INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Micixjfilms International 3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D . A N N A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O N D O N WC 1 R 4 E J , E N G L A N D 8117278 W e s t f a l l , R ic h a r d D e n n is HUNTING SITE SELECTION: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WITH APPLICATION TO MICHIGAN’S PUBLIC ACCESS STAMP PROGRAM Michigan Stale University University Microfilms International PH.D. 1981 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all c a s e s this material has been filmed in the best possible way from th e available copy. Problems encountered with this docum ent have b een identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______ 3. Photographs with dark background______ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. P ag es with black marks, not original copy______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p ag e______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirem ents______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_____ 11. P a g e (s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. P a g e (s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only a s text follows. 13. Two pages num bered___________ . Text follows. 14. 15. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s______ O ther_______________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International HUNTING SITE SELECTION: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WITH APPLICATION TO MICHIGAN'S PUBLIC ACCESS STAMP PROGRAM By Richard Dennis Westfall A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry 1980 ABSTRACT HUNTING SITE SELECTION: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WITH APPLICATION TO MICHIGAN'S PUBLIC ACCESS STAMP PROGRAM By Richard D. Westfall Hunters and wildlife managers are concerned with the reduction in hunting opportunities on privately-owned, rural land in southern lower Michigan. In response to this concern, the Public Access Stamp (PAS) Program was established by Public Act 373 of 1976. The PAS Program authorizes the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to require all who hunt in southern lower Michigan (DNR zone 3) to purchase a "Public Access Stamp." The revenues generated from the sale of such stamps is used to "lease" land from private landowners in zone 3 for public hunting. The purposes of the study reported herein were to (1) determine the need for the PAS Program— were urban hunters without rural land contacts (PAS Program clients) dissatis­ fied with the number of hunting opportunities available to them, (2) profile zone 3 hunters on the basis of their characteristics and behavior and determine if PAS Program clients differ from other zone 3 hunters, (3) investigate Richard D. Westfall the hunting site selection (HSS) process of zone 3 hunters and determine if they could be segmented on the basis of how they select hunting sites, and (4) to evaluate the PAS Program in 1977-78 from the hunters' perspective. Research literature on hunting, private lands and less than fee simple land acquisition techniques, hunter access program evaluations, and hunters was reviewed. This liter­ ature pointed to the need to generate information specific to zone 3 hunters and the PAS Program in order to meet the objectives of the study. A HSS model was developed based on a consumer behavior approach to study the hunter's decision strategy in selec­ ting a hunting site. The model consisted of five HSS decision strategies: "habit", "systematic", "satisfice", and "important feature." strategies "recommended", Three decision (systematic, recommended and a combination of satisfice and important feature) were hypothesized to be predictable using eight characteristic and behavior vari­ ables . Three research hypotheses were postulated relating to the first three study objectives. To meet the study objec­ tives and test the research hypotheses, a survey of zone 3 hunters was conducted in the Spring of 1978. methods consisted of Research (1) identifying the population to be surveyed and selecting a sample, (2) developing a survey instrument and pretesting it, (3) administering the survey instrument to the sample, and (4) data coding, transfer to 2 Richard D. Westfall computer and analysis. The study population was all zone 3 hunters, estimated to number 515,000 in 1977, and the sample consisted of 1,078 hunters residing in or near zone 3 who had been previously surveyed by the DNR in one of its game surveys. The survey instrument was a self-administered, mailed questionnaire and three mailings were utilized to elicit a response by 641 hunters. The data were analyzed using computer programs available in the Statistical Pack­ age for the Social Sciences. The results of the survey indicated that respondents (1) lived in a rural setting, experience, (2) had considerable hunting (3) hunted small game most often, (4) hunted all day on opening day and week-ends after opening day, but hunted afternoons on week days after opening day, hunted within a 15 mile drive of their home, one other hunter, (5) (6) hunted with (7) hunted for a variety of reasons (get­ ting out-of-doors the most important and killing game the least important), (8) obtained information on places to hunt from others, (9) utilized a variety of types of infor­ mation to select hunting sites, and (1) selected hunting sites on the basis of one important feature. In terms of the PAS Program, respondents (1) first learned of the Program when they bought their hunting license, and (2) did not attempt to find out about the Program, (3) suggested the Program be discontinued. Of the three research hypotheses postulated, two were accepted and one only partially accepted. The results of Richard D. Westfall testing the hypotheses indicated a need for the PAS Program and that hunters can be segmented on the basis of their HSS decision strategy as conceptualized in this study. The analysis of the PAS Program emphasized the role of marketing the Program. It was recommended that in the future more land close to the PAS Program's client group— urban hunters— be leased. Providing lists of participating landowners for distribution at hunting license dealers was also recommended along with more evaluation of dealers' performance. Including information on the type of hunting opportunity available at a PAS Program property was sug­ gested to minimize hunter inconvenience. Elimination or modification of the Hunter Access Tag requirement was recom­ mended due to hunters' adverse reaction to it. It was sug­ gested to alter the "disagreeable" aspects of the PAS Program rather than discontinue it entirely. A number of recommendations regarding future research on the PAS Program and HSS were made. In terms of the PAS Program, a future duplication of this study, measurement of Program inputs and outputs and an investigation of the impact of the Program on its target market were recommended. In terms of H S S , the use of experimental research methods, more exact specification and measurement of variables related to HSS, substantiation of this study's findings with respect to HSS and the examination of other variables expec­ ted to be related to HSS were recommended. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the generous assistance of many individ­ uals. First, I would like to thank Dr. Donald Holecek for his support and encouragement throughout my graduate pro­ gram. Dr. Holecek's willingness to actively participate in the development and execution of the study is appreci­ ated. I would also like to recognize the contribution of the other members of my graduate committee, Dr. Robert Marty, Dr. Lee James and Dr. Anthony Koo. A number of individuals in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources were instrumental in the study. Arlow Boyce, Marvin Cooley and John Urbain, Public Access Stamp Program administrators, were willing to involve the re­ search team in the Program. Keith Heezen, Glen Belyea and Ed Langenau of the Rose Lake Wildlife Research Center assisted in determining the direction of the study. Joyce Meister, Larry Ryel and Louis Hawn of the Office of Sur­ veys and Statistics contributed to the development of the survey sampling frame. The efforts of the staff of Michigan State University's Department of Park and Recreation Resources' Recreation Research and Planning Unit are sincerely appreciated, par­ ticularly Jean Geis and Fran Piper. Finally, I would like to thank the 641 respondents to the "MSU Hunter Study" for their cooperation and interest. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 1.1 Introduction to the P r o b l e m .............. 1 1.2 Alternative Means of Maintaining Hunting Opportunities .................. 3 Michigan's Public Access Stamp Program ................................. 6 1.3 II. III. 1 1.4 Study Purpose and Objectives 13 1.5 Study Limitations ......................... 16 1.6 Organization of the Dissertation . . . . 17 LITERATURE REVIEW............................... 19 2.1 Introduction............................... 19 2.2 Hunting, Private Lands and Less Than Fee Simple Land Acquisition T e c h n i q u e s ............................. 19 2.3 Hunter Access Program Evaluations . . . . 22 2.4 H u n t e r s .................................... 26 2.5 C o n c l u s i o n s ............................... 30 RESEARCH M O D E L ................................. 31 3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................. 31 3.2 Hunting Site S e l e c t i o n .................. 32 3.3 Insights from Consumer Behavior R e s e a r c h ............................... 40 Hunting Site Selection Model 41 3.4 iii ........... Page IV. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES AND METHODS I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................. 47 4.2 Research Hypotheses ...................... 47 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.3 Research Hypothesis 1: The PAS Program is Needed ... 48 Research Hypothesis 2: PAS Program Clients Differ From Other Zone 3 Hunters ... 50 Research Hypothesis 3: Hunters Can be Segmented on Their HSS Decision Strategy . . 52 Research Methods ........................ 4.3.1 S a m p l i n g ....................... 4.3.2 Development of the Survey I n s t r u m e n t ................. 4.3.3 4.3.4 59 60 66 Administration of the Survey Instrument and Response Rate . . Data Transfer and Analysis P r o c e d u r e ................... RESULTS OF THE S U R V E Y ................... 68 70 71 5.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n .......... 71 5.2 Zone 3 Hunters' Characteristics, Behavior and Motivations ............. 71 Zone 3 Hunters' Knowledge of, Experiences With and Reactions to the PAS Program . 86 5.3 5.4 VI. 47 4.1 4.2.1 V. ............. C o n c l u s i o n s ........................... TESTING THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 97 .......... 6.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n .......................... 103 6.2 Hypothesis Test R e s u l t s ............... 103 6.2.1 6.2.2 Research Hypothesis 1: The PAS Program is Needed ... Research Hypothesis 2: PAS Program Clients Differ From Other Zone 3 H u n t e r s ......... 104 iv 103 103 Page 6.2.3 6.3 VII. Research Hypothesis 3: Hunters can be Segmented on Their HSS Decision Strategy . . 113 C o n c l u s i o n s ............................. 124 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 127 7.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................... 127 7.2 Summary . . . . . . . . 7.3 Analysis of the PAS P r o g r a m ........... 130 7.4 ................. 127 7.3.1 PAS Program Properties Leased 7.3.2 Content and Availability of PAS Program Information ........... 135 7.3.3 PAS Program Hunter REquirements 142 7.3.4 H u n ters' Reaction to the PAS P r o g r a m ...................... 143 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . 134 144 LIST OF R E F E R E N C E S ...................................... 146 APPENDICES A. Public Act 373 of 1976 ......................... 156 B. Wildlife Division Letter to Landowners . . . . 158 C. List of L a n d o w n e r s ........................... 159 D. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ................................ 160 E. First Cover Letter ............................. 164 F. Reminder Postcard ............................. 165 G. Second Cover Letter ........................... 166 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Residence of R e s p o n d e n t s ........................ 2. Respondents' 1977-78 Hunting License and S t a m p s ................................... 75 Respondents' Number of Days Hunted by Type of Game and Type of P r o p e r t y ............... 76 3. 4. Respondents' Type of Game H u n t e d ......... .. 5. Respondents' Time of Day Hunted by Opening Day, Week Days After Opening Day and Week-ends After Opening Day ............... . 72 77 78 6. Respondents' Travel Time to H u n t .......... 7. Respondents' Hunting Group Size 8. Respondents' Motivations for Hunting ......... 82 9. Respondents' Type of Information Source . . . 84 Respondents' Type of Hunting Site I n f o r m a t i o n ................................. 85 Respondents' Method of Hunting Site S e l e c t i o n ................................... 87 How Respondents First Learned of the PAS P r o g r a m ............. 88 Reasons Why Respondents Did Not Try to Find Out About the PAS P r o g r a m .................. 89 Reasons Why Respondents Did Not Obtain List of Participating Landowners ............... 90 Reasons Why Respondents Felt List of Participating Landowners Did Not Have Enough Information On I t .................... 92 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. vi .............. 80 81 Table 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Page Reasons Why Respondents Did Not Hunt on PAS Program Properties ...................... 93 Reasons Why Respondents Hunted on PAS Program Properties .......................... 95 Respondents' Descriptions of PAS Program P r o p e r t i e s ................................... 96 Respondents' Descriptions of Participating L a n d o w n e r s ................................... 98 Respondents' Suggestions for Hunter Access Tag R e q u i r e m e n t ............................ 99 21. Respondents' Suggestion for PAS Program . . . 100 22. Respondents' Other Comments by Type of C o m m e n t ........................................ 101 23. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Satisfaction .................... 105 24. Mean Difference for PAS Program Client Status for Variety of G a m e .................... 107 25. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with W h e n ............................... 108 26. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with W h e r e ................... Ill 27. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with W h o ............................... 112 28. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with W h y ............................... 114 29. Mean Difference for PAS Program Client Status for D a y s ............................... 120 30. Classification Results of Discriminant A n a l y s i s ........................................ 122 31. Group Mean Results of Discriminant A n a l y s i s ........................................ 123 32. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients ................................. vii 125 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Page Michigan's Department of Natural Resources Zone 3 ............................. 9 2. PAS P r o g r a m .................................... 10 3. 1977-78 PAS Program Leasing Results 12 4. Hendee's Multiple Satisfaction Approach . . . 29 5. Kennedy's Hunting Area Selection Process . . . 37 6. HSS Decision S t r a t e g i e s ....................... 43 7. HSS M o d e l ........................ 45 8. Example of Two Group Discriminant Analysis Classification Results ...................... 58 9. Respondents' County of Residence .............. 73 10. Respondents' Experiences with the PAS P r o g r a m ...................................... 94 11. ......... DNR Yearly Hunting G u i d e ......................... 136 viii CHAPTER I : 1.1 INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Growing numbers of hunters and wildlife managers are becoming concerned with the loss of hunting opportunities on privately-owned, rural land in southern lower Michigan. This decline is partly due to a reduction in the amount of game habitat but also results from a decrease in the quan­ tity of land open to hunting. Habitat losses have occurred primarily because of new farming practices designed to increase yields and farm income, i.e., consolidation of farms, single crop special­ ization, fall plowing, and advanced farming technology including the use of herbicides and pesticides. As one source describes it, Key habitat areas ... are disappearing, partic­ ularly wetlands and upland nesting and feeding areas. The past decade saw a 26 percent decline in the number of farms ... wildlife habitat experienced an even greater loss as the small field borders were eliminated and fall plowing left no winter habitat on thousands of acres (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1975a). The reduction in private land open to hunting is due to three major factors— urbanization, hunting restriction laws, and the closure and posting of private land. According to a recent article in Michigan Out-of-Doors (Michigan United Conservation Clubs 1974), it is estimated that 1.5 million acres of rural land have been lost to urban sprawl. An additional 2.5 million acres have been closed to hunting as a result of the Hunting Safety Zone Act (Public Act 157 of 1968). It is estimated that over two million acres of private, rural land are posted against hunting. Two recent studies of landowners in southern lower Michigan suggest that closure may be associated with land­ owners' high level of concern with such problems as damage, liability and control (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1975b and Westfall 1975). Of Michigan's roughly 36.5 million total acres, it is estimated that approximately 9.3 million acres, or onequarter, is no longer available for public hunting an United Conservation Clubs 1974). (Michi- This decrease in hunting opportunities on privately-owned, rural land in southern lower Michigan would be less serious if there was sufficient public hunting land available to hunters. In y Michigan, however, the vast majority of public land open to hunting is in the northern lower Peninsula and the upper Peninsula, two to five hundred miles away from most Michigan hunters who reside in the southern portion of the lower peninsula, referred to as southern lower Michigan. Since the 19 3 0 's, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has administered a Game and Wildlife Area Acquisition Program and currently there are 46 areas totalling 214,150 acres located in southern lower Michigan. Even this total is considered inadequate to meet the needs of Michigan's hunters (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1975a). Furthermore, this southern lower Michigan public hunting land generally offers poor hunting conditions in compari­ son to privately-owned, rural land (Kesling 1974). Future increases in the quantity or quality of the Game and Wild­ life Area system in southern lower Michigan are not expec­ ted to be great given the rising price of acquiring and maintaining prime game habitat. 1.2 Alternative Means of Maintaining Hunting Opportunities Various organizations including Michigan's DNR have considered and in some instances tried several alternative means of maintaining hunter access to privately-owned, rural land in southern lower Michigan. Educational pro­ grams encouraging hunters to exhibit sportsmanlike conduct while hunting private land have been sponsored by various governmental agencies and private organizations to improve hunter-landowner relations. The programs have undoubtedly been beneficial, but they address only one source of the decline in hunting opportunities— landowner concerns. Such programs do not offer the landowner an economic incentive to maintain game habitat. Cooperative arrangements between hunters and land­ owners represent another alternative. Since 1936, Michi­ gan's DNR has administered a Hunting Club Program known as the "Williamston Plan." Under this plan, farm and other landowner groups join together and operate on a permit basis. Hunters obtain permits at no charge from member­ ship farms to hunt and return them at the end of the hunt. The Hunting Club Program was most popular in 1940 when 116 clubs and 512,949 acres were involved. The popularity of the Program decreased to only ten clubs and 24,090 acres in 1973. Prospects for its continuation in the future are not considered bright Resources 1975a). (Michigan Department of Natural Like educational programs such cooper­ ative arrangements fail to consider all factors contri­ buting to the decrease in private land open to hunting. Fee hunting has often been suggested as a viable means of maintaining hunter access to private land in southern lower Michigan. Fee hunting consists of a "free enterprise" agreement between willing buyers sellers (landowners). (hunters) and willing Under such agreements, hunters pay a daily or seasonal fee to hunt the landowner's property. In a variation of the basic transaction, hunters may col­ lectively lease the landowner's property for their exclu­ sive use. In a study of Michigan's "thumb" area land­ owners, Parker (1975) found less than 40 percent of the landowners he surveyed currently or potentially interested in fee hunting. While fee hunting offers the landowner an economic incentive to allow hunting on his land and maintain game habitat, apparently few landowners show interest in this particular alternative. Another alternative can be termed "hunter access pro­ grams" utilizing less than fee simple land acquisition techniques, e.g., leasing and easements. This approach is similar to the previous one, but involves a governmental agency as a "go between" from hunters to landowners. The agency collects money from hunters usually in the form of taxes or license fees and distributes it to landowners who agree to allow the public to hunt on their land. Michigan, two such programs have been tried. In In 1966 and 1967, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture under its Cropland Adjustment Program offered to pay farmers for removing agricultural land from crop production. Addi­ tional payments were offered to landowners who agreed to permit use of their land for hunting and other recreaational uses. A total of 1,390 farms controlling 28,247 acres signed public access contracts under this program in Michigan. The ASCS also operated a "pilot Public Access Program" in ten counties in southern lower Michigan from 1972 to 1974 as part of its Set Aside Program. 905 farms with 144,609 acres participated. these programs are expected to continue ment of Natural Resources 1975a). In 1974, Neither of (Michigan Depart­ These types of programs appear to be attractive to landowners and hunters possibly due to the incorporation of economic incentives for landowners and agency involve­ ment in coordinating the transaction between hunter and landowner. 1.3 Michigan's Public Access Stamp Program A recent law in Michigan (Public Act 373 of 1976) has authorized a new and different hunter access program referred to as the "Public Access Stamp" (PAS) Program. In brief, Public Act 373 requires all persons who hunt in DNR zone 3 (southern lower Michigan) Public Access Stamp Appendix A ) . to purchase a $1.00 (for a complete text of the Act, see Income generated from the sale of Public Access Stamps is used to acquire and administer public access leases on private land in zone 3 for public hunting. The Wildlife Division (WD) of Michigan's DNR has assumed responsibility for program administration. Unlike the two previous, federally-administered hunter access programs in Michigan mentioned in Section 1.2, the PAS Program is not limited to private land already in another program, i.e., the Cropland Adjustment or Set Aside Programs. In addition, the PAS Program is financed by those who benefit directly— southern lower Michigan hunters. Three major factors contributed to the passage of Public Act 373 as follows: Traditionally rural landowners have allowed the public hunting access to their land. As men­ tioned in Section 1.1, however, there is a general downward trend in the number of hunting oppor­ tunities available on privately-owned, rural land in southern lower Michigan. servation Michigan United Con­ Clubs originally suggested the concept of a private land leasing for public hunting pro­ grams and supported the resultant Public Act 373 largely due to a perceived reduction in hunting opportunities. Traditionally access for hunting has for the most part been free. Today, however, it is realized by many that such access imposes a cost on the landowner, e.g., property damage, safety. Public Act 373 was envisioned in part as a means for hunters to reimburse farmers and other landowners for some of these costs. Michigan's Farm Bureau actively encouraged the passage of Public Act 373 for this reason. The final important factor was the cancellation of the "Pilot Public Access Program" and the public access provisions of the Cropland Adjust­ ment Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In Michigan, many public officials associated with the administration of these programs along with 8 participating hunters and landowners felt them to be a success in terms of providing hunting opportunities and compensating landowners for such provision and felt their cancellation was premature. In several respects, Public Act 373 was seen as an authorization for the continuance of these programs. The PAS Program covers a particular geographic region of Michigan, DNR zone 3 (see Figure 1), which was viewed by sponsors of Public Act 373 and Michigan's DNR as the region most in need of additional public hunting opportuni­ ties given current availability of public hunting land and hunter concentrations. In addition, the Program, while available to all hunters who purchase the Public Access stamp, is targeted at a specific client group— the urban dwelling hunter without rural land contacts. It is believed that this "urban hunter" experiences greater difficulty in finding land upon which to hunt and obtaining permission from the landowner to hunt on this land than his "rural hunter" counterpart. Figure 2 shows the relationship of the three groups associated with the PAS Program. Hunters are essentially "consumers", landowners are "suppliers" and the WD acts as coordinator of the Program. Public Act 373 was signed into law by Governor Milliken on December 23, 1976, and slated to begin Figure 1. Michigan's Department of Natural Resources Zone 3. ARENAC HU R O N BAY ' M I 1)1,. TUSCOLA SANILAC NEWAGO GRATIOT SAGINAW MUSKEGON ST. KE N T IONIA CJ.INTON SHIAWASSEE O A K 1.A N D BA R R Y LIVINGSTON VA N BUR E N KALAMAZOO CASS ST. JOSEPH CALHOUN WASHTENAW 1! ll.LSDALE WAYNE MONROE CLAIR 10 PAS Revenues Hunters i Wildlife Division Hunting Opportunities Figure 2. PAS Program. Landowners 11 September 15, 1977. During this ten month period, consid­ erable work was required of the WD. Procedures and guide­ lines had to be developed to solicit landowners to partici­ pate, lease land from them and market the resultant hunting opportunities to hunters (an example of the WD's efforts towards landowners is in Appendix B ) . With respect to its marketing efforts towards hunters, the WD relied on news releases to local Michigan newspapers, news media, hunting organizations and clubs, and provided lists of participat­ ing landowners and farms to interested hunters (see Appendix C) . Since revenues from the sale of Public Access Stamps were not available to the WD until the end of the 1977-78 hunting season, first year operating expenses’*" had to be provided from the WD's existing budget which was already allocated to existing programs. The combination of insuf­ ficient lead time and lack of funding combined to hamper the PAS Program in its first year. Even so, over 93,000 acres were leased from a total of 472 landowners in 35 counties of zone 3 (see Figure 3). difficult to measure. Hunter response is more Chapter V presents an estimate of the Program's first year impact on southern lower Michigan hunters. "^Operating expenses included salaries, supplies, print­ ing costs and travel. Payments to participating landowners were not made until the end of the 1977-78 hunting season when fees collected from hunters were available. Figure 3. 1977-78 PAS Program Leasing Results. ARENAC HURON 9/1, 5 (Number/Acres) ME CO S T ? 4/9 34 NEWAGO 2/ 237 .4 ISABELLA 6/ 1 , 3 5 5 MONTCALM 34/5,229.6 MIDI TUSCOLA 4/418 G RAT 1OT ;a n i l a c 3 /4 8 9 . 5 SAGINAW 6/ 3 , 3 8 3 10/ 1 ,068.6 MUSKEGON \11/1,702|’ OTTAWA 8/834 KENT 9 8/ 17,145.7 lO'NIA 47/ 8 ,000 .3 CLINTON 7/2, 9 8 6 SHIAWASSEE 7/1,571 GENESEE 2/155 LAPEER 0/0 ST. C L A I R 4/758.8 MACOMB 0/0 ALLEGAN 18 /2 , 2 0 0 VAN BUREN 13/2,123.5 CASS 1/160 BA R R Y 19/ 4, 3 1 2 . 9 EATON 6/1, 0 1 9 KALAMAZOO 6/383 CALHOUN 24/5,140.1 ST. JOS EPH 4/619 BRANCH 60/ 14,152.7 I NG H A M 8 /1 , 5 3 2 JACKSON 10 /6, 3 1 4 . 4 HILLSDALE 16/3,378 1 LIVINGSTON 7/1,620 OAKLAND 0/0 WASHTENAW 3/ 261.8 LENAWEE 4/514 WAYNE 0/0 MONROE 0/0 13 1.4 Study Purpose and Objectives In order for the WD to effectively administer the PAS Program, appropriate information on southern lower Michigan landowners and hunters is necessary. Previous research has generated much valuable information about these two groups but has not provided complete and detailed informa­ tion related to the PAS Program (for an overview of re­ search on hunters, see Chapter II, Section 2.4). Some of this information is of value to administrators of the PAS Program, but other new and specific information is needed to support the Program's development and evaluation. The purpose of this study was to provide the WD with informa­ tion on the characteristics and behavior of southern lower Michigan hunters and their first year experiences with the PAS Program. Landowner research is needed and is being undertaken in support of this Program, but is not reported herein. Given the scale of the PAS Program and its potential impact (both positive and negative) on hunters in southern lower Michigan, it is imperative to determine if the pro­ gram with its current objectives and structure is in fact needed. There is sufficient evidence that the number of hunting opportunities is declining and cannot be signifi­ cantly increased via the Game and Wildlife Area Acquisition 14 Program (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1975a). The important issue with respect to the PAS Program is whether or not this decline has negatively impacted urban hunters without rural land contacts (i.e., urban hunters who do not know any or many rural landowners). Study Objective 1 stated below consists of two parts. First, it is necessary to determine if "urban hunters without rural land contacts" exist in enough numbers to warrant the Program regardless of whether or not they have ade­ quate access to private lands. Previous research has found hunters to be predominantly rural residents (Hendee 1969; Sofranko and Nolan 1970; and Hendee and Potter 1976) . Second, if there is a significant number of urban hunters without rural land contacts in southern lower Michigan, it is necessary to establish this group's perception of the number of hunting opportunities available to them. Objective 1 1. is stated as follows: To determine if the PAS Program is cifically, a. Study needed, spe­ to determine if there exists a significant segment of the total zone 3 hunter population that can be characterized as "urban without rural land contacts" and b.to determine the level of satisfaction this segment has with the number of hunting oppor­ tunities available to them. Several studies have been conducted in Michigan pro­ filing hunters (see Chapter II, Section 2.4). These efforts, however, have not provided all the information 13 needed to administer the PAS Program effectively and effi­ ciently. For example, while information on game harvested is readily available, information on what game is sought, but not always harvested is not available. Furthermore, this previous information cannot be associated with the PAS Program's clients to establish if they differ signifi­ cantly from other hunters. Study Objective 2 is divided into two parts to meet this specific need and is stated as follows: 2. To profile zone 3 hunters on the basis of their characteristics and behavior and to determine if the segment of hunters identified in Study Objec­ tive 1 differs from the rest of zone 3 hunters with respect to their characteristics and behavior. As described in Chapter III, Section 3.2, relatively little information is available on how hunters select hunt­ ing sites. Given the total tasks involved in this study and the resources available to complete it, it was not pos­ sible to completely investigate this important aspect of hunting behavior but it was deemed too important to totally ignore. It was decided to allocate some resources to theory development and testing even though it was highly probable that this task could not be completed to the point that results could be applied with complete confi­ dence to the PAS Program. A conceptually arrived-at hypothesis dealing with hunters' hunting site selection strategy and several factors previously not investigated that potentially affect that strategy was the extent of 16 involvement in this area. Thus, Study Objective 1 can be stated: 3. To investigate some of the parameters of the hunting site selection process of zone 3 hunters and to determine if zone 3 hunters can be seg­ mented on the basis of how they select hunting sites. Although the PAS Program has been in existence for a short time and as such has had little time to meet its objectives, an initial evaluation of the Program can pro­ vide information for improving the Program in the future. Such an initial evaluation considering lands leased, infor­ mation provided, requirements of participating hunters and hunter reaction to the Program was therefore proposed. Study Objective 4 outlines this preliminary evaluation as follows: 4. To evaluate the PAS Program in 1977-78 on the basis of lands leased, information provided to and requirements placed on participating hunters, and zone 3 hunters' reactions to the Program. 1.5 Study Limitations Constraining the degree to which the above four Study Objectives could be pursued were two major limitations, i.e., time and money. Since the PAS Program has a legis­ latively designated six year life span, it was crucial to supply the WD with information as soon as possible. Any changes in the Program to improve its effectiveness will require time to be implemented and time to show results. 17 The sooner any necessary recommendations are made, the sooner improvements can proceed. This time schedule did not permit as comprehensive and complete a study of all factors influencing the PAS Program that the research team and the WD would have preferred. In addition, the amount of money and other resources available for the study limited the depth to which the Study Objectives could be addressed. This lack of funding primarily affected the size of the sample of zone 3 hunters surveyed and the choice of survey procedure. These two constraints should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. 1.6 Organization of the Dissertation The remainder of this dissertation is divided into seven chapters. Chapter II presents the findings of a review of literature associated with hunter access pro­ grams and hunters. Chapter III proposes a conceptual approach to hunting site selection based on an examination of hunter behavior and consumer behavior models. Chapter IV presents the research hypotheses postulated and dis­ cusses the research methods developed to meet the study1s objectives and test the research hypotheses. Chapter V reviews the study's general findings— the results of the survey. Chapter VI presents the results of the testing of the research hypotheses. Chapter VII summarizes the dis­ sertation and presents recommendations for the PAS Program and for further research on the Program and on hunting site selection. CHAPTER II: 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction There is a considerable amount of research literature relating to hunting. The purpose of this chapter is to review the portion of this literature pertaining to the subject of this study. Relevant research literature on hunting, private lands and access program evaluations, and hunters is reviewed in this chapter. Additional research on a specific aspect of hunter behavior, hunting site selection, is reviewed in Chapter III, Section 3.2. 2.2 Hunting, Private Lands and Less Than Fee Simple Land Acquisition Techniques There is a general consensus that in many areas of the U.S. private lands play a crucial role in the provision of hunting opportunities. This emphasis on the role of private lands is prompted by a concern over the scarcity of public hunting lands relative to hunters (Allen 1973; Bond and Whittaker 1971; and Durell 1969), a concern over the rising cost of land suitable for hunting (Stoddard and Day 1969; and Winton 1971) or a realization that private 19 lands often have better habitat for many species of game (Cain 1962) . Research on the enhancement of hunting opportunities on private lands, however, has been minimal. Potter Hendee and (1971:389) recognized this paucity of research and suggested: Research can help with studies defining ... the conditions under which (private land) will be avail­ able or withdrawn, the experimental testing of new access programs ... and the study of factors associ­ ated with access. The realization of hunting opportunities on private lands is dependent upon landowners maintaining wildlife habitat. Stoddard and Day (1971:187) described why land­ owners may not maintain wildlife habitat as follows: Most rural private land is managed so as to maxi mize revenue from income-producing crops— livestock, farm crops, such as corn and wheat, timber or other commodities— and not for such intangibles as ... wild life production. ... Thus there has been a negative economic incentive to landowners to consider these intangibles in their land management programs. Many sources have stressed that landowners deserve economic compensation if hunting opportunities are to be maintained or increased on private lands (Berryman 1957; Bolle and Taber 1962; Braun 1967; Howard and Longhurst 1956; Kimball 1963; Knott 1963; Lincoln 1964; MacArthur 1959; Richards 1964; and Smith 1960). Imperative In the Recreation (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 1974:369), a 21 draft of the nationwide outdoor recreation plan, it is recommended th a t : Incentives should be provided for public use of private lands ... This should include governmental arrangements with private owners of idled farmland and woodland to permit public use of such land for outdoor recreation activities, such as hunting. McIntosh (1966), however, has suggested that there does not appear to be much opportunity in the near future for increased income to private landowners from the marketing of hunting rights (in West Virginia) due to abandonment of farmlands, wildlife habitat losses, increases in stateowned or leased hunting lands and because landowners value open and free hunting. Less than fee simple land acquisition techniques, e.g., leasing, are one possible means of offering private land­ owners a positive economic incentive to maintain wildlife habitat and allow hunters access (Clawson and Knetsch 1963; Kaskaitas 1971; and Mahoney 1975). A number of sources have reported on or called for the use of less than fee simple land acquisition techniques (American Forest Products Industry 1965; Jackson 1971; Johnson 1966; McCurdy and Eschelberger 1968; Sargent, et al. 1958; Scheffer 195; Shaw 1975; Smith and Jordahl 1959; Stransky and Halls 1968; Uhlig 1961; Whyte 1962; and Winton 1971). In a comprehen­ sive report for the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Cain (1962:36) recommended: 22 (T)he States should ... encourage and facilitate arrangements t 2 tween ... (hunters) and private land­ owners for hunter access to lands supporting farmrelated game, and such efforts should not preclude ... land-leasing systems that return to the private landowner a benefit for his economic interest in the land and the game it produces. Less than fee simple land acquisition techniques have been found to be particularly successful in maintaining key game habitat types (Isley 1971; Martin 1971; Meyers 1971; and Wallerstrom 1971). There is some indication that not all private land­ owners favor less than fee simple land acquisition tech­ niques (Taylor 1963; and Waldbauer 1966). The potential for improving access conditions via the use of less than fee simple land acquisition techniques in areas of limited hunter access has not been well documented (Holecek and Westfall 1977) . 2.3 Hunter Access Program Evaluations As mentioned in Chapter I , Section 1.2, two federal programs have provided hunters access to private lands using less than fee simple land acquisition techniques. The first program was operated by the Agricultural Stabili­ zation and Conservation Service (ASCS) as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Cropland Adjustment Program (CAP) authorized by the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965. 23 Approximately 800,000 acres were acquired with five to ten year leases nationwide Nason (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 1973). (1971) evaluated this program in Nebraska and found that for hunters who were familiar with the program and who had hunted CAP lands during the 1970-71 season, 93 percent favored continuance of the program (four percent did not favor continuance and three percent did not respond). This figure decreased to 85 percent for hunters who were familiar with the program but who did not hunt CAP lands during the 1970-71 season (four percent did not favor con­ tinuance and 11 percent did not respond). Only 35 percent of hunters who knew of the program but had never hunted CAP lands favored continuance (four percent did not favor con­ tinuance and 61 percent did not respond). Machan and Feldt (1972) also examined the public access component of the CAP in Indiana and found that improved regulation of hunters was needed on participating farms. Boyce (1967) reported the program's first year results in Michigan and concluded that s significant quan­ tity of land had been opened to public hunting at a minimal cost. Besadny and Calabresa (1967) provided a descriptive report of the CAP public access program in Wisconsin but offered no measure of program performance. The other federal program designed to provide hunters with access to private lands was the Pilot Public Access Program operated by the ASCS as part of the Set Aside Program authorized by the Agriculture Act of 1970. Public 24 access agreements were offered in five counties in each of 10 states in 1972-74.^ In 1972, 1.3 million acres were leased in the 10 states (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 1973) increasing to almost 1.8 million acres in 1973 (Womach, et al. 1975). Womach, et al. (1975:2-5) evaluated the program and summarized their findings as follows: 1. Among the 10 states in the pilot program, the most success has been achieved in states where the need was the greatest. 2. The program has been highly successful in Oregon (where the need appears to be minimal) because it is administered to meet some localized needs of a heavily populated area. 3. The most serious concern of the state wildlife agencies (who assisted in operating the program) is habitat development. Under the Public Access Program farmers are not given an incentive to undertake longer term efforts for wildlife habitat development. Hunting agreements are for only one year and public access is their prime goal. There­ fore, the states do not see the program as a suit­ able alternative to their own efforts at meeting hunting needs or even as a program they can heavily contribute to given its current design. 4. According to farmer estimates, farms in the pro­ gram received over twice as many hunter visits as the nonparticipating farms. 5. Prior to the Public Access Program, 74 percent of participating farmers either allowed the public to hunt without restriction or allowed hunting by permission. 6. Even if the Public Access Program is discontinued in 1975 the participating farmers do not intend to impose additional hunting restrictions. Seventyone percent of these farmers will either allow ■*"The 10 states and the counties therein varied from year to year. 25 the public to hunt without restriction or will allow hunting by permission. 7. Participating farmers like the program and over­ whelmingly want it continued. 8. Nearly all the hunters want the program to be continued and expanded. In conclusion they state, The Public Access Program did satisfy a demand for hunting opportunities. But the improvement brought about was in the nature of a qualitative change rather than quantitative. The program did not substantially increase the number of farms accessible to hunters. What it did was to identify the farms where the public was already allowed to hunt. The program was in effect a marketing service. Their conclusions were based on the premise that the goal of the Pilot Public Access Program was to provide hunting opportunities on land that would otherwise be unavailable. The program's objective was not to better utilize private lands already open to hunting which the program appears to have accomplished. Since the program did not appreciably increase the quantity of private lands open to hunting, it was judged a failure although one might reasonably question this conclusion especially if alterna­ tive measures of success/failure are favored. Brown and Dawson (1977:256) also evaluated the land­ owner "side" of this program in New York. In commenting on the above evaluation, they stated: The ASCS program was generally concerned with providing assistance to farmers, and in-house evalu­ ations did little to determine the overall impact of the program on the problem of public access. 26 Of the various state programs relying on less than fee simple land acquisition techniques to increase or maintain wildlife habitat or access to private lands none have been evaluated to the same degree as federal programs. criptive reports of programs in Montana Wisconsin Des­ (Kent 1973) and (Steinke 1957; and Martin 1971) are available but offer no examination of program performance. Thus an eval­ uation of a state program would benefit state agencies con­ sidering the use of such techniques. 2.4 As Hendee Hunters (1972) has described it, the emphasis in wildlife management has gradually shifted from the production of game ("game bagged") hunting-days isfaction to an emphasis on the provision of ("days afield") to a concern with hunting sat­ ("value of the experience"). With this changing emphasis, there has been a growing body of research on hunters, their characteristics and their motivations. Hunter characteristics have been reported by many sources (Alexander 1974; Applegate 1977; Berger 1974; Bevins, et al. 1968; Bond and Whittaker 1971; Bureau of Sport Fish­ eries and Wildlife 1977; David 1966; Doll and Phillips 1972; Durell 1967; Ellis 1972; Garrett 1970; Gilbert 1975; Gun, et al. 1973; Kirkpatrick 1965; Klessig and Hale 1972; Lacaillade 1968; Lobdell 1967; More 1970; Peterlee 1967; 27 Peterlee and Scott 1977; Plummer 1971; Ratti and Workman 1976; Sendak and Bond 1970; Sherwood 1970; Sofranko and Nolan 1970; and Wright, et al. 1977). Hendee and Potter (1976) have summarized much of this research. They found that hunters are predominantly middle-aged adults averag­ ing only slightly more education than the general popula­ tion. The occupational and income distribution of hunters closely resembled that of the general population. As opposed to the general population, however, a majority of hunters spent their childhoods in rural areas. Hunters were found to be relatively well organized with a well developed communications network. Michigan hunters have also been studied relatively extensively. Most of these studies have been of special hunter populations, i.e., shooting preserve users 1970) , young hunters (Greene (Langenau and Mellon-Coyle 1978), southern lower Michigan State Game Area hunters 1967) and deer hunters (Watson, et al. 1972). (Palmer Two Michigan studies profiling hunters in general are dated at this time and provide relatively minimal management information (Jamsen 1967; and Ryel, et al. 1970). Research indicating hunters' socioeconomic character­ istics has been useful in determining economic values for hunting and in determining hunting participation rates. Perhaps of as much value to wildlife managers is research identifying hunters' motivations. Hendee's "Multiple 28 Satisfaction Approach" (1974) has provided a conceptual framework for investigating hunters' motivations and apply­ ing the results of such research. Hendee's Multiple Satis­ faction Approach is presented in Figure 4. The important contribution of this approach to wildlife management is that game and the act of hunting are viewed as means to an end not ends in themselves. Numerous studies have empirically supported Hendee's contention that hunters are motivated by a number of factors, e.g., success, companionship, exercise (Bjornn and Williams 1974; Brown, et al. 1977; Hauslee, et al. 1973; More 1973; Potter, et al. 1973; Schole, et al. 1973; and Stankey, et al. 1973). This substantial body of research on hunters has pro­ vided many insights on hunters with implications for wild­ life management. For example, the finding that most hunters have rural backgrounds may indicate that as the general population becomes more and more urbanized, hunting may become less popular as a recreation activity. Recent indications that a small but significant rural exodus is occurring may temper this trend (Manning 1975). The research on hunter motivation suggests that wildlife mana­ gers should consider non-game factors in their management programs, e.g., camping facilities. As valuable as this hunter research has been, it has provided relatively little information useful with respect to this study and the PAS 29 General General Specific Model__________________ Example______ _________ Example RESOURCE OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES MEANS OF UTILIATION (how the resource is tapped to gain a product) RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND EXPERIENCES HUNTING AND FISHING MULTIPLE SATISFACTIONS EXERCISE, DIS­ PLAYING SKILLS, COMPANIONSHIP, SUCCESS, ETC. HUMAN BENEFITS PHYSICAL BENEFITS (such as health), PSYCHOLOGICAL BEN­ EFITS (such as self-esteem) PER­ SONAL BENEFITS (such as social relationships), ECONOMIC BENEFITS (such as food) GAME AND FISH 1 I PRODUCT (what is derived from the resource) I GOALS (ulti­ mate objec­ tives of management) Figure 4. I Hendee's Multiple Satisfaction Approach. 30 Program. The hunting site selection process, a focus on this study, has not been of interest to researchers in many instances. The relatively small amount of work in this area is reviewed in Chapter III, Section 3.2. 2.5 Conclusions A number of general conclusions can be drawn from this review. techniques First, less than fee simple land acquisition (e.g., leasing) offer wildlife agencies a means of maintaining and possibly increasing hunting opportuni­ ties on private lands. Second, hunter access programs incorporating less than fee simple land acquisition tech­ niques appear to be as much a marketing program as a land acquisition program for wildlife agencies. Third, the majority of research on hunter access programs and hunters has not provided wildlife agencies with the "marketing" information necessary in order to implement hunter access programs, namely how do hunters select hunting sites. The initiation of this study was prompted by this lack of mar­ keting information. CHAPTER III: 3.1 RESEARCH MODEL Introduction The manner in which hunters select hunting sites may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the PAS Program. If hunters do not normally use or know how to use the information on hunting sites that is now being pro­ vided in connection with the PAS Program, then they probably will not take full advantage of the PAS Program hunting sites available. Therefore, the Wildlife Division (WD) must have some understanding of how hunters actually select hunting sites and tailor its program marketing efforts in such a way that information on PAS Program hunting sites is usable by potential program participants. model of hunting site selection An explanatory (HSS) would assist in meet­ ing this need. An extensive review of the literature relating to the study's subject (see Chapter II) did not reveal a model of HSS amenable to this study's research design and objectives. The HSS models reviewed are presented in Section 3.2 of this chapter. As mentioned in Chapter I , Section 1.4, research resources for this study were not sufficient to allow for 31 32 complete development and testing of a HSS model. Such theoretical development would have required a far more elaborate research design than that used for the study. Even so, an exploratory effort towards explaining HSS was desired. The alternative selected was to develop a hypo­ thesis based on a simplified model of HSS. The results of testing this conceptually arrived at hypothesis will hope­ fully prove of value with respect to the PAS Program and also may assist in the development of needed, larger scale future studies. The Chapter begins by discussing hunting site selec­ tion and some previous approaches to explaining it. It next identifies the dependent variable of interest and those variables assumed to be related to the dependent vari­ ables. The selection process is then described based on a consumer behavior approach. Last, the integrated HSS model is presented. 3.2 Hunting Site Selection Before a hunter hunts, he must know of a place to hunt, have permission to hunt it and be able to get to it. In the past, wildlife managers seeking to provide hunting opportunities on private lands have concerned themselves mainly with the quantity and quality of game on private lands. If hunters do not even know of the availability of 33 private land hunting opportunities, then wildlife managers' efforts to enhance wildlife habitat on private lands mostly benefits hunting landowners. Therefore, the way hunters select hunting sites may be of as much importance to wild­ life managers seeking to expand hunting opportunities on private lands as the quantity or quality of game or wild­ life habitat. Relatively few researchers have pursued this topic. Talhelm (1973:21-22) utilized a taxomic approach in defin­ ing recreation sites as a preliminary step in measuring site value. He states: (D)ifferent recreation resources have different attributes of diverse importance to users. Nearly any recreation resource (e.g., ... a given location for hunting), can be characterized by enumerating the attributes of the associated recreation experience that users expect. For example, duck hunting areas might be characterized by the probability of bagging d u c k s , the species mix of d ucks, the crowding condi­ tions, the type of hunting habitat, regulations, the extent to which publicity has influenced expectations, and other such attributes ... The idea is to use the permutations of attributes to define the different character ... of recreation, in such a way that each character is unique from the user's point of view ... If we have correctly defined and identified the vari­ ous characters, few users will have any reason for not going to the closest site of any given character ... (H)unters or others select the most convenient sites having the attributes important to them, considering the availability of sites having other attributes. Talhelm's approach is valuable in its recognition that recreation sites are composed of a set of site attributes which can be identified and that these attributes attract recreationists. He recognized a weakness in his approach, 34 however. He states: "(U)sers may lack knowledge of the attributes of the various sites, and thus mistakenly go to less advantageous sites." This "lack of knowledge" problem becomes a major con­ cern when recreation sites are unpublicized, i.e., hunting sites on private lands. Wennergren, et al. based (1977:401) relied on a behaviorally (hunting participation) values of hunting sites. approach to develop economic Like Talhelm, they assumed hunters had knowledge with respect to the location and attributes of all hunting sites studied. They stated: "Recreation sites are selected and activity levels are determined by recreationists on the basis of both quality characteristics and location of sites." They examined 74 designated deer hunting sites in Utah. Differences in site quality were hypothesized to be a func­ tion of variation in selected physical characteristics associated with the hunting site including, 1. Ratio of square miles miles of winter range, of summer range to square 2. Ratio of square miles miles of total land, of private 3. Number of deer harvested per trip, 4. Number of deer harvested per square mile, 5. Ratio of number of bucks 2.5 years of age or older harvested to the total deer taken, 6. Total hunter days per square mile, 7. Number of non-resident hunters per and land to square square mile, 35 8. Length of the hunting season as established by state wildlife administrators. Differences in characteristics of hunters using the sites were not included in their analysis. Regression equations were used to identify physical characteristics associated with site quality. Of the eight independent variables included in their analysis, number of deer killed per trip and the ratio of square miles of summer range to square miles of winter range were statistically significant. They argued that, "(t)he potential for a successful hunt is important to hunters making decisions relative to site selection" (1977:405). Wennergren, et al. made a contribution in specifying empirically verified physical characteristics of the hunt­ ing site that influence site selection by hunters. In examining 74 designated deer hunting sites, however, they limited the applicability of their findings to hunting behavior in general. Big game hunting is different in several respects from small game hunting, i.e., seasons are shorter, game is less abundant, hunter pressure is gener­ ally greater, which in combination mean a successful hunt is less likely. Therefore, it is likely hunters expend more effort in selecting big game hunting sites. For certain types of hunting, e.g., deer and waterfowl, Talhelm's and Wennergren, et al.'s assumption of perfect knowledge of the attributes and location of all alternative hunting sites may be acceptable. For small game hunting, 36 however, it is less acceptable to assume that hunters are aware of the attributes and location of all alternative sites. Therefore, relying on hunter behavior (partici­ pation) to define the HSS process associated with such "less important" hunting sites may not be as appropriate. Furthermore, HSS may not be as external to the hunter as Wennergren, et al. suggest. Kennedy (1971) proposed a more complex model of the hunting area selection process as shown in Figure 5. Kennedy (1971:38) assumed that: 1. The area upon which recreation takes place does have a significant effect upon the final enjoyment of the experience, 2. Recreationists exhibit some rational or pur­ poseful site selection behavior, and 3. Motivation is assumed. His model incorporated three major "subroutines", 1. An evaluation process, 2. An appraisal cycle, and 3. A change cycle. The evaluation process consists of matching rewards experienced to rewards expected, e.g., killing a deer. Based on the results of the evaluation process the hunter then enters a change cycle. Once a hunter hunts an area he may return his next trip or change areas. The change cycle represents this latter, searching behavior. Finally, the appraisal cycle is the interseasonal or long run time Figure 5. r 1969 Decision Kennedy's Hunting Area Selection Process. =n Land use APPRAISAL CYCLE Decide Co consider hunting 1966 Desire or necessicy of Rate of search Perception of alternative area a change____ T PRE-SEASON PLANNING Feasible alter­ native within a tlme-dollar budget Number 6 type of potential areas L. CHANGE CYCLE PROCESS 1 I Uhere to hunt 1969 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION n, I with current area (S a ™ '•m PREFERENCE tlASPIRATION SCALE LEVEL EXPECTATIONS uf alternative _n_ areas OBSERVADLE BEHAVIOR Hunter drop-out Experience with alternative areas EXPECTATIONS of current area (Szj)__ & Little desire to change Switch to new urea PERCEPTION of Environmental parameters as QUALITY VARIABLES Return to old urea EVALUATION PROCESS s INTERNAL (HUNTER) FIELD EXTERNAL (ENVIRONMENTAL) FIELD Environmental parameters affecting quality Information concerning r e ­ wards and-drawbacka of alter­ native areas 00 -J 38 period in which benefits of certain hunting areas are reflected upon. In his empirical investigation of Maryland's Pocomoke State Forest deer hunters, Kennedy focused on two site quality variables, namely crowdedness and hunting success (harvest rate). (hunter density) Both of these vari­ ables were found to influence hunters' evaluations of the Pocomoke State Forest. The change cycle and the appraisal cycle of the hunt­ ing area selection process were not empirically investi­ gated to t.ie same extent as the evaluation process. The change cycle, however, is the one subroutine of Kennedy's model that most closely relates to the PAS Program. His focus on the evaluation process and not the change cycle leaves many questions unanswered, i.e., are information sources and information related to HSS? Because of Kennedy's focus on the evaluation process and his lack of consideration of the role information sources and information may play in HSS, his model was not utilized for this study. While the models developed by Talhelm, Wennergren, et al. and Kennedy are of interest with respect to this study, their approaches do not exactly fit the study's require­ ments. The weakness common to all three approaches is that they rely on the assumption that all hunters select hunting sites in essentially the same manner. Talhelm and 39 Wennergren, et al. assume hunters are "economic men", i.e., utility maximizers searching for the one hunting site with the best set of physical attributes. Kennedy's model is somewhat more complex but it is basically an economic approach with a rationality assumption. Unlike these previous HSS models, the basic assumption underlying this study is that hunters select hunting sites differently. A model explaining HSS as a single type of decision was not viewed as realistic or practical. There­ fore, a simplified conceptual model of HSS was developed specifically for this study in which the dependent vari­ able of concern for the model was defined as the hunter's decision strategy— how the hunter selects a hunting site. This variable, Y . , has more than one value, 1 i = 1, 2, 111, n. where n = the number of decision strategies. The general form of the model is, Y. = f(X.) i 3 where Y = the dependent variable strategy) , (HSS decision 1 “ 1, 2, ***? n , n = the number of decision strategies, X = the independent variables (factors related to the HSS decision strategy), j = 1, 2, ..., m, and m = the number of independent variables. 40 Since previous HSS models did not differentiate HSS decision strategies, other decision models were examined. 3.3 Insights from Consumer Behavior Research Many marketing and consumer behavior researchers have stressed the idea that consumer behavior is decision-making (Engel, et al. 1977; and Green and Wind 1975). Cooper (1969:6) postulated that consumers are "risk reducers"'*' and their decisions can be classified as one of eight deci­ sion strategies as follows: 1. Scrutinize Alternatives. This is the solution of rational decision-making. The decision-maker assembles impartial information by using his or her own skills or through "expert" sources, in order to optimize the decision. 2. Use Related Cues. For example, price, company images, etc., are traditionally associated with value. 3. Avoid Hazardous Decisions. The decision-maker can rely upon past experience— "brand loyalty." 4. W a i t . Planning to spend, for example, on consumer durables, can pass through a lengthy "incubation period." 5. Imitation. Following other people's choices exter­ nalizes the risk. 6. Flirt with Risk as in Gambling. That is, deliber­ ately choosing an alternative with a high pay-off value, but which has little chance of success (bargains). Cooper described consumer behavior as risk-reduction— consumers try to reduce the risk of the consequences of a poor purchase. 41 7. Ignore the R i s k . Choose alternatives at random, irrespective of cost, pay-off, or value. 8. Satisficing. "Satisficing" refers to choosing that solution first encountered which meets mini­ mal requirements. While it is likely that most consumers use more than one of these strategies in different buying situations, it is reasonable to expect that consumers tend to use the same strategy when confronting the same buying situation. The eight decision strategies in a sense, form a continuum of consumer decision-making from the consumer expending con­ siderable effort in buying (1.) to consumers expending little purchasing effort 3., 4., 5. and 7.).^ 3.4 Hunting Site Selection Model Cooper's eight decision strategies were simplified into five possible HSS decision strategies as shown in Figure 6. As Cooper recognized, some individuals decide by habit. Others are systematic in their decision-making and resemble the rational economic man. other's decisions. Some rely on Others accept the first alternative meeting their requirements. Finally, some individuals rely Another explanation of consumer behavior with the same decision strategies as Cooper is that consumers have or are willing to expend differing amounts of time to reach a deci­ sion, i.e., some consumers lack the time to compare alterna­ tive products. It is also reasonable to expect that the type of decision strategy varies with the type of product being considered, i.e., relatively major purchased most likely to have major consequences and involve more decision time. 42 on cues to make decisions. These five decision strategies represent the values of the model's dependent variable, HSS Decision Strategy. There are probably a large number of factors that relate to the HSS decision strategy a hunter uses. The time available to the hunter to make decisions obviously plays a role. The study's research design did not allow this variable to be adequately incorporated into the model. The independent variables included in the model were selected on the basis of, 1. Results of the pre-test,^ 2. Previous research on HSS, and 3. Variables specifically selected by the research team. The independent variables were, 1. Years Hunted. It was expected that a hunter's hunting experience, measured as years hunted, relates to his decision strategy. 2. Number of Areas Hunted. The alternatives avail­ able to the hunter, measured as number of areas hunted, was assumed to relate to his decision strategy. 3. Variety of Ga me. The variety of game sought, mea­ sured as the number of types of game hunted, was postulated to relate to HSS. 4. Ki l l . Wennergren, et al. (1977) and Kennedy (1971) stressed the relationship between success and HSS, here measured as the importance of kill­ ing game to the hunter. ■*"The pre-test is discussed more fully in Chapter IV, Section 4.3. 43 1. Habit. Hunt same site(s) every year. 2. Systematic. Gather information on many sites, analyze information, then hunt "best" site(s). 3. Recommended. Hunt site(s) recommended by others. 4. Satisfice. Hunt site(s) that meet minimum requirements. 5. Important Feature. Hunt site(s) that have feature considered important, e.g., good cover, hunting permitted. Figure 6. HSS Decision Strategies. 44 5. W h e r e . It was hypothesized that the proximity of the hunting site, measured as the distance travel­ led to hunt, would impact the hunter's decision strategy. 6. W h o . Kennedy (1971) recognized the importance of the group, measured as hunting party size, on individual decision-making. 7. Variety of Information Sources. According to Eisele (1972) , the number and type of information sources used to obtain information on hunting sites is related to HSS.l 8. Variety of Information. How many types of infor­ mation used, measured as the number of types of information, was expected to relate to the hunter's decision strategy. The simplified conceptual HSS model developed for the study is presented in Figure 7. If one visualizes the dependent variable, HSS Decision Strategy, as ranging from no effort ("habit") medium effort mum effort to minimum effort ("recommended") ("important feature" or "satisfice") to to maxi­ ("systematic"), then to some extent the depend­ ent variable can be ordinally measured. Based on this ordinal ranking, the two medium effort HSS decision strat­ egies, "important feature" and "satisfice", were combined for analytical purposes (see Chapter IV, Section 4.2.3). The empirical analysis of the HSS model is described in the next Chapter. Given the limitations of the survey procedure, only one research hypothesis relating to the model was developed. The model, however, may provide a basis for future work concerning HSS. In addition, the ^Type of information sources was not empirically ana­ lyzed due to the nature of the survey procedure. 45 HSS Decision Strategy f(Years Hunted, Number of Areas Hunted, Variety of G a m e , Kill, Where, Who, Variety of Information Sources, Variety of Information) Figure 7. HSS Model. proportion of hunters utilizing a particular decision strategy may have a bearing on the effectiveness of govern­ ment programs, e.g., the PAS Program, that attempt to pro­ vide additional hunting opportunities to hunters. CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH HYPOTHESES AND METHODS 4.1 Introduction The research hypotheses and methods of the study were formulated in response to the study objectives presented in Chapter I, Section 1.4. This Chapter first presents the research hypotheses in both conceptual and operational forms along with the variables of interest and the stat­ istical technique chosen. The last section of the Chapter discusses the research methods employed in the study (samp­ ling, questionnaire design, etc.). 4.2 Research Hypotheses The discussion of each research hypothesis includes: 1. the study objective from which the hypothesis was derived, 2. A conceptual statement of the hypothesis, 3. the variables of interest and an explanation of their measurement, 4. the statistical technique selected to test the hypothesis and the significance level used, and 5. an operational statement of the hypothesis. 47 48 4.2.1 Research Hypothesis 1: Program is Needed The PAS Research Hypothesis I was derived from Study Objective 1: a. to determine if there exists a significant segment of the total zone 3 hunter population that can be characterized as "urban without rural land con­ tacts" and b. to determine the level of satisfaction this seg­ ment has with the number of hunting opportunities available to them. The significance of the proportion of zone 3 hunters that can be characterized as urban without rural land con­ tacts must be determined by the PAS Program administrator, the WD. Therefore, Research Hypothesis I deals with part b. Conceptually stated, Research Hypothesis I is: Zone 3 urban hunters without rural land contacts (PAS Program Clients) are less satisfied with the number of hunting opportunities available to them than are the other zone 3 hunters. Research Hypothesis I is concerned with both the sig­ nificance and the direction of the relationship between PAS Program client status and satisfaction with the number of hunting opportunities. The variables involved in Research Hypothesis I include PAS Program Client Status and Satisfaction. PAS Program Client Status has values of "Client" and "Other Hunters." 49 The variable was created in the following manner. First, residence status was established by response to question #1 of the survey instrument (see Appendix D ) . Then the exis­ tence of rural land contacts was determined by response to question #7. These two responses were then combined to establish PAS Program Client Status. medium or large city and recording no A hunter living in a (0) days hunted on his own, a friend's, a neighbor's or a relative's property was classed as a "Client." All other hunters were classed as "Other Hunters." The variable, Satisfaction (short for satisfaction with the number of hunting opportunities available), was meas­ ured by response to question #3. Satisfaction had values of "Satisfied" and "Unsatisfied." The variables, PAS Program Client Status and Satis­ faction, were analyzed using the Chi-square and Kendall's tau statistical techniques with a significance level of .05 for null hypothesis rejection. Operationally stated, Research Hypothesis I consists of: A statistically significant (at the .05 level) proportion of "Clients" will respond that they are "Unsatisfied" compared to "Other Hunters." Conversely, a statistically significant proportion of "Other Hunters" will respond that they are "Satisfied" com­ pared to "Clients." 50 4.2.2 Research Hypothesis 2: PAS Program Clients Differ From Other Zone 3 Hunters Research Hypothesis 2 was derived from Study Objective 2: 2. To profile zone 3 hunters on the basis of their characteristics and behavior and to determine if the segment of hunters identified in Study Objec­ tive 1 differs from the rest of zone 3 hunters with respect to their characteristics and behavior. A sizable number of questions on the survey instrument measured zone 3 hunter characteristics and behavior. Re­ search Hypothesis 2 addresses only a portion of these char­ acteristics and behaviors. Conceptually stated, Research Hypothesis 2 is: There is a significance difference between zone 3 urban hunters without rural land contacts (PAS Program Clients) and other zone 3 hunters with respect to, 1. The variety of game they hunt, 2. when they h u n t , 3. where they h u n t , 4. who they hunt with, 5. why they hunt, and 6. the number of days per season they hunt. Research Hypothesis 2 deals only with the significance of the relationship between PAS Program Client Status and the other variables, not the direction. 51 The variables of interest for this hypothesis include, 1. PAS Program Client Status, 2. Variety of G a m e , 3. When, 4. Where, 5. Who, 6. W h y , and 7. Days. For the measurement of PAS Program Client Status, see Research Hypothesis 1. Variety of Game was measured by sum­ ming the responses to question #8 of the survey instrument and had values of "1" to "9". separate time periods: When was measured for three opening day of hunting season, week days after opening day and week-ends after opening day (see question #9) and had values of "Morning," "Afternoon," and "All Day" for all three time periods. Where was measured by response to question #10 and had values of "Within 15 Minutes" (drive of home), "Within 30 Minutes," "Within 45 Minutes," "Within 60 Minutes," and "Over an Hour." Who was measured by the response to question #11 and had values of "Alone," "With One Hunting Partner," and "With a Group." Why was measured by response to question #14 which listed six separate motivations for hunting: getting out-of-doors, the suspense and challenge of seeking game, the companion­ ship and enjoyment of hunting friends, the actual killing of game and taking it home, getting-away-from-it-all, and 52 getting some exercise.1 The values for each motivation were "Very Important," "Somewhat Important," and "Not Im­ portant." Days was measured by adding the number of days recorded for question #7 and ranged from "0" upwards. The variables, PAS Program Client Status, W h e n , Where, Who and W h y , were analyzed using the Chi-square statistical method with a significance level of .05. The variables, PAS Program Client Status, Variety of Game and D a y s , were analyzed using the T-test statistical technique with a sig­ nificance level of .05. Operationally stated, Research Hypothesis 2 consists of: A statistically significant (at the .05 level) proportion of "Clients" differ from "Other Hunters" with respect to their responses for, 1 . Variety of Game 2. When, 3. Where, 4. Who, 5. W h y , and 6. Days. 4.2.3 Research Hypothesis 3: Hunters Can Be Segmented on Their HSS Decision Strategy Research Hypothesis 3 was derived from Study Objective 3: 1The motivations for hunting were modifications of Kennedy's (1971). 53 3. To investigate some of the parameters of the hunt­ ing site selection process of zone 3 hunters and to determine if zone 3 hunters can be segmented on the basis of how they select hunting sites. Research Hypothesis 3 is essentially an empirical test of the Hunting Site Selection Chapter III. (HSS) model proposed in Conceptually stated, Research Hypothesis 3 is: Zone 3 hunters can be segmented according to their HSS decision strategy using the following for segmen­ tation purposes, 1. the number of years they have hunted, 2. the number of areas they hunt, 3. the variety of game they hunt, 4. the importance of killing game, 5. where they hunt, 6. who they hunt with, 7. the variety of information sources they use to select hunting sites, and 8. the variety of information they use to select hunting sites. The variables of interest in this hypothesis include, 1. HSS Decision Strategy, 2. Years Hunted, 3. Number of Areas Hunted, 4. Variety of G a m e , 5. Kill, 6. Where, 7. Who, 54 8. Variety of Information Sources, and 9. Variety of Information. HSS Decision Strategy was measured by response to ques­ tion #18 of the survey instrument and had values of on the basis of) "Recommendations", (select "Important Feature/ Satisfice," and "Systematic Evaluation."^ Years Hunted was measured by response to question #3 and had values of "1" upwards. Number of Areas Hunted was measured by response to question #12 and had values of "1" upwards. For themeasure­ ment of Variety of G a m e , Where and W h o , see Research Hypo­ thesis 2 (Section 4.2.2). Kill was measured by response to question #14, fourth motivation and taking it home") ("The actual killing of game and had values of "Very Important," "Somewhat Important," and "Not Important." Variety of In­ formation Sources was measured by summing the responses to question #16 and had values from "0" to "6". Variety of Information was measured by adding the responses to question #17 and had values ranging from "0" to "10". The variables, HSS Decision Strategy through Variety of Information, were analyzed using the statistical technique, discriminant analysis with a significance level of .05. Following is a short description of the technique. ^Two of the values for question #18, the "Important Feature" and "Meets Minimum Requirements" (Satisfice) HSS decision strategies, were combined into one value (see Chapter III, Section 3.4). 55 Discriminant analysis (DA) is a multivariate statis­ tical technique with the objective of classifying objects or cases by a set of independent "discriminating" variables into one or more mutually exclusive and exhaustive cate­ gories or groups (Morrison 1969). Discriminating variables are selected that measure characteristics upon which the groups are expected to differ. tive of "The mathematical objec - (DA) is to weight and linearly combine the discrim­ inating variables in some fashion so that the groups are forced to be as statistically distinct as possible 1975:435)." (Klecka DA is similar to multiple regression with the exception that in the case of DA, the dependent variable is not metric. DA forms one or more linear combinations (functions) of the discriminating variables of the form, D. l = d ., Z, + d .0Z + ...+d. Z xl 1 i2 2 ip p where D. is the score on discriminant function i, the d's x are weighting coefficients, and the Z's are the standard­ ized values of the p discriminating variables. The maximum number of discriminant functions that can be formed is either one less than the number of groups or equal to the number of discriminating variables, if there are more groups than variables. According to Klecka (1975) , two research objectives can be pursued once the discriminant functions are formed: 56 analysis and classification. For analysis purposes, the number of discriminant functions necessary to obtain satis­ factory discrimination, the spatial relationships among the groups and the weighting coefficients can be interpreted. The "success" of DA, however, is most readily measured by classification. Once a set of discriminating variables is found and discriminant functions formed which provide satisfactory discrimination for cases with known membership, the classi­ fication of new cases with unknown membership can proceed. These new cases can be drawn from an unused portion of the data used to form the functions or from data collected at a later point in time. Classification occurs by the use of a classification function for each group (derived from the within-groups covariance matrix and the centroids of the discriminating variables) of the form, C. 1 where = c..V. + c .0V 0 + ... + c. V + c. ll 1 i2 2 ip p xo is the classification score for group i, the c ^ ' s are the classification coefficients, c^Q is a constant, and the V's are the raw scores on the discriminating vari­ ables. Since there are as many classification scores as there are groups, cases are classified into the group for which they receive the highest score. 57 With an assumption of a multivariate normal distri­ bution, the classification scores can be converted to probabilities of group membership. Assigning a case to the group for which it has the highest score is equivalent to assigning the case to the group for which it has the greatest probability of membership. A priori knowledge of group membership allows a Bayesian adjustment of the probability of group membership. In a simple, two group DA, classification results can be illustrated with a matrix similar to Figure 8. The entry n^^ is the number of cases actually in Group^, but classified by DA in Group^. Therefore, proportion of cases correctly classified. t*ie If this propor­ tion is significantly greater than a random assignment to the groups reflective of the actual proportion of cases in each group would produce, then the DA can be considered "successful." DA was selected among other multivariate methods to test Research Hypothesis 3 because it requires groups to be chosen a priori. Since the HSS model was developed before data collection and analysis, it was decided to utilize a statistical technique that measured the success of this a priori model development. DA does not "form" groups as some other multivariate methods do, e.g., cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, rather it measures the success of using a set of predetermined variables to dif­ ferentiate a set of predetermined groups. 58 Classified by DA Group 2 Figure 8. n ll n l2 n 21 n 22 n2' n *1 n '2 n • iH Group 1 Group 2 a Actual Group Membership Group 1 Example of two group discriminant analysis classification results. 59 To measure the success of the HSS model, the classifi­ cation features of DA were used. cases Sixty percent of the (82 out of 150 respondents to question #18 with matching data on the discriminating variables) were used to form the discriminant functions. cent The remaining 40 per­ (68 respondents) were used as data to test the success of the analysis. Prior probabilities of group membership were assigned based on the number of responses to each value of question #18. Assignment of prior probabilities meant that only a "better than chance" classification would be determined significant. Operationally stated, Research Hypothesis 3 consists of: Higher proportions of unclassified respondents to question #18 can be classified into three groups, i.e., "Recommendations", "Important Feature/Satisfice," and "Systematic Evaluation," by discriminant analysis using the discriminating variables, Years Hunted, Number of Areas Hunted, Variety of G a m e , K i l l , W h e r e , Who, Variety of Information Sources, and Variety of Information, than can be classified by an assignment using prior probabilities of .29, .47, and .24 respec­ tively, derived from the number of initial responses to each value of question #18. 4.3 Research Methods The study's research methods consisted of the follow­ ing (not necessarily in consecutive order): 1. Identification of the population to be studied and selection of a sample of that population, 2. Development of the survey instrument, 60 3. Administration of the survey instrument to the sample, and 4. Data coding, transfer to computer and analysis. 4.3.1 Sampling The public Access Stamp was required of all hunting license purchasers who intended to hunt in zone 3 in 197778.^ Therefore, that group defined the population to be sampled to meet the objectives of the study. Three pos­ sible methods of deriving a sample representative of that population were evaluated and are discussed below. When individuals purchased a 1977-78 hunting license in Michigan (almost all types of licenses) and intended to hunt in zone 3, they were supposed to buy a Stamp. Either the hunter requested the Stamp or the license dealer ascer­ tained if the Stamp was applicable and informed the hunter it was required. At this purchase time, the hunter would write his/her name and address on a "green sheet" which the dealer retained. Eventually these green sheets were sup­ posed to be forwarded to the DNR. In the aggregate, these green sheets indicated all hunters who hunted or intended to hunt in zone 3. Thus, the green sheets would have been an excellent sampling frame for the study. ■^Except for "seniors," landowners hunting on their own property and servicemen home on leave. 61 Several problems would have occurred, however, in using these green sheets as a sampling frame for the study. One, not all zone 3 hunters knew they were required to buy the Stamp. Two, some zone 3 hunters probably knew about the Stamp requirement, but did not purchase one anyway. Finally, in some cases it may have happened that even though the hunter knew about the Stamp requirement and may have wanted to buy one, the dealer was ignorant of the Stamp requirement or careless about selling the Stamps. as of January 1, 1978 The result was that (the date sampling began), the green sheets totaled approximately 330,000 hunters, but the DNR had estimated that around 515,000 hunters hunt in zone 3.'*' The research team decided that this "gap" of 185,000 hunters was too significant to ignore in view of the study objec­ tives . A second approach to selecting a sample of zone 3 hunters would involve utilizing then current license records. (1977) hunting When individuals purchase a hunting license in Michigan they are required to write their name, address and other information on the license form. License dealers save carbon copies of this information and are sup­ posed to forward the carbon copies to the DNR. The carbon copies are used by the Office of Surveys and Statistics as sampling frames for the D N R 1s various annual game surveys ^"Interoffice communication dated February 22, 1977, from Louis J. Hawn, Acting Chief, Office of Surveys and Statistics, to Arlow Boyce, Wildlife Planning Executive, Wildlife Division. 62 e . g . , the Small Game Survey, the Firearm Deer Survey. These carbon copies would have been the second most pre­ ferred sampling frame for zone 3 hunters after certain types of license purchasers were deleted, e.g., "senior," bear, and some procedure were used to obtain zone 3 hunt­ ers . A major problem with this approach is that it would have required a considerable amount of resources to draw a sample. The research team unfortunately did not have ade­ quate resources given the time constraints of the study and so this alternative was not selected. A third method involved utilizing existing Office of Surveys and Statistics' surveys. samples for the DNR's 1976 game Computer printouts of the names and addresses of the hunters sampled for the 1976 game surveys were avail­ able. These printouts were used as sampling frames for smaller samples of each type of license purchaser. Since the resources and time needed to draw a sample from these relatively "clean" lists was much less than that required for the approach discussed above, i.e., using current carbon copies; this method while not the most preferred presented a means of obtaining a reasonably accurate sample of zone 3 hunters. This approach was not without its problems, however. Since the sampling frames were one year old at the time the sample was drawn, it was expected that some hunters had 63 stopped hunting, others not represented by the samples had started hunting, some had moved on and so on. The associ­ ated problems of using the 1976 sampling frames were realized but were considered relatively less important than the problems inherent in the first two methods. In using these 1976 samples, three major steps were taken to obtain the desired sample. The first step was to determine which license types would be included. Resident Small Game, Resident Firearm Deer, Resident Bow and Arrow Deer and Resident Sportsman were chosen. Other license types were either inappropriate in light of the study's objectives, e.g., "seniors," non-resident, or the samples associated with the license type were too small considering the nature of the study, e.g., Muzzleloader Deer. Step two consisted of determining the total sample size. At the time sampling started (January 1, 1978), the research team was prepared to survey approximately 1,000 hunters via a mailed questionnaire. This was a small sample, but resources for a larger survey were unavailable. This 1,000 figure was also arrived at as a compromise between the need for reasonably accurate estimates of cer­ tain variables and the exploratory nature of the study. The process used to arrive at a total sample of approxi­ mately 1,000 hunters was as follows. Based on revenues received, the DNR determined that the number of hunting licenses sold for the 1976-77 hunting season were: 64 1 . Resident Small Game 488,463 2. Resident Firearm Deer 511,158 3. Resident Bow and Arrow Deer 4. Resident Sportsman 56,915 144,269 The DNR did not receive name and address information on all these license purchasers, however, since some license dealers did not return carbon copies of the licen­ ses they sold. From the carbon copies returned, the Office of Surveys and Statistics selected samples from the various license types for its annual game surveys. The Office did not total the number of license carbon copies it received, but simply systematically selected its samples as the carbon copies were returned over the hunting season. Office's sample sizes and sampling rates The (in parentheses) for 1976 were: 1. Resident Small Game 2. Resident Firearm Deer 3. Resident Bow and Arrow 4. Resident Sportsman 4,374 (1/100) 11,540 (1/40) Deer 1,759 (1/30) Varied depending on the specific game survey sampling was f or. Multiplying sample sizes by sampling rates results in estimated totals for license carbon copies received o f : 1. Resident Small Game 437,400 2. Resident Firearm Deer 461,000 3. Resident Bow and Arrow Deer 52,770 65 4. Resident Sportsman 135,970^ These totals were accepted as an appropriate starting point for deriving a sample of hunters for the study. It was realized that these Office of Surveys and Statistics samples did not represent all license purchasers but that detail was determined unresolvable given study constraints and was considered to be of little significance. Utilizing a 0.1 percent sampling rate for the projec­ ted totals above results in a desired sample size of: 1. Resident Small Game 437 2. Resident Firearm Deer 462 3. Resident Bow and Arrow Deer 4. Resident Sportsman TOTAL 53 136 1,0882 Sampling itself consisted of systematically selecting every nth name with random starts, where n = the sampling rate required to derive the desired sample. A final step was to set some form of geographic limi­ tation on the samples since the Office of Surveys and "^The total for Resident Sportsman was derived by aver­ aging the figures arrived at for the Sportsman portions of the individual Small Game, Firearm Deer and Bow and Arrow Deer sample, i.e., for the Small Game sample, 1,346 (1/100), for the Firearm Deer sample, 3,414 (1/40) and for the Bow and Arrow Deer sample, 4,558 (1/30), resulting in totals of 134,600; 136,560 and 136.740, respectively and an average of 135,970. 2 The final sample totalled 1,082 hunters due to the geographic limitation on residence. After a number of resamplings to obtain the desired total were conducted and 1,082 hunters had been selected, it was decided to discon­ tinue sampling. 66 Statistics samples were statewide. Only those license purchasers residing south of a line at the bottom of the counties— Mainistee, Wexford, Missaukee, Roscommon, Ogemaw and Iosco— were included. It was assumed that the number of hunters living north of the line that hunted in zone 3 was small and would not greatly bias the study's results. What this requirement meant as far as the systematic selec­ tion process was concerned was that when the nth name appeared and the address was north of this line, the next name with an address south of the line was selected. In some cases, resampling of the Office's samples were neces­ sary to insure the desired totals. Again, a systematic selection process with a random start was used. 4.3.2 Development of the Survey Instrument Several forms of eliciting the desired information from the sample hunters were considered. The need for geo­ graphic representation of the population and limited study resources, however, necessitated the use of a self-adminis­ tered, mailed questionnaire. The survey instrument (see Appendix D) was developed on the basis of: 1. Study objectives and research hypotheses, 2. Examination of instruments used in prior studies of this nature, 3. Informal interviews with hunters, and 67 4. The results of the study's pre-test sent to 100 hunters drawn from the same sampling frame as the study's sample. Steps 3 and 4 proved to be of the most value in refining the questionnaire. Discussions with hunters and pre-test results showed the need to alter a previous "site attribute" approach to the HSS model and to carefully structure the format and directions of the questionnaire. The survey instrument consisted of four major sections. The first section (questions #l-#5) was designed to provide basic information and separate hunters that did not hunt in southern lower Michigan The second section (zone 3) from those that did. (questions #6-#18) was intended to gather general information on zone 3 hunters focusing on their hunting and HSS behavior. questionnaire The third section of the (questions #19-#30) was designed to elicit information from hunters on their knowledge of, experi­ ences with and reaction to the PAS Program. The last section gave respondents an opportunity to make additional comments and suggestions regarding the PAS Program or the questionnaire in general. Responses to many questions were contingent upon responses to other questions. For example, only respondents who hunted in zone 3 (see question #5) were asked to respond to questions #6 through #18. This "sorting" procedure was used to minimize confusion on the part of respondents not asking them questions that would not make sense to (by 68 them) and also to allow valid interpretations of the find­ ings . Every attempt was made to insure that the question­ naire was understandable and easy to complete. However, some complexity and resultant confusion was inherent in the questionnaire due to the order and nature of the questions. 4.3.3 Administration of the Survey Instrument and Response Rate In total, three mailings were used to obtain an accept­ able response rate. letter The first mailing included a cover (see Appendix E) designed to explain the purpose of the survey and encourage response and was mailed on May 26, 1978. The Second mailing consisted of a "reminder" post­ card (see Appendix F) reminding non-respondents to complete and return their questionnaires and was sent on June 9, 1978, two weeks after the first mailing. The third and final mailing included another letter encouraging response (see Appendix G) along with another questionnaire and was mailed on June 23, 1978, two weeks after the second mailing. The initial sample totalled 1,082 hunters. duplicates Four were (hunters who purchased more than one license type in 1976 and were sampled from each license type) and were eliminated leaving 1,078 hunters in the sample. weeks after the third mailing Two (July 7, 1978), 641 usable questionnaires had been returned and 112 questionnaires had 69 been returned marked "non-deliverable" or "no forwarding address."'*' Thus as of that date, questionnaires returned represented 59.5 percent of all questionnaires mailed and 66.9 percent of all questionnaires received. Response by license type was as follows: 1 . Resident Small Game 230 2. Resident Firearm Deer 283 3. Resident Bow and Arrow Deer 30 4. Resident Sportsman 93 5. Unable to ascertain TOTAL 5 641 Given the considerable time lapse since the 1977-78 hunting season, the use of a sample based on 1976 hunting license purchases, and the need to analyze the data and provide the Wildlife Division with information as soon as possible, the response rate was considered adequate. Some questionnaires were received after the cut-off date, but were not included in the data analysis. Telephone follow-ups of 26 non-respondents were con­ ducted to determine if non-respondents differed signifi­ cantly from respondents. No consistent differences were found based on a reduced form of the original questionnaire. ^This large number of non-deliverables was expected since the sample was based on 1976-77 hunting licenses. 70 4.3.4 Data Transfer and Analysis Procedures The data on the questionnaires were coded onto spe­ cially developed coding sheets. Before the coding sheets were submitted for key-punching the data onto computer cards, 10 percent of sheets were spot checked for errors. No significant or consistent errors were detected. The data were then key-punched onto 80 column computer cards and verified for accuracy. The data were analyzed on the CDC 6500 computer instal­ lation at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory utilizing a package of prewritten computer programs, Sta­ tistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, et al. 1975) and subsequent updated and amended additions (Michigan State University Computer Laboratory 197 8). The SPS system includes a number of statistical techniques and date trans­ formation features that were well suited to the study's objectives. CHAPTER V: 5.1 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY Introduction This Chapter describes the general results of the sur­ vey of zone 3 hunters. sections. The results are divided into two The first section survey instrument) (questions #1-#18 of the includes the characteristics, behavior and motivations of zone 3 hunters. The second section (questions #19-#30) describes zone 3 hunters' knowledge of, and reaction to experiences with the PAS Program. The Chapter ends with some comments on the effectiveness of the sampling procedure and survey instrument. 5.2 Zone 3 Hunters' Characteristics, Behavior and Motivations Table 1 gives the residence of respondents. frequent response The most (31.8%) was from hunters who lived in the country, but not on a farm. Figure 9 shows the county of residence reported by respondents. All counties in the sample area were represented with the highest frequency of respondents (13.1%) residing in Wayne County. 71 72 Table 1. Residence of Respondents Residence Number On a Farm Percent 81 12.9 In the Country/ But Not on a Farm 200 31.8 In a Small Town 10.000) 100 15.9 115 18.3 132 21.0 In a Medium City -50,000) In a Large City 50.000) No response TOTAL (Under (10,000 (Over 13 641 99.9 Figure 9. Respondents' County of Residence. ARENAC HUR ON 3/. 5 (Number/Percentage) MECOSTA 5/.8 NEWACO 7/1 .1 BAY 14/2.2 ISABELLA 5/. 8 MONTCALM 7/1.1 MIDLAND 11 /1. 7 GRATIOT 8/1 .3 TUSCOLA 10 / 1.6 SANILAC 8/1 .3 SAGINAW 20/3.2 MUSKEGON 16 /2. 5 [ OTTAWA 23/3.6 K ENT 44 /7 . 0 IONI A 7/1 . 1 CLINTON 9/1 .4 SHIAWASSEE 8/1 . 3 GENESEE 40 /6 . 3 LAPEER 12/1.9 ST. MACOMB 40/6.3 ALLEGAN 11 / 1.7 VAN BUREN 5/. 8 CAS S 4/.6 BARRY 6/.9 KALAMAZOO 17/2.7 ST. J O S E P H 8/1.3 EA T O N 12/1.9 CALHOUN 12/1.9 BRANCH 4/.6 INGHAM 21 / 3 . 3 LIVINGSTON 11/1.7 JACKSON 15/2.4 WASHTENAW 9/1.4 HILLSDALE 4/.6 _______ LENAWEE 12/1 .9 _____________ — OAKLAND 4 3/6.8 WAYNE 8 3/13.1 MONROE 8/1 . 3 ' CLAIR 10 / 1.6 -J U> 74 The mean number of years hunted by respondents was 17.6 years and ranged from one to 55 years. Table 2 gives the hunting licenses and stamps purchased for the 1977-78 hunting season by respondents. The most common type of license was a firearm deer license. (58.8%) Almost 5 per­ cent of the respondents did not purchase a hunting license in 1977-78 even though due to the sampling method, they purchased a license in 1976. Over 71 percent of the respondents hunted in zone 3. Of those respondents who hunted in zone 3, almost 94 percent hunted there in 1977-78. Table 3 gives the number of days hunted in zone 3 by type of game of property (deer, small game and waterfowl) and by type (own; friend's, neighbor's or relative's; other, private; and public). All combinations of game and prop­ erty received some response with the highest mean number of days (11.7 days) being for small game on own property. combination of game/property with the most responses The (181) was for small game on friend's, neighbor's or relative's property. Table 4 gives the types of game respondents hunted in zone 3. Pheasant (82.3%), rabbit were frequently hunted game.^ (79.9%) and deer (72.1%) Table 5 gives the time of day respondents hunted by opening day of hunting season, ^It should be emphasized that the "popularity" of a type of game is a function of its availability as well as hunter preferences. 75 a Table 2. Respondents' 1977-78 Hunting Licenses and Stamps Number of Responses Percent of Responses Percent of Respond­ ents 375 29.3 58.8 64 5.0 10.0 Small Game 338 26.4 53.0 Sportsman 154 26.4 24.1 Waterfowl Stamp 101 7.9 15.8 Public Access Stamp 203 15.8 31.8 Other 15 1.2 2.4 None 31 2.4 4.9 1,281 100.0 N .A. License/ Stamp Firearm Deer Bow and Arrow Deer TOTAL cl Since respondents could purchase more than one license or stamp, total responses sum to more than 641. 76 Table 3. Respondents Number of Days Hunted by Type of Game and Type of Property Mean Number of Days Number of Respond­ ents Own 5.5 54 Friend's , N eighbor1s or Relative's 5.4 140 Other Private 5.3 77 Public 6.3 103 Own 11.7 73 Friend's , N eighbor1s or Relative's 10.8 181 Other Private 8.6 121 Public 8.0 108 Own 4.8 8 Friend's, Neighbor's or Relative's 5.5 19 Other Private 6.6 20 Public 5.1 36 Type of Property Deer Small Game Waterfowl 77 Table 4. Respondents' Type of Game Hunted3 Type of Game Number of Responses Percent of Responses Percent of Respond­ ents Deer 326 18.9 72.1 Rabbit 361 20.9 79.9 Squirrel 238 13.8 52.7 Pheasant 372 21.6 82.3 Ruffed Grouse 129 7.5 28.5 Quail 69 4.0 15.3 Woodcock 94 5.5 20.8 Waterfowl 99 5.7 21.9 Other 36 2.1 8.0 1,724 100.0 N.A. TOTAL cl Since respondents could hunt more than one type of game, total responses sum to more than 455. 78 Table 5. Respondents' Time of Day Hunted by Opening Day, Week Days After Opening Day and Week-ends After Opening Day Time of Day Number Percent Opening Day of Season Morning Afternoon All Day No Response TOTAL 106 25.5 44 10.6 265 63.9 — 4 100.0 419a After Opening Day of Season (Week Day) Morning 111 27.3 Afternoon 174 42.9 All Day 121 29.8 No Response TOTAL 410a After Opening Day of Season Morning Afternoon All Day No Response TOTAL — 4 100.0 (Week-end) 108 26.5 45 11.0 255 62.5 4 412a — 100.0 aOnly a portion (456 out of 641) of the total number of respondents hunted in southern lower Michigan (see question #5). Only these southern lower Michigan-hunting respondents were asked to respond to questions #6 through #18. Therefore, for these questions, the number of re­ spondents ranged from 410 to 460. 79 and weekday and week-end after opening day. most respondents (63.9%) hunted all day. On opening day, On week days after opening day, 42.9 percent of the respondents hunted in the afternoon. respondents On week-ends after opening day, most (62.5%) hunted all day. Table 6 gives the time in minutes respondents drove to hunt in zone 3. The most common response (39.5%) was from hunters who hunted within a 15 minute drive of their home. Table 7 gives respondents' hunting group size. Fifty seven percent of the respondents hunted with one hunting partner. The number of different hunting areas reported by respondents ranged from one to 65 with a mean of 7.0 areas. Less than half (47.9%) of the respondents reported that they had enough areas to hunt. Table 8 gives respondents' motivations for hunting. The most frequently cited very important reason getting out-of-doors. important (72.0%) was The reason cited most often as not (42.3%) was the actual killing of game and taking it home. Over 56 percent of the respondents usually hunted the same area(s) every year. Table 9 gives the information source usually used to find out about new areas for those respondents who tended to try out new areas each year or so. For those respondents, over 80 percent obtained hunting site information from others. Table 10 gives the type of information these "new area" respondents obtained. The major types of information were 80 Table 6. Respondents' Travel Time to Hunt Driving Time Number Percent Within a 15 Minute Drive 174 39.5 Within a 30 Minute Drive 115 26.1 Within a 45 Minute Drive 55 12.5 Within a 60 Minute Drive 34 7.7 Over an H o u r 's Drive 62 14.1 No Response 14 TOTAL 454 — 99.9 81 Table 7. Respondents' Hunting Group Size Hunting Group Alone Number Percent 75 17.0 Wiht One Hunting Partner 252 57.0 With a Group ofHunting Friends 115 26.0 No Response TOTAL 12 454 100.0 82 Table 8. Respondent's Motivations for Hunting Importance Number Percent Getting Out-of-Doors Very Important 316 72.0 Somewhat Important 99 22.6 Not Important 24 5.5 No Response 16 — TOTAL 455 100.0 The Suspense and Challenge of Seeking Game Very Important 240 55.4 Somewhat Important 154 35.6 Not Important 39 9.0 No Response 22 — TOTAL 455 100.0 The Companionship and Enjoyment of Hunting Friends Very Important 200 46.2 Somewhat Important 170 39.3 Not Important 63 14.5 No Response 22 — TOTAL (Continued) 455 100.0 83 Table 8. (Continued) Importance Number Percent The Actual Killing of Game and Taking it Home Very Important 64 15.1 Somewhat Important 177 41.7 Not Important 183 43.2 No Response TOTAL 31 455 — 100.0 Getting-Away-From-It:-All Very Important 245 56.6 Somewhat Important 123 28.4 Not Important 65 15.0 No Response 22 — TOTAL 455 100.0 Getting Some Exercise Very Important 187 43.5 Somewhat Important 166 38.6 Not Important 77 17.9 No Response 25 — TOTAL 455 100.0 84 Table 9. Respondents' Type of Information Sourcea Type of Information Source Number of Responses Percent of Responses Percent of Respond­ ents Others 160 38.7 82.1 Scout Personality 115 27.8 59.0 DNR 28 6.8 14.4 Landowner 87 21.1 44.6 Media 17 4.1 8.7 Other 6 1.5 3.1 413 100.0 N .A. TOTAL Only a portion (192) of the total number of respon­ dents who hunted in southern lower Michigan also hunted new areas each year or so (see question #15). Only these "new area" hunters were asked to respond to questions #16 through #18. Since these respondents could use more than one type of information source, total responses sum to more than 192. 85 Table 10. Respondents' Type of Hunting Site Information9 Type of Information Number of Responses Percent of Responses Percent of Respond­ ents Size of Site 99 9.8 51.3 Distance of Site 72 7.1 37.3 Hunting Allowed 152 15.1 78.8 Land Cover of Site 126 12.5 65.3 Game and Game Sign 144 14.3 74.6 Crowdedness of Site 111 11.0 57.5 Others' Luck at Site 104 10.3 53.9 78 7.7 40.4 114 11.3 59.1 7 .7 3.6 1,007 100.0 N.A. Water on Site Food and Cover for Game on Site Other TOTAL a Since respondents could use more than one type of information, total responses sum to more than 195. 86 if hunting was allowed (78.9%), the presence of game and game sign (74.6%) and the type of land cover (65.3%). Table 11 gives the method of hunting site selection these new area respondents usually used. The most often cited (37.0%) method was the important feature method. 5.3 Zone 3 Hunters' Knowledge o f , Experiences with and Reaction to the PAS Program Almost three fourths (73.9%) of the respondents knew of the PAS Program before completing the questionnaire."*" Table 12 gives the manner by which respondents who knew about the Program first learned of it. (42.1%) The largest portion learned about it when they purchased their hunting license. Of those respondents that knew about the PAS Program, only 23.8 percent made some attempt to find out about any properties in the Program. Table 13 gives the reasons why some respondents did not make any attempt to find out about any PAS Program properties. half For these respondents, almost (47.3%) reported that they already had enough areas to hunt. Of those respondents that tried to find out about PAS Program properties, 41.8 percent did obtain a list of par­ ticipating landowners. Table 14 gives the reasons why some respondents did not get a list. dents Most of these respon­ (57.1%) could not figure out how to get one. 87 Table 11. Respondents' Method of Hunting Site Selection Method Number Percent Recommended by Other 55 28.6 Meets Minimum Requirement 17 8.9 Systematically Gather Information 46 24.0 Has Important Feature 71 37.0 Other 3 1.6 No Response 3 — TOTAL 195 100.1 88 Table 12. How Respondents First Learned of the PAS Program How First Learned of Program When Bought License Number Percent 197 42.1 84 17.9 2 .4 166 35.5 13 2.8 Other 6 1.3 No Response 5 — Someone Told Hunted Program Property Media DNR TOTAL 473a 100.0 aOnly a portion (470 out of 641) of the total number of respondents were aware of the PAS Program (see question #19). Only these "aware of the :PAS Program" hunters were asked to respond to question #21 through #30. 89 Table 13. Reasons Why Respondents Did Not Try to Find Out About the PAS Program Reason Number Too.Much Trouble Already Had Enough Areas to Hunt 44 156 Percent 13.3 47.3 Don't Believe in Program 70 21.2 Other 60 18.2 No Response TOTAL 27 357 100.0 90 Table 14. Reason Why Respondents Did Not Obtain List of Participating Landowners Reason Too Much Trouble Number Percent 7 12.5 32 57.1 6 10.7 Other 11 19.6 No Response 7 Could Not Figure Out How to Get One Could Not Wait for One TOTAL 63 99.9 91 Of those respondents that did obtain a list of par­ ticipating landowners, 59.1 percent reported that the list did have enough information on it. Table 15 gives the reasons why some respondents felt the list did not have enough information on it. reasons The two most frequently cited (23.5% each) were the lack of maps and the lack of land cover information. Of those respondents that obtained a list of partici­ pating landowners, over half PAS Program properties. (54.7%) hunted on one or more Table 16 gives the reasons why some respondents did not hunt on a Program property. two most often given reasons The (16.7% each) were the trouble involved and the availability of adequate hunting areas already. Figure 10 shows that of the 470 respondents in the sample who were aware of the PAS Program, only 29 eventu­ ally hunted on a PAS Program property. It is evident that some of the 441 respondents that did not eventually hunt on a Program property did try to find out about a property and get a list of participating landowners. Table 17 gives the reasons why respondents hunted on PAS Program properties. Most respondents looking for a new area to hunt. (48.1%) were Table 18 gives these "PAS Program property hunters'" descriptions of the property(s) they hunted. Almost 70 percent described the properties as either good or fair. 92 Table 15. Reasons Why Respondents Felt List of Partici­ pating Landowners Did Not Have Enough Infor­ mation On It Reason Number Percent No Maps 4 23.5 No Land Cover Information 4 23.5 No Game Information 1 5.9 No Street Address for Landowner 1 5.9 No Phone Number for Landowner 1 5.9 No Information on When Landowner Would Be Home 1 5.9 Other 5 29.4 No Response 2 TOTAL 19 100.0 93 Table 16. Reasons Why Respondents Did Not Hunt on PAS Program Properties Reason Number Percent Too Much Trouble 3 16.7 Already Had Enough Areas to Hunt 3 16.7 D o n t 1 Believe in Program 2 11.1 10 55.6 Other No Response TOTAL 7 25 — 100.0 94 Aware of the Pas Program 73.9% 470/636 Tried to Find Out About Properties in Program 23.9% 111/464 Got List of Participating Landowners 9.9% 46/467 Hunted PAS Program Property 29/469 Figure 10. Respondents' Experiences with the PAS Program aTotal number of respondents aware of PAS Program minus non-respondents to each question. 95 Table 17. Reasons Why Respondents Hunted on PAS Program Properties. Reason Number Percent Looking for New Area To Hunt - 13 48.1 Curious About Program 6 22.2 Hunted Program Properties in Past 5 18.5 Other 3 11.1 No Response 2 TOTAL 29 99.9 96 Table 18. Description Respondents' Descriptions of PAS Program Prop­ erty Number Excellent Percent 4 14.3 Good 10 35.7 Fair 9 32.1 Poor 5 17.9 No Response TOTAL — 28 — 100.0 97 Table 19 gives PAS Program property hunters1 des­ criptions of the participating landowners. Over 60 percent described the landowners as friendly and helpful. Over 58 percent of these PAS Program property hunters knew of the Hunter Access Tag requirement. Table 20 gives the suggestions with respect to the Hunter Access Tag requirement of the respondents who were aware of the re­ quirement. The largest portion (35.3%) did not mind it. Table 21 gives the suggestions for the PAS Program of all respondents aware of the Program. The most frequent suggestions were to end the Program (23.7%), provide more information on the lists of participating landowners (23.2%)^" and to provide lists of participating landowners to license dealers (20.4%) . Table 22 gives the general breakdown of all respon­ dents ' additional comments and suggestions regarding the PAS Program or the questionnaire. 5.4 Conclusions The testing of the research hypotheses presented in Chapter IV, Section 4.2, is in the next Chapter. In ''"The suggestion, "provide more information on the lists of participating landowners," may have been interpreted by respondents as providing more information on the lists (e.g., the land cover of properties) or as providing more informa­ tion on the lists (e.g., where to get lists). This possibility should be kept in mind in interpreting the results. 98 Table 19. Respondents' Descriptions of Participating Landowners Description Friendly and Helpful Number Percent 17 60.7 Friendly, but Not Too Helpful 7 25.0 Unfriendly 3 10.7 Not at Home 1 3.6 No Response TOTAL — 28 — 100.0 99 Table 20. Respondents' Suggestions for Hunter Access Tag Requirements Suggestion Humber Percent Don't Mind It 6 35.3 Would Prefer to Pick Up Tag Without Contacting Landowner 1 5.9 Would Prefer to Sign In Without Picking Up Tag and Contacting Landowner 4 23.5 Would Prefer to Contact Landowner and Not Pick Up Tag or Sign In 1 5.9 Would Prefer No Requirements 5 29.4 No Response 3 TOTAL 10 — 100.0 100 Table 21. Respondents' Suggestions for PAS Program Suggestion Number Percent Continue Program As Is 34 8.0 Provide More Information on Lists 99 23.2 Lease More Land in Respondent's Area 25 5.9 Provide Lists to Dealers 87 20.4 7 1.6 13 3.0 6 1.4 101 23.7 9 2.1 No Suggestion 46 10.8 No Response 39 Lease Better Land in Respondent's Area Raise Stamp Charge to Lease More/Better Land Lease Larger Properties in Respondent's Area End the Program Other TOTAL 466 100.1 101 Table 22. Respondents' Other Comments By Type of Comment Type of Comment Number Percent DNR-related 62 37.8 PAS Program-related 88 53.7 Questionnaire-related 14 8.5 164 100.0 TOTAL 102 addition, specific recommendations concerning the PAS Pro­ gram are made in Chapter VII, Section 7.3. Therefore, the conclusions discussed in this Section relate to the effec­ tiveness of the sampling procedure and the survey instru­ ment. The sampling procedure used in the study (see Chapter IV, Section 4.3) appears to have been warranted. portion of the sample hunted in zone 3 (71.3%). A large However, only 31.7 percent purchased a Public Access Stamp. Thus, sampling on the basis of Stamp purchases would have consid­ erably underrepresented zone 3 hunters. The structured format and directions used in the ques­ tionnaire also appear to have been warranted since some questions, e.g., questions on zone 3 hunters' experiences on PAS Program properties, were answered by a very small number of respondents (see Figure 10). A more open-ended survey instrument might have caused considerable confusion among respondents. In some instances, it appears that the response cate­ gories of the questionnaire may have hampered respondents by not specifying their actual experiences. Many respon­ dents checked the "other" response category and did or did not explain further. Questionnaire space constraints did not allow for a large number of response categories for each question. This lack of specificity in "other" respon­ ses should be kept in mind in interpreting the results. CHAPTER VI: TESTING THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 6.1 Introduction The results of testing the research hypotheses postu­ lated in Chapter IV, Section 4.2, are presented in this Chapter. Each hypothesis is given in its operational form, the test is described and then the results of the test are discussed. The Chapter ends with some conclusions drawn from the results. 6.2 6.2.1 Hypotheses Test Results Research Hypothesis 1: Program is Needed The PAS Operationally stated, Research Hypothesis 1 consists of: A statistically significant (at the .05 level) proportion of "Clients" will respond that they are "Unsatisfied" compared to "Other Hunters." Conver­ sely, a statistically significant proportion of "Other Hunters" will respond that they are "satis­ fied" compared to "Clients." 103 104 The variables, PAS Program Client Status and Satis­ faction , were analyzed using the Chi-square and Kendall's tau statistics utilizing the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences to Nie, et al. (SPSS) subprogram, CROSSTABS. According (1975) , Chi-square determines if a syste­ matic relationship exists between the variables. Chi- square does not indicate the direction of the relationship. Kendall's tau measures association. Table 23 indicates a statistically significant rela­ tionship exists between PAS Program Client Status and Satisfaction— "Clients" are less satisfied than "Other Hunters." In addition, the relationship was a significant, negative one. Based on these results, Research Hypothesis 1 was accepted (the null hypothesis was rejected). 6.2.2 Research Hypothesis 2: PAS Program Clients Differ From Other Zone 3 Hunters. Research Hypothesis 2, in operational form, is: A statistically significant (at the .05 level) proportion of "Clients" differ from "Other Hunters" with respect to their responses for, 1. Variety of G a m e , 2. When, 3. Where, 4. Who, 5. W h y , and 6. Da y s . 105 Table 23. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Satisfaction Satisfaction with the Number of Hunting Areas Clients PAS Program Client 0 4--a4-n C! DuduUo Other Hunters Yes No Row Total 25 46 71 35.2a 64.8 17.7 12. 9b 22.3 6.3° 11. 5 169 Column Total 51.4 48.6 87.7 77.7 42.3 40.0 194 48.5 Chi-square 5.4733 Degrees of Freedom 1.0 .0193 Significance Non Response 241.0 a Row percentage Column percentage Q Total percentage 160 205 51.5 Kendall's tau Significance 329 82.2 400 100.0 -.1235 .0068 106 The variables were analyzed using the Chi-square, Kendall's tau and T-test statistics. The T-test measures the statistical significance of mean differences. In this instance, the mean differences between "Clients" and "Other Hunters" were compared for Variety of Game and D a y s . subprograms CROSSTABS and T-TEST were utilized. SPSS Tables 24-29 give the test results. Table 24 indicates no statistically significant dif­ ference between "Clients" and "Other Hunters" in terms of the number of types of game they hunt (Variety of Game) . The variable, W h e n , was measured for three periods: opening day of hunting season, week days after opening day and week-ends after opening day. were developed Three separate tables (Table 25, parts a-c). For all three per­ iods, no statistically significant relationships existed between "Clients" and "Other Hunters." Table 26 indicates a statistically significant rela­ tionship between PAS Program Client Status and Where— "Clients" travel farther to hunt than "Other Hunters." The Kendall's tau statistic shows a significant, negative rela­ tionship. Table 27 indicates no statistically significant rela­ tionship exists between "Clients" and "Other Hunters" with respect to their hunting party size (W h o ) . The variable, W h y , was measured by response to six separate motivations for hunting: getting out-of-doors, 107 Table 24. PAS Program Client Status Client Mean Difference for PAS Program Client Status for Variety of Game Number of Cases 71 Variety of Game Mean Value T Valuea 338 2-Tail Proba­ bility 93.14 .614 3.7746 -.51 Other Hunters Degrees of Freedom 3.8994 Separate variance estimate. 108 Table 25. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with When 25a. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Opening Day of Hunting Season Opening Day of Hunting Season Morning Clients PAS Program Client .— Status „ ? Hunters Column Total 3 42 66 31. 8a 4.5 63.6 17.5 21. 4b 7.9 17.4 5. 6C .8 11.1 77 35 24.7 11.2 64.1 78.6 92.1 82.6 20.4 9.3 52.9 242 38 25.9 10.1 Degrees of Freedom 2 .1751 263 a„ Row percentage ^Column percentage cTotal percentage 200 98 3.4853 Non Response All Day Row Total 21 Chi-square Significance Afternoon 64.0 312 82.5 378 100.0 Kendall 1s tau .0168 Significance .3305 109 Table 25. (Continued) 25b. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Week Day After Opening Day of Hunting Season Week Day After Opening Day Morning After­ noon All Day Row Total 18 18 21 57 31.6a 31.6 36.8 15.4 17.6b 11.6 18.8 4.9° 4.9 5.7 Clients PAS Program Other Hunters 84 Client Status Column Total 43.9 29.2 82.4 88.4 81.3 22.8 37.1 24.7 27.6 Chi-square 3.0581 Degrees of Freedom 2 Non Response .2167 272 aRow percentage j_ Column percentage Q Total percentage 91 26.9 102 Significance 137 112 155 42.0 30.4 Kendall's tau Significance 312 84.6 369 100.0 -.0121 .3835 110 Table 25. (Continued) 25c. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Week-End After Opening Day of Hunting Season Week--End After Opening Day Morning Clients PAS Program Client Status Other Hunters Column Total 43 65 30.8a ■u 20.6 3.1 66.2 17.5 5.0 18.3 5. 4C .5 11.6 192 77 38 25.1 12.4 62.5 79.4 95.0 81.7 20.7 10.2 51.6 97 40 26.1 10.8 Degrees of Freedom 2 .0784 269 £ Row percentage ^Column percentage Total percentage Row Total 2 5.092 Non Response All Day 20 Chi-square Significance After­ noon 235 63.2 Kendall 1s tau Significance 307 82.5 372 100.0 -.0033 .4659 Table 26. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Where Travelling Time to Hunt Clients PAS Program Client Status Other Hunters Column Total Chi-square Degrees of Freedom Within 15 Minutes Within 30 Minutes Within 45 Minutes Within 60 Minutes Over an Hour 13 19 7 10 21 70 18.6a 27.1 10.0 14.3 30.0 17.6 7. 9b 18.1 14.9 30.3 42.9 3.3° 4.8 1.8 2.5 53. 151 86 40 46.0 26.2 12.2 7.0 8.5 92.1 81.9 85.1 69.7 57.1 37.9 21.6 10.1 5.8 7.0 164 41.2 a 26.4 36.0816 47 11.8 33 8.3 Kendall's tau .0000 328 82.4 49 398 12.3 100.0 -.2255 Significance .0000 243 K Row percentage 28 4 Significance Non Response 105 23 Row Total q Column percentage Total percentage 112 Table 27. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Who Hunting Party Size With A Group Row Total 44 18 70 11.4a 62.9 25.7 17.6 11. 3b 19.7 17.5 2. 0C 11.1 4.5 Alone 8 Clients PAS Program Client Status Other Hunters 63 Column Total 54.7 26.0 88.7 80.3 82.5 15.9 45.1 21.4 17.9 Chi-square 2.6584 Degrees of Freedom 2 Non Response .2647 244 aRow percentage ^Column percentage cTotai percentage 85 169 19.3 71 Significance With One Partner 103 223 56.2 25.9 Kendall 's tau Significance 327 82.4 397 100.0 -.0324 .2064 113 the suspense and challenge of seeking g a m e , the companion­ ship and enjoyment of hunting friends, the actual killing of game and taking it home, getting-away-f rom-it-all, and getting some exercise. For all six motivations, no statis­ tically significant relationship exists between "Clients" and "Other Hunters" (Table 28, parts a-f). Table 29 indicates a statistically significant dif­ ference between "Clients" and "Other Hunters" in terms of the number of days they hunted (Days)— "Other Hunters" hunted considerably more days than "Clients." Based on the above results, Research Hypothesis 2 can only be partially accepted. 6.2.3 Research Hypothesis 3: Hunters Can Be Segmented on Their HSS Decision Strategy. Research Hypothesis 3, in operational form, consists of: Higher proportions of unclassified respondents to question #18 can be classified into three groups, i.e., "Recommendations," "Important Feature/Satisfice," and "Systematic Evaluation," by discriminant analysis using the discriminating variables, Years Hunted, Number of Areas Hunted, Variety of G a m e , K i l l , W h e r e , W h o , Variety of Information Sources, and Variety of Information, then can be classified by an assignment using prior probabilities of .29, .47, and .24, respec­ tively, derived from the number of initial responses to each value of question #18. 114 Table 28. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Why 28a. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Getting Out-of-Doors Importance of Getting Out--of-Doors Very Impor­ tant Clients 51 72.9a PAS Program Client Status Somewhat Impor­ tant Not Impor­ tant Row Total 16 3 70 22.9 4.3 17.7 17.0 15.0 4.0 .8 V\ 18.1 12.9° Other Hunters 231 Column Total 23.9 5.2 81.9 83.0 85.0 58.3 19.7 4.3 71.2 94 20 23.7 5.1 326 82.3 396 100.0 .1585 Kendall 1s tau .0126 .9238 Significance .3596 2 Degrees of Freedom Significance Non Response 17 70.9 282 Chi-square 78 245 aRow percentage ^Column percentage cTotal percentage 115 Table 28. (Continued) 28b. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with the Suspense and Challenge of Seeking Game Importance of the Suspense and Challenge of Seeking Game Very Impor­ tant Clients PAS Program Client Status Other Hunters 69 56.5a 34.8 8.7 17.7 17. 5b 17.9 18.2 10. 0C 6.2 1.5 110 27 57.3 34.3 8.4 82.5 82.1 81.8 47.2 28.2 6.9 134 33 34.4 8.5 .0162 Kendall1s tau .9920 Significance 321 82.3 390 100.0 -.0050 2 Significance Non Response 6 57.2 Degrees of Freedom Row Total 24 223 Chi-square Not Impor­ tant 39 184 Column Total Somewhat Impor­ tant 251 aRow percentage j_ Column percentage cTotal percentage .4496 116 Table 28. (Continued) 28c. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with the Companionship and Enjoyment of Hunting Friends Importance of the Companionship & Enjoyment of Hunting Friends Very Impor­ tant Clients PAS Program Client Status 28 47.8a 40.6 11.6 18.4 18.2 14.3 7.2 2.1 146 Column Total 126 48 39.4 15.0 81.6 81.8 85.7 37.5 32.4 12.3 46.0 154 39.3 Row Total 69 17.7 320 82.3 56 389 14.4 100.0 .5379 Kendall.s tau .0217 .7642 Significance .2980 2 Degrees of Freedom Significance Non Response 8 45.6 169 Chi-square Not Impor­ tant 33 8. 5C Other Hunters Somewhat Impor­ tant 252 aRow percentage ^Column percentage cTotal percentage 117 Table 28. (Continued) 28d. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with the Actual Killing of Game and Taking it Home Importance of the Actual : K illing of Game and Taking it Home Very Impor­ tant Not Impor tant Row Total 26 33 66 10.6a 39.4 50.0 17.3 12. lb 16.4 20.0 1.8° 6.8 8.6 Clients 7 PAS Program Client Status Other Hunters 51 Column Total 41.8 87.9 83.6 80.0 13.4 34.8 34.6 15.2 2.0519 Degrees of Freedom 2 .3585 259 a Row percentage ^Column percentage cTotal percentage 132 42.1 Chi-square Non Response 133 16.1 58 Significance Somewhat Impor­ tant 159 165 41.6 43.2 Kendall's tau Significance 316 82.7 382 100.0 -.0579 .0795 118 Table 28. (Continued) 28e. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Getting-Away-From-It-All Importance of Getting-Away-From -It-All Very Impor­ tant Clients PAS Program Client Status 21 58. 0a 30.4 11.6 17.8 19.3 14.0 5.4 2.0 57.5 27.3 15.2 82.2 80.7 86.0 47.3 22.5 12.5 57.5 109 27.9 Row Total 69 17.6 322 82.4 57 391 14.6 100.0 .7109 Kendall 's tau .0115 .7008 Significance .3853 2 Degrees of Freedom Significance Non Response 49 225 Chi-square 8 88 185 Column Total Not Impor­ tant 40 10.2° Other Hunters Somewhat Impor­ tant 250 Row percentage Column percentage cTotal percentage 119 Table 28. (Continued) 28f. Cross-Tabulation of PAS Program Client Status with Getting Some Exercise Importance of Getting Some Exercise Very Impor­ tant Clients PAS Program Client Status Other Hunters 29 44. 9a •u 18.7 42.0 13.0 19.1 12.9 8. 0C 7.5 2.3 61 19.1 81.3 80.9 87.1 34.8 31.7 15.7 42.8 1.4266 Degrees of Freedom 2 .4900 253 a Row percentage Column percentage cTotal percentage 123 38.6 Chi-square Non Response 9 42.3 166 Significance Not Impor­ tant 31 135 Column Total Somewhat Impor­ tant 152 39.2 Row Total 69 17.8 319 82.2 70 388 18.0 100.0 Kendall 's tau .0328 Significance .2145 120 Table 29: PAS Program Client Status Client Mean Difference for PAS Program Client Status for Days Number of Cases 57 Other Hunters Variety of Game Mean Value T Valuea 2-Tail Proba­ bility 120.37 .041 17.5614 -2.07 256 Degrees of Freedom 23.9961 Separate variance estimate. 121 The variables were analyzed using the Discriminant Analysis (DA) statistical technique. Chapter IV, Section 4.2.3. the respondents DA is described in For this test, a portion of (82 cases— 60 percent) were used to form the discriminating functions.^ The remaining portion cases— 40 percent) were used for the test. (68 The SPSS sub­ program, DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS, was utilized. Table 30 gives the classification results and indi­ cates that over half of the cases with membership known were correctly classified. icant at the .05 level. 3 was accepted This was statistically signif­ Therefore, Research Hypothesis (the null hypothesis rejected). The DA yielded additional information regarding the HSS model. Table 31 gives the means for the three groups ("Recommendations," "Important Feature/Satisfice," and "Systematic Evaluation") and indicates that systematic hunters knew of more hunting areas, used more hunting site information sources, used more types of hunting site in­ formation and travelled relatively farther to hunt than the other two groups of hunters. Only a portion (192) of the total number of respon­ dents who hunted in southern lower Michigan also hunted new areas (see question #15). Only these "new area" hunters were asked to respond to questions #16 through #18. Of the respondents to question #18, only a portion (150) had matching responses to the eight discriminating vari­ ables. A complete set of responses was necessary for analysis purposes. Table 30. Classification Results of Dscriminant Analysis Predicted Group Membership Actual Group Member­ ship Number of Cases Recommen­ dations Important Feature/ Satisfice Systematic Evaluation Recommen­ dations 8 _ 47. la 6 35.3 3 17.6 17 Important Feature/ Satisfice 2 6.7 20 66.7 8 26.7 30 6 30.0 7 35.0 7 35.0 20 Systematic Evaluation Ungrouped 0 1 100.0 0 52.2 percent of known cases correctly classified Chi-square Significance Row percentage 10.776 .001 1 123 Table 31. Group Mean Results of Discriminant Analysis Group Means Discrim­ inating Variables Recommen­ dations Years Hunted 9.7826 15.1163 14.3750 13.4756 Number of Areas Hunted 6.5652 819302 10.9375 8.6585 Variety of Game 3.6522 4.5116 4.1875 4.2073 Kill 1.6087 1.8272 1.8125 1.7683 Where 2.6522 2.6279 2.8125 2.6707 Who 2.1739 2.2093 2.0000 2.1585 Variety of InforMation Sources 1.8261 1.9302 2.5000 2.0122 Variety of InforMation 1.9130 4.6977 5.7500 4.9634 Important Feature/ Satisfice Systematic Evaluation Total 124 Important feature/satisfice hunters had the most hunt­ ing experience in years, hunted the most types of game, were more motivated by actually killing game and hunted with a larger group than the other two groups. Table 32 gives the standardized discriminant function coefficients and indicates the relative importance of the eight discriminating variables.'*' The first discriminant 2 function is "dominated" by the variables, Variety of Information Sources, Who and W h e r e . The variables, Variety of G a m e , Years Hunted and Variety of Information, are relatively more important in the second discriminant func­ tion. Neither of these discriminant function lends them­ selves to easy interpretation. 6.3 Conclusions The results of the testing of the three research hypo­ theses lead to several conclusions. One, apparently there is a need for the PAS Program with its current emphasis on urban hunters without rural land contacts if this groups' satisfaction with the number of hunting opportunities is considered important. ^These discriminant function coefficients can be inter­ preted similarly to beta weights in multiple regression. 2 The maximum number of discriminant functions is one less than the number of groups when there are fewer groups than discriminating variables. 125 Table 32. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients Discriminant Function Discriminating Variables Function 1 Function 2 Years Hunted 2258 0.6010 Number of Areas Hunted 4165 -.1010 Variety of Game 0643 -.6567 Kill 2463 -.1806 Where 4651 .1227 Who 5205 -.2686 Variety of Information Sources 7525 .1799 Variety of Information 1864 .4251 126 Two, the results of testing Research Hypothesis 2 suggest that the differences between these PAS Program clients and other hunters for the most part do not relate to the characteristics and behavior variables considered in this study. If these two groups of hunters are dif­ ferent, then other variables are more important in measur­ ing this difference. Finally, it appears that hunters can be segmented on the basis of their HSS decision strategy, at least as con­ ceptualized in this study. CHAPTER VII: 7.1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This chapter begins with a summary of the preceding six chapters. It then analyzes the PAS Program in relation to four factors: properties leased, information provided, requirements of participating hunters and participating hunters' reactions to the Program, and makes recommenda­ tions for the role of marketing in the PAS Program. The chapter concludes with some recommendations for further research on the PAS Program and on hunting site selection. 7.2 Summary Hunters and Wildlife managers are concerned with the reduction in hunting opportunities on privately-owned, rural land in southern lower Michigan. In response to this concern, the Public Access Stamp (PAS) Program was established by Public Act 373 of 1976. The PAS Program authorizes the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to require all hunters in southern lower Michigan (DNR zone 3) to purchase a "Public Access Stamp" and, 128 using the revenues generated from the sale of such stamps, to lease land from landowners in zone 3 for public hunting. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the need for the PAS Program— were urban hunters without rural land contacts (PAS Program clients) dissatisfied with the number of hunting opportunities available to them, (2) pro­ file zone 3 hunters on the basis of their characteristics and behavior and determine if PAS Program clients differ from other zone 3 hunters, selection (3) investigate the hunting site (HSS) process of zone 3 hunters and determine if they could be segmented on the basis of how they select hunting sites, and (4) to evaluate the PAS Program in 1977- 78 on the basis of the properties, the information provided, hunter requirements and hunter reactions. Research literature on hunting, private lands and less than fee simple land acquisition techniques, hunter access program evaluations, and hunters was reviewed. This liter­ ature review pointed to the need to generate information specific to zone 3 hunters and the PAS Program in order to meet the objectives of the study. A HSS model was developed based on a consumer behavior approach to study the hunter's decision strategy in selec­ ting a hunting site. The model consisted of five HSS decision strategies: "habit," "systematic," "recommended," "satisfice," and "important feature." egies Three decision strat­ (systematic, recommended and a combination of 129 satisfice and important feature) were hypothesized to be predictable using eight characteristic and behavior vari­ ables . Three research hypotheses were postulated relating to the first three study objectives. To meet the study objec­ tives and test the research hypotheses, a survey of zone 3 hunters was conducted in the Spring of 1978. consisted of The survey (1) identifying the population to be surveyed and selecting a sample, (2) developing a survey instrument and pretesting i t , (3) administering the survey instrument to the sample, and and analysis. (4) data coding, transfer to computer The study population was all zone 3 hunters, estimated to number 515,000 in 1977, and the sample con­ sisted of 1,078 hunters residing in or near zone 3 who had been previously surveyed by the DNR. The survey instru­ ment was a self-administered mailed questionnaire and three mailings were utilized to elicit a response from 641 hunters. The data were analyzed using computer programs available in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The results of the survey indicated that respondents: 1. lived in a rural setting, 2. had considerable hunting experience, 3. hunted small game most often, 4. hunted all day on opening day and week-ends after opening day, but hunted afternoons on week days after opening day, 5. hunted within a 15 minute drive of their home, 130 6. hunted with one other hunter, 7. hunted for a variety of reasons (getting out-ofdoors the most important and killing game the least important), 8. obtained hunting site information from others, 9. utilized a variety of types of information to select hunting sites, and 10. selected hunting sites on the basis of one impor­ tant feature. In terms of the PAS Program, respondents: 1. first learned of the Program when they bought their hunting license, 2. did not attempt to find out about the Program, and 3. suggested the Program be discontinued. Of the three research hypotheses postulated, two were accepted and one only partially accepted. The results of testing the hypotheses indicated a need for the PAS Program and that hunters can be segmented on the basis of their HSS decision strategy as conceptualized in this study. 7.3 Analysis of the PAS Program The PAS Program was analyzed on the basis of: 1. the properties leased, 2. the information provided, 3. the requirements of participating hunters, and 4. hunter reaction to the Program. 131 Based on this analysis, a number of recommendations for the PAS Program were made.'*' These recommendations focus on the role of marketing in the Program. Schick, et al. (1976) have stressed the importance of marketing in wildlife man­ agement. Brown and Dawson (1977) and Womach, et al. (1975) have commented on how hunter access programs are essen­ tially hunting marketing programs. The importance of mar­ keting with respect to the PAS Program has also been stressed (Westfall, et al. 1977). Kotler (1975:5) states marketing, "relies heavily on designing the organization's offering in terms of the target market's needs and desires and on using effective pricing, communication, and distribution to inform, moti­ vate, and service the markets." The "target market" for the PAS Program is urban hunters without rural land con­ tacts (see Chapter I, Section 1.3). Although not explicitly stated in Public Act 373 or by the Wildlife Division (WD), the implicit rationale for targeting the PAS Program at this group is the perception that this group *"As mentioned in Chapter I , Sections 1.3 and 1.4, the PAS Program began with the 1977-78 hunting season and was analyzed after its first year. In interpreting the recom­ mendations, the short (one year) existence of the Program (with its associated start up problems) and the immediate analysis of the Program should be kept in mind. In addi­ tion, since the sample totalled only 456 respondents who hunted in zone 3 out of an estimated 515,000 zone 3 hunters (see Chapter IV, Section 4.3.1), further caution in inter­ preting the recommendations is advised. 132 supports the WD but does not benefit from WD activities as much as other hunters. Once a target market has been identified, an analysis of that market is necessary in order to develop a market­ ing program. This study indicated that PAS Program clients were for the most part not significantly different from other hunters with the exception of where they hunt (far­ ther from home) and the total number of days they hunt (fewer). (See Chapter VI, Section 6.2.2.) Other charac­ teristics may distinguish these two groups of hunters; however, this study did not investigate all possible dif­ ferentiating characteristics. In order to determine if PAS Program clients differ significantly from other zone 3 hunters in terms of their knowledge of, experiences with and reaction to the PAS Program, the variable, PAS Program Client Status, and the responses to questions #19 and #21 through #30 were ana­ lyzed using the Chi-square statistical technique (see Chapters IV and VI for an explanation of the Chi-square technique and the variable, Pas Program Client Status, and Appendix D for the study questionnaire). Only one relationship was significant at the .05 level (i.e., a higher proportion of "Clients" felt there was not enough information on the lists of participating landowners— question #23— compared to "Other hunters"). 133 On the basis of this study, it cannot be said that PAS Program clients require a unique marketing program com­ pared to other zone 3 hunters. However, some marketing program is necessary.'*' A marketing program is the mix of product, place (dis­ tribution) , price and promotion a firm or organization utilizes to achieve its objectives. The PAS Program "prod­ uct" is hunting opportunities which include not only land upon which to hunt but also the "access system"— the rules and procedures to gain access to the PAS Program proper­ ties. "Place" refers to both the distribution of PAS Program properties in zone 3 and the distribution of information about the Program. The "price" hunters pay for the PAS Program product includes the $1.00 for the Public Access Stamp and the time and effort required to find out about the Program and the properties, and travel to and gain access to them. The "promotion" involved with respect to the PAS Program includes: 1. free publicity, e.g., newspaper and magazine articles, 2. paid advertising (no paid advertising was used prior to or during the 1977-78 hunting season). 3. point-of-purchase promotion (the only point-ofpurchase promotion provided was the DNR Hunting Guide and hunting license dealers' knowledge of the Program), and "hsio marketing program is a program, albeit in ineffec­ tive one. 134 4. on-site promotion such as signs and information at PAS Program properties. 7.3.1 PAS Program Properties Leased The PAS Program properties provided to hunters did not reflect the distribution of Program clients with some exceptions. The counties with Michigan's urban areas (Bay, Genesee, Ingham, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Kent, Muskegon, Saginaw, Washtenaw and Wayne) received only 30.5 percent of the leased properties 1.3). (see Figure 3, Chapter I, Section If the 98 properties in Kent County are not included, only 9.7 percent of the Program properties were in "urban" counties. Thirty three percent of the leased acres were in urban counties. Again, if Kent County is excluded, only 14.7 percent of the Program acres were in Michigan's urban counties. Hunting is restricted in Wayne County and parts of Oakland County; therefore, little land is available in these two counties for the PAS Program. Adjacent counties (Genesee, Lapeer, Livingston, MaComb, Monroe and Washtenaw) did not make up for this deficiency. These neighboring counties had only 12 properties totalling 2,036.8 acres in the Program. Clearly, if the PAS Program is to provide hunting opportunities close to its client group, then more land 135 should be leased in Michigan's urban areas. Program clients hunted Where PAS (farther from home; see Chapter VI, Section 6.2.2) was one of the few distinguishing character­ istics of this group. Leasing land closer to urban hunt­ ers will most likely require a higher per acre cost and more negotiating efforts; however, support for the Program will probably fade without an improved distribution of Program properties. For the small number of respondents who actually hunted on a PAS Program property (28; see Chapter V, Section 513, Table 18), half described the property as "excellent" or "good" and half as "fair" or "poor." While this infor­ mation is a limited representation of the quality of PAS Program properties, it suggests the WD should make every effort to lease land with a reasonable chance of hunting success. 7.3.2 Content and Availability of PAS Program Information The information on the PAS Program provided to hunters is shown in Appendix C (an example of a participating land­ owner list) and Figure 11. yearly DNR Hunting Guide. following: Figure 11 is the cover of the On page 3 of the guide is the 136 Figure 11. DNR Yearly Hunting Guide. 1977-78 MICHIGAN BIG GAMEsmall game ! HUNTING GUIDE MICHIGAN DEPT. OFNATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Box 30028 Lansing.Micfi. 48909 137 PUBLIC ACCESS STAMP For all hunting in Zone 3, a new $1 public access stamp is required in your possession. Its purpose: To provide funds to lease private lands for public hunting. As exceptions to this require­ ment, the stamp is not needed by: 1. Persons hunting under senior citizen's li­ censes ; 2. Residents of this state or their children and employees when hunting small game on their own enclosed farm land where they live. 3. Residents of this state while on furlough from military service of the United States. The public access stamp must be affixed to the reverse site of a current hunting license with your name signed across the face of the stamp. After September 1, you may obtain free lists of private lands to be leased with stamp sale revenues for public hunting in Zone 3. Such lists will be available from DNR field offices or by writing to: Public Access Program Department of Natural Resources P. 0. Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Written requests to that address should specify those counties in which you wish to hunt. The information contained in the Hunting Guide, if made available to zone 3 hunters, was adequate to introduce hunters to the Program. In addition to the DNR Hunting Guide, a number of articles on the PAS Program appeared in southern lower 138 Michigan newspapers and other media during the Fall of 1977.^ This "introductory" information should make hunters familiar with the PAS Program and provide them with enough to take the next step— obtain a list of participating land­ owners . Since free publicity does not always result in maxi­ mum exposure to the target market due to the m e d i a 's dis­ cretionary use of it, in the future the WD should consider paid advertising to introduce the Program to hunters. According to Kotler 2 (1975:240), A consumer can be conceived as being in some stages of readiness in relation to the product such as (1) unawareness, (2) awareness, (3) comprehension, (4) interest, (5) desire, and (6) action. PAS Program clients are probably in all six stages with the proportion in stage 1 being higher during the Program's first year and the proportion in later stages increasing during subsequent years. The WD's promotional efforts in any one year should be adjusted to the stage considered 1 . . For example, "Public Access Stamp leasing winding up; tops 104,000 acres" in The State Journal, October 19, 1977; "An Old Law Opens New Lands" by Kenneth S. Lowe in Michigan Out-of-Doors (November, 1977), 31 (10) :24-25; and "Pheasant season opens— hunters snipe at new laws" in The Detroit N e w s , October 21, 1977. 2 No section of Public Act 373 prohibits the Department of Natural Resources from spending Stamp revenues on adver­ tising. Chapter 4, Section 44 allows the expenditure of Stamp revenues for "program administration." No guidelines on the balance between leasing and program administration expenditures are given in the Act; therefore, a higher expenditure on promotion appears safe. 139 most important at that time. This suggested adjustment process will require a promotional strategy including: 1. promotional objectives identifying the target market, the target effect (what stage or stages is the target market in?) and the optimal target reach and frequency, 2. media selection, 3. advertising timing, and 4. advertising evaluation. The next step in utilizing PAS Program properties, i.e., obtaining a list of participating landowners, was not facilitated by the WD to a great degree. Hunters had to write to the WD Lansing headquarters for a list. Lists were also available from DNR District Offices; however, the location of these Offices was not included in the DNR Hunting Guide ded). (the Offices' telephone numbers were inclu­ As noted in Chapter V, Section 5.3, Table 14, over half of the respondents who did not obtain a list of par­ ticipating landowers gave as the reason that they could not figure out how to get a list. A better approach would be to make lists available to hunting license dealers. Table 12 (Chapter V, Section 5.3) indicated that most respondents first learned of the PAS Program when they purchased their hunting license. Most hunters do not visit DNR Lansing headquarters or District Offices and may not take the time or trouble to write for a list. While distributing lists to all license dealers 140 would involve a higher Program administration cost, such distribution is desirable to insure that all prospective PAS Program clients have enough information to utilize Program properties. Due to a lack of resources for its own distribution system, the WD must rely on middlemen (hunting license dealers) to inform zone 3 hunters of the Public Access Stamp requirement and the Program in general. The respon­ sibilities of these distributors should be spelled out with respect to the PAS Program. An informal field check of Lansing area hunting license dealers in the Fall of 1977 indicated some variability in their knowledge of zone 3 hunter requirements with respect to the PAS Program and the Program in general. The WD should continuously moti­ vate dealers to sell Public Access Stamps, distribute information on the Program (specifically lists of partici­ pating landowners as suggested above) and promote the Program in general.'*' To insure adequate license dealer per­ formance, the WD should also conduct periodic evaluations of dealers. The information on the lists (see Appendix C) was in some cases inadequate for locating PAS Program properties. Often only a rural route number or town was provided as an ■*\An amendment to PA 373 has been proposed by the WD which would return a small portion of Public Access Stamp revenues to license dealers on the basis of the number of Stamps sold for distribution costs. 141 address. In these instances, no directions other than range, township and section number were provided. It is reasonable to expect urban hunters would require addi­ tional information on how to get to the PAS Program properties, e.g., road addresses, mileage from intersec­ tions, etc. As noted in Chapter V, Section 5.3, 40.9 percent of those respondents who obtained a list felt it did not have enough information on it. Another recommendation with respect to the lists in relation to the above finding would be to include some indication of the type of habitat available at a PAS Pro­ gram property, e.g., pasture, upland woods, cropland, etc. It is conceivable a hunter could try several properties before finding the habitat associated with the type of game he wants to hunt. Table 10 (Chapter V, Section 5.2) indicated a majority of respondents utilized information on land cover, game and game sign, and food and cover for game in selecting hunting sites. Any information on the lists giving some indication of the preceding would be beneficial. In addition to or as an alternative to the above recommendations concerning information on the lists, the inclusion of participating landowners' phone numbers on the lists would facilitate both locating PAS Program prop­ erties and determining the type of habitat or hunting available. 142 In theory, once a hunter arrived at the vicinity of a PAS Program property, signs provided by the WD would identify the boundaries of the property. Based on informal field investigations, it was sometimes difficult to connect a farm headquarters with a particular piece of property. Much time and effort could easily be spend searching for the landowner's residence. Better identification of farm headquarters would lessen this possible confusion. 7.3.3 PAS Program Hunter Requirements The requirement of hunters to obtain a Hunter Access Tag (HAT) was made to insure the landowner some control over the number of hunters on his property hunter per 10 acres). (the rule being one By having the requirement and not providing for the possibility of landowners not being at home, the WD placed some hunters in a predicament. Some hunters undoubtedly travelled to a PAS Program property, found the landowner not at home and then were faced with the choice of hunting the property without a HAT (thus acting illegally), finding an alternative PAS Program property or returning home.'*' Some modification to accommodate for this situation would be preferable. Respondents generally ■^This happened to the research team in one instance during an informal field investigation. 143 preferred no requirement or less contact with the landowner (see Table 20, Chapter V, Section 5.3). 7.3.4 H u n t e r s ' Reaction to the PAS Program By and large, hunter reaction to the PAS Program was negative. As noted in Chapter V, Section 5.3, over 76 percent of the respondents did not try to find out about any properties in the Program. Approximately one fifth of these respondents indicated the reason for not pursuing the Program further was that they did believe in the Pro­ gram (Table 13, Chapter V, Section 5.3). gestion The most common sug­ (23.7%) regarding the PAS Program made by respon­ dents was to end the Program (see Table 21, Chapter V, Section 5.3). This negative reaction may have been due to the entire Program itself, to some aspects of the Program or to its "presentation" to zone 3 hunters. possibilities were involved. Most likely all three To improve hunter reaction to the PAS Program, the WD should concentrate on the last two possibilities by modifying those elements of the Program causing problems (see Sections 7.3.1-3) and aggressively marketing the Program to zone 3 hunters. 144 7.4 Recommendations for Further Research The WD may benefit from additional research on the "hunter side" of the PAS Program, particularly given the immediacy of this study's analysis of the Program after its first year. A duplication of this study towards the end of the Program's six year life span would aid the WD in determining if any changes in hunters' knowledge of, experiences with and reaction to the Program had occurred in the interim. Some measurement of Program inputs tures, staff, etc.) and Program outputs (i.e., expendi­ (i.e., acres, par­ ticipating hunters, participating hunter days, etc.) would allow the WD to determine how the PAS Program compares to its other programs, particularly on a cost per hunter day b a sis. Finally, an investigation of the impact of the PAS Program on its specific client group, urban hunters without rural land contacts, would assist the WD in determining if it is meeting the needs of its target market. As mentioned in Chapter I, Section 1.4, it was not possible within the constraints of the study to fully inves­ tigate the hunting site selection (HSS) process. This section also makes a number of recommendations for further research on HSS. 145 In general, more research is needed on the relation­ ship between hunting "participation" and hunting land "supply." Specifically, how does the amount of, the satis­ faction with and the motivation for hunting relate to the various types of hunting sites (public versus private, near versus distant, small versus large, etc.). More research on hunting should rely on experimental and observational research methods rather than survey methods. Survey methods are too limited in relation to the research problem because they must involve respondent recall. Exactly what hunters consider or visualize as a hunt­ ing site needs to be determined. Is the wildlife manager's management unit the same as the hunter's hunting site? Further testing of the hypothesis that hunters select hunting sites in different manners is necessary before the results of this study can be generalized. Along with this, the examination of other variables in distinguishing HSS decision strategies is needed. How does the type of hunt­ ing site information relate to HSS? examined the amount This study only (referred to as variety), not the type of information on hunting sites. Finally, the ques­ tion of the method by which "systematic" hunters transfer hunting site information and recommendations to hunters who rely on others' recommendations needs to be answered. This systematic HSS group. hunters obviously influences a larger LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander, H. Lloyd, Jr. 1974. A Profile of Delaware's Hunters. Delaware Conservation 18(1):16-17. Allen, Durward L. 1973. Report of the Committee on North American Wildlife Policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 1(2):73-92. American Forest Products Industry. 1965. Government Land Acquisition. Washington, D.C.: American Forest Prod­ ucts Industry. Applegate, James E. 1977. Dynamics of the New Jersey Hunter Population. In Transactions of the Forty-second North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 103-116. Berger, Michael E. 1974. Texas Hunters: Characteristics, Opinions, and Facility Preferences. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas Agricultural and Mining University. Berryman, Jack H. 1957. Our Growing Need: A Place to Pro­ duce and Harvest Wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Manage­ ment 21(3):319-323. Besadny, C. D. and Calabresa, Nick. 1967. Hunters Welcome. Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin 32(5):6-7. Bevins, Malcolm I.,; Bond, Robert S.; Corcoran, Thomas J.; McIntosh, Kenneth D.; and McNeil, Richard J. 1968. Characteristics of Hunters and Fishermen in Six North­ eastern State's^ Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 656, University of Vermont. Bjorn, T. C. and Williams, R. M. 1974. Idaho Hunters, Their Attitudes and Preferences. In Proceedings of the 54th Conference of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners, pp. 129-143. Bolle, Arnold W. and Taber, Richard D. 1962. Economic Aspects of Wildlife Abundance on Private Lands. In Transactions of the 27th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wild­ life Management Institute, pp. 255-267. 146 147 Bond, Robert S. and Whittaker, James C. 1971. HunterFisherman Characteristics: Factors in Wildlife Man­ agement and Policy Decisions. In Recreation Symposium Proceedings. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 128-134. Boyce, Arlow. 1971. Acquisition of Key Cover Types in Michigan. In Summaries and Paper, Private Lands Fish and Wildlife Workshop. Iowa Conservation Commission, p. 29. Braun, Clait E. 1967. The Future of Public Hunting. ado Outdoors 16(6):13-14. Color­ Brown, Tommy L. and Dawson, Chad P. 1977. Public Access Hunting: A 1974 Pilot Study Evaluation. In Transac­ tions of the 42nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 255-263. Brown, Perry J . ; Hautaluoma, Jacob E.; and McPhail, S. Morton. 1977. Colorado Deer Hunter Experiences. In Transactions of the 42nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 216-225. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1973. Outdoor Recreation, A Legacy for America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. _______________________________ . 1974. The Recreation Imperitive, A Draft of the Nationwide Outdoor Recreation P l a n . Washington, D . C . : U.S. Government Printing Office. Cain, Stanley A. 1962. Hunting in the U.S.— Its Present and Future R o l e . Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report 6, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Clawson, Marion and Knetsch, Jack L. 1963. Outdoor Recre­ ation Research: Some Concepts and Suggested Areas of Study. Natural Resources Journal 3 (2):250-275. Cooper, Peter. 1969. Insights from Psychology. Paper Presented at a Seminar on Strategic Analysis of Consumer Behavior. Harrogate, Great Britain. Davis, William C. 1967. Values of Hunting and Fishing in Arizona in 1 9 6 5 . College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona. 148 Doll, G. Fred and Phillips, Clynn. 1972. Wyoming's Hunt­ ing and Fishing Resources, 1970. Division of Business and Economic Research, University of Wyoming. Durell, James S. 1967. A Brief Study of Hunters and the Owners of the Land on Which They Hunt. In Proceed­ ings of the 21st Conference, Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, pp. 81-87. ________________ . 1969. Hunter-Landowner Relationships. In Transactions of the 34tl North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 179-184. Eisele, Tim. 1972. The Anatomy of the Duck Hunter. of Environmental Education 4(l):22-25. Journal Ellis, Ralph J. 1972. Oklahoma Hunters. Oklahoma Depart­ ment of Wildlife Conservation Administration and Plan­ ning Report No. 11. Engel, James F.; Kollat, David T . ; and Blackwell, Roger D. 1973. Consumer Behavior, 2nd E d . Hinsdale, 111.: The Dryden Press. Garret, James R. 1970. Characteristics of Nevada Hunters. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin B22, University of Nevada. Gilbert, Alphonse H. 1975. Expenditure Patterns of Resi­ dent Sportsmen in Vermont, 1970. Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report MP82, University of Vermont. Green, Paul E. and Wind, Yoram. 1973. Multivariate Decisions in Marketing, A Measurement Approach. dale, 111.: The Dryden Press. Hins­ Greene, Jeffrey C. 1970. Characteristics of Some Michigan Shooting Preserve Users. Journal of Wildlife Manage­ ment 34(3):813-817. Gum, Russel L . ; Martin, William E.; Smith, Arthur H. ; and Depping, C. Duane. 197 3. Participation and Expendi­ tures for Hunting, Fishing and General Rural Outdoor Recreation in A r i zona. Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report No. 270, University of Arizona. Hauslee, Hada V.; Bell, Enoch; Thompson, Emmett F . ; and Sullivan, Alfred D. 1973. Management Implications of Deer Hunter Attitudes. In Proceedings of the 30th Northeastern Fish and Wildlife Conference, pp. 143-148. 149 Hendee, John C. 1969. Appreciative Versus Consumptive Uses of Wildlife Refuges: Studies of Who Gets What and Trends in Use. In Transactions of the 34th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 252-264. . 1972. Management of Wildlife for Human Benefits. In Proceedings of the 52nd Conference of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commis­ sioners, pp. 175-180. _______________ . 1974. A Multiple-Satisfaction Approach to Game Management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2(3):104-113. _______________ , and Potter, Dale R. 1976. Hunters and Hunting: Management Implications of Research. In Pro­ ceedings of the Southern States Recreation Research Applications Workshop. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station General Technical Report SE-9, pp. 137-161. Holecek, Donald F. and Westfall, Richard D. 1977. Public Recreation on Private Lands— The Land Owne r s 1 Perspec­ ti v e . Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 335, Michigan State University. Howard, Walter E. and Longhurst, William M. 1956. The Farmer-Sportsman Problem and a Solution. In Trans­ actions of the 21st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 323-330. Isley, Thomas. 1971. Operation Pheasant in Minnesota. In Summaries and Papers, Private Lands Fish and Wildlife Workshop. Iowa Conservation Commission, pp. 30-34. Jackson, Warren. 1971. W.H.I.P. in South Dakota. Summa­ ries and Papers, Private Lands Fish and Wildlife Work­ shop. Iowa Conservation Commission, pp. 36-37. Jamsen, Gale C. 1967. Sex and Age Structure of Licensed Hunters, Trappers and Fishermen in Michigan. Michigan Department of Conservation Research and Development Report No. 125. Johnson, Huey D. 1966. A Study of Organized Efforts to Improve Landowner-Sportsmen Relations for the Purpose of Maintaining Public Upland Game Hunting. M.S. Thesis, Utah State University. 150 Kasakaitas, William. 1971. Fish and Wildlife and the Land­ owner . In Summaries and Papers, Private Lands Fish and Workshop. Iowa Conservation Commission, pp. 39-42. Kennedy, James J. 1971. A Consumer Analysis Approach to Recreational Decisions: Deer Hunters as a Case Study. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Kent, Erwin J. 1973. Access to Private Lands. In Proceed­ ings of the 53rd Conference of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners, pp. 73-79. Kesling, Robert V. 1974. An Administrative Study of South­ ern Michigan Game A r e a s . Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University. Kimball, Thomas L. 1963. For Public Recreation: Private Development of Hunting and Fishing. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 18(l):49-53. Kirkpatrick, Thomas O. 1965. The Economic and Social Values of Hunting and Fishing in New Mexico. Bureau of Business Research, University of New Mexico. Klecka, William A. 1975. Discriminant Analysis. In Statis­ tical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd E d . by Nie, Normal H . ; Hull, C. Hadlai; Jenkins, Jean G . ; Steinbrenner, Karin; and Bent, Dale H. New York: McGrawHill, pp. 434-467. Klessig, Lowell L. and Hale, James B. 1972. A Profile of Wisconsin Hunters. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin No. 60. Knott, Norman P. 1963. Free Hunting Versus Fee Hunting. In Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners, pp. 92-97. Kotler, Philip. 1975. Marketing for Nonprofit Organiza­ tions . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Lacaillade, Harold C . , Jr. 1968. New Hampshire Hunter Preference Survey, 1964. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Technical Circular No. 22a. Langenau, Edward E . , Jr. and Mellon-Coyle, Phyllis M. Michigan's Young Hunter. Michigan Department of Resources Wildlife Division Report No. 2800. Lincoln, Alexander, Jr. 1964. Hunter and the Landowner. 1977. An Endless Conflict: The American Forests 70(8):40. 151 Lobdell, Chalres H. 1967. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Maine Sportsmen. M.S. Thesis, University of Maine. MacArthur, Arthur R. 1959. Wisconsin's Licensed Shooting Preserves and Fee-shooting Game Farms. Wisconsin Con­ servation Bulletin 24(8):10-13. Machan, Wayne J. and Feldt, Robert D. 1972. Hunting Results on Cropland Adjustment Program Land in Northwestern Indiana. Journal of Wildlife Management 36(1):192-195. Mahoney, Edward M. 1975. Land Procurement Techniques Cur­ rently Being Employed by State Recreational Agencies. Unpublished Paper, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University. Manning, Robert E. 1975. The Relationship Between Recrea­ tional and Leisure-Oriented Living Patterns and Land-Use on the Urban Fringe: A Case Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University. Martin, Dale N. 1971. Easement Acquisition for Wetland Preservation, Hunting and Fishing in Wisconsin. In Summaries and Papers, Private Lands Fish and Wildlife Workshop. Iowa Conservation Commission, pp. 27-28. McCurdy, Dwight R. and Echelberger, Herbert. 1968. The Hunting Lease in Illinois. Journal of Forestry 66(2): 124-127. McIntosh, Kenneth D. 1966. Privately-Owned Hunting Lands in West Virginia: Supply, Quality and Access Arrange­ ments . Dissertation, University of West Virginia. Meyers, Lewis E. 1971, Easements are Useful. Conservation Bulletin 36(1):3-5. Wisconsin Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1975. Michigan Recreation Plan, 1974. Lansing, M i c h . : Michigan Department of Natural Resources. ____________________________________________ . 1975. Livingston County Land Access Study. Unpublished Paper, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan United Conservation Clubs. 1974. Vanishing. Michigan Out-of-Doors. Hunting Land More, Thomas A. 1970. Motivational Attitudes of Licensed Massachusetts Hunters. M.S. Thesis, University of Massachusetts. 152 _______________ . 1973. Attitudes of Massachusetts Hunters. In Transactions of the 38th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D . C . : Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 230-234. Morrison, Donald G. 1969. On the Interpretation of Dis­ criminant Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 6(1): 156-163. Nason, G. 1971. Utilization of CAP Lands in Nebraska. Unpublished Paper, Midwest Pheasant Council. Nie, Norman H . ; Hull, C. Hadlai; Jenkins, Jean G . ; Steinbrenner, Karin; and Bent, Dale H. 1975. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd E d . New York: McGraw-Hill. Palmer, Walter L. 1967. An Analysis of the Public Use of Southern Michigan Game and Recreation A r e a s . Michigan Department of Natural Resources Research and Develop­ ment Report No. 102. Parker, Jon M. 1975. Thumb Area Wildlife Enterprise Analysis. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michi­ gan State University. Peterlee, Tony J. 1967. Characteristics of Some Ohio Hunters. Journal of Wildlife Management 31 (2) :375-389. Plummer, J. T. 1971. Life Style Characteristics of the Hunter. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Conservation Information, Albuquerque, New Mexico. ____________ , and Scott, Joseph E. 1977. Characteristics of Some Ohio Hunters and Non-Hunters. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(3) :386-389. Potter, Dale R . ; Hendee, John C.; and Clark, Roger N. 1973. Hunting Satisfaction: Games, Guns, or Nature? In Transactions of the 38th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 220-229. Ratti, John T. and Workman, Gar W. 1976. Hunter Character­ istics and Attitudes Relating to Uath Shooting Preserves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 4(l):21-25. Richards, Thomas H. 1964. The Role of Private Enterprise in Providing Fishing and Hunting Recreation in Califor­ nia. In Proceedings of the 44th Conference of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners, pp. 91-95. 153 Ryel, Larry A.; Jamsen, Gale C.; and Hawn, Larry J. 1970. Some Facts About Michigan Hunters. Michigan Depart­ ment of Natural Resources Research and Development Report No. 197. Sargent, F.O.; Boykin, C.C.; Wallmo, O.C.; and Cooper, E.H. 1958. Land for Hunters ... A Survey of Hunting Leases. Texas Game and Fish 16(9):22-23. Scheffer, Paul M. 1959. Farming for Waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway. In Transactions of the 24th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute,pp. 238-244. Schick, Bruce A.; More, Thomas A.; DeGraaf, Richard M.; and Samuel, David E. 1976. Marketing Wildlife Management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 4(2):64-68. Schole, Bernard J.; Glover, Fred A.; Sjogren, Douglas D.; and Decker, Eugene197 3. Colorado Hunter Behavior, Attitudes, and Philsophies. In Transactions of the 38th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D .C .: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 242-248. Sendak, Paul E. and Bond, Robert S. 1970. A Consumer Analysis of Licensed Hunters and Fishermen in Massa­ chusetts . Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 583, University of Massachusetts. Shaw, Samuel P. and Gansner, David A. 1975. Incentives to Enhance Timber and Wildlife Management on Private Forest Lands. In Transactions of the 40th North Amer­ ican Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 177-184. Sherwood, Glen A. 1970. Characteristics of North Dakota Goose Hunters. North Dakota Outdoors 33(3):8-ll. Smith, J.R. and Jordahl, H. C. 1959. Two Decades of Pro­ gress on Wisconsin's Public Hunting and Fishing Grounds Program. In Transactions of the 24th North American Wildlife Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 322-344. ___________ . 1960, We Can Produce More Game. Conservation Bulletin 25(3):3-5. Wisconsin 154 Sofranko, Andrew J. and Nolan, Michael F. 1970. Selected Characteristics, Participation Patterns, and Attitudes of Hunters and Fishermen in Pennsylvania. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 770, Pennsylvania State University. Stankey, George H . ; Lucas, Robert C . ; and Ream, Robert R. 1973. Relationships Between Hunting Success and Satisfaction. In Transactions of the 38th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D . C . : Wildlife Management Institute, p p . 235-242. Steinke, H. A. 1957. Two Decades of Public Hunting. Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin 22(4):3-4. Stoddard, Charles H. and Day, Albert M. 1969. Private Lands for Public Recreation: Is There a Solution: In Transactions of the 34th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wild­ life Management Institute, pp. 186-196. Stranskey, John J. and Halls, Lowell K. 1968. Small Forest Holdings Could be Combined for Hunting Leases. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, pp. 125-127. Talhelm, Daniel R. 1973. Defining and Evaluating Recreation Quality. In Transactions of the 38th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institue, pp. Taylor, John I. 1963. As the Farm Groups See the Game Departments. In Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commis­ sioners , pp. 30-35. Uhlig, Hans G. 1961. Survey of Leased Waterfowl Hunting Rights in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 25(2):204. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. 1975 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Waldbauer, Eugene C. 1966. A Study of Posting on Private Lands in New York State. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University. 155 Wallenstrom, Rolf. 1971. Federal Efforts and Results Through Wetlands Fee and Easement Acquisition Program. In Summaries and Papers, Private Lands Fish and Wild­ life Workshop. Iowa Conservation Commission, pp. 51-52. Watson, Marvon H.; Jamsen, Gale C.; and Moncrief, Lewis W. 1972. The Michigan Deer Hunter. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Research and Development Report No. 259. Wennergren, E. Boyd; Fullertin, Herbert H.; and Wrigley, Jim C. 1977. Quality Values and Determinants for Deer Hunting. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(3);400-407. Westfall, Richard D. 1975. Landowner Willingness to Allow Public Access to Their Land for Three Recreational Activities: A Study of Rural Landowners in Kent County, M i chigan. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University. _______________________ Mahoney, Edward M . ; and Holecek, Donald F. 1977. Recommendations for Implementation and Evalu­ ation of Michigan's Public Access Stamp Program. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University. Whyte, William H. 1962. Open Space Action. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report 15, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Winton, J. Martin. 1971. Easements for Maintaining Envi­ ronmental V a l u e s . In Transactions of the 36th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 89-96. Womach, Jasper; Christiansen, R. A.: and Gum, Russell. 1975. An Evaluation of the ASCS Pilot Public Access Program-! Economic Research Service. Wright, Vernon L . ; Bubolz, Thomas A.; Wywialowski, Alice; and Dahlgren, Robert B. 1977. Characteristics of Individuals Involved in Different Types of Hunting. In Transactions of the 42nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 207-215. APPENDIX A 156 Appendix A: Public Act 373 of 1976. STATE OF MICHIGAN 78TH LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION OF 1976 Introduced by Senators Allen and Hertel ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 1071 A N A C T fo amend chapter 4 of Act No. 238 of the Public Acts of 1929, entitled as amended "An act to provide for the protection of wild animals and wild birds; to regulate the taking, possession, use and transportation of same; to prohibit the sale of game animals and birds; to regulate the manner of hunting, pursuing and killing game animals, birds and turbearing animals; to provide for the issuing of licenses and permits for the taking, hunting or killing of all wild animals and btrds and the disposition of the moneys derived therefrom; to provide for the issuance of a sportsman's license by combining several hunting and fishing licenses; to provide penalties for the violation of any of the provisions of this act and the rules adopted thereunder, and to repeal certain acts relating thereto," as amended, being sections .314.6 to 614.40 of the Compiled Laws of 1970, by adding sections 44. 45. 46, 47 and 48. The P eople o f the State or M ic h ig a n enact: Section 1. Chapter 4 of Act No. 288 of the Public Acts of 1929, as amended, being sections 314.6 to ■314.43 of the Compiled Laws of 1970, is amended by adding sections 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 to read as follows: CHAPTER 4 Sec. 44. Beginning April 1, 1977, every holder of a license issued under sections 6 or 16 of this chapter, except a resident who is otherwise qualified and is 65 years old or older, shall purchase a public access stamp for a fee of SI.00 before taking or attempting to take a wild bird or other animal in zone 3. All income from the sale of public access stamps shall be credited to the fish and game protection fund and shall be appropriated for the sole purpose of acquiring public access leases to private land and the administration thereof in zone 3. The department of natural resources shall lease private lands to provide public access for the purpose of hunting. Hunter access shall begin on September 15, 1977, during the hunting seasons specified by the department of natural resources. Sec. 45. The natural resources commission may provide lease payments in amounts determined by the commission to be appropriate in relation to the benefits to the general public of the use of the leased acreage, if for the lease period the participating landowner agrees to permit without other compensation, access to fhat acreage by the general public for the purpose of hunting subject to this act and the rales promulgated pursuant thereto. Department of natural resources field personnel shall inspect the lands and their value to the program. Final approval of lease proposals shall be made by the department of natural resources. 129) 157 Sec. 46. (1) Participating landowners shall have authority to control hunter access according to the terms or the lease agreement. 2) Participating landowners may cancel their lease agreement at any time prior to the specified expiration date pursuant to rules adopted under section 48. Cancellation of the agreement prior to the specified expiration date shall result in forfeiture by the participating landowner of lease payments received lor the year in which cancellation occurs. 31 Participating landowners shall post, with distinctive signs provided by the department, the boundaries of land leased under provisions of section 45. Sec. 4V. No cause of action shail arise for injuries to persons hunting on lands leased under section 45 unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant or lessee. Sec. 48. The department of natural resources may promulgate those rules it deems necessary governing the admmistration and operation of a hunting access program conducted pursuant to sections 44 and 45 and Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, being sections 24.201 to 24.315 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Section 2. This act shall expire December 31, 1982. This act is ordered to take immediate effect. Secretary of the Senate. Clerk of the House of Representatives. Approved Governor. APPENDIX B 158 Appendix B: Wildlife Division Letter to Landowners. STATE OF MICHIGAN MATUAAL A ttO U A C C t C O M M tM K M CAAL T .JOHNSON E .U LAlTALA DEAN PROOEON HILARYF SNELL HARRY H .WHITELEY JOAN L .WOLFE CHARLES a YOUNQL0V6 TO: WILLIAM G. MILUKEN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STEVENS T .MASON BUILDING SOX 30023. LANSING. MICHIGAN 48&0S HOWARO A.TANNER. OlroctOr Michigan Landowners The State Legislature passed “let 373 and it was signed by the Governor in December of 1976. This Act requires that any person hunting in Zone 3 (the southern 40 counties of Michigan) purchase a Public Access Stamp which will cost 51 and have it in his possession while hunting. Monies realized from the sale of these stamps is to be used to lease private lands for public hunting. The Department of Natural Resources' Wildlife Division will handle "he program. Some things you should know about the program: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 3. Leasing rates are outlined on the attached application. Leases will be for three years but may be terminated at the end of any year without penalty. Leases will cover the period from September 15 to March 1 of each year. Lease payments will be made in March of each year. The DNR will furnish the necessary signs to post your land. You will be permitted to limit the number of hunters using your land at any one time. Hunters must get your permission before hunting. Act 373 releases the landowner of liability for all but gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. We expect to receive more applications than there will be funds to cover. If we are unable to accept your application in 1977, we will contact you when additional monies are available. Following receipt of your application, a DNR representative will contact you regarding the completion of a lease agreement. Michigan Department of Natural Resources ^ • * %* * * . 5-13-77 AP8:mh MICHIGAN THE i V j CHEAT f H A LAKE STAT€ R1C28 -0 .7 b APPENDIX C November 15, 1977 PUBLIC ACCESS STAMP PROGRAM The following lands have been leased by the DNR under the Public Access Stamp Program to provide lands for public hunting. Lands leased under the program will be marked by green and white signs that say: C: Hunting Permitted under the Puhlic Access Stamp Program You must, get permission at the farm headquarters. Township Walter Umlor Conklin 49403 ii II Town Range Big Prairie WiIcox 13N 14N 11w 12W 3 22 80 Rt.. 2, Box 282, Big Rapids 49307 Col fax 15N 9W 27,28 276 945 N. Brennan R d . , Hemlock 48626 2020 W. Chippewa Rd., Midland 48640 Jasper Lee 13N 14N 2W 1W 13 21 80 100 Eyde Construction Brad Dinehart David Benner Dale Anderson Robert Underwood 5030 Northwind Dr., E. Lansing 48823 7850 Stone Rd., Muir 48860 Rt. 1, St. Johns 48879 Rt. 1, St. Johns 48879 Rt. 1, Box 154, Fowler 48835 II 5N 7N 8N 8N 8N 8N BN 1W 3W 3W 3W 3W 4W 4W 32 9 10 21,22,27,28,34 5,6,7 1 1 109 38 204 480 it Bath Bengal Essex Essex Essex Lebanon Lebanon n II Section Acre: MECOSTA COUNTY Glen .lefts MIDLAND COUNTY Gerald Malone Thomas Bennett ?linjon_ county li K. E. Loudenbeck Page 1 If II II II II Rt. 1, Box 153. Fowler 48835 245 183 Landowners Farm Headquarters of NEWAYGO COUNTY List The landowner will give you a hunting permit tag. This tag must he returned to the landowner at the end of the d a y ’s hunt. The landowner has the right to limit the number of hunters using his land at any one time. Please observe all Safety Zone and Standing Crop signs and enjoy your hunt. Your good sportsmanship will assure you continued opportunities to hunt. THIS IS THE F INAL SUPPLEMENTAL LIST FOR THIS YEAR. Landowjier Appendix Michigan Department of Natural Resources APPENDIX 160 Appendix D: Questionnaire. MSU HUNTER SURVEY 1. W h e r e do y o u On In In In In l i v e now? (CHECK O N L Y ONE) a farm t h e coun t r y , b u t n o t on a f a r m a s m a l l town (under 10,000) a m e d i u m c i t y (10, 0 0 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) a l a r g e c i t y (over 50,000) 2. What county do you 3. How many vears ■4. What hunting l i v e in? h a v e yo u b e e n l i c e n s e (s) and (PLEASE FILL hunting? I N COUNTY) (PLEASE FI L L s t a m p (s ) d i d y o u b u y in IN N U M B E R O F 1977? YEARS) ( C H E C X A L L T H A T APPLY) ___ Waterfowl Stamp Firearm Oeer B o w s. A r r o w D e e r Public Access Stamp Small Game ~ O t h e r ( p l e a s e fill in, S p o r t s m a n ____________________________________ ___ N o n e 5. Do yo u h u n t in S o u t h e r n l o w e r M i c h i g a n ? S o u t h of M-20, s e e m a p a t right) Yes (IF NO, Did you hunt in S o u t h e r n 4 7. t he a r e a of PLEASE GO TO QUESTION l o wer M i c h i g a n (IF NO, (Essentially t he S o u t h e r n Peninsula 19.) in 1 9 77? P L E A S E G O T O Q U E S T I O N 3.) In S o u t h e r n lower M i c h i g a n in 1977, ho#/ m a n y d i f f e r e n t d a y s d i d y o u h u n t o n ar e a s ? ( P L EASE F I L L IN N U M B E R O F D I F F E R E N T D A Y S O R 0 W H E R E A P P L I C A B L E ) the following On your property On a friend's, On other On neighbor's, or private public relative's land land ______________________ p r o p e r t y _______________________________________________ Deer Small game Waterfowl 3. In S o u t h e r n l o wer M i c h i g a n , _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ what game do you hunt? D e e r _________________________________________ _____ Rabbit _____ S q u i r r e l ____________________________________ _____ Pheasant Ruffed Grouse ( CHECK A L L T H A T APPLY) Quail Woodcock Waterfowl O t h e r (please fill in, In S o u t h e r n l o w e r M i c h i g a n , w h a t t i m e o f d a y d o y o u u s u a l l y h u n t ? ( CHECK O N E F O R O P E N I N G DAY. ONE FOR WEEK DAY A F T E R OPENING DAY AND ONE FOR WEEK-END AFTER OPENING DAY WHERE APPLICABLE) O p e n i n g d a y of s e a s o n __________________________ A f t e r o p e n i n g d a y or s e a s o n W e e k d a y _____________ W e e k - e n d M o r n i n g _______________________________ ___ A f t e r n o o n ____________________________ ___ A i l da y _______________________________ ____ Morning Afternoon All day P L E A S E GO TO N E X T PAGE ___ ___ ___ Morning Afternoon A ll d a y 161 10. In S o u t h e r n lower Michigan, d o y ou u s u a l l y hun t , { CHECK O N L Y ONE) Within a 15 m i n u t e d r i v e of your home Within a 30 m i n u t e d r i v e of your home Within a 45 m i n u t e d r i v e of your home Within a 60 m i n u t e d r i v e of your home O v e r an h o u r ' s d r i v e f r o m y o u r h o m e 11. In S o u t h e r n lower Michigan, do y o u u s u a l l y hunt, ( C H E C K O N L Y ONE) Alone With one hunting partner W i t h a g r o u p of h u n t i n g f r i e n d s 12. In S o u t h e r n lower M i c h i g a n , h o w m a n v d i f f e r e n t h u nt? (PLEASE F I L L IN N U M B E R O F AREAS) 13. A r e yo u s a t i s f i e d w i t h Michigan? Yes, I feel No, I w o u l d 14. How important are the number of are a s areas or or p l a c e s * places you have d o v o u k n o w of w h e r e v o u c an to h u n t in S o u t h e r n lower I h a v e e n o u g h a r e a s o r p l a c e s to h u n t like m o r e a r e a s or p l a c e s to h u n t the following reasons why you hunt? ( CHECK O N E F O R E A C H REASON) Very Somewhat Not I m p o r t a n t ___________ I m p o r t a n t _____________ I m p o r t a n t Setting ___ ___ T h e s u s p e n s e a n d c h a l l e n g e of s e e k i n g g a m e __________________________________________ ___ ____ ___ The compan i o n s h i p and e n j o y m e n t of y o u r h u n t i n g f r i e n d s ___ ___ ___ ___ T h e a c t u a l k i l l i n g of g a m e and t a k i n g it h o m e ___________________________________________ ___ ___ Getting-away-from-it-all ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Getting 15. out-of-doors Do y o u some ex e r c i s e usually, (CHECK O N L Y ONE) T r y o u t o n e or m o r e ne w h u n t i n g are a s H u n t the s a m e a r ea(s5 e v e r v y e a r 16. B e f o r e v o u try o u t a n e w h u n t i n g ( CHECX A L L T H A T APPLY) area, e a c h y e a r o r so, IF Y O U H U N T T H E T O Q U E S T I O N 19.) how do vou usually OR SAMEAREA get ORAREAS, information PLEASE a b out GO t h a t are a ? 3v t a l k i n g to f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s o r o t h e r s t h a t h a v e tried the area or k n o w a b o u t it 3y s c o u t i n g o u t the a r e a m y s e l f 3y t a l k i n g to the D N R 3y t a l k i n g to th e o w n e r of the area 3y r e a d i n g a b o u t t h e a r e a in a n e w s p a p e r , m a g a z i n e or h e a r i n g a b o u t it on r a d i o or TV Other ( p lease fill in, _____________________________________________________________________________ ) 17. Exactly what information do you usually get? (CHECK ONL Y T H OSE T H A T Y OU U S U A L L Y GET) The size of the area H o w far t h e a r e a is f r o m m y h o m e If the o w n e r a l l o w s h u n t i n g T h e a r e a ' s land c o v e r (crops, w o o d s , etc.) If t h e r e is g a m e a n d g a m e s i g n o n t h e a r e a H o w c r o w d e d the a r e a u s u a l l y is If o t h e r s h a v e h a d a n y luc k h u n t i n g the a r e a If t h e r e is w a t e r o n the ar e a (marsh, pond, etc.) If t h e r e is f o o d an d c o v e r for g a m e o n t h e a r e a O t h e r ( p l e a s e f i l l in, _____________________________________________________________________________ ) PLEASE GO TO NEX T PAGE 162 13. When you pick o u t a new h u n ting area, how do you usually do it? {CHECK ONLY ONE) I u s u a l l y p i c k an a r e a that h as b e e n r e c o m m e n d e d to m e b y a f r i e n d o r r e l a t i v e I u s u a l l y p i c k the f i r s t a r e a that m e e t s m y r e q u i r e m e n t s I u s u a l l y g a t h e r as m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n o n as m a n y a r e a s as X c a n a n d then p i c k the a r e a I feel is b e s t I u s u a l l y p i c k an a r e a t h a t h as g o o d c o v e r , o r is o p e n to h u n t i n g o r h a s s o m e o t h e r f e a t u r e i m p o r t a n t to me O t h e r (please fill in, _____________________________________________________________________________ ) In 1976, the S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e p a s s e d a law r e q u i r i n g all p e o p l e w h o h u n t in S o u t h e r n lower M i c h i g a n (DNR Z o n e 3) to bu y a $ 1 . 0 0 " P u b l i c A c c e s s S t a m p . " M o n e y f r o m the s a l e of the s e s t a m p s is u s e d to l e ase p r i v a t e l y - o w n e d lands in Z o n e 3 f or p u b l i c h u n t i n g . T h e "Public A c c e s s Stamp" p r o g r a m o f f i c i a l l y b e g a n F a ll, 1977. Did y o u k n o w abo u t this p r o g r a m b e f o r e r e a d i n g No 20. H o w d i d yo u f i rst (I? NO, l e arn a b o u t the above? P LEASE GO TO Q U E S T I O N the p r o g r a m ? 31.) ( C H E C K O N L Y ONE) I l e a r n e d a b out it w h e n I b o u g h t my l i c e n s e S o m e o n e told m e a b o u t it I f o und o u t a b o u t it w h e n I h u n t e d p r o p e r t y in the p r o g r a m I r e a d a b o u t it in a n e w s p a p e r o r m a g a z i n e or h e a r d a b o u t it o n r a d i o o r T V I l e a r n e d about it from the D N R O t h e r (please fill in, __________________________________________________________________ 21. Di d yo u try to find ou t a b o u t Yes No any p r o perties If no, in then w h y the p r o g r a m ? not? ( C H E C K O N L Y ONE) It w a s too m u c h t r o u b l e I a l r e a d y h a v e e n o u g h a r e a s o r p l a c e s to h u n t I d o n ' t b e l i e v e in the p r o g r a m O t h e r ( p l e a s e fill in, ____________________________ (NOW P L E A S E G O T O Q U E S T I O N 22. Di d yo u g e t a list of p a r t i c i p a t i n g Yes No If no, _____ then whv Di d the list have enough information No If no, _____ _______ not? ( C H E C K O N L Y ONE) It w a s t o o m u c h t r o u b l e I c o u l d n ' t f i g u r e o u t h o w i:o g e t o n e I c o u l d n ' t w a i t for o n e O t h e r ( p l e a s e f i l l in, ______ (NOW P L E A S E 23. on GO TO QUESTION Did yo u h u n t on Yes any p r o p e r t i e s nor? ( C H E C K O N L Y ONE) It d i d n ' t h a v e any It d i d n ' t i n d i c a t e It d i d n ' t i n d i c a t e properties It d i d n ' t h a v e all It d i d n ' t h a v e the It d i d n ' t i n d i c a t e O t h e r ( p l e a s e fiil NO in t he If no, 30.) it? then w h y m a p s o n it t he l a n d c o v e r on the p r o p e r t i e s t h e - g a m e t h a t m i g h t b e o n the the landowners' street addresses landowners' phone numbers wh e n the landowners w o u l d be home in, _____________________________________ (NOW P L E A S E G O T O Q U E S T I O N 24. 30.) landowners? 24.) program? then whv not? ( C H E C K O N L Y ONE) It w a s t o o m u c h t r o u b l e I al r e a d y hav e e n ough a r eas to hunt I d o n ' t b e l i e v e in t h e p r o g r a m O t h e r ( p l e a s e fill in, ________________ (NOW P L E A S E G O T O Q U E S T I O N PLEASE GO TO NEXT PAGE 30.) 163 25. Why did you hunt on property(s) I was looking I was curious I have hunted O t h e r {please 26. in the p r o g r a m ? ( C HECK O N L Y ONE) for a n e w a r e a to h u n t a b o u t the p r o g r a m the p r o p e r t y ( s ) in the p a s t fill in, _____________________________________________________________________________ How would you describe the p r o p e r t y ( s ) you hunted? ) ( C H E C X T H E O N E T H A T B E S T A P P LIES) Excellent Good Fair Poor 27. How would you describe the land o w n e r ( s ) you met? ( CHECK T H E O N E THAT 3ESTAPPLIES) F r i e n d l y an d h e l p f u l F r i e n d l y , b u t n o t to o h e l p f u l Unfriendly N o t at h o m e 23. W h e n a h u n t e r used " P u b l i c landowner and get a g reen Did you kn o w about this Yes 29. How do you I I I or I I 30. requirement before No feel a b o u t A ccess Stamp" p r o p e r t y ( s ) , "Hunter A c c e s s Tag." this (IF NO, reading the h e or she w a s s u p p o s e d 30.) ( CHECK T H E O N E T H A T 3EST APPLIES) don't m i n d it would prefer to p i c k o n e u p w i t h o u t c o n t a c t i n g the l a n d o w n e r would p r e f e r to s i g n in s o m e w h e r e o n t he p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t c o n t a c t i n g the p i c k i n g up a tag would p r e f e r to c o n t a c t the l a n d o w n e r and n o t g e t a t ag or s i g n in would preferno requirement a t all W h i c h o n e of the f o l l o w i n g w o u l d y o u (CHECK O N L Y ONE) suggest regarding the above? PLEASE GO TO QUESTION requirement? to c o n t a c t the "Public Access Stamp" landowner orogram? C o n t i n u e the p r o g r a m as it is P r o v i d e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n on the lists of p a r t i c i p a t i n g l a n d o w n e r s L e a s e m o r e land in m y r e g i o n P r o v i d e lists o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g l a n d o w n e r s to l i c e n s e d e a l e r s L e a s e b e t t e r land in my r e g i o n R a i s e t h e $ 1 . 0 0 c h a r g e so t h a t m o r e a n d / o r b e t t e r land c o u l d be l e a s e d Lease larger pro p e r t i e s in m y r e g i o n E n d th e p r o g r a m O t h e r (please f i l l in, _____________________________________________________________________________ ) No suggestion If y o u h a v e 31. any additional comments or THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION! suggestions, please write them in the space-below. APPENDIX 164 Appendix E: MICHIGAN First Cover Letter. STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RF.CRF.A HO N RESOURCES EAST LANSING ■ MICHIGAN • ISHJA N ATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING Dear Michigan Hunter: In the continuing effort to provide quality hunting opportunities, it becomes necessary from time to time to request information on hunting from the best source - Michigan's hunters. The Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan State University is presently undertaking such an effort. Although it would be nice co contact all Michigan hunters for the information we need, the costs are prohibitive. Consequently, we selected at random a small number of hunters who purchased licenses in 1976 co provide us with this information. As one of this small number of selected license purchasers, your responses to the enclosed question­ naire will receive considerable weight in the tabulations we will be making. Tour views are valuable, but in this case they are crucial since vou are essentially representing the many hunters who we are not able to contact. Please fill out as much of the enclosed questionnaire as you can and return it to us in the enclosed poscage paid envelope as soon as possible. If you have any questions, feel free to call us collect at (517) 353-0823 and identify yourself as a Michigan huncer. Your responses will be held in strictest confidence. They will be pooled with chose of ocher respondents and our mailing records will Chen be destroyed further insuring your confidentiality. Thanks for your help and good luck next season! Sincerely, Richard D. Westfall Project Coordinator APPENDIX F 165 Appendix F: Reminder Postcard. Dear Michigan Hunter: You were recently sent a questionnaire on your hunting experiences. Your completion and return of the questionnaire is essential if we are to get an accurate picture of Michigan's hunters. If you have already re­ turned the questionnaire, thanks for your help and please ignore this card. If you haven't returned it yet, won't you take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire and drop it in the mail? Your coopera­ tion in this study is IMPORTANT! If for some reason you did not receive the ques­ tionnaire or have lost or misplaced it, don't worry. If we haven't heard from you in a week, we will send you a second and final questionnaire. Your coopera­ tion will insure the accuracy of our results and we can guarantee it will be appreciated. Sincerely, Richard D. Westfall Project Coordinator Donald F. Holecek Project Director APPENDIX G 166 Appendix G: MICHIGAN Second Cover Letter. STATE UNIVERSITY DEPAKT.ME.NT OF PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES EAST LANSING ■ MICHIGAN ■ 48824 Dear Michigan Hunter: Approximately three weeks ago we mailed you a "MSU HUNTER SURVEY". We are still looking forward to your response. If you have just mailed your question­ naire, then please ignore this lecter. Your prompt response is critical for two reasons. First, we only mailed a small number of questionnaires to selected individuals so each response will carry considerable weight in our analysis. Second, we would like to tabulate the results in the next few weeks so that we can present our findings co the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which is concerned with how its programs impact Michigan's huncers. We have included another questionnaire along with a stamped return envelope if for some reason the first mailing failed to reach you. Again, we would like to thank you for your help and wish you enjoyable hunting in the future. Sincerely. Project Coordinator RDW::d Enclosure Donald F. Holecek Project Director