----v2XAgoua;FVQjeJ Your subscription to our list has been confirmed. Thank you for subscribing! +17835598567 "Hello,
Thanks for your email! We aim to respond to emails within one business day.
In the meantime, here's a reference number: 324512435
If your issue can't wait, please call our Support Team on 13 22 58 or our Sales Team on 13 19 17 and we'll be happy to help.
Kind regards
Craig Levy
Select a category to get started:
Internet
" ----8ICvsfkl;tMPVlP VERIFY YOUR EMAIL ACCOUNT
Welcome to KFHoJ. To activate your ctUKS account you must first verify your email address by clicking this link.
HAVING TROUBLE?
If the link above did not work, you can copy and paste the full URL from your mail client into your web browser. The URL should be a single line, if your mail client splits it into multiple lines, copy and paste each line separately.
ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE
Thank you for choosing XgzGI. You may reach Customer Support by visiting our Submit A Ticket page.
----wuEaA1v5;UNvWDc Hi Kennedy,
Thank you for reaching out. Before we can get a quote to you, there are a couple of questions we need to understand.
Can you please tell me the language you are interested in and the use case?
I hope to hear back from you soon.
Thank you,
,???zLEzo???, Software
----l9CULYBg;lrYZIY 403 ERROR The request could not be satisfied. The Amazon CloudFront distribution is configured to block access from your country. We can't connect to the server for this app or website at this time. There might be too much traffic or a configuration error. Try again later, or contact the app or website owner.
Generated by cloudfront (CloudFront) Request ID: aHl94ZEl8vwL49MNoAXaXgf_Zds6FyMb0u7q8OkFoDYY2iKU3G2Y7w== ----kYpIhOge;KldCir Hello,
If you didn't register with ????bGnUs????? My Account please call us on 1378295725 to let us know.
----9IUzzMwW;IBlNbR Dear Student,
----6943ukKk;XlGaMy
----97IP4wFy;vffFLs A survey of Montana hunter/rancher problems and solutions by Erik Jon Swensson A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Range Science Montana State University © Copyright by Erik Jon Swensson (1996) Abstract: A one year survey was conducted in 1995 to identify conflicts between hunters and ranchers in Montana. One-third of the questionnaire was different for the two groups in order to obtain specific information unique to a ranch or individual hunter. Two-thirds of the questionnaire was identical between the groups and presented questions related to perceived problems and solutions, experiences, game populations, importance of private and agricultural land to wildlife, and representation. A questionnaire was mailed to 1000 randomly selected hunters and 989 ranchers. Thirty-five percent of the hunters (N=349) and 42% of the ranchers (N=395) responded to the survey. Sixty-five percent of the hunters surveyed had >10 yr of hunting experience. The top three problems identified by hunters were: too little access to private land, driving off roads, and trespassing. The top three solutions presented by hunters were: greater consideration and appreciation by ranchers, better communication between groups, and better boundary identification. Sixty percent of the ranchers responding own or manage 404 to 4084 ha. The top three problems identified by ranchers were: driving off roads, trespassing and too many hunters. The top three solutions presented by ranchers were: stiffer penalties for violators, better communication. between groups, and greater consideration and appreciation by hunters. Both hunters and ranchers ranked driving off roads and trespassing in their top three problems. They also ranked better communication and greater consideration and appreciation in their top three solutions. Hunters and ranchers have different views of who represents them in hunter/rancher related issues. Fifty percent of the hunters responding believe they represent themselves or have no representation regarding hunter/rancher related issues; whereas, 62% of the ranchers responding indicated they are represented by livestock producer groups. Results indicate that hunters and ranchers have similar concerns and better communication will help alleviate conflicting interests. A SURVEY OF MONTANA HUNTER/RANCHER PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS. by Erik Jon Swensson A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree o f Master of Science ' in Range Science MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY - BOZEMAN Bozeman, Montana July 1996 S u > iH S r APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Erik Jon Swensson This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency and is ready for submission to the College of Graduate Studies. Dr. James E. Knight (Signature) (Date) Dr. Mike Tess Approved for the Department of Animal and Range Science M ., j . v 7Z)'/?to (Signature) (Date) Approved for the College of Graduate Studies Dr. Robert Brown (Signature) (Date) iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Montana State University-Bozeman, I agree that the Library shall make it - available to borrowers under rules of the Library. IfI have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright notice page, copying is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with "fair use" as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in parts may be granted only by the copyright holder. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are so many people who helped me with my graduate project, I know I can't personally thank everyone. I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Knight, Dr Sowell, Dr. Irby, Dr. Tess and Kurt Alt for all of your support. I would like to give a special thanks to my advisor Dr. Knight for all of his words of wisdom and understanding.' I would also like to thank Nancy for her understanding and tolerance and allowing for my flexible work schedules. I greatly appreciate all of the support from two great friends Connie and Scott. I would also like to thank Marlene in the graduate office for all of the patience and always having a positive attitude. None of this would have been possible without all of the love and encouragement of my wife Dawn. She never questioned any of my decisions and always gave me encouragement, thank you Dawn! TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TA BLES......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT.........................................:.......................................................... ..............: ix 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................ I 2. LITERATURE R EVIEW ....................................................... 3 • Hunter Experiences.............................................................. 3 Rancher Experiences................................................................... 4 Wildlife H abitat................. ................................!.............................................. 5 Land M anagement............................................................................................... 6 Questionnaire D esign.......................................................................................... 7 Sum m ary................................................................................ 8 3. M ATERIALSandM ETHODS................................................... 9 Survey D esign...................................................................................................... 10 HimterZRancher Background............................................... 10 , HunterZRancher Conflicts and Solutions .......................................................... 12 Survey Procedure............,..................... ..........,................................................ 13 Statistical A nalysis............................................................ 14 4. RESU LTS.............................................................................................................. ;... 15 Hunter Background................................................................... :........................ 15 Rancher Background................................................................................ 16 Rancher Management Strategies.................................................... 18 HunterZRancher Conflicts................................................................................... 22 Hunter/Rancher Solutions................................................................................... 24 Positive and Negative Experiences....................................................................28 Big Game Populations........................................................................................ 28 Hunting and Agriculture in M ontana.................................................................29 TABLE OF CQNTENTS-Continued Page Representation.... ....................................... 30 Statewide D ifferences...........................!........................ .................................. 31 Non-Respondent R esults......................................................................... 31 5. DISCUSSION................................................................... 33 Background............................................................................................................33 Hunter Background.............................................................................................. 33 Rancher Background ............................................................................ i....... 34 Rancher Management Strategies.... ............................. 35 Hunter/Rancher Conflicts.................................................:.................... .......... 36 Hunter/Rancher Solutions................................................................................... 37 Big Game Populations.................. 37 Hunting and Agriculture in M ontana................................................................. 38 Representation.......................................................................................................39 6. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................... 41 LITERATURE C ITE D ..........!................. ................................................................ 42 APPENDICES................. 47 Appendix A--Hunter Survey.................................. :..........................................48 Hunter Cover L etter................................................................................ 49 Regional M ap .... ................................................................................ 50 Hunter Survey............................................................................... 51 Appendix B-Rancher Survey...................................................... 53 Rancher Cover L etter................................. i..........................................54 Regional M ap ...........................................................................................55 Rancher Survey......................................................... 56 Appendix C-T-Test A nalysis.............................................................................59 Appendix D—Analysis of variance by West, Central, and East Area........... 63 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Hunter background information (percentage of hunters by category).... 16 2. Rancher background information (percentage of ranchers by category). 18 3. Rancher respondents to hunting management strategies (N=395)...........20 4. Ranking of conflicts (1-14) that hunters (N=349) and ranchers (N=395) classify as a major problem ................................................................. 22 5. Ranking of solutions (1-10) that hunters (N=349) and ranchers (N=395) classify as having high potential........................................ ................. 26 6. Hunter (N=349) and rancher (N=395) opinions of deer, elk and antelope populations in the last five years................. .........................................29 7. Hunter (1SK349) and rancher (N=395) response to hunting pressure and private land access in Montana in the last five years................. 30 8. Hunter (N=349) and rancher (N=395) responses relative to the effects of land ownership on wildlife in M ontana.............. ......... ................32 9. Himter (N=349) and rancher (N=395) representation on hunter/fancher related issues................................................................. 32 . 10. T-test analysis of hunter/rancher problem s............................................ ,6 0 11. T-test analysis of hunter/rancher solutions............................................ 61 12. T-test analysis for hunter/rancher questions............................................ 62 13. Analysis of variance for hunter/rancher problems by West, Central, and East Area........................................................... 64 14. Analysis of variance for hunter/rancher solutions by West, Central, and Eqst Area.......................................................... 65 15. Analysis of variance for hunter/rancher questions by West, Central, and East Area........................................................... 66 vii vm LIST OF FIGURES 1. Map of Area divisions within the state for survey analysis. West Area is I, Central Area is 2 and East Area is 3 ....................... 11 2. Reasons for land closure by ranchers (first and second ranked choice only)...............................................................................21 3. Hunter/rancher response to too little access.............................................. 23 4. Hunter/rancher response to driving off roads ......................................... 23 5. Hunter/rancher response to trespassing..................................................... 23 6. Hunter/rancher response to too many hunters........................................... 23 7. Hunter/raricher response to greater consideration and appreciation..... 27 8. Hunter/rancher response to better communication...........'.............. :....... 27 9. Hunter/rancher response to better boundary identification......................27 10. Hunter/rancher response to stiffer penalties for violators ...................... 27 Figure Page 11. Distribution of interest group representation by hunters and ranchers.. .40 ABSTRACT A one year survey was conducted in 1995 to identify conflicts between hunters and ranchers in Montana. One-third of the questionnaire was different for the two groups in order to obtain specific information unique to a ranch or individual hunter. Two-thirds of the questionnaire was identical between the groups and presented questions related to perceived problems and solutions, experiences, game populations, importance of private and agricultural land to wildlife, and representation. A questionnaire was mailed to 1000 randomly selected hunters and 989 ranchers. Thirty-five percent of the hunters (N=349) and 42% of the ranchers (N=395) responded to the survey. Sixty-five percent of the hunters surveyed had >10 yr of hunting experience. The top three problems identified by hunters were: too little access to private land, driving off roads, and trespassing. The top three solutions presented by hunters were: greater consideration and appreciation by ranchers, better communication between groups, and better boundary identification. Sixty percent of the ranchers responding own or manage 404 to 4084 ha. The top three problems identified by ranchers were: driving off roads, trespassing and too many hunters. The top three solutions presented by ranchers were: staffer penalties for violators, better communication. between groups, and greater consideration and appreciation by hunters. Both hunters and ranchers ranked driving off roads and trespassing in their top three problems. They also ranked better communication and greater consideration and appreciation in their top three solutions. Hunters and ranchers have different views of who represents them in hunter/rancher related issues. Fifty percent of the hunters responding believe they represent themselves or have no representation regarding hunter/rancher related issues; whereas, 62% o f the ranchers responding indicated they are represented by livestock producer groups. Results indicate that hunters and ranchers have similar concerns and better communication will help alleviate conflicting interests. I CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Livestock production in Montana is a one billion dollar industry (Montana Agric. Stat. Serv., 1994). Hunting in Montana provides 333 million dollars of the 2.5 billion dollar tourism industry (Brooks, 1988a; Brooks, 1988b; Christensen et ah, 1995). The land area of Montana is 37.6 million hectares and over 24.3 million hectares are agricultural lands. The state o f Montana is comprised of 62% privately owned lands, 30% federal lands, 6% state lands and 2% tribal lands. O f the 24.3 million hectares of agricultural lands, the average privately owned farm or ranch size is 1000 hectares. (Montana Agric. Stat. Serv., 1994). Privately owned agricultural lands are important to Montana's economy and recreational opportunities. Montana hunter/rancher relations have become increasingly strained over the past several years. Hunters are concerned about diminishing access to private and public land for hunting opportunities. Ranchers feel helpless to control increasing wildlife populations and feel their contributions to wildlife habitat are overlooked. Conflicts between hunters and ranchers in Montana have been escalating in recent years. This trend is occurring throughout the United States. A survey conducted in New Mexico by Knight et ah (1987) found that one obstacle between better hunter/rancher relationships is negative attitudes a small group of hunters and ranchers have toward each 2 . . . other. Peterson (1992) reported problem solving between hunters and ranchers had become more confrontational and oriented towards single issues. In order to address hunter/rancher conflicts and solutions, it is first necessary to identify the perceived problems and possible solutions. Three different methods to collect information have been utilized and all have inherent shortcomings. Advocacy group membership surveys are often used to identify problems because members are available and readily give their views.. Unfortunately, little effort has been made to determine if they reflect the views of the population as a whole , or just the views of an active segment (Sudman, 1981). Public hearings and meetings is another method Of identifying problems. Johnson et al. (1993) found that meeting attendees tended to state more extreme views than the general population. The use of questionnaires has been an effective way of getting input representative of an entire population, but because surveys have been aimed at single groups they have not been useful in identifying commonalities between groups (Knight et al., 1987). The objectives of this study were to identify background characteristics of Montana resident hunters and ranchers and to identify perceived problems and possible solutions between hunters and ranchers. 3 CHAPTER 2 ■ LITERATURE REVIEW Hunters' and ranchers' views differ on the importance and use of big game species. Hunters enjoy both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of wildlife in a recreational setting. On the other hand wildlife can be a threat to the livelihood and income of ranchers. A review of the literature indicates differing views between the two groups, which can lead to conflicts in management of big game animals. Hunter Experiences Hunters view big game as a source of recreation and personal enjoyment. Allen (1984) defines hunting as a recreational activity in which people participate within a recreational setting to enable, certain types of experiences or satisfactions. Many researchers have tried to classify the types of satisfaction people experience while hunting big game animals. Satisfaction sources have been categorized in three to twelve different dimensions (Potter et al., 1973; Schole et ah, 1973; Brown et ah, 1977; Hantalouma and Brown, 1978; Kellert, 1978). Satisfaction dimensions of harvest were rated relatively low as detractions to the success of the hunting experience, giving additional credence to the notion that killing game is not the only or necessarily the most important measure of hunter satisfaction (Potter, 1982). Swan (1995) stated that hunting may lead people to peak experiences, from 4 spectacular environmental settings to intense emotional excitement, and encounters with the deepest issues of life and death. Hunting is a strong tradition for many, families in Montana. Rancher Experiences Ranchers often view big game as a source of nuisance and lost income. However, they also realize and appreciate the advantages of healthy wildlife populations. Adkins (1991) found that big game species significantly damaged alfalfa crops during spring and summer seasons in Montana. A study conducted by Conover and Decker (1991) found that farmers and ranchers believe that damage caused by wildlife has increased substantially in the last thirty years. Tolerance of wildlife, damage varies with: type, amount and severity of damage; ability to withstand the economic consequences of damage; personal attitudes toward wildlife and the species involved; perceptions of population trends; and attitudes toward hunting (Craven et al, 1992). Under Montana law, landowners must assume the cost of a certain level of wildlife damage (Montana Legislative Council, 1986). Ranchers recognize that wildlife values require not only consideration of the material, economic and commodity benefits, but also the aesthetic, non-consumptive and non-commodity values (Kellert 1981). Any wildlife species or population has both positive and negative values for society (Conover et al., 1995). Bernardo et al. (1994) stated that domestic livestock and wildlife are, at least to some extent, competitive enterprises. 5 Wildlife Habitat Wildlife populations are threatened by increasing human populations leading to development of land for urban and suburban uses (Poelker and Buss, 1972). As early as 1912 scientists were predicting the extinction of elk, deer, bear and wild turkey due to the development of the rich farming areas of the East and Midwest United States (Homaday, 1913). Although the importance of habitat quality and quantity is recognized, there are few incentives for Montana landowners to ignore potential economic gain derived from subdividing existing farms and ranches (Alexander and Kellert, 1984). Swenson (1983) found that the high level of public use of wildlife, both consumptive and non-consumptive, in Montana has resulted in a high degree of public pride and awareness of wildlife resources. Wildlife is a public resource, owned by all citizens, yet the habitats upon which wildlife depend are not always publicly owned, and wildlife often move freely between publicly and privately owned lands (Cook and Cable, 1992). A major concern of hunters is access to private land. Increasingly more landowners and ranchers are restricting access to their lands. Land postings decrease recreational, hunting and management opportunities. In a survey of wildlife administrators throughout the United States, Wright and Kaiser (1986) found that areas with the most public land holdings had the greatest concerns for hunter access problems. Wright and Kaiser (1986) also found that misconduct, by hunters is believed to be the largest deterrent to landowners allowing access. According to Peterson (1992), landowners feel betrayed by hunter groups who are becoming more politically active and prefer solving issues, like 6 access, through litigation and legislation. To help address access problems, forty states have hunter access programs of some type (Wigley and Melchiors, 1987). Land Management Multiple-use management of land resources for domestic livestock and wildlife is becoming an increasingly important issuebn private and public lands (Bernardo et al., 1994). Much of the research conducted concerning wildlife-livestock relationships focused on negative impacts one has on the other. This lead to management decisions which restricted use of an area or imposed "either-or" philosophies. Because this type of management often identifies situations that are detrimental to agriculture or wildlife it can lead to confrontational situations (Lacey et al., 1988; Bowen and Kruse, 1993; Wywialowski, 1994). Leopold (1933) believed that no conceivable system of private preserves and public shooting grounds could adequately accommodate the growing number of urban citizens who like to hunt. When livestock conflicts are not present, Johnson et al. (1993) stated that two major objectives of wildlife managers are to maintain healthy wildlife populations and provide satisfactory recreation experiences. However, when livestock management and private lands are involved wildlife management becomes more complex. Adkins and Irby (1992) found the willingness of a landowner to tolerate wildlife and wildlife damage may change from year to year based on the market value of the lost crop. This is a factor beyond the control of wildlife managers. Land managers must allow a balance of livestock grazing, wildlife populations and habitats, and hunting pressure in order to achieve an efficient multiple-use 7 management plan (Matulich and Adams 1987). Management plans must be designed to fit the situation and environment where they are used. Questionnaire Design The design of a questionnaire is important to increase the response rate and to allow for correct interpretation of the questions being asked. Little information is available on using questionnaires to compare opinions of distinct groups on the same issues. When comparing two groups it is important to word the questions identically. Kalton et al. (1978) found that comparisons between groups in terms of their responses to an opinion question is likely to be affected by the difference in the form of the question. Closed-end questions, allowing the respondent to chose among a set of given answers, yields a much higher response than open-ended questions, requiring a written answer (Belson and Duncan, 1962). Using accurate descriptions of location, time and event in the questionnaire can improve the accuracy of the responses. Cannell et al. (1977) found that as the time between an event and the time of questioning increases, there will be increased under-reporting of information about the event. Sudman and Presser (1981) found the opposite; as time increases there is an over-reporting of information about the event. Whether under-reported or over-reported, inaccurate description will increase questionnaire bias., Establishing credibility is important and can be done through the use of an introductory cover letter attached to the questionnaire. Descriptions explaining the reasons, importance and funding of the project will help to establish credibility and build trust, which in turn will increase rate of response (Fowler, 1993). . The use of a pre-survey is important 8 to test the design of the survey and improve validity (Mendenhall et ah, 1971; Filion, 1981). Opinions of non-respondents are as important as those of respondents in testing the validity of the survey (Brown and Wilkins, 1978; Craven, 1992). Summary Understanding the characteristics of the survey respondents allows for identification of the stake holder groups, or those who have the most to lose or gain in a situation. The literature review identified possible stake holders in wildlife and agriculture issues. Perceived conflicts and possible solutions between hunters and ranchers can be identified using survey techniques. 9 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS and METHODS A questionnaire designed to identify perceived problems and possible solutions to hunter/rancher conflicts was mailed to 1000 Montana big game hunters and 989 Montana ranchers. Identification of stake holders in hunter/rancher issues were determined to develop appropriate mailing lists. The stake holders for hunter issues were determined to be avid sportsmen in Montana. The stake holders for ranchers were determined to be people depending upon agriculture for their livelihood. Hunters were randomly selected from the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks database of deer (Odocoileus spp.), elk (Cervus elaphus) and antelope {Antilocarpa dmericana) 1994 hunting permit purchasers. One thousand hunters purchasing a resident combination license for deer and elk and hunters who drew an antelope special permit were selected from the data base. Rancher names and addresses were obtained from county extension agents. Every county extension agent in the state was sent a letter requesting the names of 25 ranchers, who controlled a minimum of 1000 acres, and who in the opinion of the county agent, had views on hunter/rancher related issues representative of the county. Twenty-three ranchers randomly selected from each list of 25 and a total of 989 surveys were sent. Forty-three of 56 counties in Montana returned complete mailing lists and were represented in the survey. 10 Survey Design The survey consisted of a cover letter, the questionnaire, and a map outlining hunting regions within the state (Appendices A and B). The cover letter explained how names for the mailing lists were obtained, who was sponsoring the project, and the purpose for conducting the survey. The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks regional map was included on the back of each letter for use with questions pertaining to regional data (Appendices A and B). For analysis of regional data, the state was divided into three Areas, the East Area, Central Area and West Area (Figure I). Survey questions were asked in a closed response format, with multiple answer choices available. Hunter/Rancher Background Two forms of the questionnaire were used. The first portion of one form was designed to get information unique to hunters. The first portion of the other form related to information unique to ranchers. Both forms had the same follow-up questions. Hunters were asked about the number of years they had hunted and were given response choices of I year, 2 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, and more than 10 years. Hunters were asked to indicate the species of big game hunted during the 1994 season and the species of big game hunted, region and if hunting occurred on public land, private land or both for each species they hunted. Ranchers were asked questions related to management of hunters on the land to which they controlled access. Questions referred to an attached map which was used to Lincoln Pondera I ____ Qerllald Piilrle [WlbauiQoIdanIValley Ravalli Bow I Qallalln Madlaon Big Horn Figure I . Map of Area divisions within the state for survey analysis. West Area is I, Central Area is 2 and East Area is 3. 12 identify the region(s) Df the ranch location. Ranchers were asked to identify the number of acres on which they controlled hunting during the 1994 big game season and what percent o f the land was deeded and whether they were the owner, manager or both owner and manager of the ranch. Ranchers were asked to identify the number of days people hunted on their land and the number o f people that hunted on their land during the 1994 big game season. Ranchers were also asked if deer, elk or antelope were present in huntable numbers on the lands they managed or owned during the 1994 big game season. Ten choices were given to ranchers as possible management strategies used for managing hunters on their property. If the land was closed to hunting, respondents were asked to identify and rank seven possible choices listed as reasons for the closure. Hunter/Rancher Conflicts and Solutions After the initial background questions, the survey questions were identical on both hunter and rancher survey forms. Both groups were asked if they felt there were conflicts between hunters and ranchers. If respondents answered "yes", they were asked to rank from 0 to 5 their opinion about 14 listed problems. Zero meant the conflict was not a problem and 5 meant it was a major problem. Both groups were then asked to respond to 10 possible solutions for hunter/rancher conflicts and rank them from 0 to 5 with 0 having low potential as a solution and 5 having high potential as a solution. If the answer was "no" to the hunter/rancher conflicts questions, respondents were instructed to go to the next section of the survey. The groups were asked if they had a negative or positive experience with the other 13 group. Respondents were asked a series of questions about big game populations and if they felt deer, elk and antelope populations had increased, decreased or had remained the same over the last five years. They were asked if they felt hunting pressure and private land access had changed over the last five years. Questions were asked about the effects of private land on big game species in Montana and the effects of agricultural practices on big game habitat in Montana. Respondents were given a choice ranging from very positive to very negative. The last question on the survey asked who the respondent felt best represented them in hunter/rancher related issues. They were given a choice of possible responses including; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, several special interest groups, legislative representative, yourself, no one, or don't know. Survey Procedure Prior to sending the primary survey, a pre-survey was mailed to local livestock producers, hunters, and others who were active in dealing with hunter/rancher related issues. A cover letter was enclosed to ask for assistance in identifying any misunderstandings or poorly worded questions in the survey. This was done to identify any problems with the questionnaire before the survey was mailed to the sample population. The primary survey was sent out on August 9, 1995 and responses were received until October 12,1995. Surveys returned after October 12th were not tabulated because of possible confusion of the opening of the 1995 hunting season would have on the survey time frame. Possible non-respondent bias was addressed using twenty-five people, randomly 14 selected from both the hunter list and the rancher list, who did not respond to the survey. These people were telephoned between October 18th and 20th and asked to respond to the survey over the telephone. This information was used to test for biases by comparing the telephone responses to the mail responses. Individual responses were tabulated for each survey using a spreadsheet format, for statistical analysis. Statistical Analysis Data, reported as percentages of all identical questions were analyzed using the chisquare procedures of SAS (1994). Problems and solutions were analyzed individually and compared between groups. The survey responses 0 through 5 were grouped to strengthen the low and high responses. The problems were grouped as 0 and I being no problem, 2 and 3 as a problem, and 4 and 5 as a major problem. The solutions were grouped as 0 and I having little possibility as a solution, 2 and 3.as potential solutions, and 4 and 5 as high potential solutions. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate hunter/rancher conflicts and solutions by region using the GLM procedure of SAS (1994). Hunter, rancher, region, and all two-way interactions were fitted as main effects in the model. Problems and ,solutions were analyzed using the t-tests (SAS, 1994). Due to the large number of degree of freedom an alpha level of .01 was used. 15 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Hunter Background Thirty-five percent of the hunters responded to the mail survey. O f those responding, 68% had more than ten years of hunting experience (Table I). During the 1994,big game season 85% of hunters responding hunted deer, 73% hunted elk, and 79% hunted antelope. The largest percentage of hunters spent three to seven days hunting all. three species during the 1994 big game season (Table I). Hunters spent 48% of their time hunting deer on a combination of private and public lands. Elk and antelope were hunted more exclusively on public or private lands, respectively. Elk were hunted on public lands 52% of the time, with antelope being hunted on private land 49% of the time (Table I). When experienced hunters (>10 years) were compared to novice hunters (<10 years) the only difference was that experienced hunters spent fewer days hunting all species combined. 16 Table I. Hunter background information (percentage of hunters by category) Years Hunted I year 2-5 years 6-10 years >10 years N Hunters, % I 16 16 68 335 Number of days hunted by species I -2 days 3-7 days 8-14 days >15 days N Deer 9 40 26 24 295 Elk 21 36 24 19 254 Antelope 43 51 5 2 275 Land status hunted Private Public Both Don't know N Deer 29 21 48 2 320 Elk 14 52 33 I 272 Antelope 47 17 34 2 292 Rancher Background Forty-two percent of the ranchers responded to the survey. Rancher background information obtained included ranch size, ownership, species present, hunter days and number of hunters. Ranch sizes ranged from less than 404 ha to greater than 40485 ha (Table 2). Sixty-one percent of ranchers responding to the survey owned or managed property from 404 to 4048 ha. Sixty-six percent of the respondents were both owners and managers of their property (Table 2), with 72% of the ranchers having at least three-quarters of the land deeded (Table 2). Respondents reporting the percentage of big game species present in huntable numbers ranged from 93% for deer, 38% for elk, and 64% for antelope. 17 Ranchers were asked to estimate the number of days that people hunted on their land during the 1994 big game season (Table 2). Fifty-one percent of the responding ranchers had hunters on their property more than 21 days during, the 1994 big game season. Besides the number of hunter days, ranchers were asked to estimate the number of people that had hunted on their land during the 1994 big game season (Table 2). This answer varied from I to more than 500, with no group standing out. A comparison between ranches under 4048 ha and ranches over 4048 ha was made. The ranches under 4048 ha had fewer people hunting on their land but had a similar number of hunter days. Game species present on the ranches over 4048 ha were similar to ranches under 4048 ha. 18 Table 2. Ranch background information (percentage of ranchers by category) Ranch size, in hectares (N=387) <404 404- 2023 2024- 4049- 4048 20234 20235- >40485 40485 Ranches, % 13 35 26 21 2 2 Ownership and management (N=383) Owner Manager Owner/Manager Other Ranches, % 28 6 66 I Percent deeded lands (N=389) 0-25 % 26-50 % 51-75 % 76-100% Ranches, % 4 8 16 72 Hunter days (N=388) 0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-50 >50 Don't know Ranches, % 4 5 7 10 13 30 21 10 Number of hunters on property (N=385) 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-100 101- Don't 500 know Ranches, % 15 21 14 7 5 13 12 13 Rancher Management Strategies Ranchers were asked how they managed hunting on their property. They were given a choice of eleven different management strategies. Results were grouped to include management strategies used on 50% or more of their land (Table 3). Twenty-three percent of the respondents had no restrictions to hunting, 57% required simple permission, 27% had vehicle restrictions and 32% had other restrictions including advanced reservations, check 19 in/out and species or sex restrictions. Twelve percent of the responses indicated land that was closed to hunting, 12 % had a fee hunting operation or had leased to outfitters and 7 % were under Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Block Management Program. Ranchers often indicated different combinations of management on their property. These included changing management strategies as the hunting season progressed or having several restrictions (i.e., vehicle restrictions and sex restrictions) combined on various areas of their land. Management strategies differed between ranches under 4048 ha and ranches over 4048 ha. Sixty-three percent of the ranches under 4048 ha required simple permission to hunt, compared to 28% of the ranches over 4048 ha. A larger percentage of ranches over 4048 ha used combinations of management strategies with different types of restrictions. Sixteen percent of ranches under 4048 ha had 50% or more of their lands closed to hunting, compared to 5% of the ranches over 4048 ha. 20 Table 3. Rancher respondents to hunting management strategies (N=395). Percent OfLanda Management Strategies <50% >50% . No restrictions, totally open to hunting , 4- 23 Simple permission required to hunt 8 57 Land closed to hunting 13 12 Advanced reservations required to hunt 3 12 Check in/out 0 11 Game species or sex restrictions 3 11 Vehicle restrictions 3 27 Block Management Program I 7 Leased by outfitter I 7 Fee hunting operation 2 5 ' a Totals exceed 100% because respondents selected more than one strategy for management If a rancher indicated that their land was closed to hunting they were asked to rank 7 possible reasons for closure giving the reasons an importance rating from I to 3, with I being the most important reason for land closure. Ranchers who had more than 50% of their land closed to hunting (12% of the respondents) indicated that lands were closed due to past damage by hunters (42%) and conflicts with hunters (33%) (Figure 2).. Those ranches with . less than 50 % of land closed often reported the reason as no hunting allowed around buildings or livestock (36%). Size of the ranch did not seem to be related with specific conflicts leading to lands being closed. benefi 30 25 - 20 - 10 5 0 z M P h DRancher Response I C ! Figure 2. Reasons for land closure by ranchers (first and second ranked choice only) 22 Hunter/Rancher Conflicts Hunters and ranchers were asked to identify perceived conflicts between the two groups and were given 14 choices. Data were combined to strengthen the response for statistical analyses. Conflicts that scored as a major problem (responses 4 and 5) were ranked for both hunters and ranchers (Table 4). Table 4. Ranking of conflicts (1-14) that hunters (N=349) and ranchers (N=395) classify as a major problem. Conflict Hunter Rank Rancher Rank Damage to property by hunters 8 4 Litter from hunting 6 6 Too many hunters 5 3 Damage to roads 13 8 Driving off roads 2 I Too little access I 12 Lack of proper maps 7 9 Damage to livestock 14 10 Unclear property postings 4 11 Trespassing 3 2 Negative public statements by hunters 11 5 Negative public statements by ranchers 9 13 Abuse of land by hunters 10 7 Abuse of land by ranchers 12 14 23 The top three conflicts ranked as a major problem by hunters were: too little access to private land, driving off roads, and trespassing (Figure 3,4 and 5). The top three conflicts ranked by ranchers as a major problem were; driving off roads, trespassing and too many hunters (Figure 4, 5 and 6). Ranchers ranked driving off roads and trespassing as (P<01) greater problems than hunters (Appendix C, Table 10). Too little access to private land was ranked as more (P<01) of a problem by hunters than ranchers. Too many hunters was ranked similar (P>.1) as a major problem by both hunters and ranchers. Figure 3. Hunter/rancher response to too little access Figure 4. Hunter/rancher response to driving off roads Major Problem Figure 5. Hunter/rancher response to trespassing Figure 6. Hunter/rancher response to too many hunters 24 Identifying perceived conflicts which hunters and ranchers rated as no problem is as important as conflicts which are identified as major problems. Three choices that hunters perceived as no problem include; damage to livestock, abuse of land by ranchers, and damage to roads. Ranchers identified choices that they perceived as no problem as abuse of land by ranchers, too little access, and unclear property postings. Hunters and ranchers both agreed that abuse of land by ranchers is not a problem but ranchers ranked it lower (P<. 0 1). than hunters. Too little access was considered a major problem by hunters but not a problem by ranchers. Other choices, which were ranked as no problem and were different (P<01) between hunters and ranchers include; lack of proper maps and negative public statements by ranchers. Negative public statements by hunters were not different (P>.1) between hunters and ranchers. Problems were compared between experienced (> 10 years) and novice (< 10 years) hunters. Hunting experience had no effect on responses to the 14 problems when compared to the group as a whole or between years. Problems were also compared to ranch size. Ranches over 4048 ha had a higher percentage report of damages to roads and driving off roads as major problems compared to ranches under 4048 ha. Hunter/Rancher Solutions Hunters and ranchers were asked to respond to ten choices of possible solutions to hunter/rancher conflicts. Data were combined to increase the response for statistical 25 analysis. Solutions identified as having a high potential (responses of 4 and 5) are ranked for both hunters and ranchers in Table 5. . Hunters ranked greater consideration and appreciation by ranchers, better communication between hunters and ranchers and better boundary identification as having the highest potential as solutions (Figure 7, 8 and 9) to hunter/rancher conflicts. The top three solutions to hunter/rancher conflicts as identified by ranchers were; stiffer penalties for violators, better communication between hunters and ranchers and greater consideration and appreciation by hunters (Figure 7, 8 and 10). Hunters ranked greater consideration and appreciation by ranchers as having higher (P<01) potential for a solution than ranchers (Appendix C, Table 11). Stiffer penalties for violators was ranked as having higher (P<01) potential as a solution by ranchers than by hunters. Hunters and ranchers agreed (P>.1) that better communication between the two groups has high potential as a possible solution to hunter/rancher conflicts. Solutions were compared between experienced and novice hunters. Fifty-six percent of experienced hunters reported better communication had high potential as a solution whereas, only 45% of the novice hunters reported this solution as having high potential. Ranch size was used as a comparison for solutions and no differences were found due to ranch size. 26 Table 5. Ranking of solutions (1-10) that hunters (N=349) and ranchers (N=395) classified as having high potential. Solutions Hunter Rank Rancher Rank Better communication between the two groups 3 2 Stiffer penalties for violators 5 I More involvement by state and federal agencies 9 9 Less involvement by state and federal agencies 6 5 Shorter hunting seasons 10 6 Longer hunting seasons 7 10 Better boundary identification of public and private lands 4 7 More game wardens 8 8 Greater consideration for the concerns of the other group I 4 Greater appreciation for the contributions of the other group 2 3 27 ----fZCL2PLw;GOORto ----iT;ystr;oxn ----RW;xbij;suc I will be out of the office from Tuesday, February 18 through Friday, February 21. I will have access to email and will reply if necessary. All other emails will be returned on Monday, February 24. Thank you!
Services Manager
Recreation
573-874-7202
----zKbciivw;qcbgvx
Dear Prospective Ed.D., Higher Education Strand Applicant:
----F3CYZ8rm;xLjdye Hunter-Game Relationship Fred W. Johnson U.S. Forest Service Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/amesforester Part of the Forest Sciences Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ames Forester by an authorized editor of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact digirep@iastate.edu. Recommended Citation Johnson, Fred W. (1941) "Hunter-Game Relationship," Ames Forester: Vol. 29 , Article 6. Available at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/amesforester/vol29/iss1/6 S Hunter-Game Relationship By FRED W. JOHNSON U. S. Forest Service-Region Ill. Editor-GcLme aS a fOpreSt resource demCunldS atteuthonl armd, TegulCrfeOm by the fOTeSteT and FTed Johnson points out that pTOPler hWuter eduCartion and Careful garme-kth checks Prove rmost ¬mpoTtant bn hunter-game TeLatbovushbps-a sub5ect om wh6ch, but tittle scbentiftc work has get been dorme. OIME excellent work has been done on predator-prey relationships by Dr. Paul R. Errington at Iowa State College, who has been a pioneer in a distinct phase of game management. His efforts along with Stoddard's, have shed a lot of light on the mechanics of predation and escape cover. In Region Ill of the U. S. Forest Service, which includes the national forest areas in Arizona and New Mexico, we have been trying to determine, in a broad way, some of the huntergame relationships. This subject itself is a large field, and can and probably will be developed as a distinct phase of game management as has the predator-prey relationship studies o£ Errington and his contemporaries. The field o-I-hunter-game relationship, for some reason, has been without benefit of much scientific study, but has been the subject of night-long discussion by both sportsmen and sportsmen-game managers. Much o£ our work on America's big game mammals and upland game birds has been in the hands of men so busy trying to unravel the tangled biological web of modern game range conditions that they have had little time to devote to the effect o£ harvesting game on the game populations. However, a start in this direction has been made by Gerstell of the Pennsylvania State Game Department on quail covey requirements. Gerstell showed conclusively that i£ quail coveys are shot to a low number the few remnants of the covey may perish during periods of low temperature due to too few birds in the winter "huddle." This is an important hunter-game relationship. Nineteen Forty-one 37 Your National Forests are considered large public shooting grounds. They are operated as such in cooperation with the State Game Departments, and national forest public shooting regulations conform to the State's game laws within which they occur. In operating the National Forests as public shooting grounds, we are interested in the promotion of quality of sport shooting, that is, giving each party of hunters a degree of isola1ation compatible with good sport and game needs. We are interested in improving the quality of big game crops which may lead into genetics or the maintenance of high quality breeding stock, and proper sex ratios. In addition to the above, it is necessary to prevent over-shooting in order to retain adequate numbers o£ breeding stock of big game, wild turkey and quail. These are some o£ the hunter-game relationships on which we are just starting to work and I wish to discuss some o£ the initial work and methods that are being used to isolate a few of the hunter-game relationships that are being studied. ®NE of the most important needs of big game hunt manage- ment in this Region is obtaining hunter distribution evenly over the game range. We find that hunters concentrate on areas most easily reached by car if there is any game available. Hunter distribution is controlled by roads and topography, and a large part of this Region is accessible by car. Our remote areas are actually under-hunted, with the result that our best deer, elk and wild turkey crops come from areas least accessible by car. As a study method, we find that hunter checking stations, strategically located on roads so as to check the highest percentage of hunters using the broad areas behind these stations, are a very valuable tool. Here, deer and elk crops are measured as to number and sex. Weights and male antler measurements are recorded. Wild turkey and quail crops are recorded as to number and the ratio of adult to "birds o£ the year" is secured through age identification. For the purpose of studying hunter distribution, a kill spot map is made on which the kill location is recorded. These have proven to be of high value. As an example of one phase of administrative work in connection with concentrated hunting on the west side of the Sacramento Division of the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico, a deer management unit has been established this year for the purpose of obtaining better hunter distribution, herd improvement, and deer forage improvement. This unit has 38 Ames Forester been established by the New Mexico State Game Commission in cooperation with the Forest Service, and has legal recognition as a game management unit in their game code
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar