public attitudes towards wolves in wisconsin: 2013 survey...

Public Attitudes towards Wolves in Wisconsin: 2013 Survey Report Hogberg, J., Treves., A., Shaw, B., Naughton, L. Public Attitudes towards Wolves in Wisconsin: 2013 Survey Report. Carnivore Coexistence Lab. Madison, WI. October 2013. http://faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/wolves/wolfhuman.php Jamie Hogberg MS candidate Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies Carnivore Coexistence Lab Adrian Treves PhD Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies Carnivore Coexistence Lab Bret Shaw PhD Department of Life Sciences Communication University of Wisconsin-Extension Lisa Naughton PhD Department of Geography University of Wisconsin-Madison 2013

Funding by University of Wisconsin Extension, US Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Derse Foundation. Support by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and University of Wisconsin-Madison.

1

Contents

Introduction 2

Sampling Methods 3

Descriptive Statistics 5-32

Demographics 5

Exposure 7

Information Sources 9

2012 Wolf Harvest: 13 participation & methods 2012 Wolf Harvest: hunting rules 17

Attitudes, Beliefs & Tolerance of Wolves 20

Compensation & Donations 31

Acknowledgements 33

Sources 33

Appendix

2013 Questionnaire 34

2

Public Attitudes towards Wolves: 2013 Survey Report

Introduction

Here we report on a 2013 survey of 773 residents of Wisconsin who previously participated in three studies from 2001–2009. This survey was conducted in summer 2013 to understand change in attitudes towards wolves among people living inside and outside of wolf range in Wisconsin, since the first legal wolf harvest in Wisconsin. While monitored goals of the harvest include population and conflict reduction, we take a closer look at the policy goal of increasing tolerance for wolves in the state, and provide preliminary findings about public attitudes towards wolves and wolf policy following this 2012 wolf-hunting season.

In comparison to the responses we received in 2009 from the same respondents, fewer residents living within wolf range reported their tolerance for wolves had increased following the 2012 wolf harvest. Although fifty-one percent of Wolf Range residents reported in 2009 that their tolerance would increase if people could hunt them, we found a net shift towards disagreement with the corresponding statement in 2013 (-18% net shift, n=444). In particular self-identified hunters living in wolf range shifted even more to disagreement (-21% net shift, n=368) since the 2012 wolf-hunt. When asked to self-report change in attitudes since the 2012 harvest, respondents inside and outside of wolf range overwhelmingly reported “No change” (81%, n=686). Further, when asked about their opinion of wolves in the state, 78% of Wolf Range residents and 94% Non-wolf Range residents reported that they were tolerant of wolves, indifferent towards them, or like having them in Wisconsin (n=417, n=190 respectively). See descriptive statistics for frequency of selection of the three individual answer choices. The remaining 22% of Wolf Range residents and 6% of Non-wolf Range residents reported that they are intolerant of wolves in Wisconsin.

This report includes sampling methods and descriptive statistics of each survey question, separated by Wolf Range and Non-wolf Range. Further analyses of questions related to social tolerance of wolves are forthcoming.

3

Sampling Methods

From 2001 to 2009, we had surveyed Wisconsin state residents with three mail-back, self-administered questionnaires detailed in (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; Treves et al. 2009; Treves et al. 2013). In 2013, we resampled the previously surveyed respondents in order to measure changes in attitudes towards wolves following the 2012 wolf-hunt in Wisconsin. One set of respondents was first sampled in 2001, another set in 2004, and only those members of both panels who lived in wolf range were resampled in 2009. The 2001 panel’s initial 528 members comprised 67 landowners with past, verified wolf attacks on domestic animals and 312 landowners from the same counties selected randomly from commercially available address lists; 48 bear hunters with verified wolf attacks on their hunting dogs and 101 members of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association selected at random (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). This panel was labeled as having “high exposure to wolves,” and lived within wolf range. In 2009, we resampled all the past respondents. The 2004 panel’s 1364 members were selected randomly from commercial address lists of three urban and three rural postal codes. Half the postal codes were in wolf range and half outside. This panel was labeled as having “low exposure to wolves,” in comparison to the 2001 panel. In 2009 we resampled only the 687 members of the panel with residential addresses in wolf range (three postal codes for towns: Butternut, Owen, and Wausau) (Treves et al. 2013). In April 2013, we resampled all respondents from the 2009 survey (736), known as the Wolf Range Panel, in addition to all respondents from the 2004 survey (575) who lived outside of wolf range, (three postal codes for towns: Madison, Sister Bay, and Fond du lac) described as the Non-wolf Range Panel. See Figure 1 for geographical definition of Wolf Range and Non-wolf Range according to 2011 wolf pack and range inventory data from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and zip codes from which we received responses to the 2013 survey. In combination, the Wolf Range and Non-wolf Range panels were not representative of Wisconsin residents in three ways. Collectively the two panels contained more hunters (538) and men (616) than is representative of the state. This is due to the designs of the 2001 and 2004 survey samples. The 2001 panel contained more bear hunters and over-represented people with verified losses to wolves (22%). The 2004 panel was more biased towards males because commercially available address lists generally provided head of household (Treves et al 2013). Hunters are defined as respondents who report having hunted in the past 2 years (394) and/or having hunted at any other time in life (additional 144). The collective 2013 panel also over-represented residents of Wolf Range, as we received 70% (538) of total responses from Wolf Range respondents, and 30% (234) of total responses from Non-wolf Range respondents. While this sample is not representative of Wisconsin residents, our sampling approach allowed us to report specifically on attitudes towards wolves among hunters, males, and Wolf Range residents, and compare Wolf Range to Non-Wolf Range residents in Wisconsin. In 2013, we mailed 1311 questionnaires including a cover letter, incentive payment of $2, mail-back envelope with postage paid and one wave of reminder postcards. Responses: 163 (12.4%) were returned unanswered, 375 (28.6%) did not return, and 773 (59%) were returned with data. Only one of the 773 surveys had identity codes removed, and 128 (16.5%) did not match sex and age of the original respondent, for a total of 129 (16.7%) unintended

4

recipients in 2013. We received 234 responses from the non-wolf range panel and 538 responses from the wolf range panel.

Figure 1: 2013 Survey Respondents by Zip Code within and outside of Wolf Range in Wisconsin. 2 zip codes are missing from the map: 54324 and 54402. These are both post office box zip codes (54324 for Green Bay, 54402 for Wausau) that do not have spatial data attached so they could not be mapped. Zip code boundaries are according to U.S. Census data. Wolf pack polygons from WI DNR files, buffered by 5 km to capture the common extra-territorial movements of pack-resident wolves.

5

Descriptive Statistics

Demographics

How many years have you lived in Wisconsin?

In what year were you born?

Are you:

Wolf Range N=532 Non-Wolf Range N=231 I consider myself:

Wolf Range N=508 Non-Wolf Range N=225

*All frequencies are rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Wolf Range Mean = 55.07 years Non-Wolf Range Mean = 52.09 years

Wolf Range Mean = 1948 Non-Wolf Range Mean = 1947

6

Have you hunted in the past two years?


Have you regularly hunted at any other time in your life?


Is raising livestock your household’s major source of income?


7

Exposure

During which years do you think you have seen or heard wolves around your land?

Never:


1970s or before:


1980s:


8

(Continued) During which years do you think you have seen or heard wolves around your land?

1990s:


2000-2011:


2012-2013:


9

Information Sources

How often do you turn to each of the following sources for information about wolves in Wisconsin?

Radio or Television:


Social Media on the Internet:


10

(Continued) How often do you turn to each of the following sources for information about wolves in Wisconsin?

News or Magazine articles:


Talking with friends, neighbors, or family:


11


Public Hearings:


Government Brochures or Handouts:


12


Brochures, mailings or handouts from a non-governmental organization:


13

2012 Wolf Harvest: Participation & Methods

Were you aware of the 2012-2013 wolf hunting and trapping season in Wisconsin before receiving this survey?


Did you apply for a tag for this past wolf hunting and trapping season (2012-2013)?


[If yes] were you selected to purchase a tag for this wolf hunting and trapping season?


100% of Non-Wolf Range answered “No”.

99% of Wolf Range answered “No”.

14

(Continued)

[If yes] did you purchase a tag?


[If yes] did you participate in hunting or trapping in the 2012-2013 wolf season?


[If yes] what methods did you use to hunt or trap wolves? Check all that apply.

Options:

Firearm Bow and Arrow Crossbow Predator Call Bait Hunting at night Cable restraint

[If you participated in the wolf harvest] were you successful at killing a wolf?




0% of Non-Wolf Range answers were checked for each option. N=229

0-1% of Wolf Range answers were checked for each option. N=521

100% of Non-Wolf Range answered “No” to questions 7 and 9.



15

Not counting yourself, do you know anyone personally who: (Check all that apply)

Applied for a tag in the 2012-2013 wolf season lottery:


Was selected to purchase a tag:


Purchased a tag:


Was successful in killing a wolf:


16

Will you apply for a tag for the 2013-2014 wolf hunting and trapping season?

Wolf Range N=526 Non-Wolf Range N=228 *0% answered, “I already applied.”

17

2012 Wolf Harvest: Hunting Rules

Which, if any of the following rules would you support for the 2013-2014 hunting and trapping season on wolves in Wisconsin? Check all that apply.

No use of dogs:


No use of traps:


No use of bait:


18

(Continued) Which, if any of the following rules would you support for the 2013-2014 hunting and trapping season on wolves in Wisconsin? Check all that apply.

No out-of-state hunters:


No hunting during the breeding and pregnancy season:


Hunting only wolves that have caused property damage:


19

(Continued) Which, if any of the following rules would you support for the 2013-2014 hunting and trapping season on wolves in Wisconsin? Check all that apply.

No hunting at night:


No use of predator calls:


No hunting wolf pups:


20

Attitudes, Beliefs & Tolerance of Wolves

How do you feel about the legislative decision to open the 2012-2013 wolf hunting and trapping season?


Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Circle the letter that best describes your opinion.

“I feel happy that wolves live in Wisconsin.”


21


“My tolerance for Wisconsin wolves has increased since people can hunt them.”


“Wolves keep deer herds healthy by killing the sick and weak animals.”


22


“Killing wolves is the only way to stop them from threatening farm animals and pets.”


“I think Wisconsin’s growing wolf population threatens deer hunting opportunities.”


23


“We should let nature determine the number of wolves in Wisconsin.”


“I would oppose all hunting of wolves.”


24


“I want to be able to hunt wolves in Wisconsin without restrictions.”


“I feel angry that wolves live in Wisconsin.”


25


“I would be afraid if wolves lived near my home.”


“Seeing a wolf in the wild would be one of the greatest outdoor experiences of my life.”


26


“I think wolves are essential to maintaining the balance of nature.”


“In general, the DNR is responsive to the concerns of most Wisconsin citizens.”


27


“The DNR is more responsive to the demands of people living in Madison and other cities than people living in rural areas.”


“The DNR is more responsive to the hunters’ lobby than any other group.”


28

Under what circumstances would it be justified to shoot a wolf?


[If previous answer was “Without a permit, under some circumstances,”] under what circumstances?

* Respondents that answered “None” or “Only with a permit” in question 15 also answered “No” to all choices in question 15a (included in frequencies).

If a wolf approached a person and would not leave:


If a wolf was on someone’s property:


29

(Continued) [If previous answer was “Without a permit, under some circumstances,”] under what circumstances?

* Respondents that answered “None” or “Only with a permit” in question 15 also answered “No” to all choices in question 15a (included in frequencies).

If a wolf approached someone’s pets or farm animals:


If a person saw a wolf while hunting other game (outside wolf season):


Did your opinion of wolves change since the 2012-2013 Wisconsin wolf season?


30

What is your opinion of wolves in the state?


31

Compensation & Donations

Do you currently own a Wisconsin Endangered Resources wolf license plate?


Have you owned one in the past?


Now that wolves can legally be hunted, would you be more or less likely to purchase the Endangered Resources Fund license plate?


32

In the past five years, have you donated to the Endangered Resources Fund on your state income tax form?


Now that wolves can be legally hunted, would you be more or less likely to donate to the Endangered Resources Fund on your state income tax form?


33

Acknowledgements Thank you to M. Rabenhorst (figure 1), C. Williamson, C. Browne-Nuñez, V. Shelley and the Carnivore Coexistence Lab, D. MacFarland and DNR staff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, T. Heberlein, R. Grossberg, K. Martin, E. Jones, A. Wydeven, R. Jurewicz, T. Heberlein, D. Wilcove, J. Peugh, P. David, J. Naughton, D. Scheffele UW Extension, UW Mailing Service, and UW Department of Information Technology, Tara Mohan and staff at the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association, K. Ankenbaur, N. Goldstein, and M. Robinson.

Sources

Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., Treves, A. 2003. Paying for tolerance: the impact of livestock depredation and compensation payments on rural citizens attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology 17(6): 1500-1511.

Treves, A., Jurewicz, R., Naughton-Treves, L., Wilcove, D. 2009. The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodiversity and Conservation. 18(14): 4003-4021.

Treves, A., Naughton, L., Shelley, V. Longitudinal Analysis of Attitudes Toward Wolves.

Conservation Biology. 27(2): 315-323.

public attitudes towards wolves in wisconsin: 2013 survey...

Documents