p le . I t can be seen from th es e procedures t h a t t h e C o n se r va tio n D e p a r t ­ ment has a t te m p te d to implement C a r h a r t ' s c r i t e r i a in d e t a i l . However, Departmental e s t i m a t e s a r e suspect among those opposed t o a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e a p p a r e n t r i g o r e x e r c i s e d estim ates. 600,000 Few in d e v e l o p in g o p p o s i t i o n h u nt e rs b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e a r e as many as to 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 d e e r in Michigan as the Department a s s e r t s . ^ is ambivalence in r e a c t i o n t o annual k i l l fig u res. hu nte rs b e l i e v e t h a t th e e s t i m a t e s o f annual h i g h e r than the r e a l k i l l figures. is g e t t i n g s m a l l e r and s m a l l e r , k ill Most o p p o s i t i o n by th e DNR a r e much The assumption then so is There is t h a t the k i l l . if th e herd However, t h e r e an o th e r p o i n t o f view ex pr e s s e d ; t h a t is, e s p e c i a l l y f o r c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c areas than th e p u b l i s h e d e s t i m a t e s . claim , t h i s group o f h u n te rs th a t the k i l l asserting its high k i l l has a c c e l e r a t e d the d e c l i n e o f th e h e rd . one o r the o t h e r o f these t h e o r i e s area and o v e r t i m e . ^MacMullan, p. 8. is much h i g h e r In uses th e argument t h a t th e The degree t o which is adhered to v a r i e s The co n c l u s io n however, s i t i o n h u n t e r s - - t h e deer herd is from a r e a t o is unanimous among oppo­ is be ing e x t e r m i n a t e d . These warnings 47 o f herd e x t e r m i n a t i o n were f i r s t made in 1941 w i t h th e f i r s t lib e ra l­ i z a t i o n o f a n t i - a n t l e r l e s s deer h u nt in g r e g u l a t i o n s and have been repeated each session s i n c e then. Because o f th e p u b l i c c r i t i c i s m o f Department o f N a tu ra l Resources e s t im a te s o f de er p o p u l a t i o n s , a c o n t r a c t was e n t e r e d into with S tatistic s In stitu te of Research D i v i s i o n o f the Research T r i a n g l e Durham, North C a r o l i n a , e a r l y in 1966. the The c o n t r a c t c a l l e d f o r the I n s t i t u t e t o a u d i t th e methods used by th e Department in g e n e r a t i n g deer p o p u l a t i o n and k i l l improving t h e i r methods. the summary o f the f i n a l e s t im a te s and to make recommendations f o r The st at e m e n t which f o l l o w s is a p a r t o f r e p o r t o f th e I n s t i t u t e : ^ We f i n d th e procedures used i n those surveys to be t e c h n i ­ c a l l y sound and a p p l i e d in workman l i k e fashi o n by a competent staff. The Department deserves c o n s i d e r a b l e commendation f o r the e f f o r t i t has expended on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e in a p p r a i s i n g the s t a t i s t i c a l p r e c i s i o n and p o s s i b l e non-sampling e r r o r s in i t s v a ri o u s e s t i m a t e s . In gene ra l t h e f i n d i n g o f t h i s review support the Dep artment's own conclusions on the accuracy o f i t s e s t i m a t e s . No c l a i m o f p e r f e c t i o n is made by th e Department i t s e l f nor can any review endorse the Department's f i g u r e s w i t h t h a t m a n t l e - t h a t would be asking f o r the im p o ss ib le . This kind o f endorsement has prob ab ly not had much o f an e f f e c t on the a t t i t u d e s o f the average h u n t e r in th e woods because most do not know about the r e p o r t and even i f they d i d , they prob ab ly would not understand the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f such an a u d i t . to co nfi rm to DNR b i o m e t r i c i a n s The r e p o r t has served t h a t t h e r e ar e no inexcusable weaknesses in t h e i r procedures and t h a t under th e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f t h e a r t o f making s t a t i s t i c a l an adequate j o b . applications to game management d a t a , they a r e doing To government o f f i c i a l s who have m a in ta in ed a n e u t r a l ^Review o f Procedures f o r E s t i m a t i n g Deer P o p u la t io n and Deer K i l l in Mic higan. F i n a l Report by the S t a t i s t i c s Research D i v i s i o n o f the Research T r i a n g l e I n s t i t u t e , J u l y , 1966. 48 stanc e c o nc e rn in g th e a n t l e r l e s s s t re ng th en ed t h e i r c o n f i d e n c e de er h u n t i n g is s u e , in th e Department. For those in o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s who have a c t i v e l y opposed th e D ep ar tm e nt , an a p p a r e n t l y im partial claims t h a t c o m p l e t e l y t h e r e p o r t p ro b ab ly this r e p o r t from rese ar ch body has undoubtedly weakened t h e i r in adequate da ta has guided pa st management decis i o n s . I t would be a m is ta ke however, changed many o f f i c i a l t i o n and k i l l data. te ll One s t a t e s e n a t o r expressed concern about the i t s e l f by a s k in g th e a u t h o r th e f o l l o w i n g somebody pa id you $ 5 , 0 0 0 to judge t h e i r w o r k , would you them t h e i r work was no good?"' b i l i t y o f th e work c a l l e d Here a g a i n , not o n l y i n t e g r i t y o f the persons The se rio us ne s s o f t h i s s k e p t i c i s m is b ro u gh t when one co n s i d e r s t h a t f a i t h basis upon which a l l is th e c r e d i ­ i n t o q u e s t i o n , but these e x p r e s s io n s m i r r o r the s k e p t i c i s m concerning the p r o f e s s i o n a l involved. r e p o r t has opponents' minds conce rnin g q u e s t i o n a b l e p o pu la ­ c r e d i b i l i t y o f th e r e p o r t question, " I f to Imply t h a t t h i s i n t o focus in th e i n t e g r i t y o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s p ro fe s s io n a ls are able to a c t is the in b e h a l f o f t h e i r c li en tele. Many hu nt e rs have p a r t i a l l y a c c e p te d t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t de er food sh ortages do e x i s t , at lea st in p a r t s o f the s t a t e . However, t h e i r answer t o t h e problem has been t o argue f o r h a b i t a t and even more commonly, f o r s h o r t herd through s e v e r e w i n t e r s . improvement term rel i e f measures t o c a r r y the The assumption is t h a t if these measures were used, no a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g would be n e c e s s a r y . Some o f the 'T e le p h o n e i n t e r v i e w w i t h S en a to r Joseph Mack, J u l y 10, 1968. Senator Mack was th e f i r s t person to b r i n g t h e I n s t i t u t e st udy to the a t t e n t i o n o f the a u th o r and h i s s t r o n g r e p u d i a t i o n o f i t s r e s u l t s prompted th e a u t h o r to look i n t o the m a t t e r o f h u n t e r r e j e c t i o n o f C onservation Department S t a t i s t i c s in g r e a t e r d e t a i l . *♦9 more commonly he ar d recommendations include: (a) t r a p p i n g an imals high d e n s i t y areas and moving them t o lower d e n s i t y a r e a s , (b) in fe e d i n g the herd hay and o t h e r f o r a g e s , and (c ) mass p l a n t i n g s o f p l a n t species t h a t a r e p r im a r y de er fo ods. The Department o f N a t u r a l they have t r i e d a l l more, a l l in e v e r y o f these te ch n iq u es w i t h no rea l in s ta n c e they have f a i l e d . success. Of major c o n s i d e r a t i o n is c l o s e l y a k i n Further­ key reasons f o r is th e cost f o r each o f these I f any o f them were used on the s c a l e t h a t the management o f a l l that in numerous o t h e r s t a t e s and Th ere a r e s e v e r a l would cost more than the e n t i r e annual reason is q u i c k to p o i n t o u t these p r a c t i c e s have been t r i e d these f a i l u r e s . methods. Resources budget o f o f Michigan's natural is needed, they th e Department f o r re so ur ce s .^ The second to th e f i r s t . The magnitude o f the need s t a t e ­ wide is so g r e a t t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s c o u ld be ac h ie v e d through these methods w i t h t h e funds t h a t a r e a v a i l a b l e . The Department f e e l s t h a t these funds c o u ld b e t t e r be used in b a s i c research where th e p a y o f fs a r e l i k e l y t o be g r e a t e r . methods i n t o a w i l d s e t t i n g an i n a b i l i t y T h ird ly, i n t r o d u c t i o n o f dome sti c is u s u a l l y doomed to f a i l u r e because o f to ad apt o r compete; e _ . £ . , p l a n t i n g n u r s e r y t r e e s t o c k in the w i l d o r p r o v i d i n g fo ra g e f o r an e x c e s s i v e number o f a n i m a l s . The De p ar tm e nt 's vie w is t h a t such measures amount t o " a t r e a t m e n t o f symptoms r a t h e r than causes" is to " f i t and t h a t t h e o n l y r e a l i s t i c approach the herd to th e range" and not v i c e v e r s a . ^ ' For a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f what has been done in th e a r e a o f a r t i f i c i a l f e e d i n g and d e e r h a b i t a t improvement see J e n k i n s , 1959, pp. 6 5 - 6 9 and B a r t l e t t , 1950, pp. ^Jenkins, ^ B a rtle tt, 1959» P» 68 . 1950, p . M. 50 One o f the weaker arguments t h a t ts he ar d p e r i o d i c a l l y Is t h a t n a t u r e . s h o u l d be a ll o w e d t o ta ke I t s c o ur se — In o t h e r words t h e deer herd should n o t be managed. This o f t e n amounts to a s u b t e r f u g e f o r opposing a n t l e r l e s s h u n t i n g . I t appears t h a t some pe op le f o r g e t o r d o n ' t know t h a t Michigan o r i g i n a l l y had a v e r y m a r g in a l p a rtic u la rly no thought in what is now thought o f as de er c o u n t r y . deer herd, If little is given to de er range management, t h a t c o u n t r y w i l l or revert back t o a deer w a s t e l a n d e x c e p t where c o n d i t i o n s a c c i d e n t a l l y o c cu r t h a t a r e conducive t o de er h a b i t a t . A l a s t p o i n t which much e a s i e r t o k i l l th is point is v e r y commonly espoused is t h a t does a r e than bucks. The c o n c l u s io n o f those who a f f i r m is t h a t o n l y meat h u n te r s a r e "doe s h o o t e r s . " This idea was endorsed by t h e Game, Fish and F o r e s t F i r e Department o f t h e Department o f t h e P u b l i c Domain Commission, C on ser va tio n Department (now Department o f N a t u r a l 1915 and 1920 in t h e i r o r i g i n a l banned. th e p re d ec e ss or o f the The f o l l o w i n g quote R e s o u r c e s ), between push t o have a n t l e r l e s s d e e r sh o o ti n g is ex em plary ,^ Buck s h o o t i n g r e q u i r e s t r u e s p o r t s m a n l i k e s k i l l . H u n ti n g does is l i k e s h o o t in g cows In a b a r n y a r d . The s t a te m e n t is both t r u e and f a l s e . Is no e v id e n c e t h a t a h u n t e r w i l l the buck. On the o t h e r hand, a r e p r o t e c t e d is tremendous. Given one buck and one doe t h e r e be more l i k e l y to k i l l t h e doe than th e h u n t i n g p r e s s u r e on bucks where does Even when a n t l e r l e s s d e e r a r e l e g a l game, ^Quoted in t h e B i e n n i a l Rep ort o f the S t a t e Game, F i s h , and F o r e s t F i r e Department o f th e P u b l i c Domain Commission, 1 9 1 5 * 1 9 1 6 . Th is s t a t e ment among o t h e r s was made by Mr. John B. Burnham, P r e s i d e n t o f th e New York S t a t e League f o r t h e P r o t e c t i o n o f Fish and Game, and was o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d In " R e c r e a t i o n , " 1915. 51 h u n te rs u s u a l l y p r e f e r to shoot a buck. The av erage h u n t e r w i l l up s e v e r a l shots a t does in t h e hope o f g e t t i n g a buck. shoot a doe o n l y as a l a s t r e s o r t . bucks l i v e to be t h r e e ye ar s o l d , 1 They o f t e n Only a ve ry small p e r c e n t a g e o f w h i t e the p e rc e n t a g e o f does t h a t l i v e through a season is q u i t e h ig h even where "doe h u n t i n g " Therefore, pass Is a l l o w e d . i f a h u n t e r has a p e r m i t th e l i k e l i h o o d o f h i s k i l l i n g is much g r e a t e r than the p r o b a b i l i t y o f g e t t i n g a buck. a doe In c o n c l u s i o n , th e p r o b a b i l i t y o f k i l l i n g a doe and th e ease o f k i l l i n g one when compared to bucks should not be co nf u sed ; th ey a r e two d i f f e r e n t The P o i n t o f View o f the Department o f N a t u r a l Standing o u t hu nte rs things. Resources in b o ld r e l i e f from the ex pres s ed a t t i t u d e o f many is t h e i r b e h a v i o r . Each y e a r about a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g p e r m it s t w i c e as many s p e c i a l a r e a p p l i e d f o r as a r e a l l o c a t e d . Ob vi­ o u s l y , many h u n t e r s who p a t e n t l y oppose a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g ap pl y f o r permi t s . One example o f t h i s in c o n s i s t e n c y between a t t i t u d e and b e h a v i o r can be seen in an i n c i d e n t t h a t o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e 1965 season. i n c i d e n t oc cu rr ed on Bois Blanc (pronounced Bob Lo) S tra its . seven h u n t e r s were asked a t the com­ In one s p e c i a l party, p l e t i o n o f t h e i r hunt whethe r they had s p e c i a l had k i l l e d a n t l e r l e s s the p e r m i t s . animals Island The perm its. in the The f o u r who r e a d i l y a d m i t t e d the f a c t and showed The o t h e r t h r e e who had not k i l l e d an a n t l e r l e s s animal V o r a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s see Michigan D e e r . 1950, pp. 19“ 2 1 , 3233 , and 4 0 , M ic hi g an V / h i t e t a i l , 1959, pT 1*6, W hi te t a i l s . 19 35 . P. 46. — — _ 2 I n c i d e n t r e l a t e d t o the a u t h o r by David A. A r n o l d , game b i o l o g i s t , Michigan Department o f N a t u r a l Resources, in a personal i n t e r v i e w Feb­ ru ar y 2 3 , 1966. 52 s a i d t h a t they d i d not have perm its and, f u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t they di d not b e l i e v e in "doe h u n t i n g . " and i t was found t h a t The l i c e n s e f i l e s were l a t e r checked in f a c t a l l seven had a n t l e r l e s s p e r m i t s . is a common r e f r a i n o f hunte rs to s a y , "Ye s, p e r m it so t h a t from g e t t i n g i f I g e t one I can t e a r i t it." Another o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t s i z e o f the se aso n's k i l l and ba rs . If up and keep a 'doe s h o o t e r ' lik e ly t h a t many o f these a f t e r th e season c l o s e s . is c o n s i s t e n t l y borne o u t Is t h a t the depends on the we a th e r d u ri n g the f i r s t t h re e days o f the season. the woods ar e less I'm a p p l y i n g f o r a doe There is s t r o n g i n d i c a t i o n permits ar e not a c t u a l l y t o r n up, u n t i l It I f t h e wea the r is wet o r un u s u a lly c o l d , to be f u l l o f hunte rs than a r e th e cabins the we a th e r is warm and d r y , o r i f t h e r e is a l i g h t t r a c k i n g snow, th e woods a r e f u l l o f hunters and consequently the k ill it is almost c e r t a i n to be h i g h e r . is the f i r s t t h r e e days o f the season t h a t a r e c r i t i c a l . to s i x t y p e r c e n t o f the k i l l t h r e e days. up. It I f there on those days i t cannot be made t h a t w et w ea th e r a f f e c t s as th e h u n t e r s . Thus, the e f f e c t the movement o f the is compounded. Another f a c t o r which seems to a f f e c t h u n t i n g success proficiency. C e r t a i n ou td o o r s k i l l s f o r productive hunting. is su ccessful due to the f a c t t h a t are helpful is h u n t e r and even necessary There is ev idence t h a t t h i s p r o f i c i e n c y de creasing as measured by the t o t a l la tio n that F ifty in an average season occurs d u ri n g those is a small k i l l Is a l s o l i k e l y de er as w e l l I t should be emphasized t h a t is p erce nt ag e o f the h u n t e r popu­ d u r i n g any given season. Perhaps t h i s is more and more hu nte rs come from u r b a n iz e d areas and t h a t the average age o f th e h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n is g e t t i n g younger. These o b s e r v a t i o n s h e l p to e x p l a i n some o f t h e hu n ti n g p a t t e r n s that have been observed as Department o f N a t u r a l flown o v e r v a r i o u s a r e a s . For ex ample, Resources o f f i c i a l s t h e r e are have in s ta n ce s where dozens o f h u nt e rs were seen w i t h i n h a l f a m i l e o f a r oad , w h i l e o n ly a few hundred yards f u r t h e r , h u nt e rs were seen.^ Such p a t t e r n s can be e x p l a i n e d most r e a d i l y e i t h e r as a f e a r o f g e t t i n g t h a t deer movement is laziness. a number o f d e e r and o n l y one o r two l o s t , a l a c k o f knowledge o f th e f a c t i n f l u e n c e d by heavy h u n t i n g p r e s s u r e , o r Any o f these reas ons , i f a d m i t t e d , would tend to t a r n i s h the s e l f - i m a g e o f these w o u ld - b e Dan iel Boones. Research from North C a r o l i n a documents the o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t h u n t e r p r o f i c i e n c y l a t e d to the d i s t a n c e from a road t h a t one hu nt s. is c o r r e - 2 H u n t e r s , in g e n e r a l , a p p a r e n t l y hunted c l o s e r t o access on the Uwha rri e W i l d l i f e Management a r e a than on t h e w e s te r n a r e a s , showing a decid ed p r e f e r e n c e f o r " c l o s e - i n " zones. They k i l l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 81 p e r c e n t o f t h e i r d e e r w i t h i n 600 f e e t o f t h e n e a r e s t road o r t r a i l , a zone c o n t a i n i n g 64 p e r c e n t o f th e a r e a Hun ting p r e s s u r e d i m in is h e d r a p i d l y beyond 600 f e e t , w i t h o n l y 19 p e r c e n t o f h a r v e s t s c a t t e r e d o v e r t h e rema ining 36 p e r c e n t o f th e a r e a . No de er was k i l l e d beyond 1800 f e e t from road o r t r a i 1. In c o n t r a s t , hi nt e rs in th e mountains appeared t o be more uniform ly d i s t r ib u t e d . Here they h a r v e s t e d 5k p e r c e n t o f t h e i r deer w i t h i n 600 f e e t o f the n e a r e s t ac ce s s, a zone c o n t a i n i n g 62 p e r c e n t o f t h e a r e a . At the same tim e the zone from 601 t o 1200 f e e t c o n ta in e d o n l y 22 p e r c e n t o f t h e a r e a but accounted f o r 30 p e r c e n t o f k i l l s ; t h e 1201- 240 0 f e e t zone c o n t a in e d 14 p e r c e n t o f the ar ea and accounted f o r 14 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l k ill. A few de er in th e mountains were k i l l e d more than 2400 f e e t from th e n e a r e s t road o r t r a i l . Acc ording t o l o c a l game managers, t h e U wh a rri e is h e a v i l y used by hu nt e rs from nearby c i t i e s whereas a l a r g e p e r c e n t a g e o f hu nte rs on the w es te r n areas a r e r u r a l r e s i d e n t s who spend O b ser va tio ns made by Mr. Gene G a z l a y , A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r , Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , d u r i n g a semin ar h e l d a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y on February 2 3 , 1966. 2 George A. James, e t a l . "A Key to B e t t e r Hun t i n g - F o r e s t Roads and T r a i l s , " W i l d l i f e Tn' North C a r o l i n a . March, 1964. much o f t h e i r l i v e s in th e o u t - o f - d o o r s . I t is suspected t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s In h u n t i n g h a b i t s between urban and r u r a l h u nt e rs may account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s ( i n success) between piedmont and mountain a r e a s . Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t , but on h u n te r a t t i t u d e s condition This is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a h e s i t a n c y o f th e p u b l i c t o a l l o w a in o t h e r words to o p t i m i z e r e l a t i v e t o the input s used, because o f th e p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f a member o f th e s p e c i e s . ce pt u al In f l u e n c e s Is what might be termed a Bambi syndrome. resource t o be managed as a r e s o u r c e , ou tpu ts least te s ta b le , o f Smokey th e Bear and Bambi a r e both con­ images t h a t have c r e a t e d almost as many management problems as th ey have a l l e v i a t e d . Much o f th e o p p o s i t i o n to a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n ti n g seems to be in many In s ta n c e s as much an a v e r s i o n the female (Bambi's mother) and t h e young (Bambi) as i t m o t i v a t ion f o r herd in c r e a s e through p r o t e c t i n g does. to sh o o ti n g Is a p o s i t i v e The o t h e r s id e o f the coin has been ex pressed t h u s l y : Perhaps i t is f a r f e t c h e d to suggest t h a t some h u nt e rs seek an o u t l e t in t h e f i e l d f o r an e x p r e s s i o n o f m a s c u l i n i t y which would be upset o r d i s t u r b e d by a doe season. To put i t c r u d e l y , and however u n r e a s o n a b ly , some h u n te rs may w e l l be lo o k in g f o r a d i r e c t c l a s h w i t h a n o t h e r m al e. They can f i n d t h i s in h u n t i n g bucks even though th e deer a r e somewhat a t a d i s a d v a n t a g e . They could not f i n d i t w h i l e h u n t i n g f o r a n t l e r l e s s de er o r d e e r - o f e ith e r-s e x . Such an a t t i t u d e , i f i t e x i s t s , is beyond th e o r d i ­ nary means o f p e rs u as io n open to use by t h e D i v i s i o n o f Fish and Game.^ The r o l e which the "Bambi deer h u n t i n g issue in Fi g u r e I and of th is syndrome" has p l ay e d in t h e a n t l e r l e s s is both v e r y r e a l and ve ry s i g n i f i c a n t . The p i c t u r e t h e newspaper s t o r y quoted below g i v e some i n d i c a t i o n influence. V a u l T i l l e t t , Doe Day v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963)» p. 11 (New B ru ns wi ck , New J e r s e y : Rutgers Uni ­ Figure 1. The famous picture o f George The Orphan Fawn which has c r y s t a l l i z e d so much opposition to the Antlerless Deer Hunting Policy 56 Outdoor E d i t o r Reveals Doe s h o o t in g Propaganada P i c t u r e Was A Fa ke1 How the above p i c t u r e , t h a t is c r e d i t e d w i t h b e in g t h e most p o t e n t p i e c e o f propaganda in th e C o n s e r v a t io n D e p t . ' s p a s t a n t i ­ doe s h o o t i n g campaign, has b a c k f i r e d now t h a t s p e c i a l a n t i e r l e s s d e e r seasons a r e deemed a d v i s a b l e — and how most i r o n i c a l l y , the p i c t u r e is in r e a l i t y a f a k e , was r e v e a l e d r e c e n t l y by ou td o o r e d i t o r Ke n dr ic k Kimball in The D e t r o i t News. " M i c h i g a n ' s g r e a t e s t outdoors p i c t u r e is coming i n t o sharp focus ag ai n a t th e c o n c l u s i o n o f th e Dec. 1 s p e c i a l 'any d e e r ' s e a s o n , " Kimball w r o t e . "The p i c t u r e Is a t e a r - j e r k e r o f prowess. f t has pr ob ab ly produced a g r e a t e r e x t r a c t i o n o f lachrymose f l u i d from t h e eyes than a peck o f Bermuda onions in p r e p a r a t i o n f o r c o o k e r y , o r the de ath o f L i t t l e Eva in " U n c le Tom's C a b i n . " "The p i c t u r e is t h a t o f George th e "orphan f a w n . " " I t was snapped y e a r s ago in the Ogemaw S t a t e Game Refuge by W a l t e r E. H a s t i n g s , p i o n e e r p h ot o gr ap he r o f t h e S t a t e Con­ s e r v a t i o n Department. I t r e p r e s e n t s what Is termed by th e k n ig h ts o f th e lens as a s i m u l a t e d pose. I t p o r t r a y s a scene t h a t could have happened. S im u la t e d is a weasel word f o r phony. To put i t b r u t a l l y , th e p i c t u r e was a f a k e . Good P i c t u r e Worth 1 , 0 0 0 Words " I t r e v e a l s a fawn presumably cu dd led c l o s e t o i t s dead m oth er. The i m p l i c a t i o n is t h a t someone k i l l e d th e mother and th e fawn, b e r e f t o f p a r e n t a l c a r e , snuggled up c l o s e to h e r in h e r dying moments, knowing no o t h e r p l a c e to go , and no o t h e r g u id a n c e . " M r . H a s ti n g s had no d e s i r e t o " s h o o t " an u n t r u e p i c t u r e . A dead doe was found in t h e r e f u g e . A s h o r t d i s t a n c e away was a fawn, whose l e g had been c r i p p l e d by b u c ks ho t. A conservation o f f i c e r p l a c e d th e fawn b e s id e th e dead doe, and Mr. H a s t i n g s , as a m a tte r o f r o u t in e , tr ip p e d the s h u t t e r . "The p i c t u r e as an i n c i d e n t a l t h i n g came I n t o th e e d u c a t i o n d i v i s i o n o f th e de par tm en t and was pounced upon i m m e d i a t e l y . Thousands o f copies were s e n t o u t . The p i c t u r e was reproduced In p a i n t i n g s in scores o f bars throughout th e n o r t h , and b u i l t tremendous s e n ti m e n t a g a i n s t s h o o t i n g does o r fawns. "T he r e is an o l d s a y in g t h a t a good p i c t u r e is more e x p r e s ­ s i v e than 1 ,0 0 0 words. That o f George proves i t . "George the 'orpha n fawn' is not f o r g o t t e n . A F l i n t co up le e r e c t e d a monument t o him a t the r e f u g e . I f t h e S t a t e Conser­ v a t i o n Department asks t h e L e g i s l a t u r e n e x t s p r i n g f o r c o n ti n u e d a u t h o r i t y to c o n t r o l the de er herd t h e lawmakers a r e c e r t a i n to see the p i c t u r e . And they p r o b a b ly w i l l be moved by i t . "No sportsman would shoot a fawn. But t h e r e is an o l d j o k e in the North Country which removes some o f the cu rs e from such an a c t . A co up le a r e s e a t e d a t d i n n e r . 1S t o r y quoted from M ic hig an O u t - o f - D o o r s , February, 1955* 57 "Says the w i f e : 'Anybody who would shoot a poor in n o c en t l i t t l e fawn should be hanged. Pass the lamb s t e w , d e a r i e . 1" Paquin E x p l a in s C. A. "F rench y" P aq u in , th e then c h i e f o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t 's e d u c a t i o n d i v i s i o n , was asked by the Michigan O u t-O f- D oo rs e d i t o r f o r comment on t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l p i c t u r e . " K im ba ll was e n t i r e l y c o r r e c t " he w r o t e . "He t o l d th e s t o r y p r e t t y much as i t happened. W a l t n o t o n ly took b l a c k and w h i t e s t i l l s , but movies as w e l l , and we used the s h ot in a movie, showing the fawn making v a in a t te m p ts to get up. Tear Jerker. Reason I playe d i t up so b i g a t the time was because i t was a h e l l o f a good p i e c e o f propaganda f o r p r o t e c t i n g does. "Now t h a t th e Department is a d v o c a ti n g s h o o t in g does under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , they have t o s t a r t t e a r i n g down th e s a n c t i t y o f the doe. T h a t ' s p r e t t y much t r u e o f a l l c o n s e r v a t i o n propa­ ganda— you have t o o v e r s e l l something t o put i t o v e r . We had to make the p u b l i c b e l i e v e t h a t i t is not s h o o t in g i t s own mother when k i l l i n g a female d e e r . The l a t e B a l i n e Brennon was in charge o f th e Ogemaw Refuge a t the time W a l t g o t the p i c t u r e . And as Kim says he r a i s e d t h e fawn which grew up i n t o q u i t e an animal u n t i l I t was s h o t [by a p o a c h e r ] . George is s t i l l as is a t t e s t e d very much a l i v e to by the o f f i c i a l Deer H u n t e r ' s A s s o c i a t i o n which In t h e minds o f many d e e r hu nt e rs l e t t e r h e a d o f th e N o r t h e r n Michigan is reproduced in F i g u r e 2 . Htadqaartm: Michigan Deer Hunters' Association Inc. 0scod04tdrigw 48750 f Ds RETURN REQUESTED Mr. Louis Moncrlsf Depsrtnent of Resources Development Roon 303 K Natural Resource Building Michigan State University Bast Lansing, Michigan b6823 DO YOU WANT IN IS t F i g u r e 2. A l e t t e r h e a d e x e m p l i f y i n g the em ot ion al A n t l e r l e s s Deer H un tin g Issue appeal o f the 58 The Resea rch P rob 1em In a t t e m p t i n g t o study the a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n ti n g issue s e ve r al research designs were c o n s i d e r e d . Each o f these would have c o n t r i b u t e d to the knowledge necessary f o r more i n t e l l i g e n t management o f the resource. But perhaps more i m p o r t a n t , a v a r i e t y o f t h e o r e t i c a l were a v a i l a b l e f o r study w i t h each o f these de sig ns. li n k a g e s The t h r e e designs l i s t e d below were most pr o m in e n t ly co ns id e r e d : 1. An a n a l y s i s o f b u r e a u c r a t i c p e r c e p t i o n o f and r e a c t i o n to the t h r e a t o f p u b l i c i n t r u s i o n into t h e i r professional b a i 1i w i c k . 2. An a n a l y s i s o f t h e a t t i t u d e s and m o t i v a t i o n s o f op in io n lea de rs who i n f l u e n c e t h e i r pe er groups in support o f o r o p p o s i t i o n to the Conserva tion Department's deer management program.^ This design would most l o g i c a l l y u t i l i z e a purp os ive sample o f group le a d e rs and o t h e r hunte rs and non-h un ter s who a r e known to take a lea di n g r o l e in a d v oc at in g a v a r i e t y o f p o in t s o f view. 3. An a n a l y s i s o f th e a t t i t u d e s , l e v e l s and sources o f in for­ m a ti o n , and b e h a v i o r o f a random sample o f deer hunte rs concerning the q u e s t i o n o f what methods should be used in managing the deer herd in M ic h ig an . Design number was f e l t that it t h re e was chosen t o be used in t h i s study because i t o f f e r e d th e g r e a t e s t immediate p a y o f f f o r the amount ^Mr. John A. Anguilm, C h i e f o f the Law Enforcement D i v i s i o n , sug­ gested t h i s approach to the au tho r in a personal memorandum dated J u ly 30, 1968. I m p l i c i t in h i s communication ar e th e ideas t h a t the r o l e o f non-h un ter s can be c o ns id er ed in t h i s design and secondly t h a t a b e t t e r unde rsta nd ing o f these o p i n i o n lea de rs " w i l l I n d i c a t e a l i n e o f a c t i o n necessary t o a c q u a i n t i n t e r e s t e d persons w i t h the de er manage­ ment e x p e c t a t i o n s and g o a l s . " o f r es e ar ch resources a v a i l a b l e . S e c o n d ly , this design seems t o the a u t h o r t o be c o n c e p t u a l l y more b a s i c t o t h e u n d e rs ta nd in g o f the g r a s s r o o t s s u pp or t o f and o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources, It is t r u e t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r o f t h a t segment o f th e h u n t i n g p u b l i c , which co uld be termed "a v e r a g e h u n t e r s , " lik e ly t o be g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d by th e f i l t e r i n g Department and through l o c a l o p i n i o n leaders. e s t a b l i s h i n g p a r a m e te r s . process through the However, th e e s t a b l i s h ­ ment o f the e x i s t e n c e o f and th e a n a l y s i s o f the i n f l u e n c e s were deemed less is import o f these im p o rt a n t than an i n i t i a l exercise in CHAPTER t I I RESEARCH DESIGN FORMULATION Review o f th e L i t e r a t u r e Two b a s i c types o f l i t e r a t u r e were c o n s i d e r e d In d e s ig n in g t h i s research problem. One c l a s s o f m a t e r i a l s d e al s w i t h s t u d i e s involving h u n t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and game p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f th e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s class o f l i t e r a t u r e to hunter b e h av io r. is b a s i c a l l y s o c i o l o g i c a l In n a t u r e . source is i m p o r t a n t In c r e a t i n g th e t h e o r e t i c a l th e study is f i t t e d . lated herein w i l l It The second Th is second framework i n t o which is hoped t h a t the t h e o r e t i c a l framework formu­ h e l p e x p l a i n h u n t e r b e h a v i o r and not sim pl y d e s c r i b e it. The l i t e r a t u r e conce rning th e h u n t e r and h u n t i n g f a l l s b a s i c a l l y into fo ur c a te g o r ie s : ment; (1 ) b i o l o g i c a l studies relatin g to game manage­ (2 ) d e s c r i p t i v e s t u d i e s o f h u n t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; h u n t e r m o t i v a t i o n ; and (A) s t u d i e s c o n ce rn in g th e issues (3) s t u d i e s o f r e l a t e d to hu n ti n g and game management o r d e a l i n g w i t h p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s o f n a t u r a l resource managing a g e n c i e s . B iological Research L i t e r a t u r e W i l d l i f e management, a lt ho ug h o f r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t v i n t a g e as a d i s c i p l i n e , has been e x t r e m e l y p r o d u c t i v e both in terms o f the q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y o f b i o l o g i c a l lished. However, rese ar ch t h a t has been conducted and pub­ f o r purposes o f t h i s s t u d y , th e s e m a t e r i a l s a r e o f 60 61 r e l a t i v e l y minor i n t e r e s t . Although t h e f i n d i n g s c o nc e rn in g t h e needs o f n o r t h e r n de er herds have p o i n t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y t o a p a t t e r n o f manage­ ment which In cl u d es the h a r v e s t i n g o f a n t l e r l e s s a n i m a l s , o u r ta s k in this is not t o argue f o r a p a r t i c u l a r management o r i e n t a t i o n . study Instead, th e ex pressed purpose o f t h i s study p s y c h o l o g i c a l , and p o l i t i c a l namely, a n t l e r l e s s i m p l i c a t i o n s o f one deer management t o o l - - deer h u n t i n g . C on s id e ri n g the t r a d i t i o n a l including w i l d l i f e is t o examine th e s o c i a l , b io lo g is ts , o r i e n t a t i o n o f most r es ou rce managers, toward t h e p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s , it is somewhat s u r p r i s i n g t o obse rve how o f t e n coments have been made con­ c e r n i n g t h e need f o r s o c i a l s c ie n tific in q u iries These comments have been p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t i c e a b l e f o l l o w i n g examples w i l l had t h i s r e l a t e d t o management. in r e c e n t y e a r s . s e r v e to p o i n t o u t t h i s co n ce rn . The In I 9 6 0 , M a i r t o say in h i s c r i t i q u e o f th e 25th North American W i l d l i f e Con f e r e n c e , * I am d i s t u r b e d too a t th e ap par en t complete la c k o f re search i n t o the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l aspects o f the w i l d l i f e c o n s e r v a t i o n f i e l d . V/e a r e spending s i g n i f i c a n t sums o f money on w i l d l i f e now and p l a n to spend much more in the f u t u r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h r e s p e c t to the a l l i e d f i e l d o f r e c r e a t i o n . But t h e r e has been a t t h i s con­ f e r e n c e no mention o f re search i n t o th e mores o f p e o p l e , t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n and t h e i r re a l needs. Even s t r o n g e r emphasis s c ie n tific research is pla ce d upon th e importance o f s o c i a l in t h e recommendations e n u n c i a t e d by McNeil a t th e co nc lu si o n o f h i s b i o l o g i c a l l y o r i e n t e d st udy o f t h e deer herd ern M ic h ig a n . His fin al recommendation reads as f o l l o w s : in s o u t h - 2 i W. Winston M a i r , " N a t u r a l Resources and American C i t i z e n s h i p : a c r i t i q u e o f the 25 th N or th American W i l d l i f e and N a t u r a l Resources Con­ fe re n c e ," I960. In t h e T r a n s a c t i o n s o f th e 25th N.A. W i l d l i f e and Resources Con fer en ce, pp. 487“ ^9 6. 2 M c N e i 1, 1962, p. 11 0 . 62 Begin i n t e n s i v e s t u d i e s o f the h u n t e r , fa r m e r , and r e c r e ­ a t i o n i s t s a t t i t u d e s , h u n t e r - f a r m e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and o t h e r s o c i ­ o l o g i c a l aspects o f deer management. Human a t t i t u d e s , r a t h e r than h a b i t a t , a r e t h e re al key to su cc e ss fu l deer management in southern Mi ch Ig a n. Dr. S t a n l e y A. Cain in h is research r e p o r t to the Outdoor R e c re at io n Resources Review Commission a l s o p o in t s to the need f o r s o c i a l tific scien­ rese arch. ^ S t a t e and Federal agencies should reexamine t h e i r land- use p o l i c i e s and work toward programs t h a t w i l l g i v e due regard t o th e r e q u i r e ­ ments o f outdoor r e c r e a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g w i l d l i f e , game, and h u n t i n g , and s p e c i f i c research should be d i r e c t e d t o such qu es ti on s as the q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e demands o f the p u b l i c f o r ou tdoor r e c r e a t i o n . . . Since game b i o l o g i s t s as s c i e n t i s t s do n o t , and should n o t , have th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f o r m u l a t i n g p o l i c y and making r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e i r agencies and commissions should coop­ e r a t e in the development o f e n l i g h t e n e d p u b l i c o p i n i o n on game m a tt e rs to a s s i s t l e g i s l a t o r s in t h e i r ta s k s . For example bounty l aw s, requirements o f a r t i f i c i a l s t o c k i n g o f s e l e c t e d s p e c i e s , and c e r t a i n r e g u l a t i o n s o f h u n ti n g a r e not co m p a ti b le w i t h s c i e n ­ t i f i c game management. The p r a c t i c e o f s e p a r a t i n g t h e p o l i c y f o r m u l a t i o n r o l e from th e edu­ cation ro le ( " e n l i g h t e n e d p u b l i c o p i n i o n " ) o f t e n puts agencies p o s i t i o n o f t r y i n g to defend a p o l i c y which they f e e l is inappropriate. Often l e g i s l a t i v e e n li g h te n m e n t must be ac hieved b e f o r e i t to att em pt to e n l i g h t e n t h e p u b l i c . however, f o l l o w s in the is meaningful The main p o i n t o f C a i n ' s s t a t e m e n t , the tone o f those p r e v i o u s l y quoted who urge a thorough study o f users as w e l l as th e resource I t s e l f . R es ervat ions a r e sometimes expressed about the i n a p p r o p r i a t e use o f such s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c s t u d i e s . It is commonly p o i n t e d o u t t h a t what begins as an at te m p t to g a t h e r r e l e v a n t s o c i a l da ta which can help guide management d e c is io n s can e a s i l y become t h e o v e r r i d i n g f a c t o r ^Stanley A. C a in , Hunting in th e U n it e d S t a t e s - i t s P re sen t and Future R ol e , ORRRC Study Report 6 , 1962, p. 2 , recommendation 3. 63 In t h e management o f se nt e d th e U.S. p o s s ib ility in 1961 the r e s o u r c e . Don Hayne, who a t th e time r e p r e ­ Fi sh and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e , expressed a l a r m a t t h i s in t h i s w a y : 1 A b r o a d e r comment, and perhaps a more c o n t r o v e r s i a l on e, would be t h a t we must be ve ry c a u ti o u s in a t t e m p t i n g to t a i l o r ou r management thoughts and procedures by s t u d i e s such as t h i s ( r e f e r r i n g to P e t e r l e ' s s t u d y ) o r s i m i l a r s t u d i e s . I should n o t r e a l l y say " s t u d i e s such as t h i s " because t h i s study seeks i n f o r ­ m ation. But i f we conduct s t u d i e s t o d e t e r m i n e by p o l l s th e wishes o f spor tsme n, then o b v i o u s l y t h i s must be t r e a t e d w i t h the g r e a t e s t o f ca re b e f o r e i t is i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a management program. This s t a t e m e n t amounts t o a d e f i n i t i o n o f s o c i a l and is undoubtedly a v a l i d o b s e r v a t i o n . gists r es e ar ch l i m i t a t i o n s However, some w i l d l i f e b i o l o ­ h a rb o r even s t r o n g e r m i s g i v in g s about the r o l e o f s o c i o l o g i c a l research in w i l d l i f e management r e s e a r c h . ba lized w ith Th is s k e p t i c i s m was v e r ­ r e g a rd t o th e p r e s e n t study by a b i o l o g i s t when th e st udy was in i t s form ative stage. in Michigan 2 Personal O p i n i o n : I t h i n k the Department o r any o f i t s employees ( i n r e s e a r c h ) ought t o be e x t r e m e l y c a u t i o u s about g e t t i n g i n v o l v e d in any more " p e o p le b i o l o g y " than is a b s o l u t e l y ne c e s s a ry . It's a symptom o f bad s c i e n c e , is n o n - o p e r a t t o n a l , and does l i t t l e , i f any good. I t h i n k o u r p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s e f f o r t s ( r e g a r d i n g doe s h o o t i n g ) o f th e pa s t s e v e r a l ye a r s w i l l be j e o p a r d i z e d by these kinds o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . This s e c t i o n can be summarized w i t h biolog ical lite ra tu re is not d i r e c t l y germane to t h i s the o p i n i o n o f most p r o f e s s i o n a l social biolog ists s c i e n t i f i c d a t a would be h e l p f u l game management. the observations that: (1) r e s e a r c h ; and (2) seems to be t h a t more in e v a l u a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s in However, co n c l u s io n 2 is no t an unanimous o p i n i o n . Response by Don W. Hayne o f the Fish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e t o a paper by Tony V. P e t e r l e e n t i t l e d "The Hunter-Who Is H e , " from t r a n s ­ a c t i o n s o f the 26 th Nor th American W i l d l i f e and N a t u r a l Resources Con­ f e r e n c e , 1961, p. 2 6 5 . 2 Quoted from a memorandum e v a l u a t i n g th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e which was used In t h i s study o f h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s toward a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g . August 2 3 , 1968. 64 Hunter C ha ra c te r! s 1 1 c s Literature Several s t u d i e s have probed f o r answers co nce rning th e f o l l o w i n g types o f q u e s t i o n s : who h u n t s , where do they h u n t , what do they h u n t , and g e n e r a l l y , how do they f e e l agency? studies im po rt. It about game management and the management is obvious from t h e emphasis o f h u n t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t they a r e b a s i c a l l y d e s c r i p t i v e and have l i t t l e However, they do y i e l d v a l u a b l e theoretical i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t can c o n t r i b u t e to s t u d i e s a t t e m p t i n g to ask "why" th e p u b l i c r e l a t e s as they do to th e management programs o f the v a ri o u s s t a t e s . The Bureau o f Sport F i s h e r i e s and W i l d l i f e , In c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h the Fish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e , has sponsored t h r e e f i s h i n g and h u nt in g surveys sports. la tte r (1955» i 9 6 0 , 1965) to f i n d out about p a r t i c i p a n t s and t h e i r The 1955 survey was conducted by Cross ley Surveys w h i l e the two surveys were a d m i n i s t e r e d by th e Bureau o f the Census. Some o f th e f i n d i n g s o f the most r ece nt survey t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t to ou r study w i l l be pres ent ed h e r e . There were 6 , 5 6 6 , 0 0 0 b i g game h u n te rs in t h e U nit ed S t a t e s In 1965. These hu nte rs spent a t o t a l o f $ 4 1 8 , 7 6 4 , 0 0 0 , o r a mean o f $64 each. They hunted a t o t a l o f 4 3 * 8 4 8 , 0 0 0 days, o r an average o f about 6 . 5 days per h u n te r . ^ The f o l l o w i n g man's s p o r t . table Indicates that hunting is ov er wh el mi ngly a The age d i s t r i b u t i o n d a ta a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t the p e r ­ centage o f th e p o p u l a t i o n which hunts b i g game is f a i r l y n o r m a ll y d i s t r i b u t e d , w i t h th e peak being about 7 . 6 pe rc en t o f the p o p u l a t i o n between ages 25 and 34. 1965 N a t i o n a l Survey o f F i s h i n g and H u n t i n g , U.S. Government 65 T a b l e 3. Number o f b i g game h u n t e r s by s e x , a g e, and p l a c e o f re s id e n c e in 1965 T o t a l No. o f T o t a l No. o f Persons Who Persons 12 & Hunted3 Over in U.S. thousands Thousands Percent C h a r a c t e r ! s t i cs Hunted Big Game Thousands Percent 14 1 ,9 2 8 1 3 ,5 8 3 9.6 6,566 4.6 Sex: Men Women 67,508 7 4 ,4 2 0 12 ,8 0 4 779 1 9 .0 1 .0 6,117 446 9.1 .6 Age: 12-15 years 1 6 -1 7 y e a r s 18-24 y e a r s 2 5 -3 4 y e a r s 3 5 - 4 4 ye ars 45-64 years 65 and o v e r 14,634 6,920 18 ,91 6 21,444 23,740 3 8 ,6 9 4 1 7 ,5 0 0 1, 3 0 2 929 2,338 2,963 2,588 2,904 559 8.9 13.4 12.4 13.8 1 0 .9 7.5 3.2 401 394 1,034 1 ,632 1 ,29 4 1,5 35 276 93,053 6,200 6.7 3,078 3.3 41,349 7.526 6,026 1 ,356 14 .6 18.0 2,869 619 6.9 8.2 U .S . T o t a l P1ace o f Res I d e n c e : In s t a n d a r d m e t r o p o l i tan areas Not in s t a n d a r d metro a r e a s : Non -fa rm Farm a lnc1udes persons who hunted small b ig game. In a d d i t i o n , c e r t a i n from t h e 1955, game and w a t e r f o w l trends a r e d i s c e r n i b l e I 9 6 0 , and 1965 s u r v e y s . ar e gi v e n as w e l l 2.7 5.7 5.5 7.6 5.5 4.0 1.6 as in comparing t h e da ta In an a t t e m p t t o g e t a p i c t u r e o f the scope o f h u n t i n g n a t i o n a l l y , some o f findings ' the more a p p r o p r i a t e in t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e . Hun ting as a s p o r t seems to have s t a b i l i z e d o r is d e c l i n i n g ac c o r d i n g to th e d i f f e r e n c e s 1I b i d . . pp. 4 9 , 51 . between t h e t o t a l s f o r number o f h u n t e r s , 66 Ta bl e 4 . Comparison o f m ajor f i n d i n g s o f th e 1955, n a t i o n a l surveys o f h u n t i n g ! I 9 6 0 , and 1965 TTOT Thousands i 9 S0 Thousands 1965 Thousands 1 1.78^* 9,822 4,414 1 ,986 1 4 ,6 3 7 1 2 ,1 0 5 6,277 1 ,9 5 5 13 ,5 8 3 1 0 ,5 7 6 6,566 1 ,650 $936,687 494,033 32 3 ,9 0 9 1 1 8 , 7*15 $1,161,242 726,1 18 3 4 5 ,6 9 4 89.431 $1,121,135 615,234 418,764 8 7 ,1 3 6 Number o f r e c r e a t i o n days spent h u n t i n g Smal1-game Bi g-game Waterfowl 1 6 9 ,4 2 3 1 1 8 ,6 3 0 30,834 1 9 ,9 5 9 19 2, 5 39 1 3 8 ,1 92 3 9 ,1 9 0 1 5 ,1 5 8 18 5,819 1 2 8 ,4 4 8 43,845 13 .52 6 Passenger m il e s t r a v e l e d by a u to m ob ile f o r h u n ti n g Smal1-game Bi g-game Waterfowl 6,072,296 3,094,974 2,222,373 754,949 7.612,615 3,962,020 2,998,178 652,417 8,365,881 4,010,499 3,718,767 6 3 6 ,6 1 5 ■ — Ma ior Findinqs Number o f hunte rs Smal1-game Bi g-game W at e rfo w l E x p e n d it u r e s o f hu nte rs Smal1-game Bi g-game W aterfowl p a r t i c i p a n t e x p e n d i t u r e s , and number o f r e c r e a t i o n days spent in the i9 6 0 and 1965 s u r v e y s . t o do t h e i r h u n t i n g . However, h u n t e r s do seem to be t r a v e l i n g f a r t h e r A t th e same time b i g game h u n t i n g , which de er h u n t i n g , has in cre as ed c o n s i s t e n t l y a c c o r d i n g to a l l c a to r s o f growth and m il e s (number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s , e x p e n d i t u r e s , trav eled ). In clude s four in d i­ r e c r e a t i o n days In each c l a s s t h e r e was an i n c r e a s e from 1955 t o i 96 0 and ag ain from I96 0 to 1965. On t h e o t h e r hand, w a t e r f o w l and small-game h u n t i n g have both e x p e r i e n c e d a d e c l i n e o r s t a b i l i z a t i o n most growth 1I b i d . , In d ic a t o r data classes. p. 6 5 . In f a c t , w a t e r f o w l h u n t i n g has in s t e a d i l y decreased ac cording to a l l measures s in c e 1955. h u nt in g s t a t i s t i c s classes between 1955 and I 9 6 0 , but increased then decreased in a l l in a l l Small-game classes o f da ta e x c e p t mi les t r a v e l e d between i 960 and 1965. Several o t h e r s t a t i s t i c s o f the N a t i o n a l Surveys w i l l ate f o r comparison w i t h the d a ta ge ne rate d be a p p r o p r i ­ in t h i s study in l a t e r chapters. Stud ies o f g r e a t e r d e t a i l conducted in s e ve r al differen t than the N a t i o n a l regions and s t a t e s . e x t e n s i v e s t u d i e s was done r e c e n t l y to d e s c r ib e the s o c i a l fisherm en.' spondents Survey have been One o f t h e more in s i x n o r t h e a s t e r n s t a t e s in t r y i n g and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f hunters and This study u t i l i z e d a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e to 10,000 r e ­ in New York, Maine, Ma ssachusetts, P e nn sy lv an ia , Vermont, and West Vi r g i n i a . Differences in ea rn in g s and in unemployment rate s among the s t a t e s seem to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y s p e c i f i c questions. r e l a t e d to the responses o f th e sportsmen to "Earnings were h i g h e s t in New Yo rk , f o ll o w e d r e ­ s p e c t i v e l y by P e n n s y lv a n ia , Maine, New Y o r k , Vermont, and Massachusetts. Seventy-two pe rc en t o f t h e hunters had a r u r a l background w h i l e 59% were a t l e a s t high school g r ad u at es . Incomes averaged $7 ,05 8 among the respondent sample, w i t h 39% o f the sample being w h i t e c o l l a r workers T h i r t y - s e v e n p e rc en t o f the hunters were less than 30 years o f age. " i n co mp ar is o n- -o nl y 30 p e rc en t o f th e fishermen were in t h i s g r o u p ." This may p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n t h e h i g h e r average income o f almost $300 'Malcolm I . Bevins, e t a l . , C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Hunters and F i s h e r ­ men in S i x N o r th e a s te r n S t a t e s . Ag. Experiment S t a t i o n B u l l e t i n 656 l)n i ve rs i ty o f Ve rmon t , B u r l i n g t o n , Vermont, 1968. 68 f o r fi s h e r m e n . were m al es . As w i t h However, in the more r u r a l th e N a t i o n a l t h e r e were p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more women who hunted states. n a t u r e conce rning gene ral f o r comparison w i t h S u r v e y , about 95% o f the h u n te rs A number o f o t h e r f i n d i n g s o f a more d e t a i l e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f hunters w i l l be used l a t e r the f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y . W i l l i a m Davis conducted an economic st udy o f h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g in 1965 in A r i z o n a . ^ However, h is most o r i g i n a l knowledge was in t h e a r e a o f m o t i v a t i o n surement. The m o t i v a t i o n a l tifyin g be examined more st udy subheading be low. study a l s o made a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n agement agency. to r a t h e r than in economic mea­ a s pe c t o f th e study w i l l tho ro ug hl y under the m o t i v a t i o n a l concerning h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s co ntribution Davis's in t h e a r e a o f re se ar ch toward and knowledge o f the r es o ur ce man­ No unique c o n t r i b u t i o n was made in t h e a r e a o f th e g e n e r a l a t t r i b u t e s o f th e h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n id en ­ in t h i s A ri z o n a study. In 1964, a " H u n t e r P r e f e r e n c e Survey" was conducted in New Hampsh ire. 2 analysis The d a t a r e p o r t e d by th e su rvey does not c o n s t i t u t e an in - d e p t h at a l l . However, one species p r e f e r e n c e index was used which demonstrated more s o p h i s t i c a t i o n than a s i m p l e s i n g l e latio n . This response tabu­ index i n d i c a t e d t h a t d e e r were p r e f e r r e d by al m os t 3 to 1 when compared t o the n e x t most p r e f e r r e d sp e c i e s o f game. P e t e r l e d i d a w i d e l y c i t e d study o f Ohio h u nt e rs f i n d i n g s were l a t e r p u b li s h e d in two a r t i c l e s . His in h i s a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d ^ W i l l i a m C, D a v is , Values o f H u n ti n g and F i s h i n g 1965 (Tuscon: U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a , 19®7). 2 in I 9 6 0 . in A r i z o n a in H ar co ld C. L a c a i 1 l a d e , New Hampshire H u n t e r P r e f e r e n c e Survey 19 6 4 . Game Management and Research D i v i s i o n o f t h e New Hampshire Fi sh and Game Department, 1968. 69 "The Hunter-Who Is H e , " P e t e r l e attempts to do j u s t what the t i t l e im plies; typical i.e ., d e s c r ib e th e Ohio h u n te r in d e t a i l . ^ His f i n d i n g s a r e o f those found in t h e p r e v i o u s l y c i t e d s t u d i e s w i t h t i o n t h a t he more e f f e c t i v e l y between hunters o f d i f f e r e n t the excep­ demonstrates c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d i f f e r e n c e s types o f game. He found t h a t " d e e r hunters began t h e i r h u n ti n g e x p er ie n ce s e a r l i e r than th e o t h e r types o f h u n t e r s . " A ls o , he i n d i c a t e s t h a t deer hunters hunters p r e f e r to hunt w i t h s e ve r al two. This f i n d i n g indicates in c o n t r a s t companions r a t h e r than j u s t one o r is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h f i n d i n g s the h i g h l y s o c i a l to some o t h e r kinds o f from o t h e r s t u d i e s and n a t u r e o f deer h u n t i n g . P e t e r l e summarizes some o f h is findings In h i s a r t i c l e " C h a r a c t e r ­ i s t i c s o f Some Ohio H un te rs " by comparing hunte rs to the gene ra l male p o p u la ti o n o f Ohio and by comparing a t t i t u d e s expressed by hunters o f the va ri o u s socio-economic l e v e l s . 2 The oc cu p a ti o n a l areas o f f a rm , s e r v i c e , l a b o r , and c r a f t s were re pr es en te d more f r e q u e n t l y among the h u nt e rs than were t h e c l e r i c a l , s a l e s , o p e r a t i o n s , managerial and p r o f e s s i o n a l areas . . . . Only about o n e - t h i r d have read any t e c h n i c a l books about w i l d l i f e but f r e q u e n t l y read outdoor magazines. They f a v o r w i l ­ derness p r e s e r v a t i o n , know how to c o n ta c t t h e i r game p r o t e c t o r , u s u a l l y hunt w i t h th e same companions from y e a r to y e a r , and o b j e c t to any I n f r i n g e m e n t o f the r i g h t to own fi r e a r m s . . . . Hunters who f a v o r a sound b i o l o g i c a l approach to game management probably a r e not from a r u r a l background . . . . The l i c e n s e buyer who f e e l s t h a t t o s t o c k game is the o n ly way t o improve h is s p o r t probably was ne ve r a member o f any such group as th e Boy Scouts, Future Farmers o f America, Grange, o r I zaak Walton League. This a r t i c l e c o nt a in s a d e t a i l e d c a t a lo g o f o t h e r s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i ­ cant r e l a t i o n s h i p s that w i l l be mentioned l a t e r a t r e l e v a n t j u n c t u r e s ^Tony V. P e t e r l e , "The Hunter-Who Is H e ," T r a n s a c ti o n s o f the 26th North American W i l d l i f e and N a tu r a l Resources Con fer en ce, 1 9 6 ). 2 Tony V. P e t e r l e , " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Some Ohio H u n t e r s , " The Journal o f W i l d l i f e Mangement, V o l . 31, no. 2 , A p r i l 1967, pp. 375“ 389. 70 In o r d e r t o compare the r e s u l t s o f the research in Ohio w i t h the study o f Michigan de er h u n t e r s . H un te r M o t i v a t i o n L i t e r a t u r e There has been a g r e a t deal o f t h e o r i z i n g as t o why h u n t e r s h u n t , but t h e r e has been very little em pirical Much t h a t has been w r i t t e n , e s p e c i a l l y such p u b l i c a t i o n s , much o f this is o f l i t t l e is not c e n t r a l th e m a t t e r . in sp or ts m en 's magazines and o t h e r in n a t u r e . Since v a lu e and s i n c e th e s u b j e c t o f p a r ­ to t h e problem which r e s e a r c h , o n l y cu rs o r y t r e a t m e n t w i l l vation . to c l a r i f y is ve ry r o m a n t i c i z e d and s e n s a t i o n a l this m a te ria l t ic ip a n t m otivation research is addressed in be gi ven t o h u n t e r m o t i ­ Such s u p e r f i c i a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f m o t i v a t i o n should not be I n t e r ­ p r e t e d as i m p ly in g t h a t a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r ar e not m otivation. M o t i v a t i o n undoubtedly is an im p o rt a n t related to independent v a r i a b l e . I t was sim pl y n o t p o s s i b l e in the c o n t e x t o f t h i s s tu dy t o d e l v e i n t o i t as much as i t de se rv e s. Many r e s e a r c h e rs o f r e c r e a t i o n that i f r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r seem to assume they can d e s c r i b e a s e t o f so ci o -e c on o m ic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f recreation p a rtic ip a n ts in r e l a t i o n t o b e h a v i o r , i f by magic— e x p l a i n e d a s e t o f causal linkages. then th e y h a v e - - a s For example: The f i r s t s e t o f a n a ly se s (T a b l e 1) a t te m p te d to r e l a t e th e h u n t e r ' s b a s i c s o c i a l and economic s t a t u s to h i s i n t e r e s t and success in h u n ti n g as a s p o r t . Age, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , o c c u p a t i o n , income, e d u c a t i o n , age a t time o f f i r s t h u n t , and type o f game hunted were a l l t e s t e d t o d e te r m in e how they i n f l u e n c e d (emphasis added) the number o f days spent a f i e l d and t h e t o t a l k i l l . 1 In the a r t i c l e from which t h i s quote is t a k e n , one is l e f t to i n t e r p r e t f o r h i m s e l f th e meaning o f t h e phrase " d e t e r m i n e how they in flu e n ce ." To s t a t e the r e a d e r ' s dilemma from a n o t h e r p e r s p e c t i v e , "Even i f s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t 1Ib id .. p. 381. r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e demonstrated between c e r t a i n s o c i a l a t t ? t u d e s - - s o wha t?" p red ict ch aracteristics Are t h e r e any t h e o r e t i c a l these r e l a t i o n s h i p s ? What l o g i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e not sp ur io u s? none. Th is la c k o f t h e o r e t i c a l p u b li s h e d s o c i a l r evi ew ed . concern t h a t would is used t o a f f i r m t h a t th e is is almost unanimous in th e rese ar ch d e a l i n g w i t h part o f recreation pointers The answer to both these q u e s t io n s Perhaps t h i s d i s r e g a r d recognize t h a t and p a r t i c i p a n t m o t i v a t i o n and r e c r e a t i o n which th e a u t h o r has is a pr o d u c t o f paroch i a l ism, on the r e s e a r c h e r s who a r e u n w i l l i n g o r u n t r a i n e d to recreation is a s e t t i n g f o r a v a r i e t y o f b e h a v i o r which we g e n e r a l l y term " r e c r e a t i o n " and t h a t many o f t h e same b e h a v i o r p r o ­ cesses and m o t i v a t i o n s which a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e c r e a t i o n concern p s y c h o l o g i s t s , s o c i o l o g i s t s , s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i s t s , and o t h e r s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s who have t r a d i t i o n a l l y s t u d i e d th es e p a t t e r n s s e t t i n g s , such as th e home, the j o b , in f a c t , it the educational in d i f f e r e n t in s titu tio n , etc. is p r o b a b ly a t e s t a b l e p r o p o s i t i o n t o a s s e r t that there ar e no m o t i v e s , a t t i t u d e s , o r va lue s which a r e unique to r e c r e a t i o n . In terms o f th e goals which r e s e a r c h e r s can most p r o d u c t i v e l y s e t f o r themselves and kin ds o f problems which o f f e r t h e g r e a t e s t p a y o f f In e x p l a i n i n g human b e h a v i o r , R. K. Merton argues e f f e c t i v e l y f o r d e v e l o p in g and t e s t i n g what he c a l l s His d i s c u s s i o n is designed p r i m a r i l y "m id d le range t h e o r i e s . " ' to argue a g a i n s t t h e g r a n d i o s e , a ll -e n c o m p a s s i n g kinds o f t h e o r i e s which a r e d i f f i c u l t , s ib le , to t e s t . th e case In c o n t r a s t t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i f not impos­ is designed to use h i s ideas o f t h e o r y b u i l d i n g t o expose a common f a l l a c y on t h e o t h e r extreme o f m a c r o - t h e o r y , j_. e^., o f t e s t i n g no th e o r y a t a l l . V K. M e rt o n , S o c i a l Theory and S o c i a l The Free P r e s s , 1957)» pp. ^“ 12. Structure One o f (New York: 72 M e r to n ' s most p e r s u a s i v e p o i n t s little is t h a t m a c r o - t h e o r i s t s have produced t a n g i b l e e v id e n ce o f p r o d u c t i v i t y tions,, in s p i t e o f a l l t h e i r specula­ C a r r y i n g t h i s analogy o f c o n t r a s t s one s t e p f a r t h e r , w i t h a l l o f our minute d e s c r i p t i v e n e s s , recreation r e s e a r c h e r s have b u t l i t t l e to show f o r th e e f f o r t s . No s t u d i e s which deal w i t h h u n t i n g w i l l of th eoretical model type f o r r e s e a r c h i n g m o t i v a t i o n because th e a u t h o r knows o f none t h a t deserve such a c i t a t i o n . adm ittedly p r e lim in a r y , s t a r t However, Davis makes a good, if in a t t e m p t i n g to e x p l a i n h u n t e r m o t i v a t i o n . He found t h a t h u nt e rs t y p i c a l l y te en s . be c i t e d as an id e a l begin t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e i r e a r l y Upon f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he found t h a t an overwhelming m a jo r ­ i t y o f hu nte rs were in tr o d u c e d t o t h e s p o r t by a c lo s e r e l a t i v e . means o f a s e r i e s o f open ended q u e s t i o n s , he e l i c i t e d By a series of st at e m e nt s conce rnin g t h e v a r io u s va lu e s d e r i v e d from p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Ta bl e 5 d e p i c t s Ta bl e 5 . the r e s u l t s from h i s two s u r v e y s . Motives s a t i s f i e d by h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g w i t h I960* in 1956 as compared Frequency o f Reasons Given and P ercen tag e T o t a l T5F5 Types o f Mot ive s R e c r e a t io n B o d ily h e a l t h Aes t h e t i c Associ a t ion Economlc In te lle c tu a l C h a ra c te r R e l i g i o u s and o t h e r Total ^D avis, p. 44. HTSo Times Mentioned Times Mentioned P e r c e n t Percent 1728 466 483 639 708 467 100 36 37 10 11 14 15 10 2 1 1740 996 552 467 212 127 85 85 41 23 13 11 5 3 2 2 4636 100 4244 100 73 He i n t e r p r e t s these comparative data t h u s l y : The d i f f e r e n c e s between 1965 and i 960 a r e b e l i e v e d in some cases to be more ap p a r e n t than real * due probably to d i f f e r e n c e s in e d ito ria l In te rp re ta tio n . In the judgment o f th e r e s e a r c h e r , the 1965 p a t t e r n is s i m i l a r t o i 9 6 0 . The t r u e economic v a l u e s , f o r example, prob ab ly l i e somewhere between th e 19&5 and t h e I960 percentages. The a u th o r a m p l i f i e s each o f these po in ts a b i t In his a n a l y s i s , but he does not r e l a t e these values propositions. to any t h e o r e t i c a l Game Management C o n tr ov e rs ie s L i t e r a t u r e Sev era l im po rta nt s t u d i e s have been done on c o n t r o v e r s i e s and p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s problems a s s o c ia t e d w i t h deer management. These s t u d i e s have been due t o , perhaps as much as a n y t h in g e l s e , p u b l i c pressures e x e r t e d a g a i n s t the managing ag en ci es . P u b l i c pressures have a t times fo r c e d these agencies to r e a c t t o widespread c r i t i c i s m and one aspect o f t h i s r e a c t i o n has been to encourage and a t times to fund r e ­ search to study h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v io r t h a t f e r e n t management is s ue s. type a r e : is r e l a t e d t o d i f ­ Among t h e more c o n t r o v e r s i a l issues o f t h i s a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g , h u n t e r- la n d o w n e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , bounty payments, and lack o f general support f o r resource management agency programs. The problem o f la c k o f p u b l i c understanding o r support has prompted many a r t i c l e s and s o l u t i o n s . and p r o f e s s i o n a l papers which have sp ec u la t e d as to causes G i l b e r t has w r i t t e n a book on p u b l i c immediate a p p l i c a t i o n r e l a t i o n s w it h to resource management ag encies.^ Early book, he makes the a s t u t e o b s e r v a t i o n concerning h i s t o r i c a l in the i d e o lo g ie s in resource management t h a t , ' d . L. G i l b e r t , P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s In N a tu r a l Resources Management ( M i n n e a p o l i s , Minn: Burgess P u b l i s h i n g Co. , 19 6 4 ) . 74 During t h i s p e r i o d ( 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 3 5 ) c o n s e r v a t i o n c h i e f l y meant p r o t e c ­ t i o n r a t h e r than "w is e u s e . " As Les P e n g e i l y , an a r t i c u l a t e e x t e n s l o n i s t in Montana, r e c e n t l y commented, " c o n s e r v a t i o n was l i k e a boomerang. We l i k e d th e new idea o f management, b u t we had s o ld th e o l d ideas o f p r e s e r v a t i o n and p r o t e c t i o n so w e l l t h a t we c o u l d n ' t throw them away. In o t h e r words we d i d such a good jo b o f ' s e l l i n g ' m a l e s - o n l y seasons, a r t i f i c i a l p r o p a g a ti o n and s t o c k i n g , bo u n ti e s on p r e d a t o r s , and r e s t r i c t e d h u n t i n g t h a t many people s im pl y w i l l not a c ce p t a n y t h i n g c o n t r a r y as b e in g good management."' This a n a l y s i s d e s c r ib e s to a n tle r le s s the s i t u a t i o n ve ry w e l l deer h u n t i n g . th e Con ser va tio n Department in Mic higa n w i t h Between 1915 and 1921 r ega rd the pr ed ece ss or o f (now the Department o f N a t u r a l Resources) in t h e i r appeals f o r p u b l i c su pp or t o f a law t o p r o h i b i t a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n ti n g (a form o f s t r i c t p r e s e r v a t i o n ) h i b i t i o n was i n h e r e n t l y b e n e f i c i a l . i m p l i e d t h a t such a pr o­ Such im p l. ic a ti o n s were r e i n f o r c e d by the Con ser va tio n Department d u r i n g th e e a r l y y e ar s o f the new De­ partment. .Many problems have been c r e a t e d because t h i s o v e r s t a t e d i m p l i c a t i o n was accep ted and has p e r s i s t e d . When e c o l o g i c a l changes oc cu rr ed o r c o n d i t i o n s developed where h u n t i n g p r e s s u r e was n o t the lim itin g fa c to r, the c r e d i b i l i t y o f the D e p a r tm e n t' s new arguments f o r s u p p o r t i n g a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g wer e open to q u e s t i o n . O b t a i n i n g laws c o m p a ti b le w i t h s c i e n t i f i c game management seems to be a wi de sp read problem w i t h r eg a rd t o v a r i o u s types o f game. found in h is survey o f problems en co u nt ere d by w i l d l i f e management agencies t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e support f o r s c i e n t i f i c management is a 2 problem in 42 s t a t e s . I t is an im p o r t a n t problem in 23 o f those s t a t e s and a ve ry s e ri o u s c o n s t r a i n t ^G i I b e r t , p. 4. 2 ORRRC Report No. 5» p . 44. in 4 o t h e r s . Cain 75 G i l b e r t makes some I n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t io n s as to why he f e e l s that w i l d l i f e managing agencies ar e p a r t i c u l a r l y v u l n e r a b l e to inadequate p u b l 1c su p p o r t. Problems o f human management seem to be g r e a t e r In w i l d l i f e manage­ ment than any comparable n a t u r a l resource p r o f e s s i o n s . W ild life managers do not know, o r have c o n t r o l o f , t h e i r users as do th e f o r e s t e r s and range managers. P u b l i c i n t e r e s t in h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g is i n h e r e n t and Is g r e a t e r than in h a r v e s t i n g f o r e s t and range crops. W i l d l i f e h a r v e s t e r s a r e more numerous than range and f o r e s t h a r v e s t e r s . With g r e a t e r numbers, and o f t e n a lac k o f p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r e s t , hunters may be less e x pe r ie nc e d and may have few er sc ru p le s than users o f o t h e r n a t u r a l r eso urces . P o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e appears t o be s t r o n g e r in w i l d l i f e agencies than in range and f o r e s t ag en c ie s . In the p a s t , w i l d l i f e workers o f t e n have been less q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e i r Jobs, due to less s t r i n g e n t employment q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , than p r o f e s s i o n a l f o r e s t e r s . A l s o , h u nt e rs and fi s h e r m e n , more than stockmen and ti m b e r c u t t e r s , use lands t h a t a r e not p u b l i c l y owned and a r e thus less s u b j e c t to agency c o n t r o l . Law enforcement problems c e r t a i n l y are g r e a t e r in w i l d l i f e management than In f o r e s t r y and o t h e r a l l i e d pr ofess i o n s . ' I f G ilb e rt's they a r e , I n s i g h t s a r e c o r r e c t , and t h e r e then i t is ev ery i n d i c a t i o n t h a t is c l e a r t h a t w i l d l i f e management agencies a r e con­ t i n u a l l y walking a p o l i t i c a l tightrope. The focus o f our study is upon c o n t r o v e r s i e s d e a l i n g w i t h a n t l e r ­ less deer h u n t i n g , but b e f o r e r e v ie w in g s t u d i e s o f t h i s issue we s h a l l review two s t u d i e s d e a l i n g w i t h h u n t e r - la n d o w n e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . is a problem in almost a l l p a r t s o f th e country and in a l l h u nt in g because a g r e a t deal o f the t o t a l land not owned by the h u n t e r s . p r i v a t e lands f o r hunting 2 types o f h u n ti n g occurs on p r i v a t e Bar cla y s t u d i e d th e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f in Pennsylvania in 1966. v a r i a b l e s he t e s t e d , he found t h a t t h e " e d u c a t i o n a l ^ G i l b e r t , p. This Of the s i x t e e n l e v e l " o f the 13. J , S. B a r c l a y , " S i g n i f i c a n t Factors I n f l u e n c i n g the A v a i l a b i l i t y o f P r i v a t e l y Owned Rural Land to th e H u n t e r , " M.S. Thesis in the De­ partment o f W i l d l i f e Management a t Pennsylvania S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1966, 76 landowners was th e o n l y c o n s i s t e n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t fie d this influence. He a m p l i ­ f i n d i n g by p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t : The d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t landowners In t h e study ar e a a r e becoming b e t t e r e d u c a t e d , have fewer l o c a l t i e s and a r e less s y m p a th e ti c toward h u n t i n g . Such landowners do have a h e i g h t e n e d a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e i r " r i g h t s " as landowners, a r e c o g n i z a h t o f the va lu e s o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y , and a r e i n t o l e r a n t o f i n d i s c r i m i n a t e use o f t h e i r land by o t h e r s . He closes h i s study w i t h th e w a r n i n g t h a t stand " t h e p r e d i c t e d increas es urbanization w ithou t assistance descrip tive in n a t u r e , the owners' a b i l i t y to w i t h ­ in h u n t e r numbers and economic w e i g h t o f is d o u b t f u l . " i t n o n e th e le s s Although t h i s study is r e p r e s e n t s a good p r e l i m i n a r y effo rt. Dice c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y 1andowner r e l a t i o n s h i p s 1967. t o a b e t t e r u n d e rs ta nd in g o f h u n t e r - in Michigan His .use o f s e v e r a l in h i s d o c t o r a l d issertatio n in research design tec hn iq u es which a r e common to s o c i a l research but which a r e seldom a p p l i e d research, is p a r t i c u l a r y n o te w o r th y . t o resource development He used an e x p e r i m e n t a l design in which he exposed one group o f sportsman c lu b members to a s e r i e s o f i n f o r m a t i v e l e c t u r e s d e a l i n g w i t h h u n t e r - 1andowner r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A ttitu d in al changes which took p l a c e f o l l o w i n g compared w i t h th e t r e a t m e n t were the e x p e r i e n c e o f a c a r e f u l l y s u p e r v i s e d c o n t r o l group in o r d e r t o i d e n t i f y th e e f f e c t o f t h e t r e a t m e n t . The f o l l o w i n g con­ cepts were proposed as p o s s i b l e components o f t h e a t t i t u d e s f o r which att em pts were made to induce changes: Tl b i d . . p. 92 . 2 Eugene D i c e , "The I n f l u e n c e o f an E d u c a t i o n a l Awareness Expe­ r i e n c e on Components o f P s y c h o l o g i c a l P o s i t i o n , " Doctor o f Education d i s s e r t a t i o n from th e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , 1967. The premise t h a t p o s i t i o n is r e a l l y a p r o f i l e o f component v a r i ­ abl es p r o v id e s a b a s i c s t r u c t u r e w i t h which th e assumed components may be i d e n t i f i e d . F i v e have been i d e n t i f i e d f o r t h i s s t u d y . These i n c l u d e : an i d e o l o g i c a l r a t i o n a l e f o r u n d e rs t a n d in g th e i s s u e , a d i s p o s i t i o n to a c t , a p e r c e p t i o n o f th e f a c t s i n v o l v e d wi th t h e i s s u e . A m aj o r h y p o th e s is o f th e st udy was t h a t " i f p o s i t i o n s o f groups and individuals regarding a n a tural being d i f f e r e n t sion."^ resource issue can be d e s c r i b e d as then p o s i t i o n may be rega rded as a measurable dimen­ He found t h a t : In th e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t was s p e c i f i c t o the component s t r u c t u r e t h a t th e t h r e e d e a l i n g w i t h b e h a v i o r , i . e . , d i s p o s i t i o n to a c t , p e r c e p t i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n , and p e r c e p t i o n o f f a c t s , were not as c r i t i c a l t o change and issue s o l v i n g In the needs o f space age community and resource development as we re t h e time bound a t t i t u d e s toward change and o p i n i o n s toward th e t e c h n i c a l a d v ic e r e l a t i v e to change by t a l e n t e d e x p e r t s . 3 As is e a s i l y d i s c e r n i b l e . Dice Is p r i m a r i l y in terested processes o f e d u c a t i n g f o r r es ou rc e devel opm en t. in c o g n i t i v e N evertheless, several o f th e concepts which he used a r e d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s in v e s ti­ gation. To d a t e , T i l l e t t ' s a ttitu d in al study is th e o n ly b e h a v i o r a l s tu dy t h a t has focused e x p l i c i t l y h u n ti n g c o n t r o v e r s y . a p a rt o f th a t unfolding s c ie n tis t, the p o l i t i c a l and upon an a n t l e r l e s s d e e r T i l l e t t ' s work is a l t o g e t h e r a q u a l i t a t i v e d i s ­ course d e a l i n g p r i m a r i l y w i t h p o litic a l in New J e rs e y it the s p e c i f i c ev en ts and p e o p le who were issue In h i s s t a t e . Since T i l l e t t Is not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t h i s purpose is a is to study i m p l i c a t i o n s o f p u b l i c p o l i c y f o r m a t i o n and im p le m e nt a tio n 78 using t h i s ca p tu re s iss ue as a case s t u d y . A statement in h i s c o n c l u s io n s t h e essence o f h i s purpose: W h i l e t h i s case began w i t h a narrow focus on t h e problems . . . concerned w i t h de er in th e s t a t e o f New J e r s e y , i t ends w i t h an issue which cuts across n e a r l y e v e r y a s pe c t o f p r e s e n t - d a y American p o l i t i c a l l i f e : How to cu t th e l e a d t i m e between d i s ­ covery and a p p l i c a t i o n o f s c i e n t i f i c knowledge? . . . I f nothing e l s e , t h i s study documents the inade qua cie s o f t h e i n t e r e s t group t h e o r y o f American pol i t l c s - w h e t h e r t h a t t h e o r y is con­ s i d e r e d in i t s d e s c r i p t i v e , n o r m a t i v e , o r o p e r a t i o n a l a s p e c t s J The t h r u s t o f h i s tre a tis e leads to c e r t a i n n o r m a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s — one m ajo r co n c l u s io n b e in g t h a t i n t e r e s t groups in t h i s the c l a s h and c o n f l i c t o f s p e c i a l p a rtic u la r di d not p r o t e c t t h e " p u b l i c ' s issue a r e not "good" because th e y in terests." However, nowhere in h i s d i s c o u r s e does the a u t h o r a t t e m p t t o s p e c i f y p o litic a l the causes f o r the courses which happened to e v o l v e w i t h i n th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e which e x i s t e d as compared to o t h e r p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e forms. He r a i s e s no q u e s t i o n as t o th e sources o f th e a t t i t u d e s ev ide nce d by the members o f the d i f f e r e n t f a c t i o n s , o r as to how these a t t i t u d e s were d i s s e m in a t e d t o the v a r i o u s segments o f th e p o p u l a t i o n which h e ld the d i f f e r e n t v i e w s , o r a g a i n , why th e d i f f e r e n t groups behaved as they d i d , o r o f even a more b a s i c d im e n s io n , why some were pr ed isp ose d to a c t i o n w h i l e o t h e r groups were n o t . questions, i f successfully Any o r a l l r e s e a r c h e d , co uld c o n t r i b u t e o f these to a g r e a t e r un de rs t a n d in g o f t h e s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r which T i l l e t t d e s c r i b e d . even g r e a t e r importance is the p o s s i b i l i t y Of t h a t concepts and i n s i g h t s o f a more g e n e r a t I z a b l e n a t u r e m ight be ge ne r a t e d which could be t e s t e d under a v a r i e t y o f c o n d i t i o n s . evident from T i l l e t t ' s ^T11 l e t t , p. 116. S in c e no such f o r m u l a t i o n s were book, t h e p r im a r y v a l u e t o t h i s study is in its 79 ins I g h t s - - s o m e o f which seem i n t u i t i v e l y th eoretical to have r e l e v a n c e t o meaningful p r o p o s i t i o n s ' which one might wish to de v e l o p and t e s t . Conceptual Foundations Two p o l a r and un doubtedly o v e r s t a t e d and much s i m p l i f i e d models are summarized be low . as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t a ttitu des Each o f th e s e models could c o n c e i v a b l y be used in a st udy o f the f o r m a t i o n and c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n o f toward a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g . l i e s somewhere between these e x tr e m e s . istics L ik e ly em pirical V ariou s s e l e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r ­ from these two p r e l i m i n a r y models w i l l in a u n i f i e d model which h o p e f u l l y w i l l Once co n ce p ti o n is t h a t a t t i t u d e s re a lity p ro b ab ly prove meaningful be developed from t h i s s t u d y . toward t h e d e e r resource and i t s management a r e deep ly embedded in th e c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n s o f th e state. to g e n e r a t i o n and These a t t i t u d e s ar e passed from g e n e r a t i o n ar e f a i r l y s t a b l e o v e r many y e a r s . For t h e i n d i v i d u a l , h i s a t t i t u d e s are almost an e x p r e s s i o n o f a v a lu e o r i e n t a t i o n loosely held set o f opinions o f l i t t l e The o t h e r model conceives r a t h e r than t h a t o f a consequence o r importance t o him. t h e h u n t e r as b e in g b a s i c a l l y and dependent upon i n f o r m a t i o n sources o f v a r i o u s kinds form h i s o p i n i o n s c o nc e rn in g a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g . assumes a less uninformed in o r d e r to This model i n t e n s e em ot io n al commitment t o t h e resource which in turn prompts th e h u n t e r to be more pa s s i v e in s e ek in g i n f o r m a t i o n . ^Bereleson and S t e i n e r have d e f i n e d th e o r y as "an i n t e l l e c t u a l c r e a t i o n e x p l a i n i n g th e sum o f t h e observed f a c t s , by means o f a gene ral p r i n c i p l e from which these o b s e r v a t i o n s can be deduced as consequences. Theory f u r t h e r m o r e , p r o v id e s th e g u i d e l i n e s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . " Bernard Berelson and G. A. S t e i n e r "Methods o f I n q u i r y , " in Human B e h a v io r : An I n v e n t o r y o f S c i e n t i f i c Findings (New York: H a r c o u r t , Brace and W o r ld , I n c . , 19&A), pp. 15“ 33I m p l i c i t in the above d e f i n i t i o n Is th e idea t h a t th e s e concepts must be t e s t a b l e . 80 Under th e assumptions o f t h i s model c o i n c i d e n t a l exposure t o v a ri o u s i n f o r m a t i o n sources pl ays a s i g n f i l e a n t role in th e i n f o r m a t i o n which the h u n t e r has a t hand and upon which he bases h i s o p i n i o n s . exposure to d i f f e r e n t sources w i l l groups so t h a t a t t i t u d e s (1) The d i f f e r e n c e vary among d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n can be p r e d i c t e d in source and amount o f a b le t o v a r i o u s s o c i a l In t u r n a g g r e g a t e s , and (2) if two t h in g s a r e known: inform ation th a t are a v a i l ­ the message t h a t is b e i n g , conveyed by each i n f o r m a t i o n s o ur ce . S e v e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s were mentioned e a r l i e r which tend i n d i r e c t l y to s u p p o r t each o f these two models. I t was noted in C hapter I t h a t t h e r e seem t o be r e g i o n a l ti o n s va ria­ in t h e amount and degree o f e x i s t i n g o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e Department of Natural Resources' a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g p o l i c y . One e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t was suggested in th e e a r l i e r discuss ion was t h a t h u n t i n g g e n e r a l l y is more im p o rt a n t t o th e r e s i d e n t p o p u l a t i o n in t h e n o r t h e r n t w o - t h i r d s o f the s t a t e than in s o u th e r n Michigan as measured by th e p r o p o r t i o n o f the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n which buys a l i c e n s e . f o l low t h a t h u n t i n g is less I t does not n e c e s s a r i l y im p o rt a n t to i n d i v i d u a l h u nt e rs In so ut h er n Mi ch i ga n. It is known from numerous s t u d i e s as w e l l as from everyday o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t n o t conforming to commonly h e l d a t t i t u d e s o f o n e' s peer group o f t e n induces s a n c t i o n s , w h e th e r s u b t l e o r o b v io u s . sense such s a n c t i o n s ar e an a t t e m p t conform. It In a to induce th e n o n - c o n f o r m i s t to is r e a s on a bl e t o e x p e c t t h a t where h u n t i n g is not so Im po rta nt t o t h e p o p u l a t i o n as a w h o l e , more d i v e r s i t y o f o p i n i o n would be t o l e r a t e d w i t h o u t s a n c t i o n . Thus one would e x p e c t o p p o s i t i o n 81 to be less In t e n s e in Ingham County than in th e n o r t h e r n c o u n t i e s because i n t e r e s t g e n e r a l l y Th is f o r m u l a t i o n is not so w id e s p r e a d . in d ire c tly lends support to the f i r s t model sketched above. We a l s o observed in the e a r l i e r d i s c u s s io n t h a t t h e r e appear to be a t t i t u d i n a l groups. d i f f e r e n c e s among d i f f e r e n t soci o- ec ono mi c s t a t u s I t appears (SES) t h a t pe ople in h i g h e r s t a t u s groups tend to su p p o r t the DNR's p o s i t i o n co nc e rn in g a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g more than do the lower s t a t u s groups. Since these o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e based on t h e u n s t r u c ­ t u r e d o b s e r v a t i o n s and impressions o f many p e o p l e , we propose t o ca re fu lly te s t this p r o p o s i t i o n to see i f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t a t u s and a t t i t u d e s does e x i s t . As one p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r such a r e l a t i o n s h i p , we can h y • ✓ p o t h e s i z e t h a t th e v a r i o u s s t a t u s groups depend on d i f f e r e n t sources f o r i n f o r m a t i o n which they a c c e p t as c r e d i b l e co nc e rn in g de er manage­ ment. I f hu nt e rs from d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups a r e exposed t o d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n sources and In t u r n to d i f f e r e n t messages, then these groups would be ex pe c te d to have d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s . Such a f o r m u l a t i o n proven would lend s u p p o r t to th e i n f o r m a t i o n source model If ( t h e second model o u t l i n e d a b o v e ) . A n o th e r v a r i a b l e which may e x p l a i n th e d i f f e r e n c e s education. in a t t i t u d e The h y p o t h e s is seems re as on a bl e t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l and o t h e r s w i t h high e d u c a t i o n w i l l not e x p l a i n a l l f i t w ill pe ople have a g r e a t e r p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o su p p o r t th e judgment o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s w i t h i n t h e DNR than w i l l educated h u n t e r s . Is less The a u t h o r s u s p e c t s , however, t h a t e d u c a t i o n w i l l the d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e and t h a t a t i g h t e r da ta be a c hi e ve d by c o n s i d e r i n g th e e f f e c t o f e d u c a t i o n In c o n c e r t 82 w ith those p a r t s o f the models f o r m u l a t e d above which prove to be vi a b l e . Communications and A t t i t u d e s Kat z and L a z a r s f e l d e f f e c t i v e l y t h a t pe rs ona l demonstrated in Personal Influence r e l a t i o n s h i p s a c t as an i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e between mass media and audience response in t h e form o f a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r . ^ According to t h e i r f i n d i n g s , which have s i n c e been c o r r o b o r a t e d , there is a " t w o - s t e p f l o w o f communications" between t h e source and r e c e i v e r . The im p o rt a n t l i n k between the source and the r e c e i v e r was dubbed " o p i n i o n l e a d e r s " by th e a u t h o r s . lea de rs They e x p l a i n in t h e t w o - s t e p f l o w o f communications the r o l e o f the o p i n i o n in t h i s way. 1. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s seem to be "anchorage" p o i n t s f o r i n d i v i d u a l o p i n i o n s , a t t i t u d e s , h a b i t s and v a l u e s . That i s , i n t e r a c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s seem c o l l e c t i v e l y and c o n t i n u o u s l y to g e n e r a t e and m a i n t a i n common ideas and b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s which they a r e r e l u c t a n t t o s u r r e n d e r o r modify u n i l a t e r a l l y . . . 2. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s imply networks o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l communications, and t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c seems to be r e l e v a n t f o r (mass media) campaign e f f e c t i v e n e s s in s e v e r a l i n t e r l o c k i n g ways: The " t w o - s t e p f l o w " h y p o t h e s i s s u g g e s ts , in th e f i r s t p l a c e , t h a t these i n t e r p e r s o n a l networks a r e l i n k e d to mass media networks in such a way t h a t some p e o p l e , who a r e r e l a t i v e l y more exposed, pass on what they see and h e a r , o r read to o t h e r s w i t h whom they ar e in c o n t a c t who a r e le s s exposed. Primary gr ou ps , in o t h e r wo rds, may se rv e as channels f o r mass media t r a n s m i s s i o n ; t h i s might be c a l l e d the r e l a y f u n c t i o n o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . S eco ndly, i t is i m p l i e d , p e r s o n - t o - p e r s o n I n f l u e n c e s may c o i n c i d e w i t h mass media messages and thus e i t h e r c o u n t e r a c t o r r e i n f o r c e t h e i r message. This might be c a l l e d th e r e i n f o r c e m e n t f u n c t i o n ; and, t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l reason to s u s p e c t , when r e i n f o r c e m e n t is p o s i t i v e , t h e communications in q u e s t i o n is l i k e l y to be p a rtic u la rly e ffe c tiv e . ^ E li h u K at z and Paul The Free P r e s s , 1 9 5 5 ) . 2 ib id ., pp. 4 4 - 4 5 . L a z a r s f e l d , Personal Influence (New York: An example o f such a t w o - s t e p f l o w o f communication Is t h e method by which pe op le decide who t o vo te f o r in p o l i t i c a l ele ctio n s . The r e s u l t s o f one o f th e f i r s t modern s t u d i e s which produced e v i d e n c e o f t h e e x i s ­ tence o f o p i n i o n le a d e r s research indicated th a t is p u b li s h e d in The P e o p l e ' s C h o i c e .^ t h e r e were i n f l u e n t i a l s in a l l s t r a t a o f society who expose themselves to i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o make p o l i t i c a l and then i n f l u e n c e t h e i r sions to them. The d e c is io n s less exposed peers by r e l a y i n g t h e i r c o n c l u ­ T h is e v id e n c e tended to weaken the w i d e l y h e l d mis­ co nc e pt io n t h a t r e p r e s e n t e d th e v o t i n g p u b l i c as at om ize d i n d i v i d u a l s who a l l make d e c i s i o n s on how they should v o t e from t h e i r personal individual I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f mass media i n f o r m a t i o n . At t h i s p o i n t , i t may be l o g i c a l l y q u e s t io n e d as t o what th e concepts discu sse d above have t o do w i t h controversy. We propose now to r e l a t e th e a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g the issue and th ese c o n c e p ts . But f i r s t a q u a l i f i c a t i o n must be s t a t e d . by Katz and L a z a r s f e l d p ro b ab ly have d e f i n i t e application and to t h i s s t u d y . The p r i n c i p l e s lim ita tio n s The autho rs made i t developed in t h e i r c l e a r t h a t th ey were a t t e m p t i n g t o m in im iz e th e I n f l u e n c e o f th e s o c i a l i z a t i o n and o t h e r complex e f f e c t s which a r e deepl y embedded In human p e r s o n a l i t i e s and behavior. T h eir th inking is s t a t e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g way: There is no d o u b t, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t what o u r p a r e n t s t o l d us in e a r l y ch ild h o o d has an e v e r l a s t i n g i n f l u e n c e on o u r a d u l t l i f e In terms o f th e b e l i e f s , p r e j u d i c e s , h a b i t s and f e a r s w i t h which we approach e v e r y s i t u a t i o n . . . . We, however, t a k e these gene ral a t t i t u d e s f o r g r a n t e d and s h a l l be concerned o n ly w i t h minor v a r i a t i o n s on t h i s b a s i c theme o f o p i n i o n and a t t i t u d e f o r m a t i o n , as they a r e pla ye d o u t o v e r r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t pe rio ds *P. L a z a r s f e l d , B. B e r e I s o n , and G o l u d e t , The P e o p l e ' s C h o i c e . (New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , \ $ 5 k ) . 8k o f ti m e . Thus, we w i l l not be concerned w i t h why a man has Republican op in io n s i f he has held them f o r a long ti m e ; but i f he has changed them q u i t e r e c e n t l y , we w i l l be.^ This is p r e c i s e l y where the b a s ic emphasis de scr ib ed ence d i f f e r s s ig n ific a n tly in Personal from th e focus o f t h i s s t u d y . In flu ­ Undoubtedly, many people have been i n f l u e n c e d in t h e i r t h i n k i n g co ncerning a n t i e r l e s s deer h u n ti n g by a c l u s t e r o f complex in f l u e n c e s perhaps o v e r a p e r i o d o f many y e a r s . We have s e t as one o f ou r g o a l s , as de s c r ib e d e x p l i c i t l y in th e hypotheses s t a t e d below, the ta sk o f examining the fo r m a t i o n o f these deeper se ate d a t t i t u d e s and o p i n i o n s . sharply w ith Th is o b j e c t i v e c o n t r a s t s the s t u d i e s which deal w i t h d e ci s io n s concerning product purchases o r choices o f e n t e r t a i n m e n t . O b v io u s ly , the mechanics o f d e c id in g which soap to buy is a less complex d e c i s i o n process than d e c i d i n g w h et h er a n t l e r l e s s de er should be shot or not. Now to t h e m a t t e r o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t e r p e r s o n a l ence and a t t i t u d e fo r m a ti o n concerning a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g . in flu ­ Hie DNR is charged w i t h the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f managing most o f t h e s t a t e owned o r c o n t r o l l e d n a t u r a l agency is c e n t r a l i z e d re s o u r c e s , i n c l u d i n g the deer h e rd . The in Lansing as ar e most o t h e r s t a t e ag en c ie s . However, t h e DNR has s t ro n g grass roots c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p u b l i c through i t s s e v e r a l hundred f i e l d personnel who l i v e The s i t u a t i o n w i t h in a l l parts o f the s t a t e . regard to a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n ti n g is b e s t d e s c r i b e d , however, by p o i n t i n g out t h a t on ly a small percent age o f these f i e l d workers ar e engaged in f u l l - t i m e jobs Therefore, it the a n t l e r l e s s is lik e ly t h a t the t o t a l i n v o l v i n g deer herd management. f o r c e o f a c t i v e advocates o f deer hu nti ng p o l i c y w i t h i n V a t z and L a z a r s f e l d , p. 162. the Department is q u i t e s m a l l . 85 There is a l s o e v id e n c e t h a t many Department e m p lo ye es , e s p e c i a l l y a t non-professional le v e ls , h u n t i n g themselves a f t e r f o r y e a r s d i d not s u p p o r t a n t l e r l e s s d e e r i t was i n t r o d u c e d on a broad s c a l e Probably such a group o f employees s t i l l exists w ith in in 1352. th e Dep ar tme nt. One e x p l a n a t i o n f o r such b e h a v i o r may be t h a t these i n d i v i d u a l s ' fo r local community ac ce p ta n ce outweighs the b e n e f i t s o f desire id en tifyin g w i t h t h e va lue s and a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r employei— in t h i s c a s e , t h e DNR and i t s an tlerless G enerally, deer hunting p o l i c y . th e a g g r e s s i v e f r o n t - l i n e advocates o f a n t l e r l e s s h u n ti n g p o l i c y w i t h i n th e Department a r e t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l g i s t s and b i o m e t r i c i a n s deer game b i o l o ­ l o c a t e d p r i m a r i l y w i t h i n t h e Game and Research and Development D i v i s i o n s . S tr ong s u p p o r t is p r o v id e d by th e D i v i s i o n o f I n f o r m a t i o n and E du cat io n and by t h e t o p a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f o f th e Department w i t h secondary s u p p o r t g i v e n by th e p r o f e s s i o n a l s w i t h i n the o t h e r D i v i s i o n s such as P a r k s , F i s h , and F o r e s t r y . the p o i n t , a l t h o u g h the DNR is a l a r g e agency, message co nc e rn in g a n t l e r l e s s It To summarize is u n l i k e l y that i t s deer h u n t i n g has been w i d e l y spre ad by i t s employees through f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n t a c t w i t h th e de er h u n t i n g pub l i e . This leads to a second p o i n t — t h a t media and group c o n t a c t s they have done a good jo b almost a l l gene ra l to present its th e DNR is dependent upon mass case and t h a t , by a l l through these media. measures, As p r e v i o u s l y m en ti on ed , th e mass media s u p p o r t t h e Department and al m os t a l l the c o n s e r v a t i o n and business o r g a n i z a t i o n s do not r e p r e s e n t a cross s e c t i o n o f t h e s t a t e p o p u l a t i o n , o r o f the h u n t i n g p o p u l a t i o n e ith e r, fo r that m atter. All th ese groups have a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e number o f p r o f e s s i o n a l members a n d / o r members from h i g h e r SES groups. 86 Because the DNR has been a b le to c o n c e n t r a t e upon such groups and because they have had r e l a t i v e l y easy access to these groups to p r e s e n t t h e Department's c a s e , im po rta nt su pp or t has been won. been hy po the siz ed t h a t t h i s access i t has a l r e a d y is a v a i l a b l e because o f th e p r e d i s ­ p o s i t i o n o f these lea de rs and group members to a c c e p t o r a t l e a s t l i s t e n s y m p a t h e t i c a l l y to th e DNR's p o i n t o f view because o f the Department's professional credentials. With t h i s s t r a t e g i c mass media and i n s t i t u t i o n a l altogether f i t t i n g support, it is t o ask why such a s i g n i f i c a n t p er ce nt ag e o f Michigan deer h u n t e r s , e s t im a t e d a t k8% in 1967, c o n ti n u e to oppose a n t l e r l e s s deer h u nt in g a f t e r a t l e a s t 16 years o f g e t t i n g used to th e idea? It is a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t the idea o f a " t w o - s t e p f l o w o f communications" seems r e l e v a n t . It is e v i d e n t t h a t f o r many h u n t e r s , t h e i r h u n ti n g p a r t y is a primary s o c i a l group in terms o f s t a b i l i t y , closeness o f th e members, and commitment to th e group. Because o f the high regard t h a t many hunters have f o r t h e i r h u n ti n g group o r hunti ng c l u b , they w i l l to conform to the a t t i t u d i n a l e x p e c t a t i o n s o f th e group. tend According to Katz and L a z a r s f e l d , t h i s c o n f o r m i t y is not n e c e s s a r i l y achieved a t the expense o f independent t h i n k i n g o r by th e suppression o f p r e v i o u s l y h e l d op in io n s on th e p a r t o f the c o n f o r m i s t . For most issues o r s u b j e c t s , a preponderance o f the members o f most s o c i a l groups, i n c l u d i n g those i n t e r e s t e d access to r e l e v a n t in h u n t i n g , w i l l have n e i t h e r the in f o r m a t io n nor the i n t e r e s t t o seek i t . in f o r m a t io n needed to f o r m and supp ort op in io ns is g a t h e r e d , The in ter­ p r e t e d and then disse mina te d by o p in io n lea ders to t h e o t h e r group members. Needless t o s a y , these o p in io n lea de rs a r e o f t e n s e l e c t i v e 87 in the k i n d , amount, and source o f receive. Even more i m p o r t a n t , inform ation they are w i l l i n g they a r e o f t e n very s e l e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t th e y pass on t o o t h e r group members a f t e r in terp rete d to in th e they have it. These o p i n i o n l e a d e r s u s u a l l y have some unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t endows them w i t h a s p e c i a l measure o f c r e d i b i l i t y The r o l e o f o p i n i o n to th e group. l e a d e r is u s u a l l y c o n f e r r e d upon a person because o f some advantage such as s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g o r unique access to i n f o r ­ mation sources ca s e , mass media. in clud ing , in t h i s c r e d e n t i a l s a l l o w t h e o t h e r members to accept h i s These s p e c i a l in terp reta tio n s w ith o u t serious ch allenge. The above s t a t e d p r o p o s i t i o n s lea d to th e p o s t u l a t i o n t h a t s t r e n g t h o f h u n t i n g group r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l attitu des toward a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g . the be a key p r e d i c t o r o f It is h y p o th e s iz e d t h a t hu nt e rs w i t h s t r o n g h u n t i n g group t i e s and who a r e from a lo we r s o c i o ­ economic s t a t u s level w i l l im po rta nt t o them than w i l l no t o n l y tend to c o n s i d e r h u n t i n g more t h e i r counterparts from h i g h e r SES l e v e l s , but they w i l l c o n s i d e r h u n t i n g success as a symbol o f s t a t u s w i t h i n t h e i r g r ou p. These a t t i t u d e s w i l l in t u r n , prompt o r i n t e n s i f y oppo­ s itio n . However, t h e r e a r e undoubtedly thousands o f h u nt e rs who do not hunt w i t h a s p e c i a l group. There a r e pr o b a b ly a l s o s e v e r a l thousand hunte rs who hunt o n ly by themselves or a t most w i t h one o r two o t h e r p e o p le . If the d a t a from t h i s study found in a number o f o t h e r s t a t e s , is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the r e s u l t s these two groups o f deer hu nte rs 88 w ill be a m i n o r i t y , because deer h u n ti n g involv es d e f i n i t e s o c i a l w e l l as r e c r e a t i o n a l m o t i v a t i o n s . ^ On th e o t h e r hand, as id e n t ity with and commitment to the group has probably di mi ni she d from what I t was two. o r t h r e e decades ago. A t one time deer h u nt in g was a major endeavor in t h a t almost everyone who hunted was a member o f a deer camp some­ where and each i n d i v i d u a l two weeks. u s u a l l y stayed in th e woods f o r up to one or The d u r a t i o n o f th e average hunt has probably decreased markedly because o f the good t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system which al lo ws a h u n te r to t r a v e l anywhere in the s t a t e in a m a t t e r o f hours. A l s o , the strong urban o r i e n t a t i o n o f many hunters probably predisposes them to not want to s t a y away from modern conveniences f o r ve ry long a t a tim e. In a d d i t i o n , many loners o r small hu n ti n g p a r t i e s h o u r ly workers who cannot ta k e time a r e the r e s u l t o f o f f from work and t h e r e f o r e hunt only a f t e r work o r f o r a day o r two on weekends. These p e o p le , w i t h o u t a s tr o ng prim ary group i d e n t i t y w i t h resp ect to de er h u n t i n g , must depend e i t h e r d i r e c t l y upon th e mass media f o r i n f o r m a t i o n conce rning a n t l e r l e s s deer h u nt in g o r upon i n f o r ­ mation passed on to them through some s o c i a l are a p a r t , c o l l e c t i v i t y o f which they such as t h e i r work group o r some o r g a n i z a t i o n hold membership. in which they I f i n t e r e s t in h u n ti n g and s t a t u s achieved through hunting success a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h SES, we would ex pe ct a l a r g e r p r o p o r t io n o f lower s t a t u s individuals to hunt and to base t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n upon t h e success which they and t h e i r acquaintances a c h ie v e . Thus we would expect people from lower s t a t u s groups to depend upon i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e i r s o c i a l peers w h i l e h i g h e r s t a t u s ' p e t e r l e , "The Hunter-Who Is He" p. 263 ; D a v i s , Vai ues o f HuntIng and F i s h in g in A ri zo n a In 19 65. p. 5k. i n d i v i d u a l s — because fe w e r o f t h e i r ac qu a in ta nc es h u n t , because success pe r se Is not as im p o r ta n t t o them, and because they a r e more p r e d i s ­ posed to resp ect th e e x p e r t i s e o f p r o f e s s i o n a l game managers— w i l l more dependent upon the mass media f o r t h e i r Regional be inform ation. d i f f e r e n c e s become a f a c t o r n o t so much from a micro i n f l u e n c e w i t h i n s p e c i f i c gr ou ps , but from th e macro e f f e c t o f the social m ilie u . The e f f e c t can most r e a d i l y be seen in th e o p p o s i t i o n found w i t h i n th e two n o r t h e r n re gio ns o f M i c h ig a n . that there w i l l northern be g e n e r a l l y less s u pp or t among a l l It is expected SES l e v e l s in the t w o - t h i r d s o f the s t a t e as compared t o th e same groups in the southern t h i r d o f M ic h ig an . Summary In essence t h i s res ea rch problem in v o lv e s th e d e t e r m i n a t i o n r o l e o f p r im a r y s o c i a l ence groups influences, the t h e mass media and secondary r e f e r ­ in t h e f o r m a t i o n o f o p in io n s and a t t i t u d e s co n c e rn in g a n tle r le s s deer hu nting. An Assumption I n f o r m a t i o n co ncerning a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g basis upon which o p in io n s is the pri m ary toward the issue o f w h et h er a n t l e r l e s s deer should o r should not be shot a r e formed (as opposed to personal o b s e r ­ vation) . Hypotheses Regional 1. Hunters from Ingham the a n t l e r l e s s de er the o th e r co u n ties . Differences County, as a g r o u p , w i l l be most s u p p o r t i v e o f h u n ti n g p o l i c y when compared to h u n t e r s from Alpena hu nte rs w i l l be l e a s t s u p p o r t i v e . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l e x i s t among the c o un tie s degree o f a l i e n a t i o n (powerlessness) in the re g a rd in g the governmental process among hunters who oppose the a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n ti n g po licy. Alpena hunters w i l l a lien a tio n , m a n i f e s t the g r e a t e s t amount o f and Ingham hu nte rs w i l l m a n i f e s t th e l e a s t a l i e n ­ ation. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l importance o f success e x i s t among the co un tie s in k i l l i n g a deer to i n d i v i d u a l The importance o f success w i l l In t h e hunters. be most e v i d e n t among hunters from Alpena County and l e a s t e v i d e n t among Ingham County hunters. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among the c o u n ti e s s t a t u s symbolism a s s o c i a t e d wi t h success hunters. Hunting success w i l l in the in th e minds o f have the s t r o n g e s t s t a t u s sym­ bolism f o r Alpena hunters and the l e a s t s t a t u s symbolism f o r Ingham h u n t e r s . S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among the co u n ti e s importance o f h u nt in g t o th e h u n t e r s . will in the The h u n ti n g ex pe r ie n c e be most im po rta nt to Alpena County hunters and l e a s t im po rta nt to Ingham County h u n t e r s . S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who h u n t. e x i s t among the co u n ti e s Alpena hunters w i l l in the have the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who hunt w h i l e hunters from Ingham County w i l l have th e s m a l l e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who hu n t. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among the co u n ti e s in h u n te r p e r c e p t i o n o f the p r o p o r t i o n o f peer group o p p o s i t i o n to a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g . Alpena County hunters w i l l perceive the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f pe er group o p p o s i t i o n t o a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g w h i l e Ingham County h u n te r s w i l l p e r c e i v e th e le a s t. G. S ig n ific a n t differences will exposure t o i n f o r m a t i o n c o nc e rn in g a n t l e r l e s s d e r i v e d from mass media. e x i s t among th e c o u n t i e s Alpena h u n t e r s w i l l t o mass media i n f o r m a t i o n w h i l e in h u n t e r deer h u n t i n g be l e a s t exposed Ingham hunte rs w i l l be most exposed t o mass media i n f o r m a t i o n so u r c e s . Socio-Economic S t a t u s (SES) Hunters from t h e h i g h e s t SES l e v e l , as a gr ou p, w i l l p o r t iv e o f the a n tle r le s s de er h u n t i n g p o l i c y when compared to the o t h e r SES groups. Low SES h u n te rs w i l l A. S ig n ific a n t differences will in the degree o f a l i e n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e governmental S ig n ific a n t differences importance o f success m anifest will C. deer h u n t i n g p o l i c y . the lea st a lie n a tio n . e x i s t among the SES groups in k i l l i n g The importance o f success w i l l e r s and l e a s t process m a n i f e s t th e g r e a t e s t degree o f a l i e n a t i o n , and high SES h u nt e rs w i l l B. be l e a s t s u p p o r t i v e . e x i s t among th e t h r e e SES groups among h u n te rs who oppose t h e a n t l e r l e s s Low SES h u n t e r s w i l l be most sup­ a d e e r to i n d i v i d u a l in the hunters. be g r e a t e s t among low SES h u n t ­ im p o rt a n t t o high SES h u n t e r s . Si g n if i c a nt differences will e x i s t among t h e SES groups in the s t a t u s symbolism which is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h u n t i n g success the minds o f h u n t e r s . H u n ti n g success w i l l have t h e s t r o n g e s t s t a t u s symbolism f o r low SES hu nte rs and t h e l e a s t s t a t u s symbolism f o r high SES h u n t e r s . in D. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among the SES groups importance o f h u n t i n g t o th e h u n t e r s . will in the The h u n t i n g e x p e r i e n c e be most im p o r t a n t to low SES h u n te r s and l e a s t im p o rt a n t t o high SES h u n t e r s . E. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among SES groups p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who h u n t . Low SES h u nt e rs w i l l in th e have the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who hunt w h i l e high SES hu nte rs will F. have the s m a l l e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who h u n t . S i gn i f i c a nt differences w i l l e x i s t among SES groups in h u n t e r p e r c e p t i o n o f th e p r o p o r t i o n o f pe er group o p p o s i t i o n to antlerless deer h u n t i n g . Low SES h u n te r s w i l l g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f pe er group o p p o s i t i o n G. perceive the to th e p o l i c y w h i l e high SES h u n te rs w i l l perceive the le a s t o p p o s itio n . S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among th e SES groups f o r sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e rn in g a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g . Low SES hu nte rs w i l l have t h e l e a s t ex pos ure t o mass media i n f o r m a t i o n co nc e rn in g t h e issue w h i l e high SES h u nt e rs w i l l be most exposed to mass media i n f o r m a t i o n so u r c e s . Ingham County h u n te r s w i l l have th e l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f high SES h u nt e rs w h i l e Alpena County w i l l have the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f low SES h u n t e r s . A. The d i f f e r e n c e s counties w i l l in a t t i t u d e among the h u n te rs o f be e x p l a i n e d by t h e d i f f e r e n c e s * p o r t i o n o f h u n t e r s from the t h r e e counties. SES groups in the t h r e e the p r o - in t h e t h r e e CHAPTER IV RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION AND SOME GENERAL FINDINGS The I n t e r v i e w Schedule Early in the f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y , i t was decided t o focus on the a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v io r o f a c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f Michigan deer hunt­ er s re ga rd in g a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g , u l e was prepared in the f a l l of i n t e r v i e w sched­ 1967, and a f t e r two r e v i s i o n s , was a d m in is t e r e d as a p r e t e s t to t h i r t y - t w o li c e n s e buyers A prelim inary randomly s e l e c t e d in Jackson and Ingham c o u n t i e s . f i r e a r m deer These p r e t e s t in te r­ views co nc e n tr a t e d upon t e s t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between socio-economic s t a t u s and th e a t t i t u d e s hunting. tic al The r e s u l t s and b e h a v io r a s s o c ia t e d w i t h a n t l e r l e s s de er i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a f a i r l y s t r o n g s t a t i s ­ a s s o c i a t i o n between a t t i t u d e s and socio-economic s t a t u s as measured by chi square t e s t s . This p r e t e s t I n t e r v i e w schedule d i d not c o n ta in very many qu est ion s designed to e l i c i t data concerning i n f o r m a t i o n sources and r e f e r e n c e groups because the re le v a n c e o f such i n f o r m a t i o n was not ap p a r e n t a t t h a t ti m e . items was Based on the r e s u l t s o f t h i s initial effort, e l i m i n a t e d and ot he rs were added to f i l l a number o f the da ta gaps. t h i s e a r l y st a g e i t was not p o s s i b l e to t e s t f o r th e magnitude o f r e gi o na l d i f f e r e n c e s because the p r e t e s t was co n fi n ed t o one ar ea o f Southern Mic higan. 93 At In the s p r i n g o f 1968 a co nc er te d e f f o r t was made t o r e f i n e the in s tr u m e n t and t o d e te rm in e a s e t o f p l a u s i b l e hypotheses to t e s t which m ight account f o r th e d i f f e r e n c e s in ex pressed a t t i t u d e s . co n cl u d in g t h a t r e f e r e n c e groups and sources o f A fter I n f o r m a t i o n m ight be th e e x p l a n a t o r y concepts o f g r e a t e s t f r u i t f u l n e s s , a b a t t e r y o f ques­ t i o n s were in tr o d u c e d t o e x p l o r e these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A fter further p r e t e s t i n g using a n o n - p r o b a b l i s t i c sample o f respondents from Lansing and a f t e r re vi e w by s e v e r a l f a c u l t y members a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and p r o f e s s i o n a l s o f t h e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources, the schedule was completed and ready f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n interview in August o f 1968. The Sample counties Very e a r l y in the development o f th e study i t became a p p a r e n t t h a t i t was not f e a s i b l e t o choose a sample o f h u n te r s from thro ug h ou t the s t a t e because o f a l i m i t e d rese ar ch bu dg et. may be an i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e , i t was f e l t Because r e g i o n a l differences t h a t i t would be neces sa ry to i n c lu d e a t l e a s t one county from each o f th e r e g i o n s . Th is meant t h a t on ly one county could be used in two regions and p o s s i b l y two c o u n ti e s in the o t h e r r e g i o n . Th is l i m i t a t i o n c o m p l i c a t e d the s e l e c t i o n o f the c o u n t ie s because i t has o f t e n been observed by those c l o s e to the that th e regions there are s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e s as w e l l as among them. of a s tra tifie d Thus, in a t t i t u d e s w i t h i n issue i f t h e c o u n ti e s were chosen on t h e b a s is random sample w i t h such a small sample o f c o u n t i e s , t h e r e would be s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n as to the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s o f any one county f o r i t s regions. I t was dec!ded, a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h s e v e r a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a t i s t i c i a n s who a r e a l s o knowledgeable about the geography and demography o f M i c h i g a n , t o p u r p o s t v e l y s e l e c t th e c o u n t i e s from which 95 MARQUETTE ALPENA F ig ur e 3. Survey s tu dy c o u n t ie s and Michigan Department o f N a t u r a l Resources a d m i n i s t r a t i v e regions the respondent sample would be chosen. The f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a were used: 1. Urban and Rural - No county s e l e c t e d should have an urban o r a rural p o p u l a t i o n g r e a t e r than 85% o f th e t o t a l . 2, Hun ter Success - D i f f e r e n t areas o f a regi o n d i f f e r as t o t h e i r deer h a r v e s t p r o d u c t i v i t y . fa ll Counties should be chosen which in th e median range o f animals h a r v e s t e d pe r season— n e i ­ t h e r areas in which a v e ry high p r o p o r t i o n o f hunte rs k i l l de er each y e a r nor areas in which a v e r y small a proportion o f h u nt e rs a r e su c c e s s fu l s h ou ld be in c l u d e d . 3. I n t e r v i e w e r s - T h i r d l y , a c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y should be located in the v i c i n i t y In o r d e r t h a t local interview ers w i l l be a v a i 1a b l e . 1*. R e p r e s e n t a t iv e n e s s - The c o u n t i e s should t y p i f y to be in clu d ed In th e sample t h e i r regio ns w i t h re gard t o economic c o n d i t i o n s , l a n d - u s e , p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y , and p o p u l a t i o n s i z e f o r the re gi o n it is to r e p r e s e n t . co ns id er ed b u t l a t e r was Grand T r a v e r s e An example o f an a r e a t h a t was r e j e c t e d as be ing a t y p i c a l o f the regi on in the n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a . On the b a s is o f these c r i t e r i a , M a r q u e t t e County was chosen to r e p r e s e n t the Upper P e n i n s u la and Alpena was s e l e c t e d f o r the n o r t h e r n Lower Peninsula? Southern M i c h i g a n ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e county was more d i f f i c u l t to choose. Ingham County was f i n a l l y which a ll o w e d th e urban and the r u r a l Its central A pp a r e n t ly to c o - e x i s t in c l o s e p r o x i m i t y . l o c a t i o n w i t h i n t h e Lower P e n i n s u l a was a l s o a f a c t o r . Ingham County hu nte rs d i s p e r s e more in a fan-shap ed p a t t e r n as they go n o r t h centers. chosen because o f i t s median s i z e to hunt than h u n te rs For ex ample, D e t r o i t , F lin t, from some o f the o t h e r urban Saginaw and Bay C i t y hu nte rs seem to c o n c e n t r a t e on th e e a s t e r n s i d e o f th e n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u la and hunters from th e Grand Rapids a r e a t r a v e l pattern that n o r t h and d i s p e r s e in a is much more c o n c e n t r a t e d in the n o r t h w e s t e r n and w es te rn 97 areas o f th e s t a t e . his a t t i t u d e If the lo c a tio n toward a n t l e r l e s s in which a person hunts a f f e c t s deer h u n t i n g , i t was f e l t t h a t the more d is p e rs ed p a t t e r n o f Lansing h u n t e r s would tend t o hold t h i s co ns t a n t which in t u r n would a l l o w f o r g r e a t e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n variab le from the study r e s u l t s . On the o t h e r hand, s e v e r a l N a tu r a l professionals w ith in th e Department o f Resources w i t h whom the m a t t e r o f the sampling frame was discussed f e l t t h a t the presence o f the s t a t e government agencies Lansing would modify a t t i t u d e s in a f a v o r a b l e d i r e c t i o n c o n t a c t w i t h Department p e r s o n n e l . In through more This p o i n t was c o n si d er ed b u t was r e j e c t e d because o f a la c k o f e v id e n c e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f such an i n f l u e n c e on a t t i t u d e s in t h e p r e t e s t in terview s. This o b s e r v a t i o n seems to have been f u r t h e r su p p o r te d by th e f a c t t h a t o n l y two people o u t o f the 108 in the Ingham sample t h a t were i n t e r v i e w e d were r e p o r t e d to have s a i d something t o th e i n t e r v i e w e r s which contact w ith indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t Department p e r s o n n e l . The Respondent Sample The Department o f N a t u r a l Resources co op era te d in t h e study by drawing a sample o f 133 deer h u nt e rs o f Ingham, Alpena and M a r q u e t t e . in clu d ed in t h e s t u d y , from each o f th e t h r e e c o un tie s In o r d e r to have a chance o f being the respondents had to r e s i d e in one o f these t h r e e c o u n ti e s and had t o have purchased a f i r e a r m de er l i c e n s e in 1967. The d a t a r e p o r t e d in t h i s study were o b t a i n e d from t h i s sample o f hunters. procedures samples. The f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t d e s c r ib e s t h a t were f o l l o w e d in s e l e c t i n g in p r e c i s e terms th e the t h r e e county sub- 98 We f i r s t i s o l a t e d a l l carbon c o pi e s o f l i c e n s e s s o ld and r e t u r n e d by a l l l i c e n s e ag encies l o c a t e d in th e t h r e e c o u n t i e s o f i n t e r e s t , M a r q u e t t e , A lp e n a , and Ingham. L ic en se numbers d i s t r i b ­ uted by th e Department t o agencies in each county a r e c o n s e c u t i v e . The numbers we sampled from were not s o l i d l y c o n s e c u t i v e w i t h i n a county because o f unsold l i c e n s e s o r u n r e t u r n e d l i c e n s e c o p i e s . Licenses r e o r d e r e d by d e a l e r s were n o t i n c l u d e d in t h e u n i v e r s e s i n c e they were d i s t r i b u t e d on an a s k e d - f o r b a s is from l e f t o v e r high-numbered l i c e n s e s and thus were n o t e a s i l y found in f i l e s o f carbon c o p i e s . Some few r e s i d e n t s o f th e s e c o u n t i e s p ro b ab ly purchased l i c e n s e s in o t h e r c o u n t i e s and thus had no chance o f b e in g in clu d ed in t h e sample. L i k e w i s e , many l i c e n s e s s o ld by agencies l o c a t e d w i t h i n a county a r e s o l d t o r e s i d e n t s o f o t h e r counties. Every l i c e n s e number d i s t r i b u t e d to l i c e n s e agents in a county o f i n t e r e s t ( r e o r d e r s e x c e p t e d ) was gi v e n an equal chance o f selectio n . This was done by: (1 ) s u b t r a c t i n g th e l a s t l i c e n s e number d i s t r i b u t e d in t h e p r e v io u s county from the l a s t l i c e n s e number d i s t r i b u t e d in th e county o f i n t e r e s t , g i v i n g a t o t a l o f th e number o f l i c e n s e s d i s t r i b u t e d to t h e c o u n ty ; (2) s e l e c t i n g a random number from th e book A M i l l i o n Random D i g i t s , p r ep ar ed by th e Rand C o r p o r a t i o n , between one and th e t o t a l number o f l i c e n s e s d i s t r i b u t e d ; (3) adding the l i c e n s e number from th e l a s t l i c e n s e d i s t r i b u t e d in t h e p r e v io u s county t o th e s e l e c t e d random number; (A) l o c a t i n g t h e a c t u a l 1 I cense by number and d e t e r m i n i n g i f th e chosen l i c e n s e e is a r e s i d e n t o f th e co un ty ; (5) r e p e a t i n g t h e s e l e c t i o n process u n t i l a p p r o x i ­ m at e ly 133 names have been s e l e c t e d f o r each c o u n t r y . 1 Conducting th e I n t e r v i e w s The res e ar ch was timed so as t o begin about O ct ob er 1 and to be completed b e f o r e November 15. By t h a t t i m e , completed almost a y e a r e a r l i e r . I t was f e l t th e 1967 season had been that In t h i s length o f time th e success o r l a c k o f success o f t h e respondents d u r i n g th e 1967 season would be d i m i n i s h e d enough so t h a t o v e r a l l be a f f e c t e d unduly by one season. a t t i t u d e s would n o t I t was a l s o hoped t h a t the e x c i t e ­ ment o f th e inpending 1968 season (which was to be gin November 15) might induce g r e a t e r c o o p e r a t i o n from th e r e s p on d en ts . The sampling proc edu re was f o r m u l a t e d by and c a r r i e d o u t under the d i r e c t i o n o f Louis Hawn, B i o m e t r i c i a n in t h e Research and Development D i v i s i o n , Department o f N a t u r a l Resources. J u l y 1968. One h u n t e r from an oth er county was i n a d v e r t e n t l y i n c lu d e d in t h e Alpena sample and l a t e r had to be d e l e t e d making a t o t a l o f 132 names f o r the Alpena sample and a t o t a l o f 398 f o r th e t h r e e county sample. 99 The research pl an was designed so t h a t as many I n t e r v i e w s as pos­ s i b l e would be completed In each county d u ri ng the f i r s t i n t e r v i e w s were scheduled f o r th e county. weekly schedule o f i n t e r v i e w i n i t i a t i o n two weeks t h a t The plan c a l l e d f o r a stagg er ed and t e r m i n a t i o n as d e p i c t e d g r a p h i c a l l y beicw. Oc t. k Ingham C o Oct. 11 Oct. 18 Oc t. 25 Nov. 1 . ________________________ ______________ Alpena Co. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ma rquette Co. ----------------------- ---------------------- Such a schedule allowe d time f o r a f o l l o w - u p o f the i n t e r v i e w s t h a t had not been completed d u r i n g th e two weeks a l l o t t e d f o r each county and b e f o r e th e deer season began. Response and Non-response There was a t o t a l o f 398 respondents in cluded In th e sample. Completed usab le i n t e r v i e w s amounted t o 336, o r about 85% success f o r the t o t a l sample. T h is was a lower r a t e o f co mpleti on than was i n i ­ t i a l l y expec ted s i n c e a personal i n t e r v i e w technique was be ing used. However, much o f the respondent a t t r i t i o n can be accounted f o r by the f a c t t h a t th e names were o b t a i n e d from 1967 deer l i c e n s e forms which were more than a y e a r o l d by th e time t h e i n t e r v i e w s were conducted. During t h i s peri od a number o f hunters moved, died, o r f o r o t h e r reasons were n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r interview . Response and non-response d i f f e r e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y f o r the Upper Peni nsu la and the two regions o f the Lower P e n i n s u la following ta b le In d ica tes . as the A pp roxim ate ly 90% o f t h e i n t e r v i e w s in the Ma rq ue tt e sample were completed w h i l e o n l y about 81% 100 T a b l e 6. I n t e r v i e w s co mpleted and reasons f o r uncompleted i n t e r v i e w s by county St a t u s o f th e I n t e r v i e w 1ngham Alpena M a r q u e t te Total 3 of Total 1. Completed I n t e r v i e w 108 109 119 336 84.5 2. Moved and unable to f o 11ow up 10 11 I 22 5.5 3. Mi 1 i t a r y 2 4 3 9 2.0 4. Died 2 2 2 6 2.0 5. Unable t o c o n t a c t 5 3 3 11 2.5 6. Cont ac ted but unable to i n t e r v i e w 4 2 4 10 2.5 2 1 1 4 1.0 133 132 133 398 1 0 0 .0 7. Unaccounted f o r Total were completed In the o t h e r two c o u n t i e s . to have been caused by d i f f e r e n c e s The m ajo r v a r i a t i o n seems In m o b i l i t y . Only one person had moved from M a rq u e t te and was not a v a i l a b l e to be i n t e r v i e w e d . On the o t h e r hand, th e r e s i d e n t s o f Alpena and Ingham c o u n t ie s were much more mobile. I t was not p o s s i b l e to I n t e r v i e w they had moved o u t o f the c o u n ty . II pe op le in Alpena because Two o t h e r s had moved o u t o f t h e c o u n ty , b u t f o l l o w - u p s a t t h e i r new homes r e s u l t e d vi ew s. As might be e x p e c t e d , s e v e r a l in completed Ingham r e s i d e n t s had made i n t r a ­ county moves whose new addresses c o u ld not be d e t e r m in e d . number o f people had moved t o new addresses not be f o l l o w e d up. In each o f th e t h r e e c o u n t i e s incomple te in a p p r o x i m a t e l y the everycategory o f interview s except m o b i l i t y . One f a c t o r shou ld be no ted because i t was one expec ted to a p pe a r. Also, a in o t h e r c o u n t ie s and could same number o f respondents were u n i n t e r v i e w a b l e reasons f o r in te r­ which was not The respondents were s u r p r i s i n g l y c o o p e r a t i v e in 101 th e ir w illingn ess t o be i n t e r v i e w e d . sample e x p l i c i t l y re fu s e d t o be i n t e r v i e w e d . that respondents would not be t h i s several completed i n t e r v i e w s Only t h r e e people In t h e t o t a l An i n i t i a l assumption c o o p e r a t i v e pr o b a b ly c o s t t h e study in Ingham County. In Ingham County, the i n t e r v i e w e r s were I n s t r u c t e d n o t t o te le ph on e f o r an appointment u n t i l they were unsuccessful the door. in making a t l e a s t one unannounced c o n t a c t a t About h a l f way through th e Ingham County i n t e r v i e w s p o l i c y was changed so as to a l l o w the i n t e r v i e w e r s to c a l l th e f o r ap­ pointments because th e respondents were not a t t e m p t i n g t o av oid the Interview s. C o n se q u en tl y , many more t r i p s In Ingham County r e q u i r e d t o accomplish th e same number o f i n t e r v i e w s as in the o t h e r two c o u n t i e s . plete th e ir the i n t e r v i e w e r s The i n t e r v i e w e r s In Lansing took l o n g e r to com­ i n t e r v i e w s , were more t i r e d , and had low er morale n e a r th e end o f the i n t e r v i e w phase o f the r e s e a r c h than the i n t e r v i e w e r s in the o t h e r l o c a l e s a t th e same s t a g e due t o these e x t r a demands t h a t were made o f them. There was no e v id e n c e t h a t making appointments had any ad ver se a f f e c t , al though t h i s can be p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n e d by the fa c t th3t the respondents a l r e a d y knew t h a t th e I n t e r v i e w e r s were coming s i n c e they had r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r announcing t h a t they had been chosen t o p a r t i c i p a t e in th e s t u d y . A p p r o x im a t e ly s i x t y For the most p a r t , i n t e r v i e w e r s were used in t h e t h r e e c o u n t i e s . they were s t u d e n ts from Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Alpena Community C o l l e g e , and N o r t h e r n Michig an U n i v e r s i t y . The q u a l i t y o f th e i n t e r v i e w s was g e n e r a l l y good, al t h o u g h a few o f th e Alpena i n t e r v i e w s were somewhat s u b - p a r . the f a c t t h a t most o f the i n t e r v i e w e r s st u d e n ts This can be a t t r i b u t e d to in Alpena were second y e a r In a two y e a r c o l l e g e as compared t o upper classmen 102 I n t e r v i e w e r s a t th e o t h e r two s c h o o l s . The number o f p l e t e d p e r i n t e r v i e w e r ranged from 20 t o 1. In a l l , I n t e r v i e w s com­ t h e r e were ap­ p r o x i m a t e l y *»5 i n t e r v i e w e r s who could be termed p r o d u c t i v e they completed 5 o r more i n t e r v i e w s . tiv e The av er age among th ese produc­ I n t e r v i e w e r s was a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 p e r pe rs on. General Enough i n f o r m a t i o n Fi nd in gs is a v a i l a b l e on th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f d e e r hunte rs from a number o f s t u d i e s o f f e r a g e n e r a l comparison w i t h from v a r i o u s areas o f the country to th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s research. p o s s i b l e measure o f th e r e l i a b i l i t y o f the d a t a r e p o r t e d w ill In t h a t One in t h i s study be f o r t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e d e s c r i p t i v e d a t a on t h e respondents in th e Michigan study to be s i m i l a r t o the r e s u l t s o f comparable d a t a in other studies. I t does not n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w , however, t h a t if ar e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between Michigan h u n te r s and hu nt e rs o t h e r areas that this indicates that there I t may s im pl y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e a r e real there from is a l a c k o f d a t a r e l i a b i l i t y . d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e va ri o u s h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n s . It w ill the gene ra l a l s o be our purpose In t h i s s e c t i o n to compare and c o n t r a s t social and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the h u n t e r p o pu la ­ tio ns from Ingham, A lp e n a , and M a r q u e t te c o u n t i e s w i t h general p o p u l a t i o n s from th e same c o u n t i e s . the da ta from t h i s st udy w i l l The U.S. those o f the Census d a t a and be used t o draw comparisons and c o n t r a s t s between th ese two p o p u l a t i o n t y p e s . Sex Very few women h u n t . In our random sample o f de er h u nt e rs from Ingham, Alpena and M a rq u e t te c o u n t i e s , seventeen i n t e r v i e w s were 103 completed w i t h women, o r about f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l In terview s. A somewhat h i g h e r p e r c e n t a g e o f the t o t a l completed sample o r i g i n a l l y drawn were women b u t a s m a l l e r p e r c e n t a g e o f th e s e i n t e r v i e w s were co mpleted. Part o f this la c k o f I n t e r v i e w success was due to a h e s i ­ tancy on t h e p a r t o f s e v e r a l women t o be i n t e r v i e w e d beca us e, as they put I t t o the i n t e r v i e w e r s , " I d o n ' t know enough about h u n ti n g t o be i n t e r v i ewed." Th is small percentage of fema le h u n te rs corresponds to th e r e s u l t s o f several o th er s tu d ie s . in 19 65 , In th e N a t i o n a l Survey o f F i s h i n g and Hun ting I t was found t h a t about 5% o f th e t o t a l h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n were women.^ In a m ajor study in t h e n o r t h e a s t e r n U.S. about 35% o f a l l 2 hunters were males . In P e t e r l e ' s study o f Ohio h u nt e rs about 1% o f the r e tu rn e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were from female h u n t e r s . 3 Age The age d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the t h r e e c o u n t ie s is g i v e n in T a b le 7. The average age Is a p p r o x i m a t e l y 39 y e a r s . Th is compares w i t h Ohio L hunte rs who were a p p r o x i m a t e l y 35 y e ar s o l d and w i t h hunte rs from the n o r t h e a s t e r n U.S.'* whose av erage age was 38 . r e f e r e n c e to these two s t u d i e s c i t e d hunt a l l that It should be noted w i t h the d a t a a r e f o r h u nt e rs who types o f game. ^N a t i o n a l Survey o f F i s h i n g and H un tin g f o r 1 9 6 5 , p. 17. 2 B e v i n s , e t a l . , C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Hunters and Fishermen N o r t h e a s t e r n S t a t e s , p . 15. ^ P e t e r l e , "The Hunter-Who Is H e , " p. 259. L P e t e r l e , " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Some Ohio H u n t e r s , " p. ^Bevins, p. 16. 380. in S i x 104 T a b le 7. Age d i s t r i b u t i o n by county Ingh am No. % Groupings 'A1pen a No. % M a rq ue tt e No. % Comb i ned Total ^ o f Com­ bined T o t a l 10 -19 12 11 15 14 12 10 39 12 20-29 24 22 20 18 26 22 70 21 30-39 27 25 24 22 26 22 77 23 40-49 15 14 26 24 19 16 60 18 50- 59 20 19 14 13 21 18 55 16 60-69 9 8 8 7 11 9 28 8 70 -7 9 0 0 2 2 4 3 6 2 8 0 -8 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 119 100 336 108 100 Total 109 100 N eg ligib le 100 The o l d e r avera ge age f o r deer h u n te r s may be p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n e d by th e c o n c l u s io n t h a t an i n t e r e s t game e v o l v e s i n t o an i n t e r e s t in h u n t i n g o f v a r i o u s in h u n t i n g b i g g e r game such as d e e r . Perhaps r a b b i t h u n t i n g and such l i k e f u t u r e deer h u n t e r s . a minimum age o f hunters. f u r n i s h e s a t r a i n i n g ground f o r Also in some s t a t e s including Michigan, t h e r e Is 14 f o r d e e r h u n t e r s but no minimum age f o r small game Th is would a l s o c r e a t e some d i s p a r i t y between t h e average age o f th e two groups o f h u n t e r s . regulations types o f small It is n o t known i f t h e r e a r e age in the s t a t e s c i t e d above which would i n f l u e n c e th e average age o f th e hu nt e rs o f d i f f e r e n t types o f game. Race The r a c i a l co mposition o f the h u n t e r sample which was i n t e r v i e w e d in Michigan was overwhelming w h i t e . of a ll Less than o n e - h a l f o f one p e rc e n t those i n t e r v i e w e d were c la s s e d as n o n - w h i t e by th e i n t e r v i e w e r s . This f i n d i n g c o i n c i d e s w i t h th e r e s u l t s o f P e t e r l e ' s su rv ey which 105 i n d i c a t e d t h a t o n l y about two p e rc e n t o f a l l hunters in Ohio were non- whi tes s ' The t a b l e below shows the r a c i a l l a t i o n and the general coun tie s Ta ble 8. composition o f the h u n t e r popu­ p o p u l a t i o n o f p o t e n t i a l hunte rs f o r the t h re e in cluded in t h i s st u d y . Racial composition by county Oth er Wh I te County No. 1ngham Hunters _ General Pop. 104 NA A1pena Hunters ^ General Pop. 109 NA Ma rquette • Hunters General Pop. 1 16 NA % 97 96 100 99.9 98 96 1ndetermi nate^ No. % No. 2 NA 1. 5 k 2 NA 1.5 NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 k 3 NA 2 NA •1 NA » Not a p p l i c a b l e As can be seen from th i s t a b l e , the p r o p o r t i o n o f wh i te and non- w h i t e r e s i d e n t s when compared t o w h i t e and n o n -w h it e hunte rs d i f f e r s '•'The Hunter-Who Is H e , " p. 259. 2 The r a c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s e v e r a l respondents were not known due to the f a i l u r e o f the i n t e r v i e w e r t o i n d i c a t e whether the r e ­ spondent was w h i t e o r n o n -w h it e in the a p p r o p r i a t e space on the i n t e r ­ view schedule. 3 U.S. Census o f P o p u l a t i o n . ** l b i d . . p. 153. 5 lbid., 1 57 . p. I 9 6 0 , V o l . 2 k , p. 155. 106 s i g n i f i c a n t l y o n l y f o r M a r q u e t t e County. The A% n o n - w h i t e p o p u l a t i o n f o r M a r q u e t t e c o n s i s t s p r i m a r i l y o f American I n d i a n s . By chance, a p p a r e n t l y none o f these persons were drawn in th e st udy sample f o r Ma rq u e t te County. H u n ti n g E x p e ri e n c e Some i n d i c a t i o n o f the e x p e r i e n c e and perhaps even t h e p r o f i c i e n c y o f the h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n may be f u r n i s h e d by knowing how many ye ars Michigan h u n te r s have h u n te d . asserted a t th is p o in t th at e x p e r i e n c e and s k i l l ; d istrib u tio n I t should be added t h a t there howe ve r, It ts a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between is w o r t h w h i l e to check t h e e x p e r i e n c e f o r t h i s sample and compare i t w i t h r i e n c e o f h u nt e rs i t cannot be th e amount o f expe­ from o t h e r s t u d i e s . Data from two o t h e r s t u d i e s f u r n i s h a b a s i s f o r comparison. Ta ble 9 . Length o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n Length o f P a r t i c i p a t t o n a Over 1 1-20 30 1 1. Michigan Deer Hunters 2. A r i z . Big-Game H un ter s 1 3. NE H u n t e r s 2 studies 0 tn Study from s e v e r a l CM 10 ye ar s o r less f o r h u nt e rs Total A2% 28% 16% 1A% 100 A0 30 33 28 1A 18 1A 2A 100 100 % aThese d a t a a r e n o t s t r i c t l y comparable because Davis ag g r e g a te d h is d a t a as f o l l o w s : Under 10 y r s ; 1 0 - 1 9 ; 2 0 - 2 9 ; 30 and o v e r . This causes h i s d a t a f o r the I 0 t h y e a r t o be a g g r eg a te d in column two, whereas the t e n t h y e a r d a t a Is a g g r e g a te d in column one f o r the o t h e r two s t u d i e s . The same d i s p a r i t y e x i s t s f o r th e 2 0 th y e a r and the 30th y e a r . ^ D a v is , Values o f H u n ti n g and F i s h i n g 2 Bevins, p. 29. in A r i z o n a in 1 9 6 5 , p. 12. 107 The number o f years o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n by Michigan and Ari zo na hunters is qu ite s im ila r. In c o n t r a s t , the p r o p o r t i o n o f hunte rs w it h less than ten ye ar s e x p e r i e n c e in t h e N o r t h e a s t is much lower than in the o t h e r two areas w h i l e the p r o p o r t i o n o f hunters w i t h more than 20 years e x p e r ie n c e is s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r f o r the NE. These d i f f e r e n c e s ar e d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n e x c e p t t o s p e c u l a t e t h a t perhaps fewer young a d u l t s a r e t a k i n g up hu nti ng in the h e a v i l y ur ba niz ed NE than in t h e o t h e r two less cosmopolitan r e g io n s . It is i n t e r e s t i n g t o note the apparent d i f f e r e n c e s of h u n t i n g e x p e r i e n c e in the t h r e e regions t a b l e d e p ic t s T a b le 10. in t h e amount in Mi ch ig an. The f o l l o w i n g these d i f f e r e n c e s . Length o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n by county County 10 Years o r Less 11-20 21 -30 Over 30 Ingham k3% 33% 15% 3% A1pena 38 26 19 17 100 Marq u e t t e 39 26 15 20 100 To ta l % 100 In t h i s m a t t e r o f h u n t i n g e x p e r i e n c e , Alpena and Marq uet te Counties are ve ry s i m i l a r . However, the da ta from Ingham County d i f f e r s th a t o f the o t h e r c o un tie s than 20 years from in t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n o f hu nte rs w i t h less is much h i g h e r w h i l e the p r o p o r t i o n w i t h more than 30 years e x p e r ie n c e is much lo we r. Occupation In coding th e occup ati on c a t e g o r i e s o f the respondents in the Michigan Deer Hunter A t t i t u d e Survey, th e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system o f the 108 U.S. Bureau o f t h e Census' was used. Table 11 r e p o r t s t h e data from Michigan and compares i t w i t h d a t a from s i m i l a r s t u d i e s . o r a t e c a t e g o r i e s as used in the U.S. C ollar, Blue C o l l a r , Table 11. The more e l a b ­ Census were c o l l a p s e d Farming, and M is c e l la n e o u s groupings i n t o White in t h i s tab le. Occupation o f respondents f o r s e v e r a l s t u d i e s Michigan Deer Hunters Oh io 2 Hunters A ri zona Hunters Wh i te Co11 a r Profess i onal Techni cal Manageri al C l e r i cal Sal es Servi ce 32% 26% Blue C o l l a r Crafts Foreman Ope r a t o r s Laborers 52 Occupat i on Northeas t e r n 4 H un te rs National Survey"* 40% 39% 35% 56 45 42 51 3 6 4 7 9 13 12 10 12 5 100 100 100 100 100 Fa rm Farme rs Farm Managers Farm Laborers Other Ret i red Unemployed Housewives Widows Students Total 3 T h is system o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is discussed in d e t a i l in Charles H. Backstrom and G , P. Hursh, Survey Research (C hi cag o: N o r th w e s t e r n U n i ­ v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 6 5 ) , p. 9 9 . 2"The Hunter-Who Is H e , " p. 260. ^D av is , p. 13. 2* B e v i n s , p. 21 . ' ’N a t i o n a l Survey, p. 58. 109 There a r e marked d i f f e r e n c e s in the p r o p o r t i o n o f b l u e c o l l a r and w h i t e c o l l a r wo rke rs among some o f is l i t t l e these h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n s b u t t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e farm and m is c e ll a n e o u s p o p u l a t i o n s . P a r t o f th e v a r i a t i o n can be e x p l a i n e d by n o t i n g th e f a c t Michigan and Ohio s t u d i e s s p e c i f i c j o b and t h e i r ca teg o ries, w hile to c l a s s i f y in th e the respondents were asked t o i n d i c a t e th eir responses were l a t e r coded i n t o a p p r o p r i a t e in t h e N o r t h e a s t e r n s tu dy the respondents were asked t h e i r jobs blue c o l l a r , e t c . that themselves as t o w h e t h e r they were w h i t e c o l l a r , It is v e ry p o s s i b l e t h a t b l u e c o l l a r workers could have gi ve n an e x a g g e r a te d o p i n i o n o f t h e i r jo b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n when they were asked t o c l a s s i f y occur, th is If this response b e h a v i o r d i d f a c t c o ul d e x p l a i n th e h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n o f persons w i t h job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n hand, the m se lv es . as b l u e c o l l a r t h e r e may be re al in Michigan and Oh io. differences On the o t h e r in t h e number o f pe ople who ar e a t t r a c t e d t o h u n t i n g from the v a r i o u s j o b type groupings from d i f f e r e n t regions. Or i t co uld be t h a t t h e r e is a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n o f w h i t e c o l l a r to b l u e c o l l a r workers from which to draw h u nt e rs in th e N o r t h ­ e a s t and A r i z o n a as c o n t r a s t e d w i t h Michigan and Ohio. At th is p o in t the occupational lations c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e h u n t e r popu­ in t h e t h r e e Michigan c o u n t ie s under s tu dy w i l l w i t h th e o c c u p a t i o n a l for t h e ir characteristics f o r the gene ral be compared male p o p u l a t i o n resp ective counties. Ta bl e 12 i n d i c a t e s h u n t e r and th e ge ne ra l major d i f f e r e n c e s a r e t h a t t h e r e a r e few d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e male p o p u l a t i o n s in t h e t h r e e c o u n t i e s . in the " C r a f t s and Foremen" c a t e g o r i e s and M a rq u e t te Counties and between " O p e r a t i v e s " in The Ingham in Alpena County. o f t h i s d i f f e r e n c e can perhaps be e x p l a i n e d as a f u n c t i o n o f the Part Table 12. Occupational char act erist ic s of the hunter sample and the general male population for Ingham, Alpena, and Marquette Counties Ingham (Hunter) Occupat ion 9% k 10 1 7 33 19 10 7 8 19 20 0 7 Neg. 8 in Each Occupational Class3 Marquette Alpena2 (General) (Hunter) 8% 6 9% 0 Marquette3 (General) 11% 1 13 3 6 2k 15 11 6 5 22 21+ 3 3 3 32 27 10 5 k 20 29 0 8 Neg. k 0 9 Neg. 8 0 1 1 ] 0 1 1 A 4 2 2 6 8 11 12 5 17 5 100% 101% 100% 100% 100% 99* a l t should be kept in mind that the data for the general population was collected in I960 while the deer hunting study was done in 1968. ^Deviations from 100% are due to errors in rounding. ^U. S. Census of Population, p. 311. 2 l b i d . . p. 309. P. 313. 110 1. P r o f . , Tech. 2. Farm & Farm Mgr. 3. Managers, O f f i c i a l s , £■ Proprietors 4. C le r ic a l 5. Sales 6. Crafts & Foremen 7. Operatives 8. Private Household Workers 9. Service 10. Farm labor and Foremen 11. Laborers 12. Other T o t a lb Percentage of the Total Ingham1 Alpena (General) (Hunter) 16% 6% 2 k Ill v a g a r i e s o f c o d in g . For many re s p o n d e n ts , i t was d i f f i c u l t to d e te r m in e w h e th e r they should be c la s s e d as c ra ft sm en o r o p e r a t i v e s based on t h e i r descriptions o f t h e i r occupations. attrib u tab le w illin g t o chance d i f f e r e n c e s P a r t o f th e d i f f e r e n c e in th e sample. Is p r o b a b ly However, I am not to d i s c o u n t these a p p a r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s a l t o g e t h e r . This c o n s i s ­ t e n t o v e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n among c ra ft sm en and foremen and under­ r e p r e s e n t a t i o n among o p e r a t i v e s t o the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t in these h u n t e r samples may lend s u p p o r t t h e r e ar e pockets o f s t r o n g I n t e r e s t in h u n t i n g among c e r t a i n s o ci o -e c o n o m ic cla ss es and a l e s s e r I n t e r e s t among o t h e r s . I t has a l r e a d y been a s s e r t e d in C hapter I I I in h u n t i n g may i n f l u e n c e the a t t i t u d e s that d ifferen ces in i n t e r e s t among members o f th e s e v a r io u s grou ps . S im ilarly the " P r o f e s s i o n a l is u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n "Manager, e t c . " c a t e g o r y latio n . and T e c h n i c a l " p a r t o f the work f o r c e in Ingham County and t h e is a l s o u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d In t h e h u n t e r popu­ These d i f f e r e n c e s su p p o r t t h e e a r l i e r a s s e r t i o n t h a t w h i t e c o l l a r workers may be less committed t o de er h u n t i n g as a group than a r e b l u e col I a r workers in th e same c o u n t i e s . I n come Almost a l l the m a jo r hunter studies have d a ta on th e annual income o f h u n t e r s . reviewed f o r t h i s s e c t i o n However, to develop comparisons because o f two reasons. d i f f i c u l t t o compare a b s o l u t e levels o f it F irst, is d i f f i c u l t it is very income from v a ri o u s s t u d i e s because the d a t a were g e n e r a l l y c o l l e c t e d in d i f f e r e n t y e a r s . the s t u d i e s a r e conducted more than one o r two ye ar s a p a r t , isons a r e not very meaningful excess o f 5% in th e l a s t because o f annual few y e a r s . Se co nd ly , When compar­ income increas es inconsistencies in in 112 a g g r e g a t i n g d a ta pr e s e n t s e ri o u s problems. For example, in t h e N a t i o n a l Survey o f Hunting and F i s h in g conducted by th e Bureau o f th e Census and in th e da ta from t h i s study o f Michigan deer hunte rs a g g r e g a ti o n took t h e f o l l o w i n g form: Less than $3000; $ 4 0 0 0 -5 9 9 9 ; $6 00 0 -7 9 9 9 ; 9 9 9 9 ; $ 1 0 0 0 0 - 1 4 9 9 9 ; $15000 and o v e r . On t h e o t h e r hand many o f the o t h e r s t u d i e s ag gregated a t d i f f e r e n t b r e a k p o i n t s , differences , $7000-8999. in r ec o rd in g and r e p o r t i n g da ta make i t i n g f u l l y compare data among s t u d i e s and p o in t s lis h in g standardized guidelines $8000- These im po ss ib le to mean­ to a need f o r e s t a b ­ (p re fe ra b ly o f national scope) for r ec o rd in g da ta from these kinds o f s t u d i e s . The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e d i s p la y s da ta from t h e N a t i o n a l Survey and from our Michigan d a t a . Also included is the ag gregated d a t a from the U.S. P o p u la t io n Census f o r I960 f o r Ingham, Alpena and Ma rquette Count i e s . Ta ble 13. Income d i s t r i b u t i o n Income C a te g o ri e s Less than $3000 $3000-5999 $6000-7999 $8000-9999 $10000-14999 Over $15000 Not a s c e r t a i n e d T o ta l Michigan Deer Hun t e rs k% 4 19 27 28 8 5 100 ^National 2 f o r two s t u d i e s Data from Various S tud ies Census Data f o r the Three Mich. ^ N a t i o n a l Survey Counties Combined o f Hunting 13% 32 16 16 13 4 6 100 15% 36 22 13 11 4 - 101 Survey , p. 62. U.S. Census o f P o p u la t i o n , I 9 6 0 , pp. 327, 325 , and 329. 113 Be a rin g in mind t h a t 1965* and I 9 6 0 , the d a t a resp ectively, d a t a from th e N a t i o n a l in T a b l e 13 were c o l l e c t e d in 1968, pronounced d i f f e r e n c e s a r e a p p a r e n t . Survey o f F i s h i n g and H un tin g and t h e ge ne ral Census d a t a f o r the t h r e e Michigan c o u n t i e s the Income d i s t r i b u t i o n is q u i t e s i m i l a r . f o r Mic higa n d e e r h u n t e r s from t h e o t h e r two groups. curve, The If U.S, However, is r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t the d a t a were d e p i c t e d on a d i s t r i b u t i o n t h e Michigan d i s t r i b u t i o n would be skewed to th e l e f t w h i l e curves f o r the o t h e r two s t u d i e s would be skewed to th e r i g h t . the This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e da ta seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t de er h u n t i n g in Michigan a t t r a c t s a d isp rop ortion ately l a r g e number o f h i g h e r income p a rtic ip a n ts . Now we s h a l l see i f th e re are s u b s t a n t ia l differen ces f o r income d i s t r i b u t i o n among th e c o u n t i e s . Ta b le 1**. The income d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e deer hu n te rs and ge ne ral p o p u l a t i o n s o f Ingham, Alpena and M a r q u e t t e Counties Less Than Count i es___________ $3000 $3 0 0 0 5999 $6 000 7999 $80009999 $1 00 0 014999 Over $15000 Total Ingham Deer Hunters General Pop. 3% 13 6% 32 12% 22 26% 14 40% 13 13% 5 A1pena Deer Hunters General Pop. 4 18 13 39 21 24 30 10 26 7 6 2 100 100 Ma rq ue tt e Deer Hunters General Pop. 5 19 10 46 28 20 28 8 23 5 6 2 100 100 100% 99 114 As w i t h the previous t a b l e , th e d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t th e low er income groups a r e markedly u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d in th e h u n ti n g p o p u la t io n and the h i g h e r income groups ar e s u b s t a n t i a l l y o v e r - r e p r e s e n t e d . But again these d i f f e r e n c e s should be taken c a u t i o u s l y because the data a r e n o t abso­ l u t e l y comparable. studies. These da ta d i f f e r markedly from the r e s u l t s o f o t h e r For example, in the Ohio study I t was found t h a t o n ly 8$ o f hunters earned more than $900o' w h i l e in the Michigan study 38% earned more than $10000. Ohio The main d i f f e r e n c e hunters o f a l l In th e two s t u d i e s was t h a t , types o f game were sampled i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y , w h i l e in Michigan the study focused upon deer h u n t e r s . Ju st f o r deer hunters in I f data were a v a i l a b l e in Ohio, even though deer h u n ti n g is not as impor­ t a n t as in M ic h ig a n , the income d i s t r i b u t i o n might be q u i t e s i m i l a r . I t seems l i k e l y t h a t the key v a r i a b l e here is not the s t a t e o f residence b u t th e game which the h u n t e r seeks. The c o n t r a s t in da ta between A r i z o n a and Michigan is somewhat less pronounced b u t is nonetheless very e v i d e n t . In A r i z o n a 22% o f the hunters and fishermen in D a v is ' study earned more than $10000 as cont r a i l e d w i t h the 38% f o r M ic h ig an . This high income l e v e l deer hunte rs may f u r n i s h a c l u e as to where t o check f i r s t analysis f o r Michigan In our in Chapters V and V I . Education Since the l e v e l o f income f o r Michigan hunters is h i g h e r than would have been expected i f hunte rs were a t t r a c t e d p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y '" T h e Hunter-Who Is H e , " p. 259. 2 Davis, p. 15. 115 from a l l income s t r a t a * it is not unre aso na ble t o e x p e c t e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s t o be g r e a t e r f o r the h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n than f o r the ge ne ra l population. This can be ex pe c te d because the two v a r i a b l e s a r e u s u a l l y ve ry c l o s e l y related . fe re nc e s in e d u c a t i o n * income d i f f e r e n c e s th at: If In f a c t we do f i n d t h e r e a r e m ajor d i f ­ then we can be somewhat more c o n f i d e n t t h a t th e discussed above ar e real. The l o g i c i n v o l v e d is (1) s i n c e Income and e d u c a t i o n have been found to have an ex ­ t r e m e l y high d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n educational in study a f t e r s t u d y * and ( 2 ) l e v e l s a r e not as dynamic as income in a f i v e p e r i o d * we can assume t h a t educational l e v e l s as w e l l real that if there are s u b s ta n tia l as the income l e v e l s d i f f e r e n c e s p ro b ab ly e x i s t Now we s h a l l s in c e t o ten y e a r differences in the f o r the same d a t a * then in both v a r i a b l e s . check t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e d i s p l a y s the da ta from the Michigan study and from t h e I 9 6 0 U.S. Census o f Population. Ta b le 15* E d u c a ti o n a l l e v e l s f o r th e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n and f o r the h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n f o r Ingham* Alpena and M a r q u e t t e Counties County and Population j Represented Ingham Hun t e rs Gen-. Pop. A1pena Hunters Gen. Pop. Ma rquette Hunters Gen, Pop. Grade School Some H { gh School H i gh School Grad. 21 % 30 15% 19 25 51 21 40 Some Col le g e A o r More Years o f Col le g e 36% 25 20% 11 9% 16 15 18 44 21 13 4 3 5 100 99 29 21 34 25 10 7 7 8 101 101 T o ta l 101% 101 S t a t i s t i c s r e p o r t e d f o r t h e ge ne ral male p o p u l a t i o n s o f Ingham* Alpena and M a rq u e t te Counties a r e from t h e i9 6 0 U.S. Census o f Popu­ l a t i o n . V o l . 24* pp. 303* 3 0 1 , and 305» r e s p e c t i v e l y . 116 The problem o f comparing I96 0 data w i t h 1968 da ta is s t i l l but t h i s time we can be a l i t t l e cussed above. less concerned f o r th e reasons d i s ­ This t a b l e d e p i c t s ve ry c l e a r l y a general which t h e p r o p o r t i o n present pattern o f hu nte rs who d i d not f i n i s h high school in is u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d , w h i l e high school graduates and those w i t h some college are over-represented The c o n t r a s t between In comparison w i t h Ingham County and the o t h e r two c o un tie s f o r respondents w i t h f o u r o r more years o f c o l l e g e and perhaps i m p o r t a n t . sentation to t h e a s s e r t i o n shown 1 hu nti ng is less upon h u n t i n g . w ill be less population. in Chapter I I I f o r hu nti ng in teresting in the o t h e r two co un tie s t h e i r in th e h u nt in g p o p u l a t i o n in t h e general is q u i t e In Ingham County these h i g h l y educated hunters are g r e a t l y u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d w h i l e representation the ge ne ral p o p u l a t i o n . is s i m i l a r to t h e i r r e p r e ­ This f i n d i n g a l s o lends support t h a t g r e a t e r ge ne ra l in th e n o r t h e r n in terest w ill be regions even among groups f o r which im p o rt a n t because o f th e g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r v a lu e placed In t h i s c a s e , i t has been hy po th e si ze d t h a t hu nti ng im po rta nt among h i g h e r socio-economic s t a t u s groups o f which e d u c a t i o n is one i n d i c a t o r . This hypothesis w i l l be t e s t e d in Chapter V I . The t a b l e a l s o i n d i c a t e s general male p o p u l a t i o n t h a t th e e c u a t i o n a l level f o r the is h i g h e s t in Ingham County and f o ll o w e d in o r d e r by Ma rquette and Alpena Cou nt ie s. The median va lue f o r the number o f ye ars o f e d u c a t io n f o r the gene ral male p o p u l a t i o n is 12.1 f o r Ingham County f o l l o w e d by 10.5 and 9 . 0 f o r Ma rquette and Alpena * In t h i s case the p r o p o r t i o n o f the hu n ti n g p o p u l a t i o n to the general p o p u l a t i o n f o r each SES group is used t e m p o r a r i l y as a proxy fo r in te re s t. 1 17 Counties, r e s p e c tiv e ly .^ The median l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n 12 ye a r s in f o r d e e r h u n te r s Ingham County w h i l e Is a p p r o x i m a t e l y in Alpena and M a rq ue tt e Counties average number o f ye ars th e e d u c a t i o n f o r d e e r h u nt e rs approximately resp ectively. 1 2 . 5 and 12 y e a r s , s u p p o r t the Idea t h a t people w i t h deer hunters is The d a t a a l s o tends to less e d u c a t i o n a r e le ss lik e ly t o be than r e s i d e n t s w i t h more e d u c a t i o n . S umma ry The h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n s ve ry s i m i l a r to t h e ge ne ra l and r a c e . For s e x , s ig n ific a n tly for Ingham, Alpena and M a r q u e t t e seem to be population w ith 1ncome and e d u c a t i o n , t h e h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n d i f f e r s from th e ge ne ra l po pulation f o r the three co u n tie s . About 5% o f t h e Michigan d e e r h u n te r s women. i n t e r v i e w e d in t h i s study were Deer h u n te rs were somewhat b e t t e r e d u c a te d than th e ge ne ra l p o p u l a t i o n from t h e i r c o u n t i e s . in r es p ec t to a g e , o c c u p a ti o n The most pronounced d i f f e r e n c e was income a lt h o u g h the d i f f e r e n c e s a r e d i m i n i s h e d c o n s i d e r a b l y because o f the tim e v a r i a b l e . T a b l e 16. The a p pr ox im a te median incomes were as f o l l o w s : Median income o f de er h u n te rs and ge ne ra l Michigan c o u n t i e s population fo r P o p u l a t i o n Sampled 1ngham A1pena Deer Hunters $10,530 $8,995 $ 8 ,8 3 5 6,715 5,691 5 ,m General P o p u l a t i o n 2 * U . S . Census o f P o p u l a t i o n , pp. 2 1b i d , pp. 32 7 , 32 5 . and 329. 303. 3 0 1 , and 305. M a rq u e t te 1 18 The r e s u l t s o f t h i s study o f Michigan d e e r hu nte rs were found to be ve ry s i m i l a r to the f i n d i n g s o f o t h e r h u n t e r s t u d i e s h u n t e r s e x , age and r a c e . In terms o f S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were a p p a r e n t f o r the number o f y e a r s h u n t e d , d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h i n o c c u p a ti o n types and income. The income o f Michigan deer h u n te r s was much h i g h e r than the national av er ag e f o r h u n t e r s . surveys were q u i t e s i m i l a r c o l l a r workers. The M i c h i g a n , Ohio and the N a t i o n a l in th e p r o p o r t i o n o f b l u e c o l l a r and w h i t e On the o t h e r ha nd , A r i z o n a and t h e N o r t h e a s t e r n U.S. had a much s m a l l e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f bl u e c o l l a r workers than in the other three studies. The f i n d i n g s deviation taken t o g e t h e r seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t from th e e x p e c te d is experience. r e l a t e d t o income, e d u c a t i o n and h u n t i n g These v a r i a b l e s w i l l in Chapters V and V I . be c e n t r a l to our a n a l y t i c a l focus CHAPTER V TESTING THE HYPOTHESES An Assumption It model is necessary t o make an assumption r e g a r d i n g t h e a n a l y t i c a l t o be developed in t h i s c h a p t e r in o r d e r to begin the development. The assum pt ion , which was p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d in C hapter most h u nt e rs a r e dependent on a v a r i e t y o f secondary III, i n f o r m a t i o n sources in o r d e r to form o p i n i o n s co nce rni ng w h e t h e r a n t l e r i e s s shot o r not. deer should be This c o n t r a s t s w i t h an a l t e r n a t i v e assumption t h a t h u n te r s p e r s o n a l l y see enough in the f i e l d to a r r i v e a t w hat, be v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n s ; and t o a r r i v e a t to them, seems to these c o n c l u s io n s w i t h o u t con­ s u l t a t i o n w i t h any o t h e r person o r exposure to any o t h e r source. is t h a t This a l t e r n a t i v e assumption most h u nt e rs p r o b a b l y see ve ry l i t t l e h u n t i n g season. is r e j e c t e d on t h e grounds t h a t de er h a b i t a t e x c e p t d u r i n g Even then f o r most h u n te rs and o n l y d u r i n g one season. inform ation it is o n ly f o r a few days For those h u nt e rs who have f i r s t h a n d knowledge o f th e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e de er h a b i t a t , t h a t they would not t e s t t h e i r ideas it is inconceivable in t h e g i v e and t a k e o f co nv e r ­ s a t i o n w i t h o t h e r hu nte rs and t h a t they would not be exposed t o a v a r i e t y o f f a c t s and p o i n t s o f view from mass media and o t h e r i n f o r ­ mation s o u r c e s . Each exposure t o i n f o r m a t i o n could and pr o b a b ly would i n f l u e n c e and modify o r i g i n a l s e l f conc eiv ed o p i n i o n s , f o r m a t i o n p a t t e r n s based on p e rs o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n e x i s t 119 i f such o p i n i o n in t h e f i r s t p l a c e . 120 Our t h e s i s , which must t a k e t h e form o f an assumption because adequ ate d a t a a r e not a v a i l a b l e no h u n te rs to t e s t i t em p iric ally , is t h a t almost form t h e i r o p i n i o n s s t r i c t l y o r even p r i m a r i l y from what th ey have seen w h i l e h u n t i n g o r w h i l e they a r e in the o u t - o f - d o o r s o t h e r reasons. fo r According t o t h i s assumption personal o b s e r v a t i o n s have the a f f e c t o f c o n f i r m i n g , o r in some i n s t a n c e s , a l t e r i n g o p in io n s which were o r i g i n a l l y formed by i n f o r m a t i o n from and a t t i t u d e s o f h i s peers and from i n f o r m a t i o n v i a v a r i o u s o t h e r so u r c e s . There is one b i t o f d a t a from t h i s some l i g h t on th e h u n t e r s ' study which I n d i r e c t l y sheds perception o f hunter o p p o rtu n itie s v a l i d o b s e r v a t i o n s and then to make mean ingful what they have seen. in terp reta tio n s o f The respondents we re asked the q u e s t i o n , " 1 0 6 . P le a s e t e l l which group l i s t e d , the d e e r h e r d . to make in y o u r o p i n i o n , knows the most about (THEN ASK THE RESPONDENT WHICH GROUP IS SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, ETC. ACCORDING TO KNOWLEDGEAB I L1TY. ) 1,1 1. E x p e r t h u n te rs _____ 2. C on s e r v a ti o n Department b i o l o g i s t s _____ 3. F o r e s t e r s and o t h e r s who work In the woods_____ if. Sportsman's club o f f i c i a l s _ _ _ _ 5. Business men who have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o t a l k h u n t e r s _____ t o many d i f f e r e n t Acco rding t o h u n t e r rankings e x p e r t h u n t e r s , b i o l o g i s t s f o r e s t e r s were g i v e n th e h i g h e s t rankings o v e r a l l . three and Data f o r the f i r s t rankings f o r each o f th e t h r e e were as f o l l o w s : ) E x p e r t h u n te rs CD b i o l o g i s t s F o r e s t e r s and o t h e r woodsmen ^See q u e s t i o n 62 178 87 106 In th e I n t e r v i e w Schedule Ranki ng 2 82 76 li»0 3 ]\k 41 71 in Appendix A. 121 C l e a r l y h u nt e rs most kn owl e dg e ab le . rank h u n te r s ( e x p e r t h u n te r s a t t h a t ) Thus i n d i r e c t l y as t h i r d i t can be reasoned t h a t s i n c e , (1) hu nte rs see themselves as less know ledge able than two o t h e r ob­ s e r v e r groups which have more i n t i m a t e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e r e s o u r c e , and (2 ) s i n c e almos t a l l hu nte rs have an o p i n i o n c o n c e rn in g the a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g p o l i c y , one could conclude t h a t h u n te rs a r e more h e a v i l y dependent upon secondary i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n , f o r e x am pl e , b i o l o g i s t s . The l a r g e volume o f r e j o i n d e r s and r e p l i e s to p u b l i s h e d work and the r e p l i c a t i o n o f s t u d i e s to v e r i f y t o the f a c t t h a t b i o l o g i s t s v a lid a tio n o f individual the f i n d i n g s o f c o l l e a g u e s , te s tifie s a r e ve ry dependent upon one a n o t h e r f o r conclusions. Data A n a l y s i s In a n a l y z i n g these d a t a i t was de cided t h a t e x t e n s i v e use should be made o f i n d i c e s t o t e s t t h e hypotheses s t a t e d suggests t h a t indices are va lu a b le In C ha pt e r I I I . in measuring a t t r i b u t e s Zeisel f o r which one response t o a s i n g l e q u e s t i o n would n o t s e rv e as an adequate i n d i ­ cator.^ Such in d ic e s ar e p a r t i c u l a r l y such a t t r i b u t e s i m p o r t a n t when t r y i n g to measure as so cio -ec ono mi c s t a t u s (SES) o r t r y i n g t o assign a s i n g l e v a lu e f o r each respondent on a r a t i n g s c a l e f o r m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l b e h a v i o r such a s , f o r ex am pl e , p o l i t i c a l ca l a c t i v i s m would l i k e l y activism . An in de x o f p o l i t i ­ i n c l u d e a measure o f v o t i n g b e h a v i o r , b u t ^Hans Z e i s e l , Say I t With F ig u r es (New Yor k: Ha r p e r and Row, 1957) pp. 9 1 - 1 2 7 . In Chapter V Z e i s e l aiscu sse s in d e t a i l In dex development and th e f o u r problems commonly a s s o c i a t e d w i t h I n d e x - b u i l d i n g . These problems i n v o l v e v a l i d i t y , u t i l i t y , economy and c l a r i t y . Throughout the a n a l y s i s which f o l l o w s , where i n d i c e s have been used, c a r e f u l a t t e n ­ t i o n has been gi ve n to Z e i s e l ' s su ggest io ns and w a r n i n g s . Chapters V I I I and IX were a l s o ve ry h e l p f u l in the a c t u a l a n a l y s i s o f t a b u l a r data. E x t e n s i v e use was a l s o made o f A. E. M a x w e l l , A n a l y z i n g Q u a l 1t a t i v e Data (New Y or k: John W il e y and Sons, I n c . 19 6 1) f o r th e a c t u a l a p p l 1c a t ion o f co n ti n g e n cy a n a l y s i s techn ique s to t h i s s t u d y . 122 would undoubtedly i n c l u d e o t h e r th in g s such as a c t i v i t y campaigns, and a t te m p ts to i n f l u e n c e governmental d e c i s i o n s . A t t i t u d e Toward A n t l e r l e s s Hun ter o p i n i o n surveys since a n tle r le s s Deer Hun tin g P o l i c y teve been conducted r e g u l a r l y by th e DNR deer h u n t i n g was I n s t i t u t e d . q u e s t i o n n a i r e which in p o l i t i c a l On a s h o r t m a i l e d is s e n t o u t each y e a r to a randomly s e l e c t e d sample o f de er h u n t e r s , th e q u e s t i o n o p i n i o n about h u n t i n g a n t l e r l e s s is asked: deer. "We would l i k e your Do you t h i n k * i t is necessary to shoot a l i m i t e d number o f does and fawns, as w e l l as bucks p a r t s o f Michig an? " The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e d e p i c t s in some the r e s u l t s between 1956 and 1966. T a b l e 17. H u n te r o p in io n s between 1956 and 1966^ Year Response I??6 W Yes 47.4 47.2 60.3 60.8 42.5 52.9 No 4 6.1 47.8 37.1 35.8 55.4 46.2 6.5 5.0 2.6 3.4 2.1 .9 1962 <*> 1963 <*) 1964 (%) 1965 (%) 1966 (%) Yes 57.3 65.2 70.0 42.4 47.7 No 41.1 31.0 29.1 54.6 49.2 1. 6 3.8 .9 3.0 3.1 No Answer No Answer '?H ^L. A. R y e l , "D ee r Hun ter Op inion S u r v e y , I 9 6 6 " Michigan D e p a r t­ ment o f C o n se r va tio n Research and Development, Report No. 119, 1967. 123 Ryel observes t h a t * " H u n te r responses each y e a r have been c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the n a t u r e o f the v a r i o u s d e e r seasons. s ig n ific a n t co rrelatio n "y es" r e p l i e s ( . 8 9 ) between buck k i l l There is a high and the p e r c e n t o f f o r the 11 s u rv e y s ." ^ The same q u e s t i o n was asked in t h i s s t u d y . Yes - 6 5 .^%; No - 29.9%; No Response - **.7%. The response was: T h is d i s t r i b u t i o n had a much h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n o f " y e s " responses than f o r most y e a r s o f the DNR s u r v e y s . However, t h e two groups o f d a t a a r e not s t r i c t l y compa­ r a b l e because the respondent sample is much s m a l l e r f o r t h i s study and is restric ted to t h r e e c o u n t i e s w h i l e R y e l ' s d a t a is from a random sample o f h u n te rs from through ou t th e s t a t e . t h i s study unduly w e i g h t s A lso, the sample f o r the a t t i t u d e s o f U.P. and n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u la h u n te r s because o n ly about o n e - t h i r d o f th e respondents were from so ut h er n Michigan b u t the a c t u a l a r e a is much l a r g e r than o n e - t h i r d . it is p r o p o r t i o n o f h u n te r s (See Ta b le somewhat m i s l e a d i n g t o i n t e r p r e t endorsement o f the p o l i c y . This from t h a t 2 , page 25. the " y e s " response as an response sim pl y indicates th a t this p r o p o r t i o n o f respondents agrees t h a t under c e r t a i n u n s p e c i f i e d c o n d i t i o n s does and fawns shou ld be s h o t . in cl ud ed in the A probe q u e s t i o n was i n t e r v i e w f o r t h i s s tu dy to measure in g r e a t e r depth th e a t t i t u d e s o f the respondents who i n d i c a t e d " y e s . " The probe q u e s t i o n asked which o f the f o l l o w i n g responses b e s t f i t t e d the r e s p o n d e n t' s o p i n i o n . 29.9% 0. 6.5% 1. 1 Ibid. A "no response in th e q u e s t i o n above. More a n t l e r l e s s deer be taken than In the l a s t few y e a r s . 124 36.8% 2. Less a n t l e r l e s s 22.0% 3. About the same number o f a n t l e r l e s s the l a s t 4.7% 4. de er be taken than In the l a s t few y e a r s . d e e r be taken as In few y e a r s . No o p i n i o n . T o t a l 99.9% In r e a l i t y p o licy. responses 0 and 2 both i n d i c a t e di sagreement w i t h The d i f f e r e n c e is one o f d e g r e e . "no" t o wh eth er some a n t t e r l e s s extreme in t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n . the The respondents who answered deer h u n t i n g should be a ll o w e d a r e The second group agrees t h a t some a n t l e r ­ less deer prob ab ly need t o be taken b u t t h a t the magnitude o f such k i l l s in r e c e n t ye ar s is g r e a t e r than they a r e w i l l i n g to s u p p o r t . In e f f e c t the responses to the two q u e s t io n s when combined y i e l d an a t t i t u d e s c a l e as f o l l o w s : 29.9% ~ Strong o p p o s i t i o n - No a n t l e r l e s s d e e r should be t a k e n . 36.8% - Moderate o p p o s i t i o n - fe we r a n t l e r l e s s deer should be ta k e n . 22,0% - Moderate su pp or t - About th e same number o f a n t l e r l e s s * deer should be t a k e n . 6.5% ~ Strong s u p p o r t - More a n t l e r l e s s It th e is l o g i c a l l y de er should be t a k e n . * c o r r e c t to a s s e r t t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w o - t h i r d s o f hunt e rs i n t e r v i e w e d f o r t h i s study a c t u a l l y oppose th e a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g p o l i c y as i t is p r e s e n t l y b e in g a d m i n i s t e r e d . Regional Hyp othe sis 1. Differences Hunters from Ingham County, as a g r o u p , w i l l be most s u p p o r t i v e o f the a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g p o l i c y when compared to The "moderate s u p p o r t " and " s t r o n g s u p p o r t " responses were com­ bined to form the " s u p p o r t " c a t e g o r y in t h e Index o f A t t i t u d e Toward A n t l e r l e s s Deer H u n ti n g . 125 the o t h e r r e g i o n s . N o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u l a h u n t e r s w i l l be l e a s t s u p p o r t! ve. The above h y p o th e s is (1) In e f f e c t makes two a s s e r t i o n s : S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t among t h e c o u n t i e s in the mag­ n i t u d e o f supp ort and o p p o s i t i o n t o a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g . (2) T h a t the d i r e c t i o n o f these d i f f e r e n c e s is in the o r d e r o f Ingham County most s u p p o r t i v e and Alpena County l e a s t s u p p o r t i v e . This h y p o t h e s i z e d o r d e r i n g is based upon the d i s c u s s i o n on a t t i t u d i n a l differences among the r e g i o n s . The f i r s t im plicatio n is su pp orted by t h e d a t a which that s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ces in Chapter I indicates do e x i s t among t h e t h r e e c o u n t i e s . How­ e v e r , th e h y p o t h e s i z e d rank o r d e r o f s u p p o r t is n o t s u p p o r t e d . T a b l e 18. - A t t i t u d e toward a n t l e r l e s s Counties Strongly Opposed (%) ' d e e r h u n t i n g p o l i c y by county A t t i t u d e Toward ADP M o d e r a t e ly Opposed Support Total <£) (%)__________________ Ingham 101 .277 .288 .495 Alpena 105 .27 6 .467 .257 M a r q u e t te 100% li4 .377 Chi Square - 100% .4 5 6 32.3167 4 D . F . , P < - .167 .001 100% 126 As h y p o t h e s i z e d , Ingham County h u n t e r s a r e most s u p p o r t i v e o f the t h r e e groups o f h u n t e r s . In f a c t , there is a g r e a t e r s t a t i s t i c a l f e r e n c e between Ingham County h u n t e r s and the o t h e r two c o u n t i e s there is between Alpena and M a r q u e t t e C o u n t i e s ' d if­ than hunter a t t i t u d e s . On the o t h e r hand, Alpena h u nt e rs a r e somewhat more s u p p o r t i v e than Marquette hu nte rs . This observed r e l a t i o n s h i p h y p o t h e s iz e d r e l a t i o n s h i p . However, th e da ta runs c o u n t e r to the in dicate t h a t t h e hunters from both the c o u n t ie s a r e o v e r w h e lm in g ly opposed t o t h e p o l i c y . T h is f i n d i n g n e c e s s i t a t e s an a l t e r i n g o f the o r d e r i n g o f c o u n ti e s a c c o r d i n g to s u p p o r t and o p p o s i t i o n main reason f o r i n c l u d i n g the sub-hypotheses o f th e observed d i f f e r e n c e s we w i l l in t h e sub-hypotheses b e lo w . in a t t i t u d e e x p e c t the independent v a r i a b l e s is to t r y The to e x p l a i n some among th e c o u n t i e s . ^ Thus, t o have th e g r e a t e s t a f f e c t upon respondents a c c o r d i n g t o th e r e v i s e d o r d e r . Hyp othesis 1-A A. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l the degree o f a l i e n a t i o n e x i s t among th e c o u n t i e s (p o w e rl e s s n e s s ) governmental process among h u n t e r s . h u n te rs w i l l in r e g a r d i n g the M a r q u e t t e County m a n i f e s t the g r e a t e s t amount o f a l i e n a t i o n , and Ingham County h u n t e r s w i l l m a n i f e s t the l e a s t al i e n a t i o n . ^The i n f e r e n c e should n o t be made h e r e t h a t we a r e n e c e s s a r i l y r e f e r r i n g to a c a u s e - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p when the term e x p l a n a t i o n is used. There is J u s t i f i c a t i o n , w i t h i n the c o n s t r a i n t s o f t h e rese arch methods used in t h i s s t u d y , to de vel op r ea so na ble hypotheses based on th e assumptions o f v a r i a b l e independence and dependence and to seek to demo nst rate d i f f e r e n t kin ds o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n the r e l e v a n t conceptual a r r a y . In s h o r t , i t is perhaps f a i r t o say t h a t t h i s study Is more an e x e r c i s e in h y p o t h e s is development than o f h y p o t h e s is t e s t i n g . 127 In o r d e r to o b t a i n an i n d i c a t i o n o f the r o l e o f gene ral alienation p o litic a l in th e fo rm a ti o n o f s p e c i f i c a t t i t u d e s t h e respondents were asked, " 1 0 1 . Does the Federal government r e p r e s e n t the i n t e r e s t s o f th e pople o r the i n t e r e s t o f the le a d e r s ? " The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e ­ sponses w a s : People's Leader's Total interest interest For hunte rs who b e l i e v e t h a t in te re s ts o f national th e c i t i z e n r y . P er c e n t 177 114 291 .61 .39 1. 00 the Federal l e a d e r s , a s e ri o u s ernmental process can be assumed. i n t o ou r p o l i t i c a l Number government serves p r i m a r i l y the la c k o f c o n fi de n ce A fter a l l , in the gov­ th e assumption is b u i l t system t h a t the government should be responsive to Powerlessness in a c h i e v i n g responsiveness is c e r t a i n l y impl led by the bel i e f t h a t the Federal government does not se rv e the i n t e r e s t s o f the pe o p le . Ta b le 19 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l d if­ fe re nc e s in respondent a l i e n a t i o n among th e c o u n t i e s . Ta bl e 19. An I n d i c a t i o n o f a l i e n a t i o n among the co u n ti e s County Not A | ^ n a t e d A1 i^g^ted 92 1ngham . 59 8 .402 A1pena 100% 97 .5 6 7 .4 3 3 100% 102 M a rq ue tt e .6 5 7 Chi Square - Tota l 1 . 7 ^ 5 8 , 2 D . F . , P > .05 .343 100% 128 The d a t a below a l s o I n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e ar e no s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t l s tic a l differen ces in a t t i t u d e toward t h e p o l i c y between those who ar e a l i e n a t e d and those who a r e n o t . T a b l e 20. A t t i t u d e toward th e p o l i c y among the u n a l i e n a t e d and the a l 1en ate d A t t i tude M o d e r a t e ly Oppose Support (%) (%) Oppose (%) Total Not a l i e n a t e d 171 .252 .4 0 9 100% .3 3 9 Al i en at e d 106 .368 100% .245 .397 Chi Square ■ 4 . 9 8 3 9 , 2 D . F . , P > .05 In t h i s case a t r e n d seems to be e v i d e n t , however. no e v id e n c e o f a l i e n a t i o n from the government process Those who show tend t o be more s u p p o r t i v e o f th e p o l i c y w h i l e a l i e n a t e d respondents seem g e n e r a l l y t o be more opposed to th e p o l i c y . Now In o r d e r to see how a l i e n a t i o n among the c o u n t i e s , in te ra c tin g w ith a t t it u d e the two v a r i a b l e s were t e s t e d a g a i n s t each o t h e r h o l d i n g county c o n s t a n t . i f any, is In Ingham County t h e r e seems to be l i t t l e , r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent f e e l i n g s o f a l i e n a t i o n the governmental process and th e a t t i t u d e s which he holds an tlerless deer hunting p o l i c y . ' a t t i t u d e we re not g r e a t but 'see Tab le 1, toward the In Alpena County the d i f f e r e n c e s t h e r e was some I n d i c a t i o n A p p e n d i x B. toward in th a t non-alienated 129 people were more s u p p o r t i v e o f the p o l i c y than a l i e n a t e d respondents.^ In M a rq ue tt e County, however, t h e r e was c l e a r l y a r e l a t i o n s h i p between a l i e n a t i o n and o p p o s i t i o n to a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g . showed ev idence o f a l i e n a t i o n were much more l i k e l y p o l i c y than non-al i e n a t e d hunte rs Summary: ation 2 Hunters who to oppose the in Ma rq ue tt e County. There is some e v id e nc e o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between a l i e n ­ toward the governmental process and the a t t i t u d e which th e h u n t e r holds concerning wh eth er the s t a t e should p e r m it does and fawns to be s h o t . In o t h e r words, if the h u n t e r th in k s the Federal govern­ ment does not a c t in h i s b e s t i n t e r e s t s , he is a l s o l i k e l y t h a t the s t a t e is n o t a c t i n g in h i s b e s t i n t e r e s t s e i t h e r s t a t e ' s w i l d l i f e management program. t h a t M a rq u e t te hunters f e e l process because t h i s It to b e l i e v e r e g a rd in g the is not very s u r p r i s i n g to f i n d th e most a l i e n a t e d from the governmental is the a r e a o f Michigan where many people f e e l t h a t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s ar e not r e pr es en t ed as f u l l y by the government as ar e th e i n t e r e s t s o f o t h e r p a r t s o f th e s t a t e . Hypothesis 1-B B. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among the co un tie s importance o f success In k i l l i n g a deer to I n d i v i d u a l The importance o f success w i l l in the hunters. be most e v i d e n t among Ma rq ue tt e County hunters and l e a s t e v i d e n t among Ingham County h u n t e r s . An Index o f t h e Importance o f Success was developed which included 3 the f o l l o w i n g Items: W he Index o f Appendix C. Importance o f Success Is discussed in d e t a i l in 66 . Would you t h i n k more h i g h l y o f a f e l l o w - w o r k e r i f he got a buck d u r i n g the de er season? Yes ______ 107. No__ __ (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) How do you f e e l about i t when you do n o t g e t a deer? 118. 1. Not much b o t h e r e d . 2. Somewhat d i s a p p o i n t e d . 3. I feel 4. I t makes me mad. very d isap poin ted . One can g e t almost as much s a t i s f a c t i o n he d o e s n ' t k i l l a deer. 1. Dt s a g r e e . 2. P a r t i a l l y agree. 3. Ag r e e . Responses 6 6 - 1 ; value o r i e n t a t i o n from a hu nt even i f 1 0 7 -3 ,* * ; and 118-1 were taken as r e g a r d i n g h u n t i n g success. sponses 107-2 and 118-2 i n d i c a t e a tr op hy o f t h e hunt w h i l e interm ediate responses 6 6 - 2 ; regarded as I n d i c a t i n g t h a t a su c c e s s fu l i n d i c a t i n g a hi I t was assumed t h a t re­ in te r e s t w ith obtaining 107-1 J and 1 1 8- 3 were k i l l was n o t th e pr im a r y measure o f v a lu e d e r i v e d from th e h u n t . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t e s t i n g t h i s h y p o th e s is attaches grea t s ig n if ic a n c e t o h is success is t h a t in k i l l i n g i f a hunter a d e e r then any f a c t o r which he p e r c e i v e d as reducing h i s chances o f success w i l l a n t a g o n i z e him. It Is p o s t u l a t e d t h a t th es e hu nte rs a r e more l i k e l y t o oppose a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g and in those cases where o p p o s i t i o n is m u t u a l , t o more s t r o n g l y oppose i t less v a l u e to success. than o t h e r opponents who a t t a c h 131 When Importance o f Success is p l o t t e d f o r each c o un ty , the d i s t r i ­ bution is h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Ta bl e 21. The importance o f success to hunters Li t t l e Importance (%) County from th e t h r e e co un tie s Importance o f Success H i ghly M od er at ely Impo rtan t Impo rtan t <%) (%) Total 108 Ingham .685 .176 100% .1 3 9 A1pena 109 .41 3 .284 .303 100% Ma rq ue tt e 119 .261 .4 0 3 Chi Square - 24,1318, 4 D . F . , P < - 100% .33 6 .001 Hunting success is most impo rtan t to M a rq ue tt e hu nte rs and l e a s t im p o rt a n t to Ingham h u n te rs . Next, th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a t t i t u d e and t h e importance o f success is shown. G e n e r a l l y those respondents who p l a c e a small amount o f va lue upon success ar e most s u p p o r t i v e and those who pl ace a g r e a t deal o f v a lu e upon success ar e g e n e r a l l y most l i k e l y t o oppose a n t l e r l e s s deer hu nt i n g . When the importance o f success to the h u nt e rs attitu des toward the a n t l e r l e s s is r e l a t e d to h u n t e r deer h u nt in g p o l i c y f o r each c o un ty , much o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p observed in T a b le 22 d i s a p p e a r s . * * See T a b l e s 4, 5, and 6 , A p p e n d i x B. The on ly 132 Table 22. The e f f e c t o f the Importance o f success upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s A t t 1tudes importance o f Success Oppose <*) M o d e r a t e ly Oppose (%) Support (%) Total L ittle 157 .24 2 .389 100% .369 Interm ediate 79 o m cr\ CO .367 100% .2 5 3 High 84 .381 Chi Square ■ 1 0 . 2 0 4 3 * 4 D .F . , P < - county in which t h e toward the p o l i c y .214 .**05 .05 importance o f success seems to a f f e c t a t t i t u d e s is A l p e n a . ' Hunters in Alpena who seem to p l a c e a high degree o f importance upon success a r e most l i k e l y p o l i c y and h u nt e rs f o r which success hunt a r e less l i k e l y Summary: Is a less to oppose the im p o r ta n t p a r t o f the to oppose th e p o l i c y . The importance o f success t o the hu nte rs in fluence o f opposition sig n ific a n t 100% influence is a r e l e v a n t in Alpena County but does not seem to be a In the o t h e r two c o u n t i e s . Hyp othesis 1-C C. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among the c o u n t ie s the s t a t u s symbolism a s s o c i a t e d w i t h success o f hunters. H u n ti n g success w i l l in th e minds have the s t r o n g e s t s t a t u s symbolism f o r M a r q u e t t e h u n te r s and the l e a s t s t a t u s symbolism f o r 's e e Tab le Ingham h u n t e r s . 5» A p p e n d i x B. in 133 To f u r t h e r probe the q u e s t i o n o f whe ther the d e s i r e f o r success plays a r o le in the ki n d o r i n t e n s i t y o f a t t i t u d e which is formed, What Is i t toward th e p o l i c y th e concept o f s t a t u s symbolism is co nsi der ed h e r e . about k i l l i n g a deer which makes such success im p o r ta n t to so many people? One e x p l a n a t i o n is t h a t th e s t a t u s p o s i t i o n o f hunters in some p e e r groups is enhanced by t h e i r k i l l i n g a de er . The respondents were asked t h e q u e s t i o n , "66. Would you t h i n k more h i g h l y o f a f e 11ow-worker i f he got a buck d u ri n g th e deer season?" Yes _____ This No _____ i n d i c a t o r was c o ns id er ed a r a t h e r c o n s e r v a t i v e measure o f s t a t u s symbolism s in c e the respondents were asked about the r e s p e c t they would f e e l toward th e accomplishment o f a n o t h e r person. I t seems s a f e to assume t h a t anyone whose r esp ect f o r a n o th e r would be inc reas ed by t h a t p e rs o n 's success would a l s o f e e l t h a t h i s own s t a t u s would be in cre as ed by h i s h u n ti n g accomplishments. When respondent response to q u e s t io n 66 is used In a co ntingency t a b l e w i t h county o f resid en ce t h e r e a r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among th e c o u n t ie s In the s t a t u s which is c o n f e r r e d upon people because o f s u cce ss. Marq uet te hunte rs showed t h e h i g h e s t regard f o r success in h u n t i n g and Ingham County hunte rs esteemed h u n t i n g prowess th e l e a s t . However, i t should be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t any o f the co un tie s were w i l l i n g h i g h l y o f a successful less than h a l f the hu nte rs in to admit t h a t they would t h i n k more fellow -w orker. Is more a m a t t e r o f degree than i t Thus esteem in t h i s connection is a m a t t e r o f ab s o l u te d i f f e r e n c e s . 134 Ta b le 23 . S t a t u s o f success among t h e c o u n t i e s S ta t u s (*> County Total L i t t l e Status <*) 1ngham • .2 3 8 00 CO 105 100% A1pena 109 . 431 100% .5 6 9 Marquet te 117 .48 7 Chi Square - When a l l 100% .513 15.6102, 2 D.F. , P < = .001 the respondents a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r , th e c o n f e r r a l o f high s t a t u s seems to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p o l i c y w h i l e f o r respondents who do not esteem peers more h i g h l y f o r t h e i r success as a h u n t e r tend to be more s u p p o r t i v e o f the p o l i c y . ^ When the c o u n t i e s a r e a n a l y z e d s e p a r a t e l y s t a t u s seems t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t t i t u d e as d e s c r i b e d abov e, o n l y these d i f f e r e n c e s p e r s i s t tra n s itio n a l in Alpena County. county between th e o t h e r two. about s t a t u s w h i l e M a r q u e t t e h u n te r s r e g a r d l e s s o f how they f e e l Summary: i t seems t h a t in Alpena County p r i m a r i l y because i t Is a Ingham County h u n te rs g e n e r a l l y a r e most s u p p o r t i v e o f the p o l i c y feel 2 r e g a r d l e s s o f how th ey tend t o oppose th e p o l i c y , about s t a t u s . S ta t u s consciousness does seem t o be r e l a t e d to t h e a t t i t u d e which th e respondent has toward a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g even ^See T a b l e 7» A p p e n d i x B. 2 See T a b l e s 8 , 9 , and 1 0 , A p p e n d i x B. 135 though the r e l a t i o n s h i p It is masked In two o f th e county s u b - p o p u l a t i o n s . is necessary to make an i n f e r e n c e from t h e d a t a a v a i l a b l e to a s s e r t t h a t s t a t u s consciousness may prompt some h u n te r s the p o l i c y because i t Is p e r c e i v e d as a t h r e a t ad ditional status. to oppose to t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f A t b e s t , however, such an e x p l a n a t i o n o f f e r s o n l y a p a r t i a l explanation o t h e r s do n o t . in o r d e r f o r why some h u nt e rs oppose t h e p o l i c y w h i l e The o p p o s i t i o n o f Alpena h u n te r s is p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n e d by the s t a t u s a s p i r a t i o n concept b u t we must look f u r t h e r f o r the causes o f o p p o s i t i o n Hypothesis D. in Ingham and M a r q u e t te C o u n ti e s . 1-D S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among th e c o u n t ie s importance o f h u n t i n g t o th e h u n t e r s . w ill in the The h u n t i n g e x p e r i e n c e be most im p o rt a n t t o M a r q u e t te h u n te r s and l e a s t impor­ t a n t to Ingham County h u n t e r s . An Index o f Deer H u n te r I n t e r e s t was developed to g i v e some i n d i ­ c a t i o n as t o w h e th e r th e importance o f h u n t i n g t o th e respondent has a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e k in d o f a t t i t u d e which he has toward Michigan deer h u n t i n g p o l i c i e s . In d e t a i l Th is The index o f Deer H u n te r I n t e r e s t is d e s c r ib e d i n Appendix D. index should be c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the o t h e r which have been used. The Deer H un te r I n t e r e s t in d ic e s Index is designed to measure the h u n t e r ' s commitment to h u n t i n g i r r e s p e c t i v e o f h i s com­ p u l s i o n s f o r g e t t i n g a trophy from the h u n t . may be ve ry he k i l l s In o t h e r w o rd s, t h e hunt im p o r t a n t t o h u n t e r even though he does n o t c a r e w he th er a deer o r n o t . incomparable t h r i l l . For many people J u s t s e e in g a de er is an I t seemed r e l e v a n t a t the o u t s e t o f t h i s re se ar ch 136 to ask what th e e f f e c t o f such d e v o t i o n t o h u n t i n g would be upon h u n t e r attitu d es toward th e s t a t e ' s deer hunting p o l i c i e s . Table 2k shows t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t is a p p r o x i m a t e l y th e same in each o f the t h r e e c o u n t i e s . T a b l e 2k. Deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t Low (%) County in th e t h r e e c o u n ti e s Deer H un te r Medium <%) In terest High (%) Total 108 Ingham • 259 .677 100% .07** A1 pena 109 • 202 .1 2 8 .6 7 0 100% M a rq u e t te 119 • 1*»3 ,7 k 0 100% .0 6 7 Chi Square ■ 8.2531 , k D . F . , P > .05 Deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t does seem to a f f e c t a t t i t u d e s , however, as is shown below. Ta b le 25. The e f f e c t o f d e e r h u n t e r I n t e r e s t upon a t t i t u d e s th e pol i cy Deer H un ter In te r e s t Oppose (%) A t t i t u d e s Toward the P o i i c y M o d e r a t e ly Oppose Support (%) (%) Low toward Total 66 .**39 .2 12 . 3**9 Med i urn 100% • M 00 vn 228 .281 .**3** High 100% 26 .231 Chi Square - . 3**6 .**23 12.0970, k D .F . , P < - .0 5 100% 137 When we look a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t and attitu des obtain: toward th e p o l i c y among t h e c o u n t i e s , Th er e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s t h r e e i n t e r e s t groups in Ingham C o u n t y . ' is s t r o n g s u p p o r t f o r the p o l i c y . th e f o l l o w i n g in a t t i t u d e s In a l l among the i n t e r e s t groups t h e r e In both Alpena and M a rq u e t te Counties s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t e v i d e n t in a t t i t u d e s th e respondents w i t h d i f f e r e n t County a t r e n d o f Summary: levels o f 2 In M a r q u e t te in c r e a s e d i n t e r e s t role in in du c in g o p p o s i t i o n among t h e r e s i d e n t s h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n s u s in g th e county as th e u n i t o f a n a l y s i s . small amount o f e v i d e n c e which e x i s t s suggests t h e r e H ypothesis E. is The c o n c l u s io n d e r i v e d from these d a t a is t h a t h u n t e r toward w i l d l i f e h a r v e s t p o l i c i e s s u pp or t w i t h among 3 i n t e r e s t does not p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t attitu d es interest. in cre as ed s u p p o r t w i t h o b s e r v a b l e , however. results i n c re a s e d i n t e r e s t In f a c t , is the in cre as ed in the two n o r t h e r n c o u n t i e s . 1-E S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who h u n t. the e x i s t among the c o u n t ie s M a rq u e t te h u nt e rs w i l l in the have l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who hunt w h i l e h u nt e rs from Ingham County w i l l have t h e s m a l l e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who hunt. The hunters were asked in two d i f f e r e n t q u e s t io n s to e s t i m a t e the p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e i r f e 11 ow-wo rke rs , whom they know, who hunt and the p r o p o r t i o n o f c lo s e f r i e n d s who h u n t. 's e e T a b l e 11 , Appendix B. 2 See T a b l e 12, Appendix B. 3 Se e T a b l e 13, A p p e n d i x B. I t was f e l t t h a t these two 138 q u e s t io n s would g i v e some i n d i c a t i o n o f th e i n t e r e s t in h u n t i n g w i t h i n two o f the h u n t e r ' s p e e r groups. Im p lic it hy p o th e s is is a r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t e r e s t o f peers Table 26, is th e idea t h a t t h e r e in th e a c t i v i t y in th e e x p e c t a t i o n o f and the a t t i t u d e which t h e i n d i v i d u a l this d e v el op s . P r o p o r t i o n o f f e l 1cw-workers who hunt among t h e c o u n ti e s P r o p o r t i o n o f Fellow-■Workers Who Hunt Medi um Large (%) (%) Smal 1 (*) County Total Ingham 95 .*95 .231 .27* A1pena 100 .2*0 .130 .6 3 0 Ma rq ue t te 100% 116 3*.9827» * D . F . , P < - The h y p o t h e s i s , as i t supp ort ed although t h e r e among Alpena hu n te rs .*66 .2 * 1 .293 Chi Square - 100% relates 100% .001 to f e l l o w - w o r k e r s , is g e n e r a l l y is g e n e r a l l y g r e a t e r w o r k i n g group i n t e r e s t than among M a r q u e t t e h u n t e r s . pe er group i n t e r e s t among c l o s e f r i e n d s The d i f f e r e n c e s in f o r the c o u n t i e s wer e n o t as g r e a t as f o r work group peers but n o n e th e le s s a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i cant. Again a somewhat l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n o f c l o s e f r i e n d s o f the Alpena respondents were h u n te r s than in M a rq u e t te which is c o u n t e r t o the h y p o t h e s iz e d o r d e r . Thus th e hy po the sis is su pp orted t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t among the h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n s o f th e t h r e e c o u n t i e s in th e p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who 139 T a b l e 27 . The p r o p o r t i o n o f c l o s e f r i e n d s o f th e respondents who hunt from th e sample c o u n t i e s P r o p o r t i o n o f Close Fr ie n ds Who Hunt Medium H i gh (%) (%) Low (%) County Total 106 Ingham . 29 2 100% .453 .2 5 5 108 A1pena .241 .120 100% .639 118 M a r q u e t te .246 .169 Chi Square - hunt. However, 100% .585 12.277**, 4 D . F . , P < - .05 the o r d e r is not as p r e d i c t e d . Ingham County hu nte rs have the s m a l l e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f f e l lo w- wo rker s who hunt w h i l e Alpena h u n te r s have th e l a r g e s t . as T a b l e 2 which g i v e s Th is o b s e r v a t i o n f o l l o w s th e same p a t t e r n t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f th e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n from the t h r e e re gions who h u n t . To t e s t w h e th e r t h e r e is a r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e e r group (as measured by th e number peers who h u n t) respondents h o ld c o nc e rn in g a n t l e r l e s s in te re s t and t h e a t t i t u d e s which th e de er h u n t i n g , th e f o l l o w i n g a t t r i b u t e s were compared by c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s : 1. Work group i n t e r e s t x respondent a t t i t u d e . 2. F r i e n d s h i p group i n t e r e s t x respondent a t t i t u d e . 3. Each o f t h e above h o l d i n g county c o n s t a n t . 140 No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s various in te r e s t level groups In a t t i t u d e were found among t h e in e i t h e r work o r f r i e n d s h i p groups.^ When county was h e l d c o n s t a n t f o r th e v a r i a b l e s no r e l a t i o n s h i p was e v i d e n t f o r any o f t h e c o u n t i e s . Summary: A p p a r e n t l y p e e r group I n t e r e s t in h u n t i n g per s e , has no b e a r i n g on w h e t h e r a h u n t e r su pp orts o r opposes a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i ng. H yp ot h es is 1 - F F. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among th e c o u n t i e s in h u n t e r p e r c e p t i o n o f p e e r groups o p p o s i t i o n t o a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g . M a r q u e t te h u n te r s w i l l p r o p o r t i o n o f p e e r group o p p o s i t i o n hunting w h ile p e r c e i v e th e l a r g e s t to a n t l e r l e s s d e e r Ingham County hu nte rs w i l l p e r c e i v e th e l e a s t . The p o s s i b l e t i e between th e a t t i t u d e s o f a p e r s o n ' s peers and h i s own a t t i t u d e s may o f f e r a v e r y d i r e c t e x p l a n a t i o n f o r ob ser ve d d i f ­ fe r e n c e s in respondent a t t i t u d e s among t h e c o u n t i e s . I t seems reason­ a b l e to e x pe c t t h a t a l a r g e r p e rc e n t a g e o f t h e peers o f M a r q u e t t e hunters w i l l oppose a n t l e r l e s s Ingham h u n te rs if d e e r h u nt in g than w i l l t h e peers o f t h e r e is a r e l a t i o n s h i p between pe rs on a l a t t i t u d e s and pe er group a t t i t u d e s . The h u nt e rs q u e s t io n s 2 i n th e t h r e e county sample were asked a s e r i e s o f co n c e rn in g w h et h er they had di scussed t h e a n t l e r l e s s h u n t i n g q u e s t i o n w i t h any o f th e f o l l o w i n g types o f persons: 's e e T a b l e 14 f o r d a t a r e g a r d i n g f e l l o w - w o r k e r s and Ta b le results fo r frie n d s . 2 The q u e s t i o n fo rm a t deer is found in Appendix A, q u e s t i o n 4 4 . 15 f o r 141 1. Relatives 6. Nei ghbors 2. F e l 1ow-workers 7. Immediate f a m i l y 3. Government o f f i c i a l s 8. Hun tin g companions 4. C on se rv a tio n Dept, employees 9. O t h e r h u n te rs 5. Social If ac qu a in ta nc es Sportsman club o f f i c i a l s 10. the respondent i n d i c a t e d he had t a l k e d t o any o f t h e above types o f pe op le he was asked a p p r o x i m a t e l y how many he had di scussed the c o n t r o v e r s y w i t h and how many su pp ort ed th e p o l i c y . In terms o f peer group i n f l u e n c e on a t t i t u d e has been d i v i d e d im p o r t a n t r o l e in who would l i k e l y i n t o two grou ps ; influencing (1) formation* the l i s t those who would l i k e l y have an the respond en ts' attitu d es and (2 ) those i n f l u e n c e the respondent in a le s s d i r e c t manner, those who would e i t h e r c o n f i r m e x i s t i n g o p in io n s o r who could i.e ., in t r o d u c e a c o u n t e r p o i n t o f view but who would n o t n e c e s s a r i l y be in a p o s i t i o n to e x e r c i s e s o c i a l p r e s s u r e t o a c h i e v e a t t i t u d e c o n f o r m i t y . The form er group i n c l u d e s : re lative s, immediate f a m i l y and h u n t i n g companions. government o f f i c i a l s . fe llo w -w o r k e r s , neighbors, The second group i n c l u d e s : C o n s e r v a ti o n Department employees, s o c i a l ac­ q u a i n t a n c e s , o t h e r h u n t e r s , and sportsman cl ub o f f i c i a l s . When r e f e r e n c e is made t o th e i n f l u e n c e ( o r t o th e e f f e c t o f , o r t o the impact o f , o r to numerous o t h e r synonyms) o f a p e e r g ro u p' s a t t i t u d e s upon i n d i v i d u a l a t t i t u d e s we a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y a s s e r t i n g a d i r e c t causal r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t does, however, seem r e as on a bl e to i n t e r p r e t c lo s e congruence between i n d i v i d u a l and group a t t i t u d e s as i n d i c a t i n g t h a t an i n t e r a c t i o n o f some ki nd is o c c u r r i n g . In most cases the group a t t i t u d e can be c o n si d er ed th e independent v a r i a b l e and the I n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t i t u d e is reas ona bly re garded as the dependent variable. This seems l o g i c a l in l i g h t o f the f a c t t h a t pe op le ar e more l i k e l y to be i n f l u e n c e d to conform to group norms than groups a r e t o s h i f t t h e i r t h i n k i n g u n i l a t e r a l l y t o conform t o any given in d iv id u a l's a ttitu d e s . 142 One o f the most n o t i c e a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f these responses is the l a r g e number o f h u n t e r s who had n o t t a l k e d to each o f the types o f persons. Primary In fl u e n c e s Number o f hunters who had not t a l k e d to the f o l l o w i n g : R elatives 96 Fel low-workers 112 Neighbors 208 Hunting companions 142 Immediate f a m i l y 181 Primary Sources o f I n f l u e n c e R e l a t i ves Secondary In fl u e n c e s Number o f hunters who had not t a l k e d to the f o 1 low 1n g : S oc ia l acquaintances 203 O th er hunters 225 Government o f f i c i a l s 315 Conservation Dept, o f f i c i a l s 250 Sportsman club o f f i c i a l s 181 D e ta ile d explanations w i l l be g i v e n here r eg a rd in g the a n a l y s i s o f the i n f l u e n c e o f th e op in io ns o f r e l a t i v e s attitu d es . r e f e r e n c e to th e a p p r o p r i a t e t a b l e s The l o g i c o f th e a n a l y s i s in the appen­ is r e l a t i v e l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and the r a t i o n a l e f o r each group i n f l u e n c e relative s. hunter For the r e s t o f t h e group in fl u e n c e s we s h a l l simply s t a t e o u r conclusions w i t h dix. upon i n d i v i d u a l is the same as t h a t o u t l i n e d f o r 1**3 J The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f a v o r a b l e and n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e s among the c o u n t ie s of relatives is s i m i l a r t o the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f respondent a t t i ­ tudes toward the p o l i c y . In Ingham County about o n e - h a l f o f those i n t e r v i e w e d i n d i c a t e d t h a t more than 50% o f t h e i r r e l a t i v e s su pp or ted th e p o l i c y w h i l e the o t h e r h a l f i n d i c a t e d t h a t more than 50% o f t h e i r r e l a t i v e s whom they had t a l k e d t o about t h e p o l i c y opposed i t . T a b le 2 8 . The a t t i t u d e o f r e l a t i v e s count ies toward th e p o l i c y in th e t h r e e A ttitu d e D is trib u tio n o f R elatives M a jo r ! t y M a jo r I ty Oppose Support (%) (%) County Total 61 Ingham .**92 .50 8 100% 82 Alpena .805 100% .195 Ma r q u e t t e 93 .8 8 2 Chi Square - However, well .118 31.9528, 2 D .F ., P < - 100% .001 in both Alpena and M a r q u e t te Counties th e r e l a t i v e s as as th e respondents were o v e r w h e lm in g ly opposed. Now we want to see i f attitu des there is any r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent and the a t t i t u d e s o f h i s relative s toward th e A r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e two is o b v i o u s . oppose the p o l i c y , th e I n d i v i d u a l is v e ry lik e ly when h i s r e l a t i v e s s u p p o r t the p o l i c y , he is is s u e . When o n e ' s relatives t o oppose t o o , and lik e ly to support I t also. 144 T a b le 29. The comparison o f h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s w i t h th e a t t i t u d e s o f r e ) a t I ves D istribution of A t t i t u d e s Among Re 1a t i ves Oppose (*) Respondent A t t i tudes M o de r at ei y Oppose Support (3) (3) Total Major! ty Oppose 171 .480 .3 4 5 1003 .175 56 M a j o r i t y Support .28 6 .107 Chi Square - 39.8930, 2 D .F ., P < - 100% .607 .001 Now the qu es t io n becomes, "What is th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f th e counties t o t h i s observed s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n ? " By h o l d i n g county co ns ta nt and measuring the e f f e c t o f the a t t i t u d e s o f r e l a t i v e s upon i n d i v i d u a l a tti­ tu d e s , we can de termine where t h e c o in c id en ce o f th e two a t t i t u d e attributes dents' Is high and where i t is low. Where the i n d i v i d u a l respon­ a t t i t u d e s conform c l o s e l y to th e predominant a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r r e l a t i v e s , we can assume the l a t t e r or another. Where they a r e not ve ry a ttitu d es o f relatives i n f l u e n c e d the former to one degree sim ilar i t is obvious t h a t the is n o t a dominant f a c t o r in I n f l u e n c i n g respon­ d e nt a t t i t u d e s . Hunters most part In Ingham County conform t o f a m i l y a t t i t u d e s f o r the except t h a t more hunters support the p o l i c y altho ugh t h e i r f a m i l i e s oppose i t , than would be ex p e c te d . Conformity Is even g r e a t e r in Alpena than in Ingham County. 145 T a b l e 30. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between respondent and t h e a t t i t u d e s o f r e l a t i v e s r e g a r d i n g a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g in Ingham Coun ty D istrib ution of A t t i t u d e s Among P e l a t i ves Oppose <%) Respondent A t t i tudes M o d e r a t e ly Oppose Support <%) (%) Total M a j o r i t y Oppose 29 .310 .31 0 .3 7 9 100% M a j o r i t y Support 30 . 100 Chi Square ■ 9 . 2 5 6 2 , 2 D .F . T a b le 31. .20 0 P < - .700 100% .01 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent and a t t i t u d e s o f r e l a t i v e s In Alpena County D istrib u tio n o f A t t i tudes Among Rel a t i ves Oppose (%) Respondent A t t i tudes Mo d e r a t e ly Oppose Support (%) (%) Total M a j o r 1ty Oppose 65 .29 2 .5 6 9 .1 3 9 100% M a j o r i t y Support 15 .000 .4 0 0 .6 0 0 100% Chi Square “ 1 6 . 5 7 2 4 , 2 D . F . , P < ■ .001 Two f e a t u r e s o f th e d a t a add i n s i g h t a t t i t u d e form ation. i n t o th e problem o f a n a l y z i n g In th e f i r s t p l a c e , a t t i t u d e s a r e more moderate than would have been e x p e c te d f o r those h u n te r s who w i t h p r e d o m in a n tl y o p p o s i t i o n v ie w s . have r e l a t i v e s S e c o n d ly , f o r those hu nte rs whose 146 r e l a t i v e s g e n e r a l l y support the p o l i c y t h e r e overtone. d arity is almost a r e l i g i o u s Where a m i n o r i t y adheres to unpopular b e l i e f s g r e a t e r s o l i ­ is observed in th e group. This is c e r t a i n l y the case h e r e . For example, nobody opposed th e p o l i c y whose r e l a t i v e s g e n e r a l l y support i t. M ar q ue tt e is a d i f f e r e n t case. fam ily a ttitu d e s Ta bl e 32. Here i n d i v i d u a l c o n fo r m it y to is not as c o n s i s t e n t . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent and th e a t t i t u d e s o f r e l a t i v e s in M a rq u e t te County D i s t r i b u t i o n o^ A t t i t u d e s Among Rel a t i ves Oppose (%) Respondent A t t i tudes Mo der at ely Oppose Support (%) (%) T o ta l M a j o r i t y Oppose 77 .441 .403 100% .15 6 11 M a j o r i t y Support .364 .2 7 3 Chf Square ■ 2 . 8 4 1 2 , .364 100% 2 P. F. , P > .05 In t h i s case t h e r e Is no a p pa re n t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e Here the n o n - c o n f o r m i t y po licy. is among those whose r e l a t i v e s supp ort the These respondents a r e almost as l i k e l y as t o support it. In e f f e c t . to oppose the p o l i c y Perhaps the p re s su re to conform to the b e l i e f s commonly h e ld in the region is more than these hunters can r e s i s t . Summary: The a t t i t u d e s o f r e l a t i v e s toward th e p o l i c y appear t o have a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e on the a t t i t u d e which i n d i v i d u a l demonstrate in th e v a ri o u s c o u n t i e s . hunte rs 1*»7 Fe 11 ow-Wo rke rs Th ere is a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among t h e c o u n t i e s in the p r o ­ p o r t i o n o f work group peers o f th e respondents which supports and opposes t h e p o l i c y . * The p r o p o r t i o n o f respondents w i t h who g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t the p o l i c y f e l 1ow-workers in Ingham County Is almost as g r e a t as t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f h u nt e rs whose wo rk group peers g e n e r a l l y oppose the p o l i c y . However, in t h e o t h e r two c o u n t i e s , In al m o s t n i n e cases o u t o f t e n , more than h a l f o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t 's f e l 1ow-wo r ke rs oppose th e pol i c y . There is a l s o a s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n between h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s and group a t t i t u d e s . p o licy then it 2 I f a h u n t e r ' s work group g e n e r a l l y supp ort s is ve ry l i k e l y opposes th e p o l i c y t h a t he w i l l th e h u n t e r is l i k e l y too. o p p o s i t i o n than one would e x p e c t gi ven When the group to oppose i t l a r g e r number o f h u n te rs do s u p p o r t t h e p o l i c y the t o o , alth o ug h a In s p i t e o f group the s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e two v a r i a b l e s . In o r d e r t o measure t h e e f f e c t o f work group a t t i t u d e s upon respondent a t t i t u d e s among th e c o u n t i e s , county o f r e s id e n c e was h e l d c o n s t a n t and th e two a t t i t u d i n a l a t t r i b u t e s were run a g a i n s t each 3 other. The r e s u l t was t h a t th e high degree o f c o n f o r m i t y between in divid ual attitu d es and group a t t i t u d e s tended to d i m i n i s h in and M a r q u e t t e Counties and d i s ap pe a re d a l t o g e t h e r th e g e n e r a l ta b le, the a t t i t u d i n a l deviants in A lp e n a . Ingham As in In Alpena we re In l a r g e measure s u p p o r t e r s whose f e l l o w - w o r k e r s g e n e r a l l y oppose the p o l i c y . *See T a b l e 16 , Appendix B. 2 See T a b l e 17» Appendix B. ^See T a b l e s 18-20, A p p e n d i x B. 148 Summary: The a t t i t u d e s o f f e l 1ow-workers do n o t seem to have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e f o r m a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l hunter a t titu d e s among th e c o u n t i e s . Neighbors As w i t h p r e v i o u s l y discussed g r o u p s , r e s p o n d e n t' s neighbors who p r o p o r t i o n who oppose o t h e r two c o u n t i e s th e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e support p o lic y the p o lic y is v e r y c l o s e t o the in Ingham County w h i l e in the the p r o p o r t i o n o f h u n te r s w i t h a m a j o r i t y o f neigh bors who s u p p o r t the p o l i c y is v e r y s m a l l . * As b e f o r e , when t h e respondents from t h e t h r e e c o u n t i e s a r e lumped t o g e t h e r and the congruence between group and i n d i v i d u a l attitu des is observed th e r e l a t i o n s h i p is q u i t e s t r o n g . when t h e c o u n t i e s are a n a l y z e d s e p a r a t e l y in which t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p p e r s i s t s . s ta tis tic a l sig n ifican ce 2 However, Ingham Is the o n l y county One reason f o r the l a c k o f in t h e two n o r t h e r n c o u n t i e s is because very few o f th e h u n t e r s q u e s t io n e d s u p p o r t th e p o l i c y and n e i t h e r do most o f t h e i r neighbors. Summary: attitu d es The i n f l u e n c e o f n e i g h b o r a t t i t u d e s appears upon i n d i v i d u a l to be n e g l i g i b l e . Immediate Fa mily This q u e s t i o n was i n te n d e d to be more group s p e c i f i c than the e a r l i e r q u e s t i o n conce rning th e a t t i t u d e o f r e l a t i v e s . in v o l v e d p r i n c i p a l l y p a r e n t s , spouses and c h i l d r e n . 's e e Tab le 2 See T a b l e 21, A p p e n d i x B. 22, A p p e n d i x B. T h is group As would be 149 expected, the h u n te rs and t h e i r c l o s e f a m i l i e s agreed w i t h one a n o t h e r ve ry c o n s i s t e n t l y about the p o l i c y both when respondents from th e t h r e e c o u n t ie s were combined^ and when they were a n a ly z e d s e p a r a t e l y . Summary: T h er e is s t r o n g agreement between the respondents and t h e i r close r e la t iv e s c o nc e rn in g the p o l i c y . to r a t i o n a l i z e a de pe n d e n t- in d e p en d e n t to t e l l However, re latio n sh ip . a t t i t u d e , or both. is d i f f i c u l t i n f l u e n c e d him in h i s S in c e most o f the respondents were heads o f households who un doubtedly have g r e a t i n f l u e n c e w i t h and c h i l d r e n and some i n f l u e n c e upon t h e i r p a r e n t s , in many i n s ta n c e s in divid ual a ttitu d e In t h i s s o i c a l group and group a t t i t u d e This It Is d i f f i c u l t w h e t h e r the respondent I n f l u e n c e d h i s c lo s e f a m i l y t o form th e o p i n i o n which th ey hold o r w h e t h e r they that It t h e i r spouse it is p r o b a b le is the independent v a r i a b l e is the dependent v a r i a b l e . is o p p o s i t e t o the d i r e c t i o n o f i n f l u e n c e which has been r a t i o ­ n a l i z e d f o r the o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . H un tin g Companions I t was ex pe c te d t h a t the a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t i n g companions would s ig n ific a n tly influence b e in g p l a n n e d . that there in dividual a t t i t u d e s , when t h i s study was The r e s u l t s c o n f i r m t h i s hunch. is g r e a t e r congruence between than f o r any o t h e r 2 In f a c t , i t appears i n d i v i d u a l and group a t t i t u d e s r e l a t io n s h i p analyzed. Government O f f i c i a l s The I n t e n t o f th is q u e s t i o n was to see I f n o t i o n o f how h i s e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s *See T a b le 2 3 , 2 See T a b l e s A p p e n d i x B. 24-27» A p p e n d i x B, fe lt the respondent had any about the p o l i c y . The 150 t h i n k i n g he re was not so much t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e s o f government o f f i ­ c i a l s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d respondent a t t i t u d e s but t h a t such knowledge might o f f e r some measure o f s u pp or t to th e respondent who p e r c e i v e s th e a t t i t u d e o f h i s q u ite v a ria b le . It i n t i m a t e r e f e r e n c e groups as b e in g t u rn e d o u t t h a t o n l y a m inu te p e rc e n t a g e o f the h u nt e rs had t a l k e d t o a government o f f i c i a l co nc e rn in g th e issue and t h e r e was no ev id e n c e t h a t these d i s c u s s io n s had a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on the pe rsonal convictions o f the h u n te rs .' It Is n o t e ­ w o rt h y t h a t al m os t t w i c e as many o f th e respondents who had t a l k e d t o an o f f i c i a l were t o l d by t h e o f f i c i a l t h a t he opposed the p o l i c y as were t o l d t h a t he s u pp or te d i t . Summary: Not enough e v id e n c e is a v a i l a b l e to say c o n c l u s i v e l y w h e th e r the a t t i t u d e s o f government o f f i c i a l s ha ve i n f 1 u e n c e d those h u n t e r s who have t a l k e d t o them, b u t i t does seem to be a f a c t that ve ry few people could have been i n f l u e n c e d by them in any personal way c o nc e rn in g th e p o l i c y . Department o f N a t u r a l Again a p r im a r y Resources Employees influence is not e x p e c t e d t o be p r e s e n t in the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between a DNR employee and h u n t e r s . However, in those cases where a h u n t e r has been t o l d by an employee t h a t he p e r s o n a l l y opposes th e p o l i c y it could not h e l p but i n f l u e n c e h is a t t i t u d e r e g a r d l e s s o f what prompted the employee to d i s a g r e e w i t h More than k0% o f the h u n te rs employees t h a t 'see 2 they had t a l k e d to opposed t h e p o l i c y . Tab le 2 8 , See T a b l e i n d i c a t e d t h a t most o f 29, A p p e n d i x B. A p p e n d i x B. the p o l i c y . the DNR In M a rq u e t te 151 a m a j o r i t y o f th e h u n t e r s who had t a l k e d t o an employee c la im e d t h a t more than 50% o f t h e employees opposed t h e p o l i c y . Summary: o f Natural po licy, Although many pe op le f e l t Resources employees t h a t there Is l i t t l e t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f Department they had t a l k e d t o opposed t h e ev id e n c e a v a i l a b l e t o assess th e I n f l u e n c e o f such p e r c e p t i o n on the f o r m a t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s . Social Acquaintances G enerally, the a t t i t u d e o f th e respondent is q u i t e s i m i l a r to those o f h i s s o c i a l a c q u a in t a n c e s . ^ the e f f e c t is s u b s t a n t i a l l y However, th e d a t a i n d i c a t e l e s s u n if o r m when each county that is c o n s i d e r e d separately. Summary: The a t t i t u d e s o f individ ual have been unduly i n f l u e n c e d by t h e p o s i t i o n respondents do not seem to taken by t h e i r s o c i a l acquai n t a n c e s . O t h e r Hunters In a d d i t i o n to those whom he hunts w i t h , many h u n te rs t a l k e d to o t h e r h u nt e rs data in b a r s , s t o r e s , and o t h e r meeting p a l c e s . i n d i c a t e t h a t most o f th e h u n te rs oppose th e p o l i c y . not v e r y t a l k a t i v e Summary: 2 l i k e l y have The th e respondents have t a l k e d to A p p a r e n t l y , h u n te r s who su p p o r t the p o l i c y a r e to s t r a n g e r s about t h e i r s u p p o r t . Th ere is no e v id e n c e t h a t these c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r hunte rs have had any real e f f e c t on a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s . ^See T a b l e 2 3 0 , A p p e n d i x B. See Ta b le 31» Appendix B. 152 Sportsman Club O f f i c i a l s Only a small cia ls . number o f hunte rs have t a l k e d t o h u n t i n g club o f f i ­ I n t e r e s t i n g l y enough, the club o f f i c i a l s whom Ingham County h u n te rs have t a l k e d to g e n e r a l l y supp ort the p o l i c y w h i l e the club o f f i c i a l s whom h u nt e rs from t h e o t h e r c o u n t ie s have t a l k e d t o o v e r ­ w h e lm in g l y oppose the p o l i c y . * sations is not S ig n ific a n t impact from th ese conver­ i n d i c a t e d by th e data, however. Sub-H ypo the sis Summary S ig n ifica n t relatio n i n f l u e n c e on pe rs on a l a t t i t u d e s seems t o e x i s t to the a t t i t u d e s o f : 1) re la tiv e s , and 2) h u n t i n g companions. I t seems p l a u s i b l e a l s o t h a t when a DNR employee t e l l s t h a t he opposes th e p o l i c y ularly t h a t t h i s has s i g n i f i c a n t in r e i n f o r c i n g o p p o s i t i o n a t t i t u d e s . i l l u m i n a t i n g on t h i s p o i n t , however. in a hunter influence p a r t i c ­ The da ta a r e n o t ve ry T h e r e is a l s o s t r o n g congruence o f a t t i t u d e between th e h u nt e rs and t h e i r immediate f a m i l i e s . d iffic u lt is t h e Independent v a r i a b l e , to argue e i t h e r way as to which It is however. H yp oth esi s 1-G 1-G S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among the c o u n t i e s h u n t e r p e r c e p t i o n o f supp ort o r o p p o s i t i o n deer h u n t i n g by th e mass me dia. in to a n t l e r l e s s M a rq u e t te h u nt e rs w i l l p e r c e i v e t h e mass media as b e in g less s u p p o r t i v e w h i l e Ingham County h u n te r s w i l l supportive o f the p o lic y . *See T a b l e 3 2 , Appendix B. p e r c e i v e th e mass media as most 153 The respondents were asked t h r e e qu es t io n s t h e i r exposure to d i f f e r e n t detailed p ap ers , types o f mass media which o f t e n c o n t a in in f o r m a t i o n concerning deer h u n t i n g . r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n , fo l l o w e d by questions ( 9 0 , 9 2 , 9*0 concerning The media included news** and h u n ti n g magazines. Each q u e s t io n was ( 9 1 , 9*t” A, 96) asking the respondent whether the media t h a t he was exposed to supports o r opposes a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g . By loo ki n g a t exposure to media, and p e r c e p t i o n o f media p o s i t i o n in r e l a t i o n to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t i t u d e , some measure o f whe ther the media has had any re a l I n f l u e n c e on a t t i t u d e might be i n f e r r e d . o t h e r c a se s , where congruence is e v i d e n t , In respondent s e l e c t i v e percep­ t i o n r a t h e r than a c t u a l media p o s i t i o n may be what is being observed. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among th e t h r e e coun tie s in exposure t o any o f the t h r e e forms o f mass media. r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n spondents' p olicy.^ the p o l i c y For magazines and t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e r e ­ p e r c e p t io n o f th e m ed ia 's support and o p p o s i t i o n to the However, t h e r e is some evi de nce t h a t respondents who oppose tend t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i r l o c a l newspaper opposes the p o l i c y w h i l e h u n te rs who supp ort the p o l i c y g e n e r a l l y newspaper as s u p p o r ti n g the p o l i c y . tend to p e r c e i v e t h e i r 2 When the r e l a t i o n s h i p between mass media support and o p p o s i t i o n and I n d i v i d u a l attitu d es is a n a ly z e d f o r each c o un ty , p e r c e p t i o n o f mass media p o s i t i o n seems to have very l i t t l e which the respondent has Summary: th e a t t i t u d e i n t e r n a l i z e d concerning the p o l i c y . The mass media a p p a r e n t l y have pl aye d an i n s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e In the fo rm at io n o f h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s ^See T a b l e s 33 and 3 5 , A p p e n d i x B. 2 See T a b l e to do w i t h 3**, A p p e n d i x B. toward h u n t i n g p o l i c i e s . CHAPTER VI TESTING THE HYPOTHESES CONTINUES Socio-Economic S t a t u s The so cio -ec ono mi c s t a t u s Index c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e a t t r i b u t e s : e d u c a t i o n , o c c u p a t i o n , and income. For each one o f these a t t r i b u t e s respondents wer e p l a c e d i n t o one o f t h r e e c l a s s e s : h i g h , medium and low a c co rd in g to the f o l l o w i n g d a ta a g g r e g a t i o n s . T a b l e 33. Soci o-e con omic s t a t u s A ttrib u te Low Medt um Educ ation 0-11 grades High school g r a d some col lege C o l l e g e grad grad work Occupation^ C le r ic a l, s a le s , o p e r a t i v e s , fa rm workers, lab or­ er s Farmers and farm managers, c r a f t s ­ men , f o remen, s e r v i c e workers e x c e p t household P r o f . , teach ers managers, o f f i ­ c ia ls , proprie t o rs T o t a l Annual Fa mily 1ncome Less than $7,999 $ 8 , 0 0 0 - $ 9 ,999 $10,000 o r above In combining t h e d a t a t o form the High index the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a were used: (1) I f th e respondent has th e same r a t i n g on two o r more v a r i ­ a b l e s , a s si g n him to t h a t SES group. These o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s were d e r i v e d on t h e b a si s o f d i s ­ cussion In 0 , D, Duncan and P. M. B l a u , The American O cc up at io na l S t r u c t u r e (New Yor k: John W i l e y , 1967) 520 pages; and R. Bend I x and S. M. L i p s e t , C l a s s . S t a t u s , and Power (New Yor k: The Free P r e s s , 1966) w i t h s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n t o pp. 309-33**. 15** 155 (2 ) v a ria b le s, If respondent has a d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g on each o f the t h r e e as si g n him to the medium SES group (Example: High Income, Medium o c c u p a t i o n , Low e d u c a t i o n - a s si g n to medium SES). (3) I f d a t a is not a v a i l a b l e f o r one v a r i a b l e , assign the respondent an SES r a t i n g a c c o r d i n g t o the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : Low + High = Medium Low + Medium = Medium Medium + High = H ig h * (4 ) I f d a t a a r e not a v a i l a b l e f o r two v a r i a b l e s , a s s ig n the r espondent a c c o r d i n g to th e v a l u e f o r th e v a r i a b l e Using these c r i t e r i a , SES c a t e g o r y . C re d ib ility e v e r y respondent that Is known. (336) was as sig ned t o an is added to t h e index by n o t i n g th e f a c t t h a t d a t a were a v a i l a b l e f o r a l l three v a ria b le s f o r 308 respond en ts. Twenty-seven o f the respondents w i t h m is si ng d a t a d i d n o t respond to ohe q u e s t i o n . Most o f these non-responses had t o do w i t h Only one respondent d i d n o t respond to two q u e s t i o n s . I t can be demonstrated w i t h v a r i a b l e could unduly a f f e c t if income. r eg a rd to t h i s in de x t h a t no one the respondents o v e r a l l SES r a t i n g even the respondent were a s s ig n e d to t h e i n a c c u r a t e s t a t u s group The d e c i s i o n to w e i g h t the respondents toward the upper end o f the continuum In th e l a t t e r two combinations above was based on the assumption t h a t i f t h e resp ondent has a c h ie v e d a h i g h e r s t a t u s ac­ c o r d in g to one a t t r i b u t e t h a t t h a t a t t r i b u t e is the b e t t e r i n d i c a t o r o f his o v e r a ll s ta tu s . The assumption is d e f e n s i b l e because personal n o r m a t i v e goals in the U n i t e d S t a t e s u s u a l l y in c lu d e the emphasis on g e t t i n g as much e d u c a t i o n as p o s s i b l e , g e t t i n g a good jo b t h a t w i l l i n c r e a s e p e o p l e ' s r e s p e c t f o r yo u, and making as much money as p o s s i ­ ble. I f a person ac hie ves more o f one than a n o t h e r then he would t r y t o use the h i g h e r achievement a t t r i b u t e t o advantage w h i l e t r y i n g to reduce the e f f e c t o f t h e low achievement a t t r i b u t e s . In s e e k i n g t o o p t i m i z e h is r a n k in g in the s o c i a l o r d e r the i n d i v i d u a l would by d e f i n i t i o n be ex posing h i m s e l f to a d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c o n t e x t which m ight s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e h i s p e r s p e c t i v e f o r fo rm in g h i s a t t i ­ tudes and b e l i e f s . 156 ac co rd in g a ll to one o f these a t t r i b u t e s . s a l e s personnel ly tic a l purposes. For ex am pl e , It is obvious that in r e a l i t y shou ld n o t be lumped t o g e t h e r f o r ana­ A cle rk in a dime s t o r e , who as a h ig h school drop­ o u t makes $ 4 , 0 0 0 , should not be a g g r eg a te d w i t h a p h a r m a c e u ti c a l sales man who is a c o l l e g e g r a d u a t e w i t h perhaps some g r a d u a t e work who makes $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 pe r y e a r . The f l e x i b i l i t y and, I believe, th e v a l i d i t y o f th e in d e x can be demonstrated by using th e examples above. Even though th e pharmaceuti cal salesman is assigned t o the low s t a t u s group o c c u p a t i o n a l l y , he is as signed a high s t a t u s v a l u e f o r both income and e d u c a t i o n . and, th u s , would be assig ned to the high SES group when the v a r i a b l e va lues a r e combined. On t h e o t h e r hand, the sales c l e r k above is as sig ne d a low s t a t u s v a lu e f o r SES as p r e s c r i b e d by th e f a c t t h a t he has a low score on each o f the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s Independently. Status D iffere n c es Hyp othe sis 2 . level w i l l Hunters from t h e h i g h e s t so ci o -e c o n o m ic s t a t u s be most s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g p o l i c y when compared t o the o t h e r SES groups. Low SES h u nt e rs w i l l be l e a s t s u p p o r t! ve. The d a t a b e a r o u t the h y p o t h e s i s . a s s o c i a t i o n between SES and a t t i t u d e s With each i n c r e a s e in the SES l e v e l s u pp or t the Department o f N a t u r a l C learly t h e r e Is a s t r o n g toward a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g . a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f hu nte rs Resources p o l i c y . Also n o t i c e that In the " s t r o n g l y opposed" column, s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n decreases w i t h each in c r e a s e in SES l e v e l . This indicates e f f e c t o f some k i n d a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h a t t h e r e Is a mode ra ting incre as ed SES. 157 Ta bl e 34. A ttitude groups toward a n t l e r l e s s A t t i tude Mo de ra te ly Opposed (%) Strongly Opposed (%) SES deer h u n ti n g p o l i c y among th e SES Support (%) To tal Low 119 .429 . 16 8 .40 3 100% 146 Medi urn . 28 8 .3 2 2 .39 0 100% H i gh 55 .3 4 6 .127 Chi Square - 2 8 . 3 9 6 1 , 4 D . F . , P < - 100% .527 .001 Hypothesis 2 - A. A. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among t h e t h r e e SES groups in the degree o f a l i e n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the governmental process among h u nt e rs who oppose the a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n ti n g p o l i c y . Low SES hunters w i l l m a n i f e s t t h e g r e a t e s t degree o f a l i e n ­ a t i o n and high SES hu nte rs w i l l m a n i f e s t the least a l i e n a t i o n . The i n f l u e n c e o f a l i e n a t i o n on a t t i t u d e s seems l i k e a f r u i t f u l concept t o c o n s i d e r in r e l a t i o n counties. As the d i r e c t i o n a l to SES groups as w e l l as among the hy pothesis above i n d i c a t e s , pected t h a t respondents from th e low SES group would f e e l alienation turn, (powerlessness) w i t h i f a lie n a tio n negatively governmental p o l i c i e s r es p ec t to p o l i t i c a l influences a t t i t u d e s i n c l u d i n g "doe11 h u n t i n g , i t was ex ­ the g r e a t e s t processes. In toward s p e c i f i c i t was expected t h a t low SES respondents would most oppose the p o l i c y as demonstrated In 158 the p r ev io u s h y p o t h e s i s . ation The c r i t e r i a Is t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t fo r lin kin g a ttitu d e increased o p p o s itio n to a l i e n ­ Is c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i n c re a s e d a l i e n a t i o n , p r e f e r a b l y f o r th e h u n t e r p o p u l a t i o n as a w h o l e , b u t n e c e s s a r i l y f o r one o r more SES grou ps . Ta b le 35 does not s u p p o r t th e Ide a t h a t a t t i t u d e s o f a l i e n a t i o n va ry among th e d i f f e r e n t SES groups. Ta b le 35. A l i e n a t i o n among d i f f e r e n t SES groups A t t i t u d e Regarding P o l i t i c a l Unalienated A lienated SES Processes Total (%)___________________(%) Low 105 .6 1 0 100 % .3 90 Med i urn 131* .612 .388 100 % High 52 .5 9 6 100 % .l»0*» Chi Square ■ 0.01(03, 2 D . F . , P > .05 Also i t has a l r e a d y been shown in t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f a l i e n a t i o n among t h e c o u n t ie s in s u b - h y p o t h e s is does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y 1-A t h a t a l i e n a t i o n apparently i n f l u e n c e t h e a t t i t u d e s o f the h u n t i n g po pu la­ t i o n as a whole ( T a b l e 19 in Chapter V ) . When th e t h r e e SES groups a r e an aly zed s e p a r a t e l y f o r th e e f f e c t o f a l i e n a t i o n on a t t i t u d e s t i l l no r e l a t i o n s h i p can be d i s c e r n e d . ^ ^See T a b l e s 36-38, A p p e n d i x B. As a check on th e s e r e s u l t s , those 159 who s t r o n g l y o r mode rately oppose th e p o l i c y were i s o l a t e d o u t and a check on the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a l i e n a t i o n among t h e SES groups was made. S till t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s so the r e s u l t s above were c o ns id er ed p a r t i a l l y Summary: reaffirm ed .1 A pp a r e n t ly th e presence o r lack o f respondent a l i e n ­ a t i o n toward th e p o l i t i c a l process c o n t r i b u t e s very l i t t l e observed d i f f e r e n c e s t o the in a t t i t u d e toward th e p o l i c y among t h e v a ri o us SES groups. Hypothesis 2 - B . B. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l th e importance o f success hunters. e x i s t among th e SES groups in in k i l l i n g a deer to th e i n d i v i d u a l The importance o f success w i l l be g r e a t e s t among low SES hunters and l e a s t Impo rtan t to high SES h u n t e r s . The Index o f Importance o f Success w i l l be h e l p f u l t h i s hypothesis as i t was in a n a l y z i n g hypo thes is indicates that there 1-B. in a n a l y z i n g Ta b le 36 is no s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n between the s o c i o ­ economic s t a t u s and the importance o f success to the h u n t e r s . A tr e n d can be d e te c te d n ificance. little in s p i t e o f t h e lac k o f s t a t i s t i c a l sig­ The p r o p o r t i o n o f hunters who view success as being o f importance decreases w i t h de cr ea s in g SES w h i l e among hunters who p l a c e a high va lue on success th e p r o p o r t i o n decreases w i t h in c r e a s i n g SES. Simply s t a t e d t h e r e is some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t success is most Im po rta nt to low SES respondents and l e a s t SES respondents. 's e e Tables 39“ ^ 0 , A p p e n d i x B. im po rta nt to high 160 The im portance o f success to respondents from th e va r i ous SES groups T a b l e 36. L ittle Importance <*> SES Level o f Importan ce o f Success Very M o d e r a t e ly Importance Im p o r ta n t (%) (%) Total 126 Low .262 .436 .302 100% Med 1um 154 .2 4 0 .260 .5 0 0 100% 56 High .6 25 .1 9 6 .179 100% Chi Square = 6 . 0 0 1 0 , 4 D . F . , P > .0 5 Persons who h i g h l y esteem success are somewhat more l i k e l y to oppose a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g than a r e t h e h u n t e r s who a r e i n d i f f e r e n t t o su cce ss . o rie n ta tio n When the SES groups a r e a n a l y z e d i n d i v i d u a l l y , respondent t o success seems t o have no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a t t i t u d e in any o f the t h r e e g r o u p s . ' Summary: The importance o f success does not seem to c o n t r i b u t e much to th e observed d i f f e r e n c e s among SES groups in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the p o l i c y . Hyp othesis 2 - C . C. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l th e s t a t u s symbolism which in the minds o f h u n t e r s . ' See T a b l e s 4l-4 3 » A p p e n d i x B. e x i s t among th e SES groups in is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h u n t i n g success H u n ti n g success w i l l have the 161 s t r o n g e s t s t a t u s symbolism f o r low SES h u n te rs and the l e a s t s t a t u s symbolism f o r high SES h u n t e r s . D i f f e r e n c e s do, in f a c t , e x i s t among t h e SES groups symbolism a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h u n t i n g s u c c e s s . ' in th e s t a t u s The low SES group a t t r i b ­ utes th e g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f d e f e r e n c e t o success w h i l e t h e high SES g r o u p , on th e w h o l e , is lea st impressed by h u n t i n g success. the e f f e c t o f s t a t u s symbolism is measured a g a i n s t a t t i t u d e When f o r the t h r e e SES groups o n l y th e medium SES respondents seem t o be s i g n i f i cantly i n f l u e n c e d in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s hu nt e rs g e n e r a l l y oppose t h e p o l i c y by s t a t u s a s p i r a t i o n s . 2 Low SES r e g a r d l e s s o f how they f e e l s t a t u s w h i l e high SES respondents a r e less l i k e l y to oppose about the p o l i c y r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r o r not success has any s t a t u s c o n n o t a t i o n s to them. Summary: th ^se r e s u l t s ences Although s t a t u s symbolism is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t t i t u d e , i n d i c a t e t h a t o n l y a small p a r t o f th e o b se r ve d d i f f e r ­ In a t t i t u d e among t h e SES groups can be e x p l a i n e d by d i f f e r e n c e s in s t a t u s symbolism a t t r i b u t e d to success by th e d i f f e r e n t SES grou ps . H yp oth esi s 2 - D . D. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l e x i s t among th e SES groups the importance o f h u n t i n g t o the h u n t e r s . experience w i l l be most im p o r t a n t t o in The h u n t i n g low SES h u n t e r s and l e a s t im p o r t a n t t o high SES h u n t e r s . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the SES gro ups. 3 However, in deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t a r e d i s c e r n i b l e I t seems meaningful ' s e e Ta bl e 4 4 , Appendix B. 2 See T a b l e s 45-47, ^See T a b l e 4 8 , Appendix B A p p e n d i x B. t o go f u r t h e r and 162 c o n s i d e r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between d e e r h u n t e r i n t e r e s t and a t t i t u d e s . We p r e v i o u s l y noted in h y p o t h e s is 1-D t h a t t h e r e h u n te r s w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t interest to s u p p o r t th e p o l i c y w h i l e hu nte rs w i t h th e l e a s t i n t e r e s t a r e g e n e r a l l y less s u p p o r t i v e . th e t h r e e SES groups a r e a n a ly z e d s e p a r a t e l y , th at i n t e r e s t p l a y s much o f a r o l e is a tendency f o r there However, when is l i t t l e e v id e n c e in p r e d i s p o s i n g hu nte rs to su pp or t o r oppose th e p o l i c y . ^ Summary: but Deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t seems t o be r e l a t e d t o a t t i t u d e s , f t does not a s s i s t much in e x p l a i n i n g t h e observed d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e among t h e SES groups. Hyp othe sis 2 - E . E. S ig n ific a n t differences w ill p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who h u n t. e x i s t among SES groups in the Low SES h u n te r s w i l l have the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who hunt w h i l e hi gh SES hu nte rs w ill have the s m a l l e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who h u n t . Both f e 11ow-workers and r e l a t i v e s were c o n s i d e r e d w i t h th e ir r e s p e c t to importance as r e f e r e n c e groups f o r respondents from th e SES groups. The p r o p o r t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p e e r group h u n t i n g a c t i v i t y was a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same among t h e SES groups f o r both f e l lo w-workers and f o r c l o s e f r i e n d s . does not t e l ) 2 Thus, the h y p o th e s is is n o t su p p o r te d . This us, however, w h e th e r p e e r group i n t e r e s t , as measured by th e p r o p o r t i o n o f peers who h u n t , has a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e kinds o f a t t i t u d e s which a r e formed by th e resp ond en ts. ^See T a b l e s 2 See T a b l e s ^ 9 ~ 5 1 , A p p e n d i x B. 52-53* A p p e n d i x B. 163 When th e amount o f p e e r group a c t i v i t y groups Is measured a g a i n s t I n d i v i d u a l none o f the s i x t a b l e s d i s p l a y Summary: f o r th e two types o f peer a t t i t u d e s h o l d i n g SES c o n s t a n t , a s ig n ific a n t difference. A p p a r e n t l y , p e e r group i n t e r e s t does not f u r n i s h much o f an i n d i c a t i o n as t o why pe ople f e e l t h e way they do about a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g . H yp oth esi s 2 - F . F. S ig n ific a n t differen ces w i l l e x i s t among SES groups In h u n t e r p e r c e p t i o n o f the p r o p o r t i o n o f pe er group o p p o s i t i o n antlerless deer h u n t i n g . Low SES h u nt e rs w i l l to p e r c e i v e the g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f peer group o p p o s i t i o n t o a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g w h i l e high SES h u nt e rs w i l l p e r c e i v e th e l e a s t oppos i t i o n . We have a l r e a d y discu sse d the i n f l u e n c e o f p e e r groups a t t i t u d e s upon i n d i v i d u a l a t t i t u d e s w i t h i n e n t i t l e d " H y p o t h es is 1-F." the c o u n t ie s in t h a t p a r t o f Cha pte r V In t h i s s e c t i o n we w i l l a n a l y z e the same i n f l u e n c e s among th e v a r io u s SES groups. P ri m a r y Sources o f Re1a t i v e s . Influences There do n o t appear t o be any s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ifi­ cant d i f f e r e n c e s among h u n te r s from t h e t h r e e SES groups In t h e pr o­ portion o f However, t h e r e r e l a t i v e s who s u p p o r t o r oppose the p o l i c y . ^ is c l e a r l y a tr e n d p o l i c y w i t h each o f a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n o f r e l a t i v e s s u p p o r t i n g the in c r e a s e a t t i t u d e s on i n d i v i d u a l the fo llo w in g in s t a t u s attitu d es le v e l. is c o n s i d e r e d f o r each SES gr ou p, r e l a t i o n s h i p s were obser ve d: 's e e Tab le 54* A p p e n d i x B. When the e f f e c t o f group 164 1, For low and medium SES respondents t h e r e form ity o f 2. in dividual a t t i t u d e s w i t h group a t t i t u d e s . ^ High SES respondents tended t o be more s u p p o r t i v e o f th e p o l i c y r e g a r d l e s s o f how t h e i r r e l a t i v e s Summary: in i n f l u e n c i n g o p i n i o n s . among th e high SES group no s i g n i f i c a n t Fe11ow- Wo rk ers. among r e l a t i v e s s t a t u s gro ups. f e l t ab ou t the p o l i c y . 2 Among low and medium SES groups t h e a t t i t u d e s o f r e l a ­ t i v e s seem to p l a y an im p o rt a n t r o l e sitio n is s i g n i f i c a n t con­ influence However, is a p p a r e n t . I t was found t h a t t h e amount o f s u p p o r t and oppo­ is not s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t among th e t h r e e However, when f e l low-workers a r e c o n s i d e r e d , we f i n d t h a t there are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among th e gr oups. f i n d i n g s do not come a l t o g e t h e r as a s u r p r i s e . 3 A person's These relative s l i k e l y would come from v a r i o u s s o c io -e c on o m ic l e v e l s , w h i l e on t h e o t h e r hand, it is l i k e l y about the same e d u c a t i o n , t h a t a p e r s o n ' s work peers g e n e r a l l y have income, and o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s as the re sp ond en t; t h u s , by d e f i n i t i o n grou p. they would be from t h e same s t a t u s I t has a l r e a d y been demonstrated t h a t among the resp ond en ts, high SES persons were most l i k e l y persons were l e a s t l i k e l y t o s u p p o r t the p o l i c y and low SES to support i t . Thus, i f a p e r s o n ' s work peers ar e from th e same SES group and SES i n f l u e n c e s a t t i t u d e s , then we would e x p e c t a p e r s o n ' s work peers t o have many o f the same a t t i ­ tudes as the respondents. When SES is he ld c o n s t a n t and th e groups a r e c a r e f u l l y a n a l y z e d , th e d a t a I n d i c a t e t h a t : 's e e Tables 55~5<>» Appendix B. 2 See T a b l e 5 7 , Appendix B. 3 See T a b l e 58» A p p e n d i x B. 165 1. Low and medium SES respondents tend t o conform to the a t t i ­ tudes o f t h e i r work g r o u p . ' 2. High SES persons, however, tend t o supp ort the p o l i c y o f the a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r f e 11o w -w or ke rs . Summary: In s p i t e 2 Among low and medium SES groups t h e a t t i t u d e s o f f e l l o w - workers seem to have s tr o ng i n f l u e n c e on th e a t t i t u d e s o f th e i n d i v i d u a l hunters. On the o t h e r hand, very l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e Is appar en t among high SES groups. N e iq h b o r s . There ar e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o f the neighbors o f the t h r e e SES groups. 3 In a l l in th e a t t i t u d e s cases, these n e i g h ­ bors a r e g e n e r a l l y opposed to a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g . As p r e v i o u s l y noted in the di scu ssi o n o f neighbors 1 - F , g e n e r a l l y respondents tend t o agree w i t h In hypothesis the m a j o r i t y o p in io n o f th e! r n e i g h b o r s . • As b e f o r e , by h o ld in g SES c o n s t a n t , we can see the i n t e r a c t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l and group a t t i t u d e s more c l e a r l y . As in th e a n a l ­ y s t s o f th e i n f l u e n c e o f r e l a t i v e s and f e 11ow-workers, the low and the medium SES respondents g e n e r a l l y tude o f t h e i r ne ig h b o r s . tend to conform to the consensus a t t i ­ A g a in , however, high SES persons tend to be more s u p p o r t i v e o f the p o l i c y in s p i t e o f widespread o p p o s i t i o n among n e ig h bo r s. Summary: Among low and medium SES groups the dents seems to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the a t t i t u d e l See Tables 5 9 - 6 0 , Appendix B. 2 See Ta b le 6 1 , Appendix B. ^See Ta bl e 6 2 , Appendix B. L See T a b l e 2 1 , A p p e n d i x B. a t t i t u d e s o f respon­ o f n e ig h b o r s , w hile the 166 a t t i t u d e o f neigh bors does n o t seem t o a f f e c t a t t i t u d e s among high SES groups p e r c e p t i b l y . immediate F a m i l y . As one might e x p e c t t h e r e congruence between f a m i l y and i n d i v i d u a l as a wh ole and f o r each SES group. ra tio n a lize the m a t t e r o f which It is a h i g h degree o f a t t i t u d e s both f o r th e group remains d i f f i c u l t , however, to is th e indep enden t v a r i a b l e and which is de pende nt. Summary: C l e a r l y there in d iv id u a l a t t i t u d e s but i t which is a r e l a t i o n s h i p between f a m i l y and is not known In t h e case o f t h i s policy i n f l u e n c e s which o r to what degree some k i n d o f c y c l i c in te r­ a c t i o n oc c u r s . H un tin g Companions. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e i n d i v i d u a l h u n t e r ' s a t t i t u d e and th e a t t i t u d e o f t h i s h u n t i n g companions strongest o f a ll SES groups.^ is t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , when c o n s i d e r i n g Tow and medium In th e high SES group we f i n d a g a i n , as we c o n s i s t e n t l y have p r e v i o u s l y , t h a t h u nt e rs from high SES groups te n d to be more s u p p o r t i v e o f th e p o l i c y In s p i t e o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r h u n t i n g compan I o n s . Summary: Among low and medium SES r e s p o n d e n ts , h u n t i n g companions tend to e x e r t g r e a t On th e o t h e r hand, the a t t i t u d e s o f i n f l u e n c e on h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s . the a t t i t u d e s ex press ed by hi gh SES respondents seem to be independent o f h u n t i n g companion a t t i t u d e s . Secondary Group i n f l u e n c e s Government O f f i c i a l s . A p p a r e n t l y th e a t t i t u d e s ex pressed by government o f f i c i a l s which t h e respondents from th e v a r i o u s SES groups ^See T a b l e s 6 3 - 6 5 , A p p e n d i x B. 167 have t a l k e d to have playe d a small r e g a r d i n g the p o l i c y . ro le, i f any, Two f a c t o r s a r e th e b a s is in i n f l u e n c i n g o p i n i o n s fo r th is 1. Very few hu nte rs have t a l k e d t o such o f f i c i a l s , 2. There is v e ry l i t t l e conclusion: and congruence between th e a t t i t u d e s o f the h u n te rs and th e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e government o f f i c i a l s th ey have t a l k e d to . Department o f N a t u r a l Resources Employees. o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s by Department o f N a t u r a l talked. When t h i s There is some ev id e n c e and th e a t t i t u d e s ex pressed i Resources employees w i t h whom the hu nte rs have influence is a n a l y z e d in more d e t a i l c o n s t a n t the f i n d i n g s a r e v a r i a b l e . sponses that by h o l d i n g SES Among low SES h u n te rs th eir re­ i n d i c a t e d t h a t more than h a l f the employees w i t h whom t h e m a t t e r had been di scu sse d opposed t h e p o l i c y . ' There was l i t t l e a b i l i t y o f a t t i t u d e between respondents who had t a l k e d v a ri­ to s u p p o r t i v e employees and those who had t a l k e d t o employees who opposed the p o l i c y . G enerally, low SES respondents oppose the p o l i c y r e g a r d l e s s o f the p o s i t i o n o f the employee o r employees t h a t they had t a l k e d t o . One e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e high amount o f employee o p p o s i t i o n which t h i s group r e p o r t e d mi gh t be t h a t they were t a l k i n g t o l o c a l o f non-professional s ta tu s . It DNR employees is t o be e x p e c te d t h a t many hu nt e rs from th e two n o r t h e r n c o u n t ie s would know such employees p e r s o n a l l y . The type o f employee t h a t t h e respondent had t a l k e d to cannot be a s c e r t a i n e d because such d e t a i l e d t h e respond en ts. 'see 2 Tab le i n f o r m a t i o n was no t requ est ed o f Among h i g h SES groups the r e v e r s e was t r u e . 66, A p p e n d i x B. See T a b l e 6 7 , A p p e n d i x B. o Almost 168 a ll these respondents r e p o r t e d s u p p o r t f o r th e p o l i c y by t h e employees th ey had t a l k e d to r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t 's pe rsonal a ttitu d e . I t seems r e a s on a bl e t o suggest t h a t such respondents might have t a l k e d w i t h a p r o f e s s i o n a l employee In some c a p a c i t y which would pu t the hunter in more impersonal contact w ith th e employee. The medium SES respondents seem t o have been i n f l u e n c e d by th e a t t i t u d e s which were expr ess ed by th e employees t h a t w lth.^ Such i n f l u e n c e Is they had t a l k e d i n f e r r e d because o f the o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t h u n te r s who have t a l k e d t o employees who g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t the p o l i c y tend t o s u p p o r t i t themselves w h i l e those who have t a l k e d to employees who g e n e r a l l y oppose th e p o l i c y a l s o g e n e r a l l y oppose i t Summary: th em sel ve s. There appears to be some i n f l u e n c e on h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s when the employees which t h e respondents co nc e rn in g the p o l i c y . talked t o ex press an o p i n i o n I sugg est t h a t p a r t o f t h i s influence is p r ed is p os e d by th e kinds o f employees which th e h u n t e r knows p e r s o n a l l y or i n a d v e r t e n t l y meets. Low SES h u n te rs would be more l i k e l y to know n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l employees s o c i a l l y w h i l e high SES h u n t e r s would be more l i k e l y hand, t o know p r o f e s s i o n a l employees s o c i a l l y . On t h e o t h e r i t seems re as on a bl e t h a t employees who t a l k e d to h u n te rs whom th e y d i d not know would be more l i k e l y Social Acquaintances. The s o c i a l t o defend the p o l i c y . a c q ua in ta nc es o f th e low SES h u n te rs g e n e r a l l y oppose the p o l i c y w h i l e th e s o c i a l ac qu a in ta nc es o f h ig h SES h u n te rs g e n e r a l l y s u pp or t th e p o l i c y . In both c a se s , the respondents g e n e r a l l y ag re ed w i t h On th e o t h e r hand, t h e i r peers. ac qu a in ta nc es o f medium SES persons were more v a r i a b l e ^See T a b l e 6 8 , A p p e n d i x B. the in t h e i r su pp or t 169 and o p p o s i t i o n . In t h i s case i n f l u e n c e is c l e a r l y d i s c e r n i b l e because I f most o f t h e i r peers tend t o s u p p o r t the p o l i c y so do t h e y , b u t I f most peers oppose, Summary: th e respondent is l i k e l y to also. S o c i a l ac q u a in t a n c e s seem t o e x e r t the g r e a t e s t e r e n c e group i n f l u e n c e ref­ in those s i t u a t i o n s where a v a r i e t y o f a t t i t u d e s c o n c e rn in g the p o l i c y a r e h e l d by the r e s p o n d e n t s 1 more i n t i m a t e p e e r s . Other Hunters. t h r e e SES groups to them. There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the in the a t t i t u d e s which o t h e r hunters have ex pressed I t seems t h a t the overwhelming m a j o r i t y o f the more vocal hu n te r s which the respondents had discu sse d t h e p o l i c y w i t h a r e opposed to i t . 1 Hunters do seem t o have been more exposed to a t t i t u d e s to t h e i r own when they have t a l k e d to o t h e r h u n t e r s . s im ila r When th e hu nt e rs a r e a n a ly z e d a c c o r d i n g to SES groups the o n l y group which seems to have been i n f l u e n c e d by the a t t i t u d e s o f the h u nt e rs which they have i n a d v e r t e n t l y met from time t o time a r e those in th e low SES group. Sportsman Club O f f i c i a l s . had l i t t l e Sportsman club o f f i c i a l s i n f l u e n c e on h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s seem t o have among th e d i f f e r e n t SES groups even though most o f the o f f i c i a l s which the respondents had t a l k e d to oppose the p o l i c y . Summary o f s u b - h y p o t h e s i s 2 - F ; High SES respondents tend to s u p p o r t the p o l i c y even though in almost a i l cases a m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r peers from t h e v a r i o u s groups a n a ly z e d oppose the p o l i c y . most o f the peers o f generally low and medium SES h u n t e r s oppose th e p o l i c y and th e h u n te r s i n t e r v i e w e d from these groups do t o o . The most I n f l u e n t i a l p e e r groups ap pear t o be: w o r k e r s a n d h u n t i n g c o m p a n i ons . ' See T a b l e 6 9 , In c o n t r a s t , A p p e n d i x B. rela tiv e s , Department o f N a tu r a l Resources fe llow - 170 employees and s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e perhaps than ac qu ai nt anc es a l s o seem to have some secondary in th e dimension o f c o n f i r m i n g a t t i t u d e s in the f o r m a t i v e stages o f a t t i t u d e development. ernment o f f i c i a l s rather N e ig h b o r s , gov­ and o t h e r h u nt e rs which the h u n te r s have t a l k e d seem to have l i t t l e to impact on pe rs on a l a t t i t u d e s . H ypothesis 2- G. G. S ig n ific a n t differences w i l l e x i s t among th e SES groups in h u n t e r p e r c e p t i o n o f s u p p o r t o r o p p o s i t i o n to a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n t i n g by the mass media. perceive hunters th e mass as being w ill supportive The hy p o th e s is be most l i k e l y the iess s u p p o r t i v e w h i l e h i g h SES to p e r c e i v e th e mass media as o f th e p o l i c y . is n o t s u p p o r t e d . f e re n c e s among the SES groups e r e d — newspapers, Low SES h u n te rs w i l l Th ere a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­ in exposure t o th e t h r e e media c o n s i d ­ r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n , and s p o r ts magazines. I n f l u e n c e o f th e media on i n d i v i d u a l r e p o r t e d in h y p o th e s is atttdues is c o n s i d e r e d , as 1-G, o n l y t h e p o s i t i o n which newspapers a r e p e r c e i v e d as having taken seems r e l a t e d t o I n d i v i d u a l When each SES group is a n a ly z e d i n d i v i d u a l l y w i t h e f f e c t o f mass media upon a t t i t u d e s , ve ry l i t t l e attitu d es . regard t o th e i n f l u e n c e is d i s ­ c e r n i b l e e x c e p t among the medium SES h u nt e rs who p e r c e i v e t h e i r newspapers as s u p p o r t i n g o r opposing a n t l e r l e s s dents When de er h u n t i n g . lo c a l Respon­ In t h a t SES group who s u pp or t th e p o l i c y a r e more T i k e l y to b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i r l o c a l newspaper su pp or ts th e p o l i c y w h i l e o p p o s i t i o n hu nte rs have a tendency to p e r c e i v e t h e i r newspaper as opposing the poli c y . Summary: w ith Although some s e l e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n seems to be o c c u r r i n g regard to mass media i n f o r m a t i o n , th e mass media do n o t appear to be ha vin g much o f an i n f l u e n c e on th e kind o f a t t i t u d e which oped by respondents Hyp othesis 3. is d e v e l ­ in th e d i f f e r e n t SES groups. Ingham County h u n te r s w i l l have th e l a r g e s t p r o p o r i t i o n o f high SES h u nt e rs w h i l e M a rq u e t te County w i l l have the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f low SES h u n t e r s . T a b le 37 supports T a b le 37* the h y p o t h e s i s . SES d i s t r i b u t i o n among the c o u n ti e s SES Med I urn (%) Low (%) Coun ty High (%) Total 1ngham 108 .5 1 8 .2 6 9 .2 1 3 A1pena 100% 109 . 3^ 9 .495 .156 M a rq ue tt e 100% 119 .4 9 6 .3 7 0 .134 100% Chi Square ■ 1 3 . 5 2 0 9 , 4 D . F . , P < .01 H yp oth esi s 3“ A. A, The d i f f e r e n c e s c o u n t ie s w i l l be e x p l a i n e d by th e d i f f e r e n c e s t i o n o f h u n te r s counties. in a t t i t u d e among th e hunters o f the t h r e e in the pro po r from t h e t h r e e SES groups in th e t h r e e 172 This hypothesis can be t e s t e d by h o l d i n g SES c o n s t a n t and t e s t i n g fo r differences in a t t i t u d e among the t h r e e c o u n t i e s . I f differences p e r s i s t among the coun tie s when SES is h e l d c o n s t a n t then hypothesis 3-A would be r e j e c t e d . For the low and medium SES groups th e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s noted in the t a b l e above p e r s i s t . Table 3 8 . County A t t i t u d e toward th e a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n ti n g p o l i c y by county f o r low SES respondents Strongly Oppose (%) A t t i t u d e Toward AOP Mo der at ely Oppose Support (%) (%) 1ngham 26 .5 0 0 . 3**6 .15** A1 pena .500 . 184 Ma rquette 100% 55 .**73 .45 4 Chi Square ■ 14 .8 7 7 4 , 4 D, F . , P < - County 100% 38 .316 Tabie 39. To ta l .0 7 3 100% .01 A t t i t u d e toward t h e p o l i c y by county f o r medium SES respondents Strongly Oppose (%) A t t i t u d e Toward ADP M o de r at el y Oppose Support (%) <%) 1ngham Total 52 .231 .5 3 8 .231 A1pena 100% 51 .29* .**71 .235 Ma rq u e t t e 100% 43 . 349 .4 88 Chi Square ■ 18.5885» 4 D. F . , P < - .163 .001 100% 173 These two t a b l e s demo nstra te t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e c o u n t ie s in a t t i t u d e is not j u s t an a r t i f a c t o f an unequal b u t i o n among the c o u n t i e s . SES d i s t r i ­ However, among th e high SES respondents the d i f f e r e n c e s among th e c o u n ti e s d i s a p p e a r . T a b le 4 0 . A t t i t u d e toward the p o l i c y by county w i t h i n group A t t i t u d e Toward ADP M o d e r a t e ly Oppose Support (%) (%) Oppose (%) County the high SES 1ngham 23 .130 .3 0 h .565 A1 pena 100% 16 .125 .500 .3 7 5 M a rq u e t te 100% 16 .1 2 5 Chi Square • .5 0 0 .375 100% 0.30*»*», M D . F . , P > .05 The f a c t t h a t no d i f f e r e n c e s a r e found w i t h i n among t h e c o u n t i e s perhaps th e same g e n e r a l s t i m u l i th e s t i m u l i Total indicates for a ttitu d e that the high SES group these pe op le a r e r ea c h in g to f o rm a t! on . Regardless o f w h e th e r a r e th e same o r n o t , o b v i o u s l y th e r e s u l t s are th e same-- they g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t the p o l i c y . CHAPTER VI I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Concl us Ions This st udy has at te m p te d t o answer two b a s i c q u e s t i o n s : p o r t s and who opposes th e a n t l e r l e s s Who sup­ de er h u n t i n g p o l i c y , and more i m p o r t a n t l y , why do th e v a r i o u s h u nt e rs feel the way th e y do about the pol i cy? Two b a s i c independent v a r i a b l e s were c o n s i d e r e d in s t u d y i n g these questions, r e g io n o f e s t a b l i s h e d by t h i s r e s id e n c e and s o c io -e c o n o m ic s t a t u s . study t h a t a t t i t u d e is v e r y much a s o c i a l la t e s , his a t titu d e form ation regarding the p o lic y and s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l where th e h u n t e r l i v e s and t h e s o c i a l I t has been phenomenon. Based on c o n t e x t w i t h i n which he c i r c u ­ toward th e p o l i c y can be p r e d i c t e d w i t h a r e l a t i v e l y h ig h degree o f a c c u r a c y . The f a c t t h a t s o u th e r n Michigan h u n te r s a r e much more s u p p o r t i v e o f th e DNR than e i t h e r Upper P e n i n s u l a h u n t e r s o r h u nt e rs from t h e northern lower P e n i n s u l a seems to be p a r t i a l l y educational to h i g h e r l e v e l s , a more a c t i v e economic c l i m a t e and an urban atmosphere which r e q u i r e s g r e a t e r d i r e c t dependency upon governmental a c t i v i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ge ne ral attrib u tab le in a l l spheres o f l i f e . d i s t r u s t o f s t a t e and f e d e r a l government In c o n t r a s t , a is e v i d e n t in the Upper P e n i n s u l a and t h i s d i s t r u s t seems t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s p e c ific attitu d es toward t h e a n t l e r l e s s 17* de er h u n t i n g p o l i c y . 175 C l e a r l y more Is i n v o lv e d f a c t s and p e r c e i v e d f a c t s versy. There was l i t t l e in a t t i t u d e related to th is differen ce formation than s im pl y th e r es ou rc e development c o n t r o ­ in t h e a c t u a l l e v e l o f knowledge o f the i n d i v i d u a l h u n te r s c o nc e rn in g the deer r es o ur ce the a t t i t u d e which they h e l d . and e c o l o g i c a l In o t h e r w o rd s , in Michigan and th e l e v e l o f b i o l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n which the h u n t e r knew about was not a good p r e d i c t o r e i t h e r o f s u pp or t o r o p p o s i t i o n f o r th e p o l i c y . m e d i a t i n g f a c t o r seemed t o be e m o t i o n a l l y and s o c i a l l y based. i n s t a n c e , ex ce p t f o r high SES h u n t e r s , companions. o ffic ia ls For attitu d es and the a t t i t u d e s pr im a r y groups w i t h which they were a s s o c i a t e d ; d i a t e f a m i l y and o t h e r c l o s e r e l a t i v e s , The regardless o f the region, th ere was a c l o s e c o r r e l a t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l o f several its e lf imme­ f e l lo w- wo rk e rs and h u n t i n g O th e r c o n t a c t s such as n e i g h b o r s , p u b l i c and agency and secondary s o c i a l ac q u a in t a n c e s had l i t t l e , i f an y, i n f 1 uence. The f a c t t h a t some h u n te rs tend to ta ke t h e i r h u n t i n g more s e r i ­ ou s ly d i d not seem t o i n f l u e n c e a t t i t u d e s much e x c e p t lower P e n i n s u l a where th e ge ne ral the importance o f success correlated to a t t i t u d e importance o f h u n t i n g and e s p e c i a l l y in g e t t i n g a d e e r seemed t o be c l o s e l y toward t h e p o l i c y . The more im p o r t a n t h u n t i n g and h u n t i n g success were to the r e s p on d en ts , to oppose the p o l i c y . status in the n o r t h e r n t h e more l i k e l y they were F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s seemed to i n d i c a t e t h a t a f u n c t i o n was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h u n t i n g and p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h h u n t i n g succe ss . A p p a r e n t l y f o r many h u nt e rs s t a t u s is c o n f e r r e d by success and many o f them see th e a n t l e r l e s s d e e r h u n t i n g p o l i c y as a t h r e a t t o t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t y to be s u c c e s s fu l status. thus d i m i n i s h i n g t h e i r 176 With regard to a n t l e r l e s s have played a r e l a t i v e l y deer h u n t i n g , in sig n ific an t th e mass media seem to role in i n f l u e n c i n g a t t i t u d e s alt hough newspapers do seem t o have been im po rta nt in d i s s e m in a t in g f a c t s which were used to r e i n f o r c e a v a r i e t y o f p o in t s o f view. In some cases s o c i a l circumstance is th e dominant v a r i a b l e w h i l e in o t h e r cases region o f r esi d en ce is more im p o r t a n t in i n f l u e n c i n g attitu d es . High SES hunters tend to supp ort the p o l i c y the county in which they l i v e . On the o t h e r hand, a t t i t u d e s o f v a r io u s s o c i a l strata in the o t h e r two c o u n t i e s . A p p a r e n t l y the r e g i o n a l is the c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n have a more moderate p o s i t i o n In c o n c l u s i o n , is o p e r a t i v e fe re h c e s It influence is domi­ in Ingham County. In i n f l u e n c e and SES seem to be c o n t r i b u t i n g some a f f e c t t o the observed r e l a t i o n s h i p s . a lly the I t appears t h a t SES Is the domi­ influencing a ttitu d e s Marq uet te both the r e g io n a l i t appears t h a t is more homogeneous in Alpena than nant in the n o r t h e r n Lower P e n i n s u la . nant independent v a r i a b l e r e g a rd le s s o f G reater opposition r e g io n ­ in M a r q u e t t e , bu t c l e a r l y h i g h e r SES groups toward the a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n ti n g p o l i c y . is e v i d e n t t h a t a tw o -s te p f l o w o f communication in th e fo rm at io n o f a t t i t u d e s conce rning t h i s issue; d i f - in the a t t i t u d e s he ld being based on c r e d i b i l i t y o f the s o ur ce , r e c e p t i v i t y based on the degree o f c o n f l i c t w i t h p r e v i o u s l y h e l d con­ v i c t i o n s and prev io u s sources and types o f i n f o r m a t i o n , and th e degree o f t r u s t o f professional expertise. Recommendat i ons One o f th e most s u r p r i s i n g response d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f the study r e s u l t e d from the q u e s t i o n , " 1 0 8 . c l a i m the deer herd is the S t a t e as a whole?" Does the Conservation Department i n c r e a s i n g , d e c r e a s i n g , o r is s t a b i l i z e d f o r The d i s t r i b u t i o n was: 177 Number 1. 2. 3. 4. 114 Increasing Decreasing Has s t a b ! 1i zed Don11 know No response Total Percent 38 144 38 2 33.9 1 1 .3 42.9 11.3 .6 336 10 0 .0 Only about ten p e r c e n t o f t h e respondents knew t h a t t h e Department o f Natural Resources cla im s t h a t th e d e e r he rd as a wh ole Is d e c r e a s i n g . In l i g h t o f t h i s b i t o f i n f o r m a t i o n , It Is not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t many pe ople a r e so dubious o f t h e i n t e g r i t y a n d / o r the p r o f e s s i o n a l ten ce o f th e Depart me nt's game b i o l o g i s t s . hu nt e rs toward t h e DNR would be b l u n t e d Department is not t r y i n g t o is common knowledge t h a t if compe­ Much o f the antagonism o f I t were made c l e a r t h a t the i n s i s t t h a t the herd is i n c r e a s i n g when i t in many areas the he rd is down s i g n i f i c a n t l y from what i t was twenty ye ar s ago. In t a l k i n g w i t h numerous DNR p r o f e s s i o n a l s It Is ve ry c l e a r t h a t the f a c t Is re c o g n i ze d t h a t the h e rd Is g e n e r a l l y d e c l i n i n g . from the vantage p o i n t o f Joe Q. Average C i t i z e n th at th is Is the p o s i t i o n o f th e Department, However, i t may not be c l e a r Except f o r two o r t h r e e p u b l i c a t i o n s o f r e s t r i c t e d c i r c u l a t i o n and one p u b l i c a t i o n o f f a i r l y wid es p re ad d i s t r i b u t i o n , o ffic ia l c o n c l u s io n I d o n 't remember ha v in g read o r h e ar d o f t h i s in any i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e . Recommendation 1 : The Department o f N a t u r a l Resources should make a conce rt ed e ^ / o r t t o make i t c l e a r to the p u b l i c through e v e r y means a t i t s d i s p o s a l t h a t t h e f a c t is r e co gn iz ed t h a t in many areas o f the s t a t e th e de er herd is d i m i n i s h i n g . Once t h i s p o i n t is c l e a r l y made then the a i r w t 11 be c l e a r e d so t h a t the Department can proceed to e x p l a i n t h e causes o f t h e h e r d ' s dim inution. DNR o f f i c i a l s Until this is done h u n te rs w i l l c o n t i n u e t o rage t h a t the ar e " f o o l s " , o r w o r s e , " l y i n g m a n i p u l a t o r s . " 178 The most e f f e c t i v e medium f o r t e l l i n g t h e s t o r y o f Mic higa n d e e r herd management is through personal c o n t a c t w i t h lem i s the p u b l i c . The p r ob - t h a t w i t h a c o m p a r a t i v e l y small s t a f f o f b i o l o g i s t s and o t h e r competent p r o f e s s i o n a l s it is d i f f i c u l t t o reach a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f p e o p le . Recommendation 2 : A c a r e f u l l y planned a t t e m p t should be made t o expand p u b l i c group c o n t a c t s among th e low and medium SES segments o f the p o p u l a t i o n which would be missed in th e e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e groups such as c i v i c c l u b s , c o n s e r v a t i o n gr ou ps , and groups rep­ r e s e n t i n g t h e business community. Suggested groups would i n c l u d e union l o c a l s , h u n t i n g c l u b s , open forum meetings in n o r t h e r n Michigan co mmunities, and perhaps even church groups a t s o c i a l events, e tc . In s h o r t , the case needs to be p r e s e n t e d to those segments o f th e p o p u l a t i o n where th e g r e a t e s t c y n ic is m is evi d e n t. O b v i o u s l y , such p r e s e n t a t i o n s would need t o be made by persons who could e f f e c t i v e l y h o s tile p o r t r a y th e e c o l o g i c a l reactions. s i t u a t i o n and who could h a n d le Such a program c o u ld p r o b a b l y be most e f f e c t i v e l y ex ec u te d as an i n f o r m a t i o n and e d u c a t i o n f u n c t i o n . Since s t a t u s seems to p l a y an im p o rt a n t attitu des role in t h e development o f toward th e p o l i c y , perhaps one o f t h e e f f e c t i v e means o f g e n e r a t i n g g r e a t e r un de rst an d in g f o r th e p o l i c y is to encourage i n t e r ­ e s t e d h u n te r s and h u n t i n g groups t o a s s i s t t h e DNR in numerous ways. Recommendation 3. I n v o l v e h u nt e rs through v a r i o u s means such as in h a b i t a t and w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n reconnaissance and as a s s i s t a n t s a t checking s t a t i o n s and in o t h e r f i e l d work t h a t would b r i n g them i n t o d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h the resource management s i t u a t i o n . Such in volvement should be i n v i t e d w i t h o u t regard to s u p p o r t o r oppo­ s i t i o n to th e p o l i c y . S pe c ia l p u b l i c and personal as sis tan ce so t h a t it r e c o g n i t i o n should be g i v e n f o r such too can f u l f i l l th e same k in d o f d e s i r e f o r r e c o g n i t i o n and s t a t u s which h u n t i n g success g e n e r a t e s . A conservation 179 a i d e program shou ld be a t fi r e m e n o r c i v i l function l e a s t as f e a s i b l e as r e c r u i t i n g v o l u n t e e r de fense v o l u n t a r y p e r s o n n e l . is v e r y e v i d e n t in these l a t t e r a r e p o s s i b l e from such a program. F irst, The s t a t u s two programs. fu lfillm e n t Two b e n e f i t s v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e would become a v a i l a b l e and, second, g r e a t e r exposure to biolog ical and e c o l o g i c a l s u pp or t f o r the p o l i c y re a lity f o r these h u nt e rs should g e n e r a t e to th e degree t h a t it is su pported by r e a d i l y observable f a c t s . One o f th e more s e r i o u s problems p o l i c y among many DNR employees. is a l a c k o f s u p p o r t o f the T h is lack o f s o l i d a r i t y , in my ju dg m en t, does much to c o u n t e r b a l a n c e the i n f o r m a t i o n and e d u c a t io n programs o f t h e D epartme nt. p o l i c y who were i n f o r m a l l y this Two o f t h e l e a d i n g opponents o f th e interviewed in t h e p r e l i m i n a r y stages o f research mentioned o p p o s i t i o n from w i t h i n n l f i c a n t e v id e n c e t o them t h a t th e p o l i c y respondents a l s o the p o lic y . is t h e Department as sig** inapp ro priate. Numerous i n d i c a t e d t h a t they knew employees who d i d not su pp or t In l o o k i n g a t t h e s i t u a t i o n through the eyes o f a p a r t i a l l y informed c i t i z e n s , s e r i o u s damage would be done t o th e p o l i c y image by employee c r i t i c i s m w h e t h e r t h e c r i t i c i s m came from a mechanic In a motor p o o l , o r a radioman In f i r e protection or a laborer In t h e Parks D ivision. Recommendation 4 : A s e r i o u s a t t e m p t should be made t o in fo rm as many employees as p o s s i b l e o f th e reasons behind the o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e Department r e g a r d i n g th e p o l i c y . This c o ul d be done through h a l f - d a y seminars and f i e l d efforts should i n c l u d e employees w i t h work d i r e c t l y w i t h w i l d l i f e o r n o t . p r o f e s s i o n a l s m igh t be p a r t i c u l a r l y little trip s . r eg a rd f o r w h e t h e r they S p e c i a l e f f o r t w i t h non­ fru itfu l. Such 180 A d m i t t e d l y , such a program would be e x p e n s iv e and o n l y p a r t i a l l y su c c e s s fu l b u t i t could pay s i g n i f i c a n t d i v i d e n d s by i n c r e a s i n g team s p i r i t by making these q u a s i - informed employees f e e l t h a t they a r e more a p a r t o f an informed i n n e r c i r c l e . The DNR p r e s e n t l y makes a s p e c i a l boards o f s u p e r v i s o r s effo rt to work w i t h t h e county in e s t a b l i s h i n g a n t l e r l e s s p e r m i t quotas f o r the v a ri o u s areas o f the s t a t e . Recommendation 5 : Such a program o f i n t e n s i v e c o n t a c t w i t h key l e a d e r s should be expanded to i n c l u d e In fo rm a l c o n t a c t w i t h i m p o rt a n t o p i n i o n l e a d e rs in a l l areas o f th e s t a t e . Such a program would a t t e m p t to p r e s e n t th e D e p a r tm e n t' s case in a f a c e - t o - f a c e s i t u a t i o n which would o f f e r a r e a l o p p o r t u n i t y f o r ex ten ded i n f l u e n c e if the o p i n i o n l e a d e r co uld be h e lp e d to understand t h e DNR's p o i n t o f view. The f i n a l recommendation is perhaps in many ways the most d i f f i c u l t t o implement. Recommendation 6 : A c o n c e r t e d a t t e m p t sh ou ld be made t o work more c l o s e l y on a personal b a s i s w i t h l e g i s l a t o r s who n o m i n a l l y oppose the p o l i c y o r who ar e r e l a t i v e l y uninformed about th e c o n d i t i o n s which have prompted t h e p o l i c y . In t h i s such e f f o r t s . recommendation s t r e s s L ittle w ill fo r e ith e r party. is l a i d upon th e pe rsonal be accompl i shed where p u b l i c i t y is nature o f i n v o lv e d L e g i s l a t o r s need votes and some b e l i e v e o p p o s i t i o n to DNR programs produces v o t e s . h e a r in g s o r even small Therefore, It is a d v i s a b l e n o t t o h o ld group forums w i t h th e s e p e o p l e . w i t h a small group o f such l e g i s l a t o r s is not l i k e l y Even w o rk i n g to prove e f f e c t i v e because o f th e r e i n f o r c e m e n t o f r e s i s t a n c e among t h e l e g i s l a t o r s . o t h e r p o s i t i v e b e n e f i t might a l s o come from such I n t e r a c t i o n . The DNR may a l s o r e c e i v e h e l p f u l , and perhaps even much needed I n f o r m a t i o n d e s i g n i n g more e f f e c t i v e management programs in t h e f u t u r e . An­ in However, 181 it is f u l l y the s e v e r a l r e co gn iz ed t h a t such e f f o r t s would p r o b a b ly be wasted w i t h l e g i s l a t o r s who have b u i l t t h e i r c a r e e r s m a in l y on o p p o s i t i o n t o the a n t l e r l e s s DNR p o l i c i e s . in p u b l i c s e r v i c e d e e r h u n t i n g p o l i c y and o t h e r L i t t l e e f f o r t beyond what has a l r e a d y been expended w i t h th e s e pe op le can p r o b a b ly be j u s t i f i e d g i v e n th e l i m i t e d and monumental t a s k w i t h which the Department is c o n f r o n t e d . resources BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books A l l e n , Durward L. Our W i l d l i f e L e g ac y. Company, 1962. New Y or k: Funk and Wagnalls Backstrom, Charles H . , and Hu rs h , G. P. Survey R es ear ch . N or th w es te rn U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963. B e n d i x , R . , and L i p s e t , S. M. Free P r e s s , 1966. C l a s s , S t a t u s and Power. Chicago: New York: Be re I son, B e r n a r d , and S t e i n e r , G. A. "Methods o f I n q u i r y , " Human B e h a v io r : An I n v e n t o r y o f S c i e n t i f i c F i n d i n g s . New York: H a r c o u r t , Brace and W o r l d , I n c . , ' 1964. B e r s i n g , O t i s S. A Century o f Wisconsin D e e r . Second E d i t i o n . Wi s cons i n : Wiscons in C on s e r v a ti o n D e p a r tm e n t, 19 6 6 . Brander, Michael. 1964 . Brandreth, Paul. 1930. The H u n ti n g T rails Bumgarner, W i l l i s C. North Carol in a : In s tin c t. o f Enchantment. London: New Yor k: O l i v e r and Boyd, G. Howard W y a t t , Guidebook f o r W i l d l i f e P r o t e c t o r s . i n s t i t u t e o f Government. B u t l e z , A. J . S p o r t in C l a s s i c Time s. Company, 1930. New Y or k: C a r h a r t , A. H. Hun ting North America D e e r . Company, 1946. C alder, N ig e l. Eden Was No Garden. W i n s t o n , 1967. E. P. New Yor k: New York: Madison, Chapel H i l l , Dutton and The M c M ill a n H o lt,R inehart, and Duncan, 0 . D . , and B l a u , P. M. The American O cc up at io na l S t r u c t u r e . New York: John W i l e y , 19 6 7 * F ish b ein , Martin ( e d . ) . Readings in A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement. New York: John W il e y and Sons, I n c . , 1967. Gab r i e l so n, 1951. I r a N. W i l d l i f e Management. 182 New York: M a c M il l a n C o . , 183 G i l b e r t , D. L. P u b l i c R e l a t i o n In N a t u r a l Resources Management. M i n n e a p o l i s , M in ne sot a: Burgess P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1964. K a t z , E lih u ^a nd L a z a r s f e l d , P a u l . Personal I n f l u e n c e : The P a r t Played by People In the Flow o f Mass Cbrtirtiuhl c a t i o n s . New York: The Free P r e s s , 1965. L a z a r s f e l d , P a u l ; B e r e l s o n , Ber na rd; and G o lu d e t . New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1954. M a x w e l l, A. E. Analyzing Q u a l i t a t i v e D a ta . Sons, I n c . , 1961. The P e o p l e ' s C h o ic e . New Y or k: M e rt o n , R. K. S o c i a l Theory and S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e . Free P r e s s , 195?. . S o c i a l Theory and S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e . The Free P r e s s , 1967. John W i l e y New York: revised. and The New York: S chultz, Vincent, e^ a l . S t a t e w i d e W i l d l i f e Survey o f Te nnessee. N a s h v i l l e , Tennessee: Tennessee' S t a t e Game ana Fish Commission, 1954 . S e r v i c e , Elman R. The H u n t e r s . P r e n t i c e H a l l , 196>6>'. Englewood C l i f f s , S i g l e r , W i l l i a m F. W i l d l i f e Law E nf o rc e m e n t. C. Brown Company, 195^. New J e r s e y : Dubuque, Iowa: W i l l i a m S t a i n s , H. J. The Value o f N. C . ' s Game and F i s h . R a l e i g h , North Carolina: Game D i v i s i o n , North C a r o l i n a W i l d l i f e Resources Commiss i o n , 1951• S w ift , Ernest. A H i s t o r y o f Wisconsin Deer. Madison, W is co ns in : Wi s cons i n C o n serva1 1 on" Depa'r tmen t , M a r c h , 19 4 6 . T a y l o r , W a l t e r P. ( e d . ) . The Deer o f North A m e r i c a . Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The S t a c k p o l e Company and The W i l d l i f e Manage­ ment I n s t i t u t e , 1956. T i l l e t t , Paul. Doe Day: The A n t l e r l e s s Je rs e y . New Brunswick, New J e r s e y : Deer C o n tr ov e rs y in New Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y Pres s , Z e i s e l , Hans. Say 11 Wi th Fi g u r e s . 4th ed. H ar pe r and Row P u b l i s h e r s , 1957. revised. New York: A rt!cles A r n o l d , David A. "About W o lv e s ," Michig an C o n s e r v a t i o n , X X I , No, (January-February, 1952), 23-25. 1 18* B a r t l e t t , I . H. "Ten Y e a r s , " December, 1 9 6 2 ) . Michigan C o n s e r v a t i o n , . "Where We Stand A f t e r E i g h t Y e a r s , " (November-December, I 9 6 0 ) . B e a u f o r t , Duke o f . "Case f o r H u n t i n g , " N a t i o n a l (December, 19^8) 5 8 5 - 5 9 0 . (November- Michigan C o n s e r v a t i o n , Review, CXXXI, B lo u c h , Ralph I . " C o n s e r v a t i o n ' s Sacred Cows," Michigan C o n s e r v a t i o n . X X I I , No. 1 ( J a n u a r y - F e b r u a r y , 1953) 3 - 6 . B ru es , A. "Spearman and th e A r c h e r , " American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t , LXI , (J un e , 1959) 4 5 - 4 6 9 . Bryan, J. E. " H u n ti n g as V i v i s e c t o r , " 1963) 3- 1 2 . U n i v e r s i t y Revue, XXX, (October, Burch, W i l l i a m R. "Two Concepts f o r Guiding R e c r e a t i o n Management D e c i s i o n s , " Jo urnal o f F o r e s t r y , ( O c t o b e r , 1964) 7 0 7 - 7 1 2 . . "The Pl ay World o f Camping: Research i n t o th e S o c i a l Meaning o f Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n , " The American Jo urnal o f S o c i o l o g y . LXX, No. 5 , (March, 1965) 6 0 4 - 6 1 2 . B y e l i c h , John D. "Deer and F o r e s t Management: Lake S t a t e s , " P r o c e e d i n g s . S o c i e t y o f American F o r e s t e r s . ( I 9 6 5 ) . Dasmann, W i l l i a m P . ; Hjersman, Henry A . ; and G i I s e n a n , D a ly . " C a l i ­ f o r n i a ' s F i r s t General E i t h e r - S e x Deer H un tin g Seas on," C a l i f o r n i a Fish and Game. X L IV , No. 3 ( J u l y , 1958) 2 3 1 - 2 5 1 . ■ D i e t z , Donald R. "Deer N u t r i t i o n Research in Range Management," T r a n s a c t i o n s o f th e T h i r t e e n t h Nor th American W i l d l i f e and N a t u r a l Resources C o n f e r e n c e . (March 8 . 9 and 10. 1965) 274-28*>. Greenwood, A. "Should Blood Sports Go?" 1949) 71. Spectator, C LX X X II , (January 2 1 , G r i f f i t h , Chuck. "Hunter P r o f i l e S t i l l a P u z z l e r , " Department o f the I n t e r i o r Fish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e Regional I n f o r m a t i o n B u l l e t i n , (O ctober 30 , 19 6 8 ) . Hartman, George F. "The Wisconsin Deer Pro gram," E x t r a c t e d from the Wisconsin C o n s e r v a ti o n Department p u b l i c a t i o n , Deer Hunt ' 6 6 , (No D a t e ) . Hendee, John C l a r e , Ph.D. " R e c r e a t i o n Cl i e n t e l e - T h e A t t r i b u t e s o f R e c r e a t i o n i s t s P r e f e r r i n g D i f f e r e n t Management A g e n c ie s , Car Campground o r W ild e rn es s in t h e P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t , " R e p r in t e d from D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s . X X V I I I , Number 5» (1 9 6 7 ) . In g e l I s , N o r r i s . " C o n s e r v a t i o n Updaters B a t t l e S t i f f T i d e s , " The S t a t e J o u r n a l . L a n s i n g , Mi ch t g a n , (March 11 , I 9 6 8 ) . * 185 James, George A . ; Johnson, Frank M . ; and B a r i c k , Frank B. " F o r e s t Roads and T r a i l s : A Key t o B e t t e r H u n t i n g , " W i l d l i f e in North C a r o l i n a , (March, 1 9 6 4 ) . Johnson, P. 41-42. "H u n ti n g and Humbug." New S ta t e s m a n , LXV I, Julander, O d e ll. "De er and C a t t l e Range R e l a t i o n s S c i e n c e , I , No. 2 , (June, 1955) 1 3 0- 1 39 King, David A. "Socioeconomic V a r i a b l e s Fo re st S c i e n c e , X I V , No. 1, (Ma rch, (July 12, 19 6 3 ) in U t a h , " Fo re s t R e l a t e d t o Campsite Use," 1368) 45“ 54. LaPage, W i l b u r F. "Some S o c i o l o g i c a l Aspects o f F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n , " Journal o f F o r e s t r y , ( J a n u a r y , 1963) 33“ 36. M a is , W. W in s to n . " N a t u r a l Resources and American C i t i z e n s h i p : A C r i t i q u e o f the 25 th Annual North America W i l d l i f e and N a t u r a l Resources C o n f e r e n c e , " T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e North American W i l d l i f e and Resources C o n f e r e n c e , ( I 9 6 0 ) , pp. 487” ^96. Moore, W i l l i a m H . ; R i p l e y , Thomas H . ; and C l u t t e r , Jerome L. "T rials to Dete rmin e R e l a t i v e Deer R an g e - C a rr y i n g C a p a c it y Value in Connection w i t h th e Ge org ia F o r e s t S u r v e y , " Proceedings o f the Fo u r te e n th Annual C o n fe r en ce . S o u th e a s te rn A s s o c i a t i o n o f Game and Fish Commissioners, (Oc to b er 23 - 2 6 ) , I 9 6 0 ) . Ozoga, John J . , and H a r g e r , E ls w o rth M. " W i n t e r A c t i v i t i e s and Feeding H a b i t s o f N o r t h e r n Michigan C a y o t e s , " The Journal o f W i l d l i f e Management, XXX, No. 4 , ( O c t o b e r , 1966} 8 0 9 - 8 1 8 . P e t e r l e , Tony J. " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Some Ohio H u n t e r s , " The Journal o f W i l d l i f e Management, XXXI, No. 2 , ( A p r i l , 1967) 375“ 389. . "The Hunter-Who Is He?" T r a n s a c t i o n s o f th e T w e n t y - S i x t h iJoTth American W i l d l i f e and N a t u r a l Resources C o n f e r e n c e . (March, 1961) 2 5 4 - 2 6 6 . R i p l e y , Thomas H . , and C a p b e l l , Robert A. "Browsing and Stand Regen­ e r a t i o n in C l e a r and S e l e c t i v e l y Cut Hardwoods," T r a n s a c t io n s o f the T w e n t y - F i f t h North American W i l d l i f e C on fe re n ce , (March 7 - 9 , I 9 6 0 ) , 9 0 8 - 4 1 5 R y e l , L. A . ; Fay, L. D . ; and Van E t t e n , R. C. " V a l i d i t y o f Age D e t e r m i n a t i o n in Michigan D e e r , " Game D i v i s i o n Report 2 2 7 9 Michigan Department o f N a t u r a l Resources. (No D a t e ) . S e v e ri n g h a u s , C. W . , and Brown, C. P. " H i s t o r y o f th e W h i t e - T a i l e d Deer in New Y o r k , " New York Fish and Game J o u r n a l , ( J u l y , 1 9 5 6 ) . S c o t t , C. 582 . " V i c t i m s o f Big Game," S p e c t a t o r , CLXXX, (May 14 , 1948) 186 T r e f e t h e n , James B. "The T e r r i b l e Lesson o f th e K a i b a h , " r e p r i n t e d from N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e , (June - J u l y * 19 6 7 ) . Verme, Louis J. " E f f e c t o f N u t r i t i o n on Growth o f W h i t e - T a i l e d Deer Fawns*" T r a n s a c ti o n s o f th e Tw en t y- E ig h th North American W i l d l i f e and N a t u r a l Resources Con feren ce, (March A - 6 . 1Q6T1. k'32-Hk3, . "Re pr odu ctio n Stud ie s on Penned W h i t e - T a i l e d D ee r*" The Journal o f W i l d l i f e Management, XXIX, No. 1 ( J a n u a r y , 1965) 7A-79. Reports A r n o l d , David A. Procedures f o r S e t t i n g A n t l e r l e s s Deer Seasons. B u l l e t i n r e le a s e d by the Game D i v i s i o n o f th e Michigan De p a r tment o f C o n s e r v a ti o n . A p r i l 13* 1967. B a r t l e t t , J. H. Michigan D e e r . Michigan Department o f Conser va tion Game D i v i s i o n * Lansing* Michigan* June* 1950. W h itetails: P r e s e n t i n g M ic h ig a n ' s Deer Problem. Michigan bepa rtme'nt o f C o n s e r v a ti o n . B u l l e t i n o f 1 the Game D i v i s i o n , La n s i n g , Michigan* O c t o b e r , 1938. B e n n e t t , C. L . ; R y e l , L. A . ; and Hawn, L. J. A H i s t o r y o f Michigan Deer H u n t i n g . Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t io n , Research and development Report No. 8 5 . November 15, 1966. B ev in s, Malcolm I . , e t al . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Hunters and Fishermen In S i x N o r t h e a s t e r n S t a t e s . A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n B u l l e t i n 656. B u r l i n g t o n , Vermont, U n i v e r s i t y o f Vermont, 1968. Bond, Robert and O u e l l e t t e , Gerald J. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Campers in Massachusetts. B u l l e t i n No. 572. Amherst, Massachues t t s : U n i v e r s i t y o f Massa chu se tts, November, 1968. Burch* W i l l i a m R . , J r . , and Wenger, W i l e y D . , J r . The S o c i a l Charac­ t e r i s t i c s o f P a r t i c i p a n t s in Three S t y l e s o f Famifry Camping. U. S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e Research Paper PNW-A8 , P o r t l a n d , Oregon, 1967. Burnham, John B. B i e n n i a l Report o f t h e S t a t e Game, Fish and F o r e s t F i r e Department of^ t h e Publ ic Domain. Quote by Mr. Burnham from the r e p o r t o f 1915- 1916. C a in , S t a n l e y A. Hunting in the Un it ed S t a t e s - I t s Role. ORRRC Study Report 6 , 1962. P resent and Fu ture C a l i f o r n i a W i l d l i f e C on ser va tio n Board. The W i l d l i f e Conservation Board. Report o f the C a l i f o r n i a Wi I d l I f e Con ser va tio n board 7 5 T T 1 9 6 3 . C a l i f o r n i a Department o f Fish and Game* 1963. 187 D a v i s , W i l l i a m C. Values o f H un tin g and F i s h i n g in A r i z o n a in 1 9 6 5 . Prepa red f o r the A r i z o n a dame and Fish D e p a r tm e n t, U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a , Tuscon, 1967. G r e a t Lakes Deer Group. Research f o r Deer Management in t h e Grea t Lakes Region. G r e a t Lakes Deer Group, December, 1964. H a r p e r , H a r o ld T . , e t a l . A Review o f the L ic en se d Pheasant Club Program in C a l i f o r n i a , 1 9 3 9 - 1 9 6 3 . C a l i f o r n i a Fish and Game Commission, F e b r u a r y , 1965. Hendee, John C . ; C a t t o n , W i l l i a m R . ; Marlow, L a r r y D . ; and Brockman, C. F r a n k . W i ld e r n e s s Users in t h e P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t - T h e l r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , V a l u e s , and Management P r e f e r e n c e s . U.S.D.A . F o r e s t S e r v i c e Research Paper PNW-61, P o r t l a n d , Oregon, 1968. H ine, Ruth L. ( e d . ) . D e e r - F o r e s t I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s in F o r e s t Land Management. Madison, W is c o n s in : Wisconsin C o n s e r v a t i o n Dep a r t m e n t , 19 62. Jamsen, G. C. Sex and Age S t r u c t u r e o f Licensed H u n t e r s , T r a p p e r s , and Fishermen in M i c h i g a n . M ic hi g an Department o f C o n s e r v a t io n Research and Development R ep or t No. 125. September 5» 1967. J e n k i n s , David H . , and B a r t l e t t , I l o H. Michigan W h i t e t a i l s . Mic higa n Department o f C o n s e r v a t io n Game D i v i s i o n , L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , 1959. L a c a i l l a d e , H ar o ld C . , J r . New Hampshire H u n te r P r e f e r e n c e Survey 1964. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Game Management and Research D i v i s i o n , T e c h n i c a l C i r c u l a r No. 2 2 a . 1968. L a r s o n , Joseph S. F o r e s t s , W i 1d 1i f e , and H a b i t a t Management--A C r i t i c a l Exa m in at io n o f P r a c t i c e and heed. U. S. F o r e s t S e r v l c e Research Paper S E - 3 0 , A s h e v i l l e , North Carol I n a , December, 1967. Latham, Roger M. Wash ing ton , Bounties a r e Bunk. 19 6 0 . National W i l d l i f e Mac Mu llen, Ralph A. The Choice We F a ce . C o n s e r v a t i o n , January 2 2 , 1966. Federation. Michigan Department o f M c N e i l , R ic h ar d J . P o p u l a t i o n pynamics and Economic Impact o f Deer in Southern M i c h i g a n . Michig an Department oY C o n s e r v a t i o n . Game D i v i s i o n Report No. 2395. L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , 1962. Mi ch ig an Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n . ABC's o f M ic hig an D e e r . pa rt me nt o f C o n s e r v a t i o n . (No D a t e ) . De­ Michig an Department o f C onservation. C o n s e r v a t i v e K i l l o f 4 6 , 0 0 0 A n t l e r l e s s Deer Proposed. Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , June 13» I968. 18 8 Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a ti o n . Deer in 1965. Michigan D ep ar t­ ment o f C o n se r va tio n Game S e c t i o n , I n f o r m a t i o n C i r c u l a r No. 142, 1965. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a ti o n . Deer Management Questions Oft en Asked. Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , February 7 , 19o6'. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a ti o n . 1964 License Sales by C o u nt ie s. S t a t i s t i c a l B u l l e t i n 1355» O c t o b e r , 1965. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a ti o n . Spec ial Deer S u r v e y . L e t t e r s amended to t h e postc ard f o r th e 1956 season. Lansing: Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t io n , 1957. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a ti o n . Your Michigan Department o f Conservat i o n . What I t Is and What I t Do e s . Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , A p r i l , 1966. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , Game D i v i s i o n . Procedure f o r S e t t i n g A n t l e r l e s s Deer Seasons. Michigan Department o f Con­ s e r v a t i o n , A p r i l 13» 1967. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , Research and Development D i v i s i o n . T w e n t y - T h ir d B i e n n i a l R e p o r t , 1965~66. Michigan Department o f Conservat ion. Michigan S t a t e Chamber o f Commerce. Th is S p e c ia l R e p o r t , December 27 , 1965. Is Not The Time To P a n i c . Moore, W i l l i a m H. Deer Browse Resources o f t h e Atomic Energy Commis­ s i o n ' s Savannah R i v e r P r o j e c t A r e a . U. S. Fo re s t S e r v i c e Resource B u l l e t i n S E - k , A s h e v i l l e , North C a r o l i n a , December, 1967. Palm er, W a l t e r L. An A n a ly s i s o f the P u b l i c Use o f Southern Michigan Game and R e c r e a t io n Are a s . Michigan 6epartment o f C on s e r v a ti o n . Research and Development Report No. 102. No Date. P a s t o , Jerome K . , and Woods, D. Thomas. Deer Economics. P en ns yl van ia S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y C o ll e g e o f A g r i c u 11ure Exte nsion S e r v i c e B u lle tin . U n i v e r s i t y P a r k , P e n n s y lv a n ia . No Date. P e nn sy lv an ia Game Commission. Game Commission, 1965. P e nn sy lv an ia Hunting F a c t s . P en ns yl van ia Pen n sy lv an ia S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y C o ll eg e o f A g r i c u l t u r e Ext e ns io n S e r v i c e . Deer Management in P e n n s y l v a n i a . P enn sylvania S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y C o ll eg e o f A g r i c u l t u r e Extension S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y P a r k , P e n n s y lv a n !a . Research T r i a n g l e I n s t i t u t e . Review o f Procedures f o r E s t i m a t i n g Deer P o p u l a t i o n and Deer K i l l in M i c h i g a n . F in a l r e p o r t by t h e S t a ­ t i s t i c s Research D i v i s i o n o f t h e Research T r i a n g l e I n s t i t u t e . J u l y , 1966. 189 R y e l , L. A. Deer H un te r s* O pi nio n Su rv ey . 1964. M ic hig an Department o f C o n s e r v a ti o n Research V n d Development S e c t i o n , Rep or t No. 31. J u l y 13» 1965. . Deer H u n t e r s ' Opinion S u r ve y , I 9 6 6 . Michigan D e p a r t ­ ment o f C on ser va tion, Research and Development Report No. 119. August 4 , 1967. . Deer H u n t e r s ' Opinion S u r v e y , 1987. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a ti o n , Research and Deve'lopment' Report No. 145, August 2 6 , 1968 . . H u n t e r P a r t i c i p a t i o n Survey D, 19 66 . Michigan Department of* C o n s e r v a t i o n , Research and Development Rep ort No. 123, August 3 1 , 1967. . H u n te r P a r t i c i p a t i o n Survey D. 1967. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , Research and Development Rep ort No, 149. September 2 7 , 1968 . . The 1966 Deer Seasons. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , Research and Development Report No. 114. June 8 , 19 6 7The 1967 Deer Seasons. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , Research and Development Report No. 139* June 2 5 , 1968. » and B e n n e t t , C. L. J r . T e ch n ic a l Report on t h e F a l l 19 6 1 and S p r in g 1962 Dead Deer S e a r c h e s . Michigan Department o f Consiervat ion Report No. 23 96. O c t o b e r 1, 1962. S h a f e r , Elwood L . J r . Deer Browsing o f Hardwoods in th e N o r t h e a s t . U. S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e Research Paper NE-33* 1965. S m it h , W i l l i a m J_9jS72^8. M. An E s t i m a t e o f the W i l d l i f e H a r v e s t in New J e r s e y , New Je rsey D i v i s i o n o f Fish and Game, May 15 , 196&, Thomas, D. Woods, and Pas t o , Jerome K. Costs and B e n e f i t s o f the Deer Her d: An Economic A n a l y s i s o f Deer Management 'in Two P e n n s y lv a n ia Counties. P e n n s y lv a n ia S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . C o l l e g e o f A g r i c u l t u r e B u i l e t i n 61 0. U n i v e r s i t y P a r k , P e n n s y l v a n i a , March, 1956. Thompson, Emmett F . ; G r ay , James M .; and McGinnes, Burd S. E s ti m a t e d Hun tin g E x p e n d it u r e s in V i r g i n i a . Research Report 1 16. Blacksburg, V irg in ia : Research D i v i s i o n o f V i r g i n i a P o l y t e c h n i c I n s t i t u t e , J a n u a r y , 1967. U.S. U .S. Bureau o f the Census. I9 6 0 Census o f P o p u l a t i o n s , V o l . XXIV. Department o f th e I n t e r i o r , Fish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e , Bureau o f S p o r t F i s h e r i e s and W i l d l i f e . 1965 N a t i o n a l Survey o f F i s h in g and H u n t i n g . Resource Pub 1i c a t ton 27. Wash i n ^ t o n : Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , No. D at e . 190 U n i v e r s i t y o f Vermont A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n . Characteristics o f Hunters and Fishermen in S i x N o r t h e a s t e r n S ta t e s '! N or th e a s t Regional Research P u b l i c a t i o n s B u l l e t i n 6 5 6 . B u r l i n g t o n , Vermont, O c t o b e r, 19 6 8 . Verme, Louis J. E f f e c t o f N u t r i t i o n on Growth o f W h i t e - T a i l e d Deer Fawns. Michigan Department o f C o n se r va ti o n , Game D i v i s i o n Report 241(5. S h l n g l e t o n , Mi c hi g an , March 1 , 1963I n f 1uence o f Experimental Die ts on W h i t e - T a i l e d Deer Re­ production. Michigan Department o f C o n s e r v a t i o n , Research and Development Report No. 100. March 7, 1967Wisconsin Department o f N a tu r a l Resources. Deer Hunt ' 6 7 .Department o f N a tu ra l Resources, Madison, W isc on si n, March 1, 1968. Unpublished M a t e r i a l B a r c l a y , John S c r i b n e r . " S i g n i f i c a n t Factors I n f l u e n c i n g the A v a i l ­ a b i l i t y o f P r i v a t e l y Owned Rural Land t o the H u n t e r . " Unpublished M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , Department o f F o r e s t r y and W i l d l i f e , Pen ns ylv an ia S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , June, 1966. D ic e , Eugene F r e d r i c k . "The I n f l u e n c e o f an Edu cat io na l Awareness Exp erience on Components o f P s y c ho lo gi ca l P o s i t i o n Toward an Issue In C on s e r v a ti o n : A Met ho dol ogica l S t u d y . " Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M ic h ig a n , 1965. O th e r Sources H a r r i s o n , M ic hig an. Unsolicited le tte r s October 24, 1968. r e c e iv e d by the a u t h o r . Hayne, Don W. U.S. Fish and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e . Response t o a paper by Tony V. P e t e r l e e n t i t l e d , "The Hunter-Who Is H e ," 1961. Mack, Joseph, S e n a t o r . Personal Mack. J u ly 10, 1968. telephon e i n t e r v i e w w i t h Sena tor Michigan AFL-CIO. Statements made by August S c h o l l e , Con servation Commissioner and P r e s i d e n t o f th e Michigan AFL-CIO a t Conser­ v a t i o n Commission m e et in g, F e br ua r y, 19 6 6 . Michigan Bear Hunters A s s o c i a t i o n . Speech by Dr. Ralph A. McMullan a t the annual co n ve n ti o n . January 2 2 , 19 66. Michigan Department o f C on s e r v a ti o n . News r e l e a s e . October 2 5 , 1962. . Ob se rv a tio n made by Mr. Gene Ga sl ay , A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r , d u r i n g a seminar a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Fe b r u a r y , 1966. 191 . Personal i n t e r v i e w w i t h David A r n o l d , b i g game s p e c i a l i s t . February 2 3 , 1966. Mic higan Department o f N a t u r a l Resources. Personal communication w i t h David A r n o l d , b i g game s p e c i a l i s t . March 13» 1969. . Personal memorandum from Mr. John A. Anguilm, C h i e f o f Law Enforcement D i v i s i o n . J u l y 3 0 , 1968. . Personal communication w i t h L. A. R y e l , b i o m e t r i c i a n . March 10, 1969. Michigan L e g i s l a t u r e . H e a r in g on D e e r , conducted by R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Joseph M. S nyd er , L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , December 2 9 , 1965. APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A DEER HUNTER ATTITUDE SURVEY In terview er Respondent _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ County D a te H e llo , is (PROSPECTIVE RESPONDENT'S NAME) home? am p a r t o f a r es e ar ch team from h u n te r s Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y In th e (INGHAM - ALPENA - MARQUETTE) a r e a . ber re c e iv in g a l e t t e r (TO RESPONDENT) I in terview ing You p r o b a b ly l a s t week from th e re se arch d i r e c t o r . remem­ May I ask you a few q u es t io n s? 1. In most y e ar s which o f th e f o l l o w i n g h u n t i n g l i c e n s e s have you bought? 1. , 2. 3. 2. Small game l i c e n s e _ _ _ 4. Bear l i c e n s e f o r A rc h e ry d e e r l i c e n s e e a r l y season 5. Duck stamp F i r e a r m deer l i c e n s e ____ Have you bought a d e e r l i c e n s e f o r th e 1968 season? Yes No ____ Do you i n t e n d to buy one? Yes __ No __ _ Don 11 know ___ (GO TO QUESTION U) 3. Have you a p p l i e d f o r an a n t l e r l e s s Yes No 192 deer perm it f o r the 1968 season? 193 How good a h u n t e r would you say t h a t you ar e compared to o t h e r hu nte rs you know? 1. Above average _ _ _ 2. Average _ _ _ 3. Below average _ What e f f e c t do you t h i n k the Con ser va tio n Dep artment's p r e s e n t deer management p r a c t i c e s w i l l have on th e deer herd? How many deer have you k i l l e d Michigan? _______ In a l l _____ s in c e you have been h u n ti n g in (number) 1, How many bucks ^ _ _ _ 2. How many does _____ How o f t e n have you a p p l i e d in th e p a s t f o r an a n t l e r l e s s p e r m i t when they were a v a i l a b l e in th e area where you hunt? 1. Every time _ _ _ _ 3. Sometimes _____ 2. Most o f the time _____ A, Never _____ (GO TO QUESTION 10) Could you g i v e me th e approximate number o f times you have appi led f o r an a n t l e r l e s s permit? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (number) How many times have you r e c e iv e d one? _________ (number) (GO TO QUESTION 11) Why h a v e n ' t you a p p l i e d f o r one? 19^ 11. Do you u s u a l l y hunt in any s p e c i a l county o r c o u n t i e s ? No Yes _____ (ORDER ACCORDING TO TIME SPENT HUNTING) 1. Nea res t commun i ty Coun ty N e a re s t community County N e a r e s t community County 2. 3. 12. Do you t h i n k t h e r e area(s) is s u f f i c i e n t food d u r i n g the w i n t e r in th e in which you u s u a l l y hu n t e v e r y y e a r to su p p o r t the d e e r p o p u l a t i o n there? Yes _____ 13. No _____ In yo ur o p i n i o n , D o n 't knew______ do most o f th e l o c a l people in ar eas where you have hu nted su p p o r t o r oppose a n t l e r l e s s hu nt in g? Most s u p p o r t i t _______ About 1 / 2 s u p p o r t and 1/2 oppose _ _ _ _ Most oppose i t Don11 know _______ lA. When you go deer h u n t i n g , a r e you u s u a l l y gone from home ov er ni g h t ? No _____ Yes _____ On an average t r i p how many c o n s e c u t i v e days a r e you u s u a l l y gone from home? (number) How many such t r i p s do you ta ke in an av erage season? (number) 15. How many days d u r i n g an average deer season do you hunt? (number) 195 16. Could you t e l l me how mahy deer the Conservation Department e s t i ­ mates ar e l e g a l l y k i l l e d each y e a r . (QUESTION APPLIES TO PAST FEW YEARS) (number) D o n 't know ____ 17. Do you agree w i t h 18. How many would you e s t i m a t e are k i l l e d each y e a r as compared to t h e i r e s ti m a te ? 19. t h e i r e s t im a t e ? (GO TO QUESTION 19) Yes _____ No ___ __ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ Ap p ro xi m at e ly how many years have y>u hunted deer in Michigan? (number) 20 . Of a l l the pe op le you p e r s o n a l l y know who hunted deer t h i s pa st season ( 1 9 6 7 ) * how su cc e ss fu l were they in g e t t i n g a deer? Above average ______ About average ______ Below av erage _____ 21. From yo ur own knowledge, how su ccessful h u nt e rs do you t h i n k Michigan in general were t h i s pa st season? (1967 season) Above average _____ About average _____ Below average _____ 22 . V/hat was the l a s t y e a r t h a t r e a l l y stands out in your mind as a bad season? 1 . (d a t e ) _______ JL2i 2. Can't remember the y e a r _____ About how many ye ars ago was What makes you t h i n k o f 3. 24 . it? _ _ _ _ _ (number) it as a good season? D o n ' t know o f a s p e c i f i c good y e a r . _____ W hile h u n tin g , i f you had n o t seen any de er and yo u r hands were so c o l d t h a t even w i t h gloves on you c o u l d n ' t keep them o u t o f yo ur pockets t h a t i t was w o r t h ­ f o r ve ry long a t a t i m e , would you f e e l w h i l e t o keep hunting? Yes _____ No _____ 25. Do you sometimes c a r r y a compass when hu nt in g ? 26 . Would you l i k e y o u r s o n ( s ) Yes _____ No_______ to grow up to be a h u n t e r ( s ) ? I have no sons Yes _____ No _____ I f makes no d i f f e r e n c e to me _ _ _ _ _ 27 . Have you e v e r hunted b i g game in any o t h e r s t a t e o r p r o v in c e be sides Michigan? No _____ (GO TO QUESTION 28) Yes _____ Which s t a t e (s) LIST STATES THEN ASK Does ( s t a t e ) p e r m i t any a n tlerless hunt i ng? 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes __ No __ __ Don' t know _____ No __ __ Don' t know _____ No __ ___ Don * t know 197 28 . Do you know o f any s t a t e s which do not a l l o w any a n t l e r l e s s hu n ti n g 7 (State) (State) Don ' t know _____ 29. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) l i s t e d on t h e card k i l l s In your o p i n i o n , which o f t h e f a c t o r s th e most deer each year? (AFTER HE INDICATES WHICH KILLS THE HOST GET HIM TO RANK THE REST). 1. Disease _____ 2. Legal k i l l 3. S t a r v a t i o n _____ ofan tlerless deer 4. Ille g a l k ill o f deer 5« Legal k i l l o f bucks 6. Predators (coyotes, wolves o r dogs) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 30. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) The Con ser va tio n Department claims a r e more d e e r in some p a r t s o f Michigan than t h e r e w i n t e r food f o r them. 1. S t r o n g l y ag re e _____ 2. Ag ree ______ 3. How do you f e e l there is necessary about t h i s ? S t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e _____ 5. Don11 know _____ D isa gre e 31. Why do you t h i n k the C on s e r v a ti o n Department makes these claims? 32. In yo ur o p i n i o n a r e more de er k i l l e d ille g a lly in season o r out o f season? 1. In season _____ 2, Out o f season _____ 3. About the same number k i l l e d in and o u t o f season _____ 4* D o n ' t know 198 33* Who do you t h i n k k i l l s hunt* local d e e r in the a r e a where you pe o p le o r h u n te r s who d o n ' t l i v e Local _____ 3*t. more i l l e g a l O u t s i d e r s _____ in t h e area? No o p i n i o n _ _ _ _ Some people say t h e l e g i s l a t u r e shou ld have the f i n a l hunting rules in M ic h ig a n * w h i l e o t h e r s say th e C o n s e r v a ti o n Department shou ld d e c i d e * and some f e e l l o c a l g o v e r n i n g b o d ie s * such as County Boards o f S u p e r v i s o r s * sh o u ld d e c i d e . feel 35. say as to Who do you should decide? 1. L e g i s l a t u r e ______ 3. Local g o ve r ni ng body _ _ _ _ 2. C on s e r v a ti o n D ept. _____ 4 . No o p i n i o n _____ I t has been proposed t h a t th e l e g i s l a t u r e pass a law a b o l i s h i n g antlerless Do you t h i n k th ey should? deer hu nting. Yes _____ No _____ 36. Do you t h i n k th e l e g i s l a t u r e w i l l pass such a law? Yes _____ No _____ 37* I f you saw someone t h a t you p e r s o n a l l y know shoot a d e e r o u t o f season* would you r e p o r t him i f he would n o t f i n d o u t t h a t you who r e p o r t e d him? i s _____ 38. Yes _____ No _____ i t was I t depends on who i t Don 11 know _____ The h u n t i n g o f a n t l e r l e s s deer in Michigan has been a c o n t r o v e r s i a l subject itie s in the p a s t . Some hu n te rs have engaged in v a r io u s a c t i v ­ to s u p p o r t o r oppose a n t l e r l e s s de er h u n t i n g . taken any o f th e l i s t e d a c t i o n s on t h i s issue? Have you (PROBE FOR SUCH THINGS AS WHEN, WHERE, WHO, WHAT RESULTS WERE OBTAINED, AND ASK FOR RESPONDENT'S EVALUATION OF WHETHER IT DID ANY GOOD OR NOT) 199 1 . W r i t i n g o r t a l k i n g to a l e g i s l a t o r 2. W r i t i n g o r t a l k i n g t o the Con ser va tion Department 3. W r i t i n g t o th e governor 4. S ig n in g a p e t i t i o n 5. Donating money 6. Making a speech o r conducting a meeting 7. T r y i n g to persuade yo ur f r i e n d s to y o u r v i e w p o i n t (ASK IF FRIEND WAS NEUTRAL OR OPPOSED TO HIS VIEWPOINT) 8. P articip atin g in a de m onst ra tio n 9, None _____ (PROBE: IS THERE ANY SPECIAL REASON WHY YOU HAVEN'T?) ( I F NONE, GO TO QUESTION 42) ( I F THEY DID ANY OF THE ABOVE ASK:) 39. Did you ta k e your a c t i o n as an i n t e r e s t e d I n d i v i d u a l o r were you a c t i n g as a member o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n o r group? 1. Group (ASK NAME OF GROUP) ____________ _____ ________________ (name) (GO TO 4 0 ) 200 2. Individual (MENTION WHATEVER HE MENTIONED ABOVE AS HAVING DONE) As an i n t e r e s t e d in d iv id u a l, di d any group o r I n d i v i d u a l encourage you t o do i t? No _____ (GO TO QUESTION 42) Yes Who was it? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (ASK NAME OF ORGANIZATION AND ITS REPRESENTATIVE'S RELATIONSHIP TO RESPONDENT, OR IF IT WAS AN INDIVIDUAL NOT REPRESENTING A GROUP ASK HIS RELATIONSHIP TO THE RESPONDENT) ( I F AN INDIVIDUAL GO TO QUESTION 41) 40. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) D if f e r e n t associations interested in t h i s issue have used d i f f e r e n t means t o ex pr es s t h e i r o p i n i o n s . Which o f th e f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s were used by t h e a s s o c i a t i o n you belonged to? 41. 1, C o l l e c t i n g money _ _ _ 2, H o ld in g p u b l i c meetings _____ 6. Making p u b l i c st a te m e n ts 3. Having de m o ns tr a tio n s _____ ^ O th er 4. W r i t i n g t o governmental o f f i c i a l s ______ Did i t (they) 5. f a v o r o r oppose a n t l e r l e s s 1. Favor _ _ _ 2, Oppose _____ S i g n i n g p e t i t i o n s ______ d e e r hu nt in g? — — 201 k2 . Do you know anybody around h e r e who u s u a l l y knows a l o t about deer hunting ? No Yes (GO TO QUESTION kk) How do you happen t o know them? Have you e v e r asked them f o r i n f o r m a t i o n o r advice? Yes Do you know w h e th e r they support o r oppose a n t l e r l e s s Support Oppose _____ No deer hunting ? D o n ' t know _____ How s t r o n g l y would you say they f e e l about a n t l e r l e s s deer hu nti ng? S t r o n g l y s u p p o r t i t _____ M o d e r a t e ly s u pp or t i t M o d e r a t e ly oppose i t _ _ _ S t r o n g l y oppose i t _____ hk. Have you t a l k e d to any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g about th e a n t l e r l e s s d e e r c o n tr o v e r s y ? (Did they oppose o r su pp or t a n t l e r l e s s h u n ti n g ? ) How Many What p e r c e n t a g e : Support i t Oppose i t 1. R elatives _____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. Fel lo w-workers _____ ________ _ _ _ _ _ 3. Government o f f i c i a l s _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ it. C o n s e r v a t io n Dept, employees ________ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5. S o c ia l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6. Neighbors ____________ __________ 7. Immediate f a m i l y ( w i f e and c h i l d r e n ) 8. Hun tin g companions 9. O t h e r hu nte rs ac qu a in ta nc es _______ 202 45. 10. Sportsman club o f f i c i a l s 11 . O th e r ______________________ (HAND RESPONDENT A CARD) The ca rd I have j u s t handed you c o n t a in s a number o f o p in io n s co nc e rn in g t h e s i z e o f th e deer herd relatio n to th e rang e. Ple a se t e l l in me t h e number o f the s t a t e m e n t t h a t b e s t expresses y o u r a t t i t u d e about the s u b j e c t . _____ 1. The deer herd is ju st 2. The deer herd is too small _ _ _ _ 3. The de er he rd is to o l a r g e f o r the range. _ _ _ _ 4. I d o n ' t agre e 5. 46. th e r i g h t s i z e f o r th e range. f o r t h e range. w i t h any o f th e above. No o p i n i o n . Have you e v e r a t t e n d e d a m e e t i n g , h e a r i n g , o r deer y a r d demon­ s t r a t i o n sponsored by t h e C o n s e r v a t io n Department t o discuss de er h u n t i n g p o l i c i e s ? ______ 1. If yes: 47. 2. Yes _____ No How many? We would l i k e y o u r o p i n i o n about h u n t i n g a n t l e r l e s s d e e r . think i t bucks , is ne cessary t o shoot some does and fawns, as w e l l Do you as in p a r t s o f Michigan? No __ (HAND RESPONDENT A CARD) Yes 48 . Which number on th e c a r d b e s t f i t s 1 . 2. More a n t l e r l e s s your o p i n io n ? de er be taken than in the l a s t few y e a r s . Less A n t l e r l e s s de er be taken than in the l a s t few y e a r s . _____ 3. About the same number o f a n t l e r l e s s l a s t few y e a r s . _____4. No op In i o n . d e e r be taken as in th e 203 49 . Have you always h e ld yo u r p r e s e n t o p i n i o n about an t i e r less d e e r h u n t i n g , o r d i d you have a d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n 1. Always had same o p i n i o n 2. Held d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n _ _ _ in t h e past? What i n f l u e n c e d you to change yo ur mind th e most? 1. A t e l e v i s i o n o r r a d i o program 2. A newspaper o r s p o r t s magazine a rtic le _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. What I p e r s o n a l l y have seen in nature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4. Another person persuaded me _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ How do you happen to know t h i s person Could you t e l l me where he g o t h i s inform ation to base h i s o p i n i o n upon? 5. 50. Other ( s p e c i f y ) ____________________________________________ I f you were to h e a r something on t h e r a d i o o r t e l e v i s i o n o r read something in a newspaper o r in a s p o r t s magazine t h a t was c o n t r o ­ v e r s i a l about d e e r h u n t i n g , would you want t o t a l k i t over with somebody b e f o r e you made up yo ur mind? NO Yes 51 . 1. Who (WHAT IS THEIR RELATIONSHIP)? 2. Sex ______ Age Occupation Compared to o t h e r h u nt e rs you know a r e you more o r less l i k e l y than most to be asked yo ur ad v ic e o r i n f o r m a t i o n abou t: 1. Good pl ace s in the s t a t e 2. H un tin g r e g u l a t i o n s . to h u n t . More _____ More _____ Less _____ Less _ _ _ 20k 3. The b e s t k i n d o f h u n t i n g gear to buy. 4. Whether the h u n t i n g o f a n t l e r i e s s More 52. __ More _____ de er should Less _____ bep e r m i t t e d . Less _____ Do you u s u a l l y go a lo n e or do you go w i t h o t h e r s on de er h u n t i n g t r i ps7 1. Alone _____ 2. With o t h e r persons _____ (GO TO QUESTION 56) How many o t h e r s (number) 53 . Do the same people go in your p a r t y al m os t e v e r y ye ar ? Yes _ _ ^ No _____ 5k, I would l i k e to ask you ab out the people who hunt in t h i s group. How many a r e r e l a t i v e s (number! Could you g i v e me t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to you How many a r e f e l low-workers (numbe r) How many a r e f r i e n d s who do not work w i t h you (number) How d i d you happen to g e t to know th ese f r i e n d s 55. Does the group u s u a l l y hunt as a u n i t o r U n i t _______ 56. I n d i v i d u a l l y _______ I t varies ______ About what pe rc en ta ge o f yo u r f e 11ow-workers p e r s o n a l l y a r e de er hunt er s? 57. in d ivid u a lly? t h a t you know (percentage) About what p e r c e n t a g e o f yo ur c lo s e f r i e n d s , n o t i n c l u d i n g people t h a t you work w i t h , a r e d e e r h u nt e rs ? __________ (percentage) 205 58. Can you t e l l doe7 No _ _ _ _ Yes ______ 59. the d i f f e r n c e between th e tr a c k s made by a buck o r a How do you t e l l Do you p e r s o n a l l y know o f anyone e l s e who can t e l l from a doe t r a c k ? Yes _____ 60 . th e d i f f e r e n c e ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a buck t r a c k No _____ How does he t e l l the d i f f e r e n c e ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I ' m going to read a l i s t o f o u td o or r e c r e a t i o n a l which o f these types o f a c tiv itie s . In r e c r e a t i o n do you r a t h e r f r e q u e n t l y p a r t i ci pate? Snow s k i i n g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ F i s h in g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tennis _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1ce f i s h i n g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Camping _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hiking _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Swimming ( n o t in po ols) _ _ _ _ _ Gol f ing Boa tin g o r canoeing ____________ Skeet sho o tin g _ _ _ _ Bow and arrow h u n ti n g _ _ _ _ _ Snowmobiling _ _ _ _ _ V i s i t i n g s t a t e and n a t i o n a l Others 61. If parks _ _ _ _ _ _ (spec i fy ) the deer season were l o n g e r , do you t h i n k you would: Hunt less _______ Hunt about the same _ _ _ _ _ _ Hunt more 62. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) The card I have j u s t handed you cont ain s t h r e e groups o f t h r e e st ate me nts each. f a c t s were p u b lis h ed L e t us suppose t h a t these in a l o c a l newspaper concerning th e areas in 206 which you h u n t . P le a s e t e l l me th e one s t a t e m e n t in each group which would d is c o u r a g e you the most and t h e one which would d i s c o u r a g e you th e l e a s t . H u n ti n g c o n d i t i o n s a r e crowded t h i s season. Low game p o p u l a t i o n s a r e p r e d i c t e d . H u n ti n g f o r a de er o f e i t h e r sex is not p e r m i t t e d in that area. An I n c r e a s i n g number o f h u nt e rs have been s h ot in the l a s t few seasons in t h a t a r e a . E a r l y h u n t e r success The l i c e n s e f e e is ve ry low. is doubled to $ 1 0 . 0 0 . S l e e t and r a i n a r e p r e d i c t e d . A l a r g e number o f de er were r e p o r t e d t o have s t a r v e d the w i n t e r b e f o r e . R e g u la t io n s p r e s c r i b e s h o r t e r h u n t i n g ho u r s . 63. Do you p l a n y o u r h u n t i n g t r i p s "weeks 6A. Would i t embarrass you to come home t o your f a m i l y w i t h o u t a deer? Yes 65. Do you know where o r how to c o n t a c t th e game p r o t e c t o r who Yes _ Do you f r e q u e n t l y friends? Yes Yes recall No is No _ _ _ _ Would you t h i n k more h i g h l y o f a f e l l o w - w o r k e r d u r i n g de er season? 67. No No _____ employed by y o u r county? 66. in advance"? Yes if he go t a buck No h u n t i n g e x p e r i e n c e s whent a l k i n g w i t h 207 68. Do you toad y o u r own shotgun s h e l l s o r r i f l e No ____ 69 . shells? Yes _____ Sometimes _____ (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) On what ty pe o f land do you u s u a l l y hunt deer? 70. _____ 1. Your own farm o r p r o p e r t y . _____ 2. S t a t e owned l a n d . _____3. F e d e r a l l y owned l a n d . _____*». P r i v a t e hunting c lu b . _____5. P r i v a t e l y owned f o r e s t a r e a s . _____6. P r i v a t e farm l a n d . Would you say t h a t the owner o f th e p r o p e r t y Yes yours? 71. Don' t know is a good f r i e n d o f No When you ( o r I f you were to ) b r i n g a de er home, would you a n d / o r yo ur f a m i l y e a t most o f 72. _____ 7. I t o r would you g i v e most o f _____ Fa mily would e a t _____ Give i t away _____ E at about h a l f and g i v e about h a l f away _____ C o u l d n ' t say u n t i l In yo u r o p i n i o n It to o t h e r s ? It I k ill one is th e summer d e e r range l a r g e r than the w i n t e r d e e r range in N o r t h e r n Michigan? No _____ D o n ' t know Yes _____ Could you make an e s t i m a t e as to what p e rc en t ag e o f t h e t o t a l summer range Is used as w i n t e r range in N o r t h e r n Michigan _____________ (percentage) Don' t know 208 73. A t what age d i d you b e gi n to hunt w i t h a gun? ____ Jk, Do you own a cabin f o r v a c a t i o n i n g ? Now I would l i k e 75. Yes ______ to ask you some q u e s t io n s about y o u r s e l f . How long have you l i v e d in th e '' (Lans i n g - A l p e n a - M a r q u e t t e ) 1. 2 ye ars o r less _____ k, 11 to 20 years __ 2. 3 to 5 ye a r s _____ 5 . 21 o r more _____ 3. 6 to 10 ye a r s _____ 6 . A l l o f my l i f e _____ Where were you bro ught up? 77. When you were growing up d i d you l i v e mostly rural 79. area? Town _____ area? ( I n o r n e a r what town) _____________ 76. 78 . No in a town o r in a Rural a r e a _____ What y e a r d i d you complete in school? 1. 6 ye ar s o r 2. less 5. Some c o l l e g e _____ 7 t h - 9 t h grades _____ 6. F i n i s h e d c o l l e g e ______ 3. Some high school _____ 7. Some g r a d u a t e work _____ k. F i n i s h e d high school _____ 8. F i n i s h e d g r a d u a t e degree o r p r o f e s s i o n a l degree _____ Did you a t t e n d a c i v i l i a n trade o r s p e c ia liz e d t r a i n i n g school? No Yes __ For how many years (number) What type o f t r a d e o r s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g school? 209 80. (HAND CARD TO RESPONDENT) Would you p le a s e t e l l th is to your f a m i l y ' s 1. Under $ 3 , 0 0 0 _____ 2. $3,000 - to ta l annual income? 5. $10,000 - $ 5 , 9 9 9 _____ 6. $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 - $ 2 4 , 9 9 9 _____ 3. $ 6 , 0 0 0 - $ 7 , 9 9 9 _____ 7. $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 and o v e r _____ 4. $8,000 - (IF INTERVIEWING A WOMAN ASK ABOUT HUSBAND OR FATHER IN QUESTIONS 81 - 81. ca rd t h a t corresponds me th e number on $ 9 , 9 9 9 _____ 86) What is your main o c c u p a tio n ? If $ 1 4 ,9 9 9 _____ ________________________________________ r e t i r e d , what was yo ur o c c u p a t i o n b e f o r e retirement? 82. Do you r e g u l a r l y work a t two d i f f e r e n t pa id jobs? Yes No __ 83. Are you o f t e n unemployed f o r a week o r more a t a time? Yes ______ No _____ 84. As a r e s u l t o f yo ur work o r y o u r t r a i n i n g a r e you a member o f a union o r p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n ? its Yes I No 85. What is name? 86. Do most o f th e members o f y o u r ( p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n ) (local union) oppose o r s u p p o r t a n t l e r l e s s deer hunting? 87. 1. Oppose _____ 2. Support _ _ _ _ 3. Don11 know _____ How o f t e n d i d you discuss p u b l i c a f f a i r s w ith 1. o r governmental m a t t e r s f r i e n d s d u r i n g t h e l a s t year? O ft e n 2. Once in a w h i l e 3. Not a t a l l 210 88. Have you a tte n d e d any meetings years in which p u b lic a f f a i r s d u rin g the p a st two (2 ) o r th re e o r governmental m a tte rs were a m ajor s u b je c t o f c o n s id e r a t io n * such as c i t y c o u n c il* board o f s u p e r v is o r s * o r school board meetings? 89. Have you e v e r done a n y th in g to Yes _____ No . t r y to in f lu e n c e any type o f governmental d e c is io n * such as w r i t i n g a l e t t e r o r s ig n in g a p e titio n ? Yes _____ No _____ (BEFORE CHECKING IF YES ASK SPECIFIC ACTION. IF NO RESPONSE CHECK NO.) 90. Do you ta ke o r buy a newspaper? No How o f t e n do you read i t? Yes 1. Da i 1y _____ 2. About once o r tw ic e a week _____ 3. From time to tim e _____ Seldom _ _ _ _ 91. Does th e newspaper you read oppose o r su pp ort a n t l e r l e s s d e e r hunt i ng? 92. Support _____ 2. O c c a s io n a lly _____ 3. Never _____ Do you read any news magazines* such as Time o r Newsweek? 1. 9 3. 1. R e g u la r ly 2. O c c a s io n a lly How f r e q u e n t ly do you l i s t e n 3. Never _____ to news programs on ra d io o r t e l e v i s ion? 1. N e a rly e v e ry day _ _ _ _ 3. From time to time ___ 2. About once a week 4. Never 211 Sk. Do you l i s t e n to r a d io and t e l e v i s i o n programs s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned w i t h h u n tin g o r o u td o o r l i f e 1. R e g u la r ly 2. Do you know I f door l i f e In g e n e ra l? O c c a s io n a lly _ _ _ _ 3. Never any o f th ese r a d io o r t e l e v i s i o n programs on o u t ­ have taken a p o s i t i o n o f s u p p o rt o r o p p o s it io n con­ c e r n in g a n t l e r l e s s Yes _____ d e e r hunting? No _________ Support (names) Don ' 1 know _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Oppose (names) _______________________________________________________ 95. What abou t magazines s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned w i t h h u n tin g ? read t h i s 1. 96. Do you kin d o f magazine? R e g u la r ly _____ 2. O c c a s io n a lly 3. Never Do any o f th e s e magazines su p p o rt o r oppose a n t l e r l e s s deer hunt i ng? 97. 1. Oppose (names) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. Support 3- D o n 't know _ _ _ (names) To y o u r knowledge have any o f th e s t a t e yo ur d i s t r i c t l e g i s l a t o r s who r e p r e s e n t taken a p o s i t i o n on a n t l e r l e s s d e er hu n tin g ? No Yes Do you remember t h e i r names? Names Do th ey f a v o r o r oppose i t ? Favor Oppose 21 2 98. Are you a r e g i s t e r e d v o te r? Yes _____ Do you in te n d to v o te in t h e p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n November? No _____ Yes _____ No _____ in H a v e n 't decid ed _____ Do you remember why you d id not r e g i s t e r ? _____________ Don11 know _____ 99. Do you u s u a lly t h in k o f y o u r s e l f as a Democrat, an In d e p e n d e n t, a R e p u b lic a n , o r what? 100. 1. Democrat _ _ _ 2, R ep ublican _____ 3. Independent If 4. O th e r lean? Have you e v e r been a c t i v e in d e p e n d e n t, toward which p a r t y do you 1. Democrat _____ 2. R epublican _____ 3. O th e r __________ in a p o l i t i c a l campaign? T h a t i s , have you e v e r worked f o r a c a n d id a t e o r p a r t y , c o n t r i b u t e d money, o r done any o t h e r a c t i v e work? Yes 101. No Does th e Federal government r e p r e s e n t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p e o p le o r th e i n t e r e s t o f th e lea d e rs ? 102. 1. The p e o p le 's i n t e r e s t s _____ 2. The le a d e r s ' i n t e r e s t s _____ 3. O th e r _________________________________________________ In y o u r o p in io n what p e rc e n ta g e o f M ic h ig an d e er h u n te rs a r e opposed to a n tle r le s s deer h u n tin g ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (p e r c e n ta g e ) 213 103* Do y o u t h i n k a n tle rle s s No _____ t h a t most h u n t e r s who sa y deer hunting app ly fo r t h e y a r e op p o s e d an a n t l e r l e s s to d e e r perm it? Don 11 know _____ Yes _____ Why do you suppose they a p p ly even though th ey say they a r e opposed? — — —— Is t h e r e any o t h e r reason? A n y th in g e ls e ? 10*». — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — —— — — — (PROBE HARD) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ How many guns do you have t h a t a r e used f o r d eer h u n tin g (number) 105. 106. What type o f guns are they? 1. Shotguns _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (number) gauge _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. R i f l e s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (number) c a lib re _ _ _ _ _ (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) P le a s e t e l l me which group l i s t e d , yo ur o p i n i o n , knows th e most about th e d e er h e rd . in (THEN ASK RESPONDENT WHICH GROUP IS SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, ACCORDING TO KNOWLEDGE A B ILITY ) . 1. E x p e rt h u n te rs _ _ _ _ _ 2. C o n s e rv a tio n D ept, b i o l o g i s t s _____ 3. F o r e s te r s and o t h e r s who work in th e woods ______ *t. S portsm an's clu b o f f i c i a l s _ _ _ _ 5. Business men who have th e o p p o r t u n it y to t a l k d i f f e r e n t h u n te rs to t h e many 107* (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) How do yo u f e e l about i t when you do n o t g e t a deer? 1. Not much b o thered _____ 2. Somewhat d is a p p o in te d 3. I fe e l k. I t makes me mad _ _ _ _ _____ v e ry d is a p p o in te d _____ Whom does i t make you mad a t : 5. 108. O th er __________ Does th e C o n s e rv a tio n Department c la im th e deer herd is in c r e a s in g , d e c r e a s in g , o r Is s t a b i l i z e d 109. f o r the s t a t e as a whole? 1. In c re a s in g _____ 3. Has s t a b i l i z e d _____ 2. D ecreasing _____ **. D o n 't know _ _ _ _ (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) This card is f o r the n e x t k q u e s tio n s . What k in d o f jo b do you th in k the S ta t e is doing w ith parks and r e c r e a tio n ? 110. 1. Excel l e n t 2. Good _____ 3. Adequate _____ k. Poo r _____ 5. Bad _____ What k in d o f jo b do you t h in k th e S ta t e is doing w ith programs? 1. E x c e lle n t i». Poor it s fis h in g 215 111. 112. What kin d o f jo b do you t h in k th e S t a t e 1. E x c e lle n t 2. Good 3. Adequate 4. Poor 5. Bad _____ is doing w i t h its fo re s ts 7 _ _____ _____ _____ What k in d o f jo b do you th in k the S t a t e is doing w it h the d e er herd? 113. 1. E x c e lle n t 2. Good 3. Adequate A. Poor 5. Bad ____ _____ ____ _____ ___ What d id i t c o s t you to hunt deer in M ichigan l a s t year? _ I ' l l read o f f a l i s t o f items you may have purchased o r s p e n t some money on to h e lp you e s t im a t e th e t o ta l c o s t. d id you spend the most money on? 1. Food and beverages 2. Lodging 3. Cl o t h i ng 4. S h e lIs 5. Guns 6. Licen se fe e 7. Gas and o i l 8. Costs to process and f r e e z e yo u r d e e r 9. E n te rta in m e n t fo r your ca r Which o f th e items 216 114. I f you wanted to know about something concerning the a n t l e r l e s s deer h u n tin g c o n tro v e rs y where would you go f i r s t to g e t i n f o r ­ mation? 1. Friends ______ 2. Members o f your f a m ily _____ 3. Newspapers 4. Sports Magazine 5. Fel 1ow-workers _____ 6. C on servation Department 7. O ther _____ _____ Now I want to g iv e you some statem ents and I want you to i n d ic a t e w hether you d is a g r e e , p a r t i a l l y a g r e e , ag re e. 115* S c i e n t i f i c s tu d ie s should form the b a sis f o r a game management program. D isagree _ _ P a r t i a l l y agree _____ Agree _ _ _ No o p in io n _____ 116. S to c kin g deer is one o f the b e s t answers to having more game to shoot a t . D isagree _____ P a r t i a l l y agree _____ Agree ____ Mo op i n i on _____ 117. Most deer would d ie o f o ld age i f man d id not hunt them. Disagree _ _ _ _ P a r t i a l l y agree 118. Agree One can g e t alm ost as much s a t i s f a c t i o n d o e s n 't k i l l Agree _____ a d e er. D isagree _ _ _ No o p in io n _____ No o p in io n _____ from a hunt even i f he P a r t i a l l y agree _____ 217 119. I would j u s t as soon shoot a doe as a buck i f s iz e . D isagree ______ P a r t i a l l y a g re e _ _ _ _ they were the same Agree _____ No o p in io n 120 . Game b i o l o g i s t s a r e as im p o rta n t to w i l d l i f e management as d o cto rs a re to m e d ic in e . Agree _____ 121 . D is a g re e _____ P a rtia lly a g re e ■ No o p in io n _____ How do you f e e l about t h i s s ta te m e n t: I would w i l l i n g l y pay an in c re a s e d d e er lic e n s e fe e i f assured th e money would be used f o r w ild life P a rtia lly rese arch and management. agree _____ Agree D isa g ree _____ No o p in io n 218 INTERVI EWER'S OBSERVATION SHEET 1. 2. Sex 1. Ma le 2, FemaIe Race 1. Wh i te 2. Neg ro 3. O th er Did the respondent seem: ( C i r c l e a p p r o p r ia t e d e s ig n a t io n s ) T r u t h f u l ............................................ I Evas i v e ............................................2 U n tru th fu l ................................. 3 Could no t be d e t e r m i n e d ................................. How would you r a t e the h u n tin g knowledge o f th e Very know ledgeable . . . . 1 Knowledgeable 2 ........................ Not ve ry kn ow ledgeable . . 3 respondent. APPENDIX B APPENDIX B TABLES FOR CHAPTER V Appendix T a b le 1. A t t i t u d e toward the p o l i c y among th e u n a lie n a t e d and th e a l i e n a t e d in Ingham County A ttitu d e M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (A) S up port (*> T o ta l U n a lle n a te d .2 1 6 vn .2 5 5 • 51 100% A1 le n a te d 35 .2 8 6 .2 5 7 100% .4 5 7 Ch I Sq uare ■ 0 . 4 4 3 8 , 2 D . F . , P > . 0 5 Appendix T a b le 2. A t t i t u d e toward th e p o l i c y among th e u n a lie n a t e d and th e a l i e n a t e d in A lpena County A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) S upport (%) U n a lle n a te d 54 .4 2 6 .2 5 9 .3 1 5 A1 le n a te d 100% 39 .2 8 2 Chi T o ta l Square - 3.3098 , .56 4 2 D .F ., P > .05 219 .1 5 4 100% w t- 22 0 Appendix T a b le 3* A t t i t u d e toward th e p o l i c y among th e u n a lie n a t e d and the a l i e n a t e d in M a rq u e tte County Oppose (%) A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Qpjaose (%) Support (*) T o tal 66 U n a li e n ate d .2*12 .5**5 .21 2 100% 32 A1 ie n a te d .5 6 3 .3 1 3 Chi Square - 9 .7 **6 0 , 2 D . F . , P< - Appendix T a b le A. Im portance o f Success .1 2 5 100% .01 The e f f e c t o f the im portance o f success upon h u n te r a t t i tudes in Ingham County Oppose (%) A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Support (%) L ittle T o ta l 68 .2 5 0 .2 3 5 .5 1 5 In t e r m e d ia t e 100% 18 .3 8 9 .111 .5 0 0 High 100% 15 .2 6 7 Chi Square - 3.1517* .3 3 3 4 D . F . , P > .05 .A00 100% 221 Appendix T a b le 5 . 1mportance o f Success The e f f e c t o f t h e I m p o r t a n c e o f s u c c e s s a t t i t u d e s I n A l p e n a Co unt y Oppose {%) A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose <%) Support (%) L Ittle upon h u n t e r T o ta l 43 .1 4 0 .4 8 8 .3 7 2 In t e r m e d ia t e 100% 31 .4 5 2 .4 1 9 .1 2 9 High 100% 31 .2 9 0 .4 8 4 Chi Square ■ 1 0 .9 0 2 2 , 4 D . F . , P< - Appendix T a b le 6 . Importance o f Success .22 6 100% .0 5 The e f f e c t o f th e Im portance o f success upon h u n te r a t t ! t u d e s in M a rq u e tte County Oppose (%) A ttitu d e t f o d e r a te ty Oppose (%) Support (%) L ittle T o ta l 46 .3 2 6 .5 2 2 .5 2 In t e r m e d ia t e 100% 30 .3 0 0 .4 6 7 .2 3 3 High 100% 38 .5 0 0 Chi Square - .3 6 8 4 . 5 3 2 7 , 4 D . F . , P > .05 .1 3 2 100% 22 2 Appendix T a b le 7. S tatu s Val ue The i n f l u e n c e o f s t a t u s a t t i tude s y m b o l i s m upon h u n t e r A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (*) Oppose (S) Support (%) T o ta l 124 Im p o rta n t .411 .3 8 7 .20 2 Not Im p o rta n t 100% 192 .3 9 6 .2 4 5 .359 100% Chi Square ■ 1 3 .0 5 3 1 , 2 D. F. , P< ** .01 Appendix T a b le 8 . S tatu s Val ue The in f lu e n c e o f s t a t u s symbol Ism upon h u n te r a t t i tude A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (%) Im p o rta n t 24 .25 0 .33 3 .41 7 Not Im p o rta n t Square - 100% 75 .2 6 7 Chi T o ta l 0.6320 , .2 2 7 2 D .F ., P > .05 .5 0 7 100% 223 Appendix T a b le 9* S ta tu s Val ue The I n f l u e n c e o f s t a t u s s y m b o l i s m upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s i n A l p e n a Co unty A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) S upport (%) 46 Im p o rta n t .4 1 3 .43 5 .1 5 2 Not Im p o rta n t Appendix T a b le 10. S ta tu s Val ue .4 9 2 .33 9 100% 9 . 2 3 7 4 , 2 D . F . , P< » .01 The in f lu e n c e o f s t a tu s symbolism upon h u n te r a t t i t u d e s in M a rq u e tte County A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (%) Im p o rta n t T o ta l 54 .4 4 4 .4 0 7 .1 4 8 Not Im p o rta n t Square - 100% 58 .2 9 3 Chi 100% 59 .1 6 9 Chi Square - T o ta l 2 .7602 , .5 1 7 2 D .F ., P > .05 .1 9 0 100% 22*4 Appendix T a b le 11. H un ter 1n te r e s t T he i n f l u e n c e o f d e e r h u n t e r i n Ingham Co unt y Oppose (%) A ttitu d e M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) in te re s t Support (%) upon a t t i t u d e s T o ta l Low 39 .2 5 6 .1 2 8 100% .61 5 Med ium 58 .2 7 6 .2 9 3 100% .431 High 4 .5 0 0 .2 5 0 100% .2 5 0 Chi Square ■ 5 . 6 7 7 0 , 4 D . F . , P > .0 5 A ppendix T a b le 12. H un ter In t e r e s t The in f l u e n c e o f h u n te r i n t e r e s t upon a t t i t u d e s in A lpena County Oppose (%) A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Support (%) Low T o ta l 13 .3 8 5 .231 .3 8 5 Med 1um 100% 85 .2 4 7 .529 .224 High 100% 7 .4 2 9 Chi Square - 7.2380 , .1 4 3 4 D . F . , P > .05 .4 2 9 100% 225 Appendix T a b le 13. H un ter 1n t e r e s t The in f l u e n c e o f h u n te r i n t e r e s t upon a t t i t u d e s M a rq u e tte County Oppose ($) A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose ($) Support ($) Low in T o ta l 25 .40 0 .56 0 .04 0 Medi um 100$ 87 .3 6 8 .4 3 7 .1 9 5 100$ H tgh 2 .5 0 0 .0 0 0 .5 0 0 100$ Chi Square ■ 5 . 8 8 0 7 , 4 D .F . » P > .0 5 Appendix T a b le 14. P r o p o r tio n o f Fel 1ow-Workers Who Hunt The r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent a t t i t u d e s the p r o p o r t io n o f f e l l o w - workers who hunt Oppose (%) A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Support ($ ) Low and T o ta l 87 .33 3 .3 2 2 .3 4 5 Medi um 100$ 71 .2 8 2 .451 .2 6 8 High 100$ 138 .2 9 0 Chi Square - 3 .6952 , .4 3 5 4 D . F . , P > .05 .2 7 5 100$ 226 Appendix T a b le 15* P o r p o r tio n o f Close Frien ds Who Hunt The r e l a t i o n s h i p between respondent a t t i t u d e s th e p r o p o r t io n o f c lo s e f r i e n d s who hunt A t t t tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (*) S upport (%) and T o ta l Low 63 .3 1 7 .3 3 3 .3 *9 100% Med t um 78 .321 .3 0 8 .3 7 2 High 100% 175 .3 0 3 .2 8 0 .4 1 7 100% Chi Square ■ 1 .7 3 9 9 , 4 D .F. , P > .0 5 Appendix T a b le 16. The p o s i t i o n o f f e l lo w -w o rke rs among th e c o u n tie s M a jo r i ty Oppose (%) County P o s I t io n o f Fel low-W orkers M a jo r I ty Oppose (%) Ingham T o ta l 64 .4 3 8 .5 6 3 A1pena 100% 75 .1 0 7 .8 9 3 M a rq u ette 100% 85 .8 8 2 Chi toward th e p o lic y Square - 29.6188, 2 D . F . , P< - .1 1 8 .001 100% 227 Appendix T a b le 17. P o li cy Pos i t l o n o f F e llo w Worke rs The e f f e c t a t t i tudes o f work p e e r group a t t i t u d e s A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) upon h u n t e r Support (%) M a jo rity Oppose 173 .3 1 2 .1 8 5 .5 0 3 M a jo r i ty Support 100% 44 .2 0 5 Appendix T a b le 18. Pol 1cy Pos i t l o n o f F e llo w Worke rs .5 6 8 .2 2 7 Chi Square » 2 6 .9 7 0 9 , 2 D .F . , P< - 100% .001 The e f f e c t o f work group a t t i tudes upon h u n te r a t t i tudes in Ingham County A t t i tude M o d e ra tle y Oppose <%) Oppose (*) Support (%) M a jo r! ty Oppose T o ta l 35 .3 1 4 .371 .3 1 4 M a jo ri t y Support 100% 26 .231 Chi T o ta l Square - 7.8492, .1 1 5 2 D.F., P< - .05 .6 5 4 100% 228 Appendix T ab le 19. P o lic y P o s itio n o f F e llo w Worke rs The e f f e c t o f w o r k g r o u p a t t i t u d e s a t t i t u d e s in A l p e n a County A t t i tude M oderately Oppose (%) Oppose (%) upon h u n t e r Support (%) To tal M a jo ri t y Oppose 66 .2 4 2 .561 100% .1 9 7 M a jo ri t y Support 8 .1 2 5 .375 .500 100% Chi Square « 3 .7 3 5 0 , 2 D . F . , P > .05 Appendix Table 20. Po 11 cy Pos 111on o f F e llo w Workers The e f f e c t o f work group a t t i t u d e s a t t i tudes in M arq uette County A ttitu d e M oderately Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (%) M a jo ri ty Oppose T o ta l 72 .514 .37 5 .111 MaJori ty Support 100% 10 .2 0 0 Chi upon h u n te r Square = 5 . 9 9 5 5 * .400 2 D .F ., P< ® . 0 5 .400 100% 229 Appendix T a b le 21. The p o s i t i o n the counties o f neighbors the p o lic y P o s i t i o n o f Neighbors M a jo r i ty Support (3 ) M a jo r i ty Oppose (%) Coun ty toward 1ngham T o ta l 23 .4 7 8 .5 2 2 100% A1pena 45 .20 0 .8 0 0 100% Ma r q u e t t e 59 .881 Appendix T a b le 22. P o lic y P o s I t i o n o f Neighbors 100% .1 1 9 Chi Square « 1 2 .8 5 0 7 , 2 D . F . , P< - .01 The e f f e c t o f the a t t i t u d e o f nei ghbors upon h u n te r a t t i tudes Oppose (%) A ttitu d e M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Support (%) M a jo r i ty Oppose T o ta l 98 .3 4 7 .1 2 2 .531 M a jo ri ty Support 100% 26 .1 5 4 Chi among Square « 1 8 . 4 4 9 4 , .3 4 6 2 D .F ., P< « .5 0 0 .001 100% 230 Appendix T a b le 23* Pol 1cy Pos i t io n o f Immediate Fami1y The r e l a t i o n s h i p between in d iv id u a l a t t i t u d e s concerning the p o lic y Oppose (%) A t t i tude M o d erately Oppose (%) and f a m ily Support (%) M a jo ri t y Oppose 97 .351 .49 5 .155 M a jo ri ty Support .182 Chi Square ■ 3 3 .3 9 3 0 , 2 D . F . , P< - Pol icy ^os 1 tio n o f H unting CompanIons .6 3 6 100% .001 The e f f e c t o f th e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n tin g compan ions upon h u n te r a t t i t u d e s Oppose <%> A t t i tude Mode ra te \ y Oppose (%) Support (%) M a jo ri ty Oppose T o ta l 122 .361 M a jo ri ty Support 100% 44 .182 Appendix T a b le 24. T o ta l .541 .09 8 100% 61 • .180 .24 6 Chi Square - 4 8 .1 8 7 2 , 2 D . F . , P< = .001 .57 4 100% 231 Appendix T a b le 2 5 . Po1 i cy Pos11 i on o f H u n tin g Companions The e f f e c t o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t i n g upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s in Ingham Co unt y Oppose (%) A ttitu d e M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Support (%) T o ta l 18 M a jo ri ty Oppose .389 .5 0 0 .111 M a jo ri ty Support 100% 37 .21 6 .1 6 2 Chi Square ■ 1 3 .3 3 4 3 , 2 D. F . , P< * Appendix T a b le 2 6 . Pol Icy Pos i t i o n o f H u n tin g Companions .6 2 2 100% .01 The e f f e c t o f th e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n tin g compan ions upon h u n te r a t t i t u d e s in A lpena County Oppose (%) A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Support (%) T o ta l 46 M a jo r i ty Oppose .2 8 3 .15 2 .5 6 5 M a jo ri ty Support 100% 15 .0 6 7 Chi companions Square - 12.1437, .60 0 .3 3 3 2 D .F ., P< - .01 100% 232 Appendix T a b le 27. P o ti cy Pos i t ion o f H unting Compan i ons The e f f e c t o f t h e a t t i t u d e o f h u n t i n g com panions upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s i n M a r q u e t t e C o u n t y A t t 1tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (%) 58 M a jo r i ty Oppose .4 1 4 .5 3 * .0 5 2 M a jo r i ty S up port .4 4 4 .3 3 3 100% Square ■ 7.7571 ► 2 D. F. , P< » .05 Appendix T a b le 2 8 . P o li cy P o s I t io n o f Government O ffic ia ls The r e l a t i o n s h ip between the a t t i tudes e x p ress ed by government o f f i c i a l s and the a t t i tudes o f h u n te rs w it h whom they had t a lk e d A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) S upport (%) M a jo r i ty Oppose T o ta l 12 .7 5 0 .16 7 .0 8 3 M a jo r i ty S upport 100% 6 .50 0 .1 6 7 Chi 100% 9 .2 2 2 Chi T o ta l Square - 1.8750, 2 D .F ., p > .05 .3 3 3 100% 233 Appendix T a b le 2 9 . Po11cy Pos111on o f Cons. Dept. Emp1oyees Th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e a t t i t u d e s e x p r e s s e d by e m p l o y e e s o f t h e DNR and t h e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t e r s w i t h whom t h e y had t a l k e d Oppose (%) A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) S upport (%) M a jo r i ty Oppose 28 .5 3 6 .3 5 7 .1 0 7 M a jo r i ty Support 100% 37 .1 3 5 .4 0 5 Chi Square » 1 0 .4 2 0 2 , 2 D . F . , P< - Appendix T a b le 30. Pol I cy f»os 1 t lo n o f S o c ia l Acquaintances .4 5 9 100% .01 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e a t t i t u d e s expressed by s o c ia l ac q u a in ta n c e s and the a t t i t u d e s o f h u n te rs w it h whom they have t a lk e d Oppose (%) A ttitu d e M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Support (%) M a jo r i ty Oppose T o ta l 92 .3 2 6 .1 6 3 .511 MaJ o r I ty Support 100% 32 .2 1 9 .3 1 3 Chi T o ta l Square - 13.8370, 2 D .F ., P< - .4 6 9 .0 01 100% 234 Appendix T a b le 31. Po 1 i cy Pos 11 i on o f O ther Hunters The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e a t t i t u d e s o f o t h e r h u n te rs whom th e respondents have t a l k e d to and th e re s p o n d e n ts 1 a t t i t u d e s A t t i tudes M o d e ra te ly Support Oppose (%) <%) Oppose (%) T o ta l 85 M a jo r!ty Oppose .3 2 9 100% .20 0 .471 17 M a jo ri ty Support .2 9 4 .1 7 6 Chi Square ■ 8 . 1 2 1 0 , 2 D . F . , P< Appendix T a b le 3 2 . .0 5 The p o l i c y p o s it io n o f sportsman club o f f i c i a l s who have t a l k e d to respondents from th e v a rio u s c o u n tie s H a jo r i ty Oppose (%) County - P o lic y P o s i t io n o f Club O f f i c i a l s M a jo r i ty Support (%) Ingham T o ta l 9 .2 2 2 .7 7 8 A1pena 100% 13 .9 2 3 .077 M arq uette 100% 26 .9 6 2 Chi 100% .529 Square - 25.4183, 2 D . F . , P< - .0 3 8 .001 100% 235 Appendix T a b le 33* Magazi ne Pol Ic y Pos i t i on The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e p o s i t i o n toward th e p o lic y which the magazines t h a t th e h u n te rs read have taken and h u n te r s ' a t t i t u d e s A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (*) Support (%) T o ta l Oppose 24 .2 0 8 .4 5 8 .3 3 3 100% Support 33 .1 5 2 .5 1 5 .3 3 3 Don 11 Know 253 .33 2 Newspaper Po1i cy Pos I t l o n .281 .3 8 7 4 D .F ., Chi Square ■* Appendix T a b le 34. 100% P > .0 5 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e p o s i t i o n toward the p o lic y ta ken by the newspaper w hich th e h u n te rs read and h u n t e r s ' a t t i t u d e s Oppose (%) A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Support (%) Oppose T o ta l 32 .469 .1 5 6 .3 7 5 Support 100% 73 .2 8 8 .2 6 0 .4 5 2 Don * t Know Square - 100% 212 .2 9 7 Chi 100% 16.0751 , 4 D . F . , .2 6 4 .4 3 9 P< - .0 1 100% 236 Appendix T a b le 35. Radio and TV Pol ic y Pos i t ion The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e p o s i t i o n toward th e p o l i c y taken by lo c a l r a d io and t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s and h u n t e r s ' a t t i t u d e s A ttitu d e M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (*> Tota 1 Oppose 25 .*♦**0 .080 .**80 100% 52 Support .212 .3 0 8 Chi Square ■ 1 2 .1 9 6 0 , 2 D . F . , P< - .**81 100% .01 TABLES FOR CHAPTER VI Appendix T a b le 36. A t t i t u d e toward th e p o l i c y among the u n a lie n a te d and th e a l i e n a t e d In the low SES group A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose <»' Oppose (%) Sqpport (%) Una 1le n a te d 60 .5 0 0 .3 3 3 .1 6 7 A1i e n a te d 100% 39 .51 3 Chi T o ta l Sqaure - 3.**202, .33 3 2 D .F ., P > .05 .15** 100% Appendix T a b le 37. A t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e p o l i c y among t h e a l i e n a t e d u n a l l e n a t e d i n t h e medium SES g r o u p A ttitu d e M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%> Support (%) T o ta l 80 Una 11enated .3 8 8 .2 5 0 .3 6 3 A 1 ie n a te d 100% *7 .*0 * .31 9 Chi Square m 1 . 1 9 5 * , Appendix T a b le 38. .2 7 7 100% 2 D . F . , P > .0 5 A t t i tude among the u n a lie n a t e d and a l i e n a t e d high SES group A t t i tude ta>de r a t e l y Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (%) U n a lie n a te d in the T o ta l 31 .2 9 0 .0 9 7 .6 1 3 A1 ie n a te d 100% 20 .2 0 0 Chi and Square - 3 .*7 0 2 , .*5 0 2 D .F ., P > .05 .3 5 0 100% 238 Appendix T a b l e 39 . The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a l i e n a t i o n among the SES groups f o r those who s t r o n g l y oppose the p o l i c y SES Unalienated A lienated Total 40 Low .500 .500 Hedlurn 100% 35 LA • .4 2 9 High 100% 7 .4 2 9 Chi Square ■ 0 . 6 6 3 5 , 2 D . F . , .571 100% P > .0 5 Appendix T a b l e 4 0 . The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a l i e n a t i o n among th e SES groups f o r those who m o d e r a t e ly oppose th e p o l i c y SES Unalienated (%) A lienated <%) Low Total 43 .6 9 8 .302 Medi um 100% 50 .6 2 0 .380 100% 18 High .50 0 Chi Square - 2.1726, 2 D . F . , P > .05 .50 0 100% 23 9 Appendix T a b le 41. im portance o f Success T he e f f e c t o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f su c d e s s a t t i t u d e s in t h e low SES g r o u p A t t i tilde M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose <%) upon Support (%) T o tal 52 Li t t l e .423 .365 .212 In t e r m e d ia t e 100% 31 .5 1 6 .3 8 7 .097 High 100% 36 .44 4 Chi Square - Appendix T a b l e 42. Importance o f Success .3 8 9 .1 6 7 100% 2 . 6 7 1 8 , 4 D .P . P > .0 5 The e f f e c t o f the importance o f success upon a t t i t u d e In t h e medium SES group A ttitude M o d e r a t e ly Oppose (%) Oppose <%) Support (%) L ittle Total 70 .229 .371 .40 0 interm ediate 100% 39 .3 3 3 .3 5 9 .308 High 100% 37 .351 Chi Square - 5*6443* .459 4 D .F ., P > .05 .1 8 9 100% 240 Appendix T a b le 43. 1mportance o f Success The e f f e c t o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f s u c c e s s a t t i t u d e in t h e h i g h SES g r o u p A ttitud e Moderately Oppose (%) Oppose (%) upon Support (%) L ittle Total 35 .0 8 6 .371 .5 43 1n t e r m e d i a t e 100% 9 .111 .3 3 3 .5 56 100% 11 High .2 7 3 .273 Chi Square » 2 . 7 0 2 7 , 4 D. F . , Appendix T a b l e 4 4 . SES .455 100% P > .0 5 The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t a t u s v a l u e among the SES groups Im p o rt a n t (%) S t a t u s Valu e Not Im p o r ta n t (%) Low Total 124 .4 7 6 .5 2 4 Med i um 100% 153 .3 4 6 .654 High 100% 54 .315 Chi Square - 6.3445 , .6 8 5 2 D . F . , P< - .05 100% 241 Appendix T a b le 45. S tatu s Val ue The e f f e c t o f s t a t u s low SES r e s p o n d e n t s sy m b o li s m upon a t t i t u d e s A t t i tude M o d erately Oppose (%) Oppose ( %) Support among T o ta l ( %) Im portant 55 .509 .361* .1 2 7 Not 1m portant 100% 63 .444 ,3*9 .206 100% Chi Square ■ 3 . 3 2 6 2 , 2 D . F . , P > .0 5 Appendix T a b le 46 . Status Val ue The e f f e c t o f s ta tu s symbolism upon a t t i t u d e s medium SES respondents A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (%) Im portant T o ta l 52 .442 .385 .173 Not Im portant 100% 93 .226 Chi among Square m 9 . 1 8 1 8 , . 366 2 D .F ., P< ■ .05 .409 100% 24?. Appendix T a b le 4 7 , S ta tu s V a lu e The e f f e c t o f s t a t u s symbolism upon a t t i t u d e s among high SES respondents A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose <*) Support (%) 1m portant 17 .176 .29 4 .5 2 9 Not Im p o rta n t .389 Chi Square ■ 0 . 6 8 2 3 , 2 D.F . , SES 100% 36 .111 Appendix T a b le 48. T o ta l .50 0 100% P > .0 5 Deer h u n te r i n t e r e s t among the SES groups Deer H u n te r I n t e r e s t Medium h igh (%) (%) Low (%) Low T o ta l 126 .770 . 17 5 .056 Medi urn 100% 154 .2 6 6 .695 .039 High 100% 56 .2 6 8 Chi Square - 6.5 0 4 8 , .732 4 D .F ., P > .05 .000 100% 243 * "• > Appendix T a b le 4 9 . Hunter In te re s t The e f f e c t o f d e e r h u n t e r among low SES h u n t e r s Oppose (%) in te re s t A t t i tude Moderate ly Oppose (%) upon a t t i t u d e s Support (%) T o ta l 21 Low .429 .33 3 . 23 8 MedIum 100% 91 .418 .440 .143 100% High 7 .571 .143 .286 100% Chi Square - 3 . 6 2 0 9 , 4 D . F . , P > .05 Appendix T a b l e 50. Hunter In terest The e f f e c t o f deer h u n t e r i n t e r e s t upon a t t i tudes among medium SES hunters Onpose (%) A t t i tude M od er at ely Oppose (%) Support (%) Low Total 41 .317 .3 1 7 .366 Med i um 100% 99 .27 3 .4 34 .29 3 H i gh 100% 6 .333 Chi Square ■ 3 .1 6 2 5 * . 16 7 4 D . F , * P > .05 .5 00 100% 244 A ppendix T a b le 51* H u n te r In te re s t The e f f e c t o f d e e r h u n t e r among h i g h SES h u n t e r s in te re s t A t t i tude M o d e ra te ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) upon a t t i t u d e s Support (%) Low T o ta l 15 .2 0 0 .133 .6 6 7 100% 40 Med’ um .10 0 .425 .47 5 100% 0 H i gh 100% i*hi Square - 4 . 3 0 3 6 , 4 D . F . , P > . 0 5 Appendix T a b l e 52 . SES The p r o p o r t i o n o f f e l l o w - w o r k e r s who hu nt de er among the SES groups Low (%) P r o p o r t i o n o f . Fel low-Workers Who Hunt Med Ium H1gh Total (%) (%) Low 116 .276 .293 .431 Med!um 100% 142 .211 .317 .47 2 High 100% 53 .2 8 3 Chi Sqaure - 6.1484 , .226 4 D .F ., P > .05 .491 100% 24 5 Appendix T a b le 5 3 . SES The p r o p o r t i o n o f c lo s e t h e SES group s f r i e n d s who h u n t d e e r among Proportion o f Close Friends Who Hunt Med i um T o ta l High <%) (%) Low (%) Low 125 .304 .136 .5 60 Med Ium 100% 151 .570 .18 5 .2 45 100% 56 High .2 8 6 .174 .53 6 100% Chi Square ■ 8 . 6 7 3 0 , 4 D . F . , P > .05 Appendix T a b le 54. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p o s i t i o n o f r e l a t i v e s o f respondents from th e t h r e e SES groups Pos i t i on M ajority Support (%) Major! ty Oppose (%) SES Low T o ta l 90 .811 .189 Medi um 100% 107 .738 .262 High 100% 38 .68 4 Chi Square - 2.7332, 2 D .F ., .31 6 P > .05 100% 246 Appendix T a b le 5 5 . R e la ti ve's Pos i t i on The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a t t i t u d e s o f low SES h u nt e rs and the predominant a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r relative s Oppose (%) A ttitud e M o d e r a t e ly Oppose (%) Support (%) Total M a j o r i ty Opposed 69 .435 .07 2 .493 100% M ajority Support 17 .1 1 8 .353 Chi Square ■ 21 . 7 5 4 5 . 2 D. F . , P< - Appendix T a b l e 5 6 . R e la tiv e 's Pos11 i on .5 29 .001 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the a t t i t u d e s o f medium SES h u n te rs and t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r r e l a t i ves Oppose (%) A ttitude Mocierately Oppose (%) Support (%) Total 76 Majori ty Oppose .3 2 9 .4 7 4 .1 9 7 M a jo r i t y Support 100% 26 .11 5 Chi 100% Square - 16.2777. .269 2 D . F . , P< = .615 .001 100% 247 A p p e n d i x T a b l e 57« Re 1a t i v e 1s Pos i t i on T he r e l a t i o n s h i p be t w e e n t h e a t t i t u d e s o f h i g h SES h u n t e r s and t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r r e l a t i v e s A t t i tude M o d erately Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (%) T o ta l 26 M a jo ri ty Oppose .462 .154 .385 100% 12 M ajori ty Support .000 .250 .750 100% Chi Square = 4 . 9 6 9 2 , 2 D . F . , P > .05 Appendix T a b le 58. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p o s i t i o n o f f e l l o w -w ork er s o f hu nter s from the t h r e e SES groups M a jo r i ty Oppose (%) SES Po 11cy Pos11 ton o f F e l 1ow-Worke rs Ma jo r! ty Support T o ta l (%) Low 82 .8 7 8 .122 Medi um 100% 111 .775 .225 High 100% 30 .667 Chi Square = 6 . 8 4 6 3 , 2 D .F ., .33 3 P< - .05 100% 2**8 Appendix T a b le 5 9 . P o lic y P o s i t io n o f F e llo w Wo rke rs The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e a t t i t u d e s o f low SES h u n t e r s and t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r f e l 1o w - w o r k e r s A ttitu d e M o d e ra te ly Oppose (30 Oppose (%) Support (30 T o ta l 70 M a jo ri ty Oppose .**00 .**86 .11** 100% M a jo ri ty Support 10 .**00 .200 .**00 100% Chi Square =* 6 . 3 1»92f 2 D . F . , P< = .0 5 Appendix T a b l e 60 . Policy P osition o f Fellcw Wo rke rs The r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e a t t i t u d e s o f medium SES h u n te r s and t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r f e l l o w workers Oppose (30 A t t i tude M o d e r a t e ly Oppose (%) Support (%) Ma jo ri t y Oppose 83 .5 0 6 .2 7 7 .2 1 7 Ma jori ty Support 100% 23 .130 Chi Total Square - 15.9251. .6 52 .217 2 D .F ., P< - .001 100% 249 Appendix T a b le 61. P o l i cy Pos i t ion o f FellowWorkers T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e a t t i t u d e s o f h i g h SES h u n t e r s and t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r f e 11 ow-wo r k e rs A t t i tude M o d e r a t e ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (%) Total 20 M a jo r i ty Oppose .30 0 .550 .15 0 100% 10 M a jo r i ty Support .1 00 .3 0 0 .6 0 0 100% Chi Square ■ 2 . 5 1 7 8 , 2 D . F . , P > . 0 5 Appendix Ta b le 6 2 . The p o s i t i o n o f neighbors among the: SES groups Ma jo r i ty Oppose (%) SES Po 1 i cy Pos i t i on of^ Neighbors M a j o r i ty Total Support (%) Low 55 .85 5 .1 4 5 Medi um 100% 53 .774 .22 6 High 100% 18 .66 7 Chi Square - 3.1479* 2 D .F ., .3 3 3 P > .05 100% 250 Appendix T a b le 6 3 . P o li cy Pos11 ion o f H un tin g Companions The e f f e c t o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t i n g companions upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s among low SES r e s p o n d e n t s Oppose <*> At t i tude M o de r at el y Oppose (*> Support (%) M a jo r i t y Oppose 53 .396 .528 .0 7 5 M a jo r i ty Support 100% 9 .556 .000 Chi Square = 1 3 . 3 3 7 8 , 2 D . F . , P< - Appendix T a b le 64. Pol ic y Pos i t i o n o f Hun ting Companions .4 44 100% .01 The e f f e c t o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n ti n g compan ions upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s among medium SES respondents Oppose (%) A t t i tude Mo d e r a t e ly Oppose (S) Support (%) M a jo r i ty Oppose Total 50 ,4oo .560 .040 Major i ty Support 100% 34 .118 Chi Total .324 S q u a r e => 2 9 . 8 7 5 1 * 2 D . F . , P< » .559 .001 100% 251 Appendix T a b le 65. Po1i cy Pos i t i on o f H untin g Companions The e f f e c t o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t i n g co m pa nio ns upon h u n t e r a t t i t u d e s among h i g h SES r e s p o n d e n t s A ttitud e M o d e r a t e ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (%) M a j o r i ty Oppose Total 19 .1 5 8 .526 .3 1 6 M a jo r i ty Support 100% 17 .059 .2 3 5 .706 100% Chi Square ■ 5 . 4 7 7 2 , 2 D . F . , P > . 0 5 Appendix T a b l e 6 6 . Policy Position o f Cons. Dept. Employees The e f f e c t o f the a t t i t u d e s o f Co n se rv a tio n D e p a r t ment employees upon th e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n te rs wi th whom they had t a l k e d from th e low SES group A t t i tude Moderate! y Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (%) M a jo r i ty Oppose 11 .4 55 .4 55 .091 M a jo r i ty Support 100% 7 . 28 6 Chi Total Square - 0.5343, .571 2 D .F ., P > .05 .143 100% 252 Appendix T a b le 67. P o li cy Pos i t i o n o f Cons. D e p t. Employees The e f f e c t o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f C o n s e r v a t i o n D e p a r t ­ ment e m p l o y e e s upon t h e a t t i t u d e s o f h u n t e r s w i t h whom t h e y had t a l k e d f r o m t h e h i g h SES g r o u p A t t i tude M o d e r a t e ly Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (S) Total * M a j o r i ty Oppose .000 .750 .25 0 100% 12 M a j o r i ty Support .500 .0 0 0 .5 0 0 100% Chi Square ™ 0 . 7 6 1 9 , 2 D. F . , P > .0 5 Appendix T a b l e 6 8 . Po1 1cy Pos i t i on o f Cons. Dept. Employees The e f f e c t o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f C o n s e r v a t i o n D e p a r t ­ ment employees upon the a t t i t u d e s o f h u n te rs w i t h whom they had t a l k e d from th e medium SES group A t t i tude Mode ra t e 1y Oppose (%) Oppose (%) Support (S) M a jo r i ty Oppose 13 .5 3 8 .385 .077 M a jo r i ty Support 100% 17 . 118 Chi Total Square - 8 .6022 , .29* 2 D .F ., P< - .05 .5 8 8 100% 253 Appendix T a b l e 6 9 . The p o l i c y p o s i t i o n o f " o t h e r h u n t e r s " w i t h whom the respondents from the v a r io u s SES groups have talked M a j o r i ty Oppose (%) SES P o l i t y Pos 1t Ion o f ir<5tT7er H u n te r s" M a jo r ! t y Support Total (%) Low 41 .1 4 6 .854 Med 1urn 100% 51 .824 .176 High 100% 16 .813 Chi Square - 0 . 2 0 7 2 , 2 D . F . , .183 P > .0 5 100% APPENDIX C APPENDIX C INDEX OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SUCCESS TO THE RESPONDENT The f o l l o w i n g 66. items were used in the index o f the Importance o f Success Would you t h i n k more h i g h l y o f a f e 11ow-wo rke r i f he got a buck d u r i n g th e d e e r season? Response D i s t r i b u t i o n Yes 129 (38.4%) No 202 No response 5 ( 1.5%) Total If "2 ," (60.1%) 336 (100%) the respondent i n d i c a t e d " y e s , " he was assigned a v a l u e o f f o r o t h e r responses a v a l u e o f " 0 " was as si g ne d . 107. (Hand respondent c a rd ) How do you f e e l about i t when you do not g e t a deer? Response D i s t r i b u t i o n I. Not much b o th e re d 166 (4 9.4%) 2. Somewhat d i s a p p o i n t e d 139 (41.4%) 3. 1 feel 15 ( 4.5%) 4. 1t makes me mad 9 ( 2.7%) 5. Other 5 ( 1.5%) 6. No response 2 ( very d i s a p p o i n t e d Total If I f his 118. (100.1 %) the respondent i n d i c a t e d a " 3 » " " A , " o r " 5 " he was assigned a v a l u e o f "L. J_. 336 .6%) If the response was a " 2 , " he was assig ned a v a l u e o f response was " I , " he was assig ned a 0_ v a l u e . One can g e t almost as much s a t i s f a c t i o n i f he doesn! t k i l l a deer. 254 from a hu nt even 255 Response D i s t r i b u t i o n 272 (81.0%) P a r t i a l l y agree 45 ( 3.0%) 3. Ag ree 45 (13.4%) 4. No o p i n i o n 9 ( 2.7%) 1. Disagree 2. T o ta l 336 I f a "1 " was coded a v a lu e o f 2_was as sig ned . v a lu e was "2 " a 0^ v a l u e . was as s ig n e d . ( 100. 1%) I f the coded A l l o t h e r responses were given a The l o g i c f o r a s s i g n i n g the s p e c i f i c values is discussed in the t e x t . The maximum p o s s i b l e v a lu e f o r th e combined items is 6 and the minimum is 0_. r a t i n g on the The respondent was assigned a h i g h , moderate, o r IMS index accor di ng to the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : No. o f Respondents H igh (3 - Moderate (2 ) Low (0 - 6) 86 ( 25. 6%) 83 (24.7%) 1) 167 (49.7%) Total 336 (100%) low APPENDIX D APPENDIX D INDEX OF DEER HUNTER INTEREST The Index o f Deer Hun ter I n t e r e s t co n ta in s three in d ic a to r s ; number o f days the respondent hunts d u ri n g an average season, wh eth er he reads p e r i o d i c a l s r e l a t e d to h u n t i n g , and i f so, how o f t e n he reads them, and t h i r d l y , what I c a l l o p p o r t u n i t y which w i l l 15. a sub-index o f p o te n tia l hunting be discussed below. Number o f days hunted. The respondents were assigned t o a h i g h , medium o r low c l a s s relative to t h i s v a r i a b l e acco rd in g to the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a . 95. Low - 1 - 5 days Medium - 6 - 1 0 High - o v e r 10 days days Reading h u n ti n g p e r i o d i c a l s . Low - Never reads such p e r i o d i c a l s Medium - O c c a s i o n a l l y reads such periodicals High - R e g u l a r l y reads h u n ti n g periodicals Potential I t was f e l t h u nt in g o p p o r t u n i t y . t h a t some measure o f th e a c t u a l the respondent has done r e l a t i v e amount o f de er h u n ti n g to th e amount he could t h e o r e t i c a l l y have done would f u r n i s h one measure o f his in te re s t. In o t h e r words, i f a h u n t e r is k5 years o l d , he could under Michigan law have hunted f o r 31 y e a r s . I f he d i d n o t ta ke up h u n ti n g u n t i l he hunts o n l y one y e a r o u t o f e v e r y f i v e y e a r s , taken as one i n d i c a t o r o f h i s in terest. 25 6 he was AO o r i f then t h i s could be Granted a h u n t e r could take 257 up the s p o r t a t 35 and become e x t r e m e l y e n t h u s i a s t i c but as Davis has documented^ t h i s seldom is the case. The e q u a t i o n de vel oped was as f o l l o w s : Number o f y e a rs hunted 1 u............ Age - 1k „ ^ , a P o te n tia l hunting oppo rtu nity The range o f va lu e s p o s s i b l e were . 0 such va lu e s c l u s t e r e d were d i v i d e d in to a tri-m odel 1.0, pattern. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f These t h r e e c l u s t e r s i n t o t h r e e c la s s e s a c co rd in g t o th e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : Low - .0 - .55 Medium - .56 - .8 6 High - .87-1.0 At t h i s p o i n t th e method o f combining the t h r e e va lu e s f o r t h e three i n d i c a t o r s becomes e x a c t l y th e same as t h a t employed in the SES In dex . C rite ria 1. If f o r combining va lu e s If one inde x: the respondent hasth e same r a t i n g on variables 2. into then assign the respondent has him to t h a t c l a s s . a d iffe re n t t h r e e v a r i a b l e s a s sig n him to th e 3. two o r more r a t i n g on each o f the medi um c la s s . I f d a t a is not a v a i l a b l e f o r one v a r i a b l e then as si g n to a c la s s a c c o rd in g to th e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a Low + High - f o r know v a lu e s : Medium Low + Medium ■* Medium Medium + High = High ^ Davi s , p. 2 Fourteen 11. is t h e minimum l e g a l age f o r d e e r h u n t i n g in M ic hi g an . 258 If d a ta is a v a i l a b l e f o r o n ly one v a r i a b l e then a s s ig n th a t v a lu e c la s s to th e resp o n d en t. The d i s t r i b u t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o th e in d e x i s : Response D i s t r i b u t i o n Low - 67 (19.93) Medium - 239 (7 1.1*) H igh - 30 ( 9 .0 *) Total 336 (100*)