A Survey of Tennessee State Park Rangers: Their Attitudes Toward and. Participation in Wildlife Related Activities

Transcription

1 A Survey of Tennessee State Park Rangers: Their Attitudes Toward and Participation in Wildlife Related Activities A Research Paper Presented for the Master of Science in Agriculture and Natural Resources Degree The University of Tennessee, Martin Melissa F. Urick May 213

2 Author's Limited-use Agreement In presenting this completed paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an academic degree, I represent that it is an original Work and therefore assert the rights of an Author under Title 17 of the United States Code (copyright). I understand the University maintains one or more copies ofthe Work in its institutional archive as the permanent record of the Work's acceptance toward the degree, with the understanding that the University will maintain archival copies of the Work in such forms as best ensures its permanent preservation and continued public accessibility. Notwithstanding the retention of copyright and all other rights to this Work, I recognize the University of Tennessee as the effective publisher ofthis paper and grant irrevocably to the University the following limited use of the Work in perpetuity: a) representing the University, UTM University Archives may duplicate and distribute copies of the Work on the following terms, without recovering royalty payments or other considerations for the Author: i) the archival copy will be publicly accessible upon deposit and acceptance of the degree, and an electronic version of the Work will be posted for public accessibility and distribution on an institutional repository as an archival document, which may be downloaded by users without charge; ii) the UTM University Archives may duplicate copies of the Work as requested for the holdings of other academic libraries, so long as reproduction costs amount only to a sum required to recover actual duplication costs and shipping; however, the limited uses granted here do not transfer to other institutions holding copies of the work; b) in the event that the Author or their heirs cannot be located after a documented goodfaith effort is made by a user, i) the Author's lead graduate-committee professor shall have authority to grant permission for extensive quotation from the Work during the term of copyright, but not for publication of the Work; ii) in the professor's absence, University Archives shall have authority to grant permission for extensive quotation in its function as archival custodian for University theses and papers, but not for publication or performance of the work; iii) the University shall have authority to grant publication or performance permission to the Work as it stands in the deposit copy, provided the use is determined to be primarily scholarly or for demonstration, and non-commercial; c) any duplication or use of the Work for financial gain ofa user, except as stated here, is prohibited and duplication may be refused. Author: ~ -t -i/ta:r..k Date: 5~ I / L~ I' 7

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank several individuals who have helped me over the course of this project and throughout this graduate program. All of my professors have been so helpful in providing me with a well-rounded and applicable education; for this I am very grateful. A special thank you to Dr. Barb Darroch, who has been an excellent mentor during my time in this program and someone I would consider a friend. I would also like to thank her for working with me on this project, providing me with statistical guidance. Another thank you is extended for Dr. Philip Smartt, who has been an excellent help in developing this project and carrying it through to completion. I am extremely grateful to my husband for giving me the understanding, support, and encouragement throughout my time as a graduate student. ii

4 ABSTRACT State park rangers play a vital role in increasing public awareness and appreciation of wildlife and wildlife management, through ranger led programs using a variety of interpretive tools. Because park rangers are so involved in disseminating wildlife information, it is important to gather information on their values and attitudes toward wildlife, as they can influence public acknowledgement of wildlife values and management policy. This project was developed to help shed light on the values and attitudes toward wildlife that are held by Tennessee State Park Rangers and determine what attitude and value orientation is most common among these individuals. In addition, the study also examined participation in wildlife-related recreation. A 29-question survey was created to identify attitudes and values held by Tennessee State Park Rangers related to the use of wildlife, including their participation in the use of wildlife. Out of 29 potential respondents, 132 Tennessee State Park Rangers responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 63%. Chi-square and Fisher s exact tests were used to determine if attitudes toward wildlife or participation in wildlife-related recreation were related to gender, education level, or location of childhood residence. The majority of survey respondents hold very positive attitudes toward the acceptability of legal hunting and fishing, wildlife watching, the baiting and calling of wildlife, and the use of live wildlife or non-living wildlife items in interpretive programs. While differences among demographic groups (rural vs. urban, gender, education) were observed with respect to wildlife attitudes and wildlife-related recreation participation, there were only two demographic characteristics in this study that showed significant relationships. Respondents gender was often predictive of wildlife attitudes and wildlife-related recreation participation (P.1). More females than males participate in non-consumptive wildlife-related recreation such as iii

5 birdwatching and other wildlife watching. Fewer females than males hunt. A higher percentage of females than males regarded fishing or hunting for meat as only sometimes acceptable. Also, attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting were significantly (P <.1) related to rural vs. urban childhood residence. Respondents who grew up in a rural location were more acceptable of trophy hunting than those that grew up in an urban location. iv

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION...1 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY...1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY...2 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW...3 VALUES AND ATTITUDES...3 TYPES OF WILDLIFE VALUE ORIENTATIONS...5 Utilitarian...6 Mutualist...6 Pluralist...6 NATIONAL WILDLIFE USE AND VALUE TRENDS...7 Fishing and Hunting...7 Wildlife Watching...11 STATE PARK VISITATION TRENDS...13 TENNESSEE ATTITUDES TOWARD WILDLIFE...14 RURAL-URBAN INFLUENCES ON WILDLIFE ATTITUDES AND USE...14 GENDER AND EDUCATION LEVEL INFLUENCES ON WILDLIFE ATTITUDES AND USE...16 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY...17 SURVEY PROCEDURES...17 STUDY POPULATION...17 DATA COLLECTION...17 DATA ANALYSIS...18 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS...19 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS...19 SURVEY RESULTS BASED ON RESEARCH OBJECTIVES...19 Objective Objective Objective Objective v

7 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION...47 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION...5 LITERATURE CITED...51 APPENDIX A: IRB LETTER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT MARTIN...54 APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONS...55 vi

8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Total wildlife-related recreation from the 211 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Table 2: Fastest-growing U.S. nature-based outdoor activities in 2-27 according to the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment... 1 Table 3: Demographics of Tennessee State Park Rangers survey respondents... 2 Table 4: Comparison of P-values from Chi-square or Fisher s exact test analysis to determine relationships to wildlife attitudes and wildlife-related recreation participation among gender, childhood residence (rural vs. urban), and education attained by respondents vii

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Respondents attitudes toward the always, sometimes, or never acceptability of legal hunting types Figure 2: Respondents attitudes toward the always, sometimes, or never acceptability of legal fishing types Figure 3: Respondents top choice in personal participation of wildlife-related recreation Figure 4: Respondents primary motivation for hunting, if they hunt, based on four different hunting motives Figure 5: Respondents primary motivation for fishing, if they fish, based on four different fishing motives Figure 6: Respondents use or non-use of live or non-living wildlife items in interpretive programs Figure 7: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for meat Figure 8: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for meat Figure 9 : Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for sport Figure 1: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting Figure 11: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for sport viii

10 Figure 12: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy fishing Figure 13: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their primary wildlife-related recreation use, consumptive or non-consumptive Figure 14: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their primary choice of participation in wildlife-related recreation Figure 15: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their participation in hunting Figure 16: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their participation in fishing Figure 17: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for meat Figure 18: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for sport Figure 19: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for meat Figure 2: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for sport Figure 21: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting Figure 22: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy fishing ix

11 Figure 23: Percent of male and female respondents and their primary choice of participation in wildlife-related recreation Figure 24: Percent of male and female respondents and their primary wildlife-related recreation use, consumptive or non-consumptive Figure 25: Percent of male and female respondents and their participation in hunting Figure 26: Percent of male and female respondents and their participation in fishing Figure 27: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for meat Figure 28: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for meat Figure 29: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for sport Figure 3: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for sport Figure 31: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy fishing Figure 32: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting Figure 33: Percent of respondents within each education level and their primary choice of participation in wildlife-related recreation Figure 34: Percent of respondents within each education level and their primary wildlife-related recreation use, consumptive or non-consumptive x

12 Figure 35: Percent of respondents within each education level and their participation in hunting Figure 36: Percent of respondents within each education level and their participation in fishing xi

13 xii

14 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Humans have always had a unique connection to wildlife. In the United States, people have held different attitudes and values about wildlife throughout the years. There are people who regard wildlife as a symbol of wilderness and captivation. Others see wildlife as important environmental indicators and sources of scientific study. Wildlife are also valued by people as a source of sustenance, and hold recreational value in the form of sport hunting and fishing. In a growing trend, more people are enjoying wildlife viewing for photography or pleasure (Cordell et al. 28). When dealing with the many values regarding wildlife that are present across the United States, there are associated attitudes toward wildlife use that often form the basis for participation in specific wildlife use activities (Manfredo et al. 23). Therefore, an understanding of wildlife values, or the human dimensional aspect of wildlife, can be important in understanding participation in the use of wildlife. Within a particular region, there can be strong opposing views and attitudes on the value of wildlife, and stakeholders may disagree on what could be considered appropriate and effective wildlife use. In recent years, the number of stakeholders with different positions on wildlife issues has been on the rise in many regions (Manfredo et al. 23, Teel et al. 25). There have been several studies to determine what wildlife attitudes and values exist, if these attitudes are shifting, and how present attitudes and values influence views on wildlife education, management, and policy. Significance of the Study Wildlife and outdoor education are key components of many state park employees position descriptions. State park rangers play a vital role in increasing public awareness and 1

15 appreciation of wildlife and wildlife management, through ranger led programs using a variety of interpretive tools. Wildlife management agencies are becoming increasingly aware of the important role people and wildlife education have in wildlife management. Managers realize that knowledge of public understanding of wildlife policy through education and outreach is necessary to reach policy agreement and understanding among differing stakeholders (Siemer et al. 1991). Because park rangers are so involved in disseminating wildlife information, it is important to gather information on their values and attitudes toward wildlife, as they can influence public acknowledgement of wildlife values and management policy. This project was developed to help shed light on the values and attitudes toward wildlife that are held by Tennessee State Park Rangers and determine what attitude and value orientation is most common among these individuals. Objectives of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify attitudes toward wildlife use held by Tennessee State Park Rangers, and to gain knowledge of their wildlife use participation. The following objectives were identified: 1. To determine what attitudes and value orientations toward wildlife use are present among Tennessee State Park Rangers; 2. To determine what wildlife use activities Tennessee State Park Rangers participate in; 3. To determine if rural vs. urban childhood residence among Tennessee State Park Rangers is related to attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife use participation; 4. To determine if gender and education level among Tennessee State Park Rangers is related to attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife use participation. 2

16 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Values and Attitudes To more fully understand values and attitudes toward wildlife, one must explore how values and attitudes are developed and can be altered. Values are a powerful and complex influence on attitudes, human behavior, and motivation. A person s values are influenced by their immediate social foundations such as family and friends and to a lesser degree by more external influences such as the media (Homer & Kahle 1988, Kollmuss & Agyeman 22). Values are considered to be the basis for differences in attitudes toward wildlife and for predicting wildlife use participation (Fulton et al. 1996). Values are considered a basic social cognition and are the foundation of attitude development. According to Fulton et al. (1996, p. 25), values are defined as fundamental, enduring beliefs or mental constructs that are used to evaluate the desirability of specific modes of conduct or the ends achieved through such conduct. It is important to note that values are generally established early in a person s life, during childhood (Zinn et al. 22). Research has shown that values can be difficult and at times impossible to change as they are deeply ingrained (Teel et al. 25). Attitudes are like values in that they are used as cues in one s environment to allow for adaptation to the environmental situation (Homer & Kahle 1988). Attitudes are defined as a summary evaluation of objects ranging from positive to negative (Petty et al. 1997, p. 611). It has been theorized that knowledge and values influence one s attitudes and, ultimately, behavior choices. A study of natural food shopping behavior by Homer and Kahle (1988) found that attitudes were the bridge between knowledge of nutrition, values toward natural food, and, 3

17 ultimately, natural food shopping behavior. However, when looking at this hierarchy through the framework of pro-environment (wildlife included) behavior, this did not prove to be the case. More often than not, environment-related knowledge and values did not lead to pro-environment behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman 22). There was an attitude gap. Ajzen & Fishbein (1977, p. 912), state that a person s attitude has a consistently strong relation with his or her behavior when it is directed at the same target and when it involves the same action. Behavior is not always directly related to attitudes; instead attitudes can lead to behavioral intent and eventual action (Kollmuss & Agyeman 22, Petty et al. 1997). Pro-environment value and attitude establishment are the result of a combination of factors such as education, family environmental values, role-models, nature experiences as a child, and the influence of nature or environmental organizations (Kollmuss & Agyeman 22). Ultimately, it is the combination of environmental knowledge, values, attitudes, and emotions that can create nature awareness and lead to participation in nature-related activities. Looking at values and attitudes toward wildlife, one must understand the difficulty that can arise when trying to bring about attitude changes. State park rangers that provide wildlife interpretation programs may need to rely heavily on persuasion to educate the public on the importance of wildlife and wildlife management policy, ultimately influencing attitude. Persuasion has been shown to be an excellent method for attitude change in a recipient of the intended message. Studies have determined that real attitude change is often the result of central and/or peripheral routes to persuasion (Petty et al. 1997). The central route requires the recipient of the intended message to be highly motivated to listen to the message and also able to effectively process the message. The peripheral route is best for individuals who lack the motivation to listen to the message and are not readily able to process the message effectively 4

18 (Petty et al. 1997). Research has shown that the source of the message and the message itself are critical to persuasive attitude change. For instance, if the message is not given at the best time to be received, and the source does not appear to be credible, the recipient will likely not be influenced by the message and no attitude change will occur (Petty et al. 1997). It is important to realize the complexity of values and attitudes and the intricacies of effectively bringing about attitude change in an individual. People and the values and attitudes they possess are not so easy to comprehend or change/modify. State park rangers responsible for wildlife and outdoor education programs may exhibit differences in personal values and attitudes toward wildlife when compared to the general public. Types of Wildlife Value Orientations Values can help clarify differences among members of society with regard to wildlife issues and likelihood and type of wildlife use recreation. Determining and defining wildlife value orientations has been an important role in determining wildlife related attitudes. According to Fulton et al. (1996), wildlife value orientations were directly related to survey respondents attitudes toward hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching. Similarly, respondents attitudes toward fishing, hunting and wildlife watching were predictive of their participation in these activities. Attitudes toward hunting and fishing and the intention to participate in these activities explained 75% of the variation. Twenty-five percent of the variation toward wildlife watching was also explained by attitudes. Two wildlife value orientations have been described in research: the utilitarian-consumptive value orientation and the mutualism-appreciation value orientation (Fulton et al. 1996, Manfredo et al. 23, Teel et al. 25). Three types of wildlife value orientations have been recognized: utilitarian, mutualist, and pluralist. 5

19 Utilitarian The utilitarian, or use, wildlife value orientation is the view that wildlife is present for human use and therefore must be managed for human gain. This is a very traditional value that is still found in many societies around the world. It is considered to be a consumptive value. People who hold this value generally favor hunting and fishing and believe that wildlife is important for human use (Manfredo et al. 23, Teel et al. 25, Zinn et al. 22). Mutualist The mutualist wildlife value is the opposite of the utilitarian value. Mutualists hold the view that wildlife and humans need each other and benefit one another. This is a non-consumptive value. Many people who hold this view draw on an emotional aspect of wildlife and believe they are here to take care of and protect wildlife (Manfredo et al. 23, Teel et al. 25). They may be more interested in wildlife watching, photography, and feeding. Pluralist The pluralist wildlife value orientation is a combination of both the utilitarian and mutualist values. Teel et al. (25), explains how this value is based on given circumstances within an individual s life. They provide an example of a woman whose husband hunts and she is accepting of it. However, she would never hunt herself because she could not harm an animal, even to provide food for her family. In this example, it is evident that she holds both utilitarian and mutualist values. 6

20 National Wildlife Use and Value Trends There are two national surveys that focus on outdoor recreation and wildlife related activities across the nation: the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) and the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR). The NSRE has been conducted periodically since 196 to provide statistical information on outdoor recreation and values in the United States (Interagency National Survey Consortium 22). Prior to 1994, the survey was called the Nationwide Recreation Survey (NRS). The latest completed NSRE survey was in The latest completed FHWAR survey was in 211; it has been conducted since 1955 to gather information on hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers. According to the 211 FHWAR survey, 9 million people participated in some form of wildliferelated activity in the United States (Table 1). People who watch wildlife make up the majority of wildlife-related recreation participants according to the survey (Table 1). Comparisons with previous survey information can be used to track trends in general outdoor recreation and wildlife-associated recreation. Fishing and Hunting Fishing and hunting are considered consumptive use wildlife values. At the national level, the NRS ( ) reported that hunting participation around the country had remained fairly stable since the 196 s at around 12% (U.S. Department of the Interior 1986). According to the 2-22 NSRE, the percentage of people who hunt was 11% and the percentage who fish was 33% (Interagency National Survey Consortium 22). In the most recent survey, the percentage of people participating in hunting and fishing was 34% (Cordell 212). 7

21 Table 1. Total wildlife-related recreation from the 211 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Recreation Type Number of Participants (million) Total Participants 9.1 Sportspersons Total Participants* 37.4 Anglers 33.1 Hunters 13.7 Wildlife-Watchers Total Participants* * 71.8 Around the Home 68.6 Away from Home 22.5 * 9.4 million both fished and hunted. * * 19.3 million watched wildlife both around the home and away from home. (from U.S. Department of the Interior 211) 8

22 Big-game hunting was one of the top sixteen fastest-growing U.S. nature-based outdoor activities in 27, according to the NRSE (Table 2). In general, survey respondents who lived or grew up in rural areas were more likely to hunt and fish than their urban counterparts (Interagency National Survey Consortium 22). This was also confirmed in the NSRE 25-28, showing a rural participation rate of 42.5% and an urban participation rate of 32.2% (Cordell 212). Gender and education level are standard socio-demographic data collected in the NRSE Male participation rate in hunting and fishing was 46.1% and the female participation rate was 22.8%. Participation rate in hunting and fishing was highest among individuals who had graduated high school, had some college, or held a college degree (Cordell 212). When looking at FHWAR statistics, in 211, hunting and fishing participation was at 42%, with 37% participating in fishing and 15% participating in hunting activities. The national participation rate for fishing was 14%, with the East South Central region (including the state of Tennessee) at 17%. The national participation rate for hunting was 6%, with the East South Central region at 11%. This region experienced a higher participation rate in both of these activities when compared to the national average. Findings were similar to the NSRE 25-28, which showed that the hunting and fishing participation rate increased with increasing rural residence and decreased with urban residence. However, the majority of hunters and anglers came from urban areas even though their participation rates in either activity were the lowest (U.S. Department of the Interior 211). The majority of hunters and anglers were male. Of those who hunt, 89% were male; of those who fish 73% were male. The majority of hunters had either graduated from high school, had some college, or a college degree; this finding was very similar 9

23 Table 2. Fastest-growing U.S. nature-based outdoor activities in 2-27 according to the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. Percentage change Total participants Activity in participants, (million), Viewing or photographing flowers and trees Viewing or photographing natural scenery Viewing or photographing other wildlife Viewing or photographing birds Visiting nature centers, etc Big-game hunting Visiting wilderness (from Cordell 28) 1

24 to the NSRE Among anglers, all education levels had similar participation rates (U.S. Department of the Interior 211). According to the FHWAR survey, between 1996 and 26 there was a significant decrease in the number of hunters and anglers; however, when comparing the years between 26 and 211, these numbers were up (Cordell et al. 28). The total number of hunters went up by 9% and anglers were up by 11%. The 9% increase in hunting puts 211 participation equal to that of 1991, which is considered the highest hunting rate for the past twenty years (U.S. Department of the Interior 211). According to the U.S. outdoor recreation participation projections to 26, based on the NSRE, hunting participation is expected to increase by 7 to 23% and fishing is expected to increase by 28 to 5% over the next fifty years (Cordell 212). Wildlife Watching When looking at national trends in non-consumptive wildlife use values, it is apparent that there has been an increase in this type of recreational pursuit. In the NRS report, 49% of those surveyed participated in non-consumptive wildlife-related recreation such as wildlife watching and photography. This percentage increased to 72% in the 2-22 NSRE and 74% in the NSRE. According to the 26 FHWAR survey, the greatest percentage (88%) of wildlife viewers enjoy watching birds (U.S. Department of the Interior 26). The NSRE found no significant difference between rural and urban participation percentages for wildlife watching (Cordell 212). This is evidence of a growing trend in non-consumptive wildlife values in the United States. When comparing the wildlife watching participation rate between males and females, the male participation rate was 73.5% 11

25 and the female participation rate was 74.8%. Participation rate in watching wildlife increased with the level of education attained (Cordell 212). According to the 211 FHWAR, participation in wildlife watching was 8% with aroundthe-home (within 1 mile of home) participation at 76% and away-from-home participation (at least 1 mile from home) at 25% of those surveyed. The same percentage (88%) of wildlife watchers viewed birds in the 211 survey and the 26 survey. Of all wildlife watching recreationists, 96% watched wildlife around the home, with 37% of those photographing wildlife. Feeding wildlife in order to observe them was a common activity around the home with 95% feeding wild birds and 28% feeding other wildlife (U.S. Department of the Interior 211). More females (54%) than males participate in wildlife watching around the home. A similar number of males (51%) and females (49%) watched wildlife away from home. Participation in wildlife watching around the home and away from home increased with education level, with the greatest percentage having completed 5 or more years of college (U.S. Department of Interior 211). Similar to rural vs. urban participation in fishing and hunting, the largest number of participants in both around and away from home wildlife watching was found in highly urban areas, but the highest participation rate was located in rural areas. From the 1996 to the 26 FHWAR survey, the number of participants in wildlife watching increased by 8.2% (Cordell et al. 28). According to Table 2, viewing or photographing wildlife or birds has been on the rise since 2 and both are considered to be in the top sixteen fastest-growing U.S. nature-based outdoor activities. Participation projections to 26, based on the NSRE, expect a 4-7% increase in birding and a 3% increase in wildlife watching overall for the next fifty years (Cordell 212). 12

26 These survey statistics offer evidence of national wildlife use and values from both ends of the spectrum. If projections are met over the next fifty years, hunting and fishing utilitarian use and wildlife watching mutualist use will increase. The number of participants and participation rate for wildlife watching has been very high in recent years when compared to hunting and fishing statistics. This may point to an increase in mutualist values as an indication of what society in general is moving toward, with regard to wildlife use and management (Clendenning et al. 25, Manfredo et al. 23, Zinn et al. 22). State Parks Visitation Trends Visiting state and federal parks has been a popular pastime for Americans seeking public natural areas for nature experiences including wildlife watching. Many state parks offer interpretive programs geared toward natural themes, including wildlife, for park visitors. State park visitation increased rapidly since the 195 s, experiencing a peak in visitation in 2 followed by decreasing numbers through 26 (Cordell 28, Cordell et al. 28). Visitation started to rise in 27 and 28 but then fell in 29, corresponding with a strong U.S. recession (Cordell 212). According to the NSRE, 67% of survey participants visited interpretive sites (including state parks). State parks are an excellent public area to watch wildlife, including birds. The 26 FHWAR survey found that 8% of wildlife watchers traveled away from home to public areas to watch birds and other wildlife (Cordell et al. 28). In the 211 FHWAR survey, there was a 17% participation rate in park visitation by all wildlife watchers. Over the next fifty years, it is expected that visitation to interpretive sites will increase 5 to 9% and remain an important source of wildlife watching (Cordell 212). 13

27 Tennessee Attitudes Toward Wildlife In 25, Responsive Management conducted a public opinion survey of Tennessee residents for the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies regarding wildlife use, management, and regard for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). At the time of this survey, respondents highly approved of legal hunting (85%) and legal fishing (91%) with 63% saying they had fished and 35% having hunted in the past 5 years (Responsive Management 25). The top four outdoor recreation activities in order of preference were: feeding wildlife or birds (58%), visiting a state or national park (55%), watching wildlife near home (43%), and fishing (38%). A majority of respondents (47%) had traveled away from home to watch wildlife in the past 12 months. When looking at wildlife values, hunting was ranked the lowest in importance. Knowledge of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency was limited; 71% knew very little or nothing about this agency, yet 63% said they were satisfied with it. When respondents ranked TWRA programs, hunting safety education, enforcement of fish and game laws, and conserving fish and wildlife habitat were the top three programs. Providing educational programs on the state s fish and wildlife fell in the middle and providing opportunities for legal hunting was ranked last (Responsive Management 25). Rural-Urban Influences on Wildlife Attitudes and Use Regardless of whether people come from urban areas or have lived in rural locations their entire lives, they all share the commonality of having social and cultural life experiences, though the experiences may be very different. It is through the context of their social and cultural experiences that people define the meaning and importance of wildlife and therefore, their value 14

28 and attitudes toward wildlife (Eisenhauer et al. 2). It is no surprise that someone from urban America will bring the potential for very different attitudes toward wildlife than a long-term rural resident might have. An urbanite has been surrounded by a different culture. Research into values and attitudes held by urban and long-term rural residents has produced different results. It has been believed that urban dwellers have more environmental knowledge, as they are generally more educated, and therefore are more likely to value wildlife preservation than a long-term rural resident (Vaske et al. 21). While this has been evident, it is not always the case. More researchers are finding that there are differences in the priority of values and attitudes and that these values are not always in conflict between the urban and rural residents (Eisenhauer et al. 2, Hunter & Brehm 24, Jones et al. 23, Walton & Bailey 25, Yung et al. 28). Whittaker et al. (26) surveyed Alaska residents to compare wildlife values held by individuals who grew up in rural and urban areas. They found that respondents who grew up in rural locations were more favorable toward hunting and held a stronger utilitarian attitude when compared to respondents who grew up in urban locations. It was concluded that this may be due to the fact that many rural Americans have a stronger connection to the land for the purpose of harvesting wildlife for consumption and this is seen in their more traditional views toward wildlife. In a study by Hunter & Brehm (24), long-term rural residents of Utah were interviewed to gather information on their attitudes toward wildlife and biodiversity. They found that both mutualist and utilitarian values were present in the majority of interviewees. For example, an avid hunter stated, I ve grown up hunting and fishing so I believe that I do have 15

29 environmental values. I might not be the animal activist but I believe we need the wildlife, we need the environment (Hunter & Brehm 24 p. 21). In their conclusion, they explained that rural residents may not have such distinct attitude differences toward wildlife when compared with their urban counterparts. It is apparent that although there are differences in values and attitudes between urban and long-term rural residents, there are also similarities. Gender and Education Level Influences on Wildlife Attitudes and Use There are some socio-demographic variables that have often been predictors of wildlife values and use: gender and education level. These factors tend to influence an individual s values about wildlife and how they relate to wildlife use. When looking at gender differences, a common theme emerges. Historically, men have possessed a stronger interest in outdoor recreation and have comprised the majority of hunters and anglers. In general, studies have shown that females have a greater tendency to hold sentiment toward wildlife and possess more emotional attachment, protectionist attitudes, and less support for consumptive use of wildlife, while men hold less emotional attachment and show greater support for consumptive and dominating use of wildlife (Butler et al. 21, Kellert 1996, Manfredo et al. 23, Zinn et al. 22). Therefore, females generally hold more mutualist values and attitudes and men hold more utilitarian values and attitudes. Kellert (1996) found education level to be the strongest predictor of wildlife attitudes and values. Findings suggest that as education level increases, especially to the completion of college or post graduate education, there is a stronger leaning toward mutualist attitudes and values and lower utilitarian views (Kellert 1996, Manfredo et al. 23, Zinn et al. 22). It is evident that these socio-demographic variables can greatly influence wildlife attitudes and values. 16

30 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Survey Procedures A 29-question survey was created to address the objectives of this study (Appendix B). Survey questions were developed to identify attitudes and values held by Tennessee State Park Rangers related to the use of wildlife, including their participation in the use of wildlife, in order to identify their use patterns toward wildlife. The survey contained both qualitative and quantitative questions, with the last several questions containing socio-demographic information including location of where they grew up (rural or urban), county in which they currently lived, length of years they had resided in this county, highest level of education received, age, and gender. The initial page of the survey gave information on the survey objectives and design. It stated that participation in the survey was completely voluntary, that it should only require 1 to 15 minutes to complete, and that participants may withdraw at any time. Prior to sending the survey electronically to the study population, it was approved by the University of Tennessee at Martin, Institutional Review Board (IRB E5-45/Uric, Mel; Appendix A). Study Population An list of all Tennessee State Park Rangers was used for the survey. The list was provided and distributed through Tennessee State Parks, Head of Interpretive Services. A total of 29 addresses were notified with the survey link. Data Collection The survey was created and administered, and data were collected through SurveyMonkey. On March 11, 213 the survey was ed to all participants explaining the 17

31 study and requesting their participation. A follow-up reminder was sent with the survey link to increase response rates eight days later. By March 2, 213 there were a total of 98 respondents. The survey was closed and completed on March 25, 213 with a total of 132 respondents. At the close of the survey, SurveyMonkey results were saved and downloaded as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and as a portable document format for analysis. Data Analysis The main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between wildlife values and attitudes and the following socio-demographic characteristics: gender, education level, and rural vs. urban childhood home location. SAS 9.2 statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was used to analyze the survey results. The chi-squared test was used where applicable to determine relationships among the data. When appropriate for expected cell counts of less than 5, Fisher s exact test was used to determine significant relationships. A significance level of.1 was used to establish whether or not the relationships were statistically significant. 18

32 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS Socio-Demographics of Respondents Out of 29 potential respondents, the overall response rate to this survey was 63% (n = 132). Of the 123 respondents to the question of gender, 82% (11) were male and 18% (22) were female (Table 3). The majority of respondents were between years of age (2%), followed closely by ages 26-3 (18%), and 12% in the age category (Table 3). The highest level of education attained among respondents varied widely from high school/ged (5%) to a master s degree (14%) (Table 3). The majority of respondents (8%) had a bachelor s degree. Only 2% grew up in urban areas while the other 8% had grown up in a rural area (Table 3). Survey Results Based on Research Objectives Objective 1: To determine what attitudes and value orientations toward wildlife use are present among Tennessee State Park Rangers. Hunting for meat/consumption (85%), animal population control (74%), or recreation/sport (49%), were considered always acceptable by the majority of the 131 respondents (Figure 1). Trophy hunting was considered always acceptable by 27% of respondents and sometimes acceptable by 5% of respondents. Attitudes toward fishing were similar to hunting; fishing for meat/consumption (88%), fish population control (72%), or recreation/sport (67%) were considered always acceptable by the majority of respondents (Figure 2). Only 4% felt that trophy fishing was always acceptable (Figure 2). Compared to hunting or fishing attitudes, all respondents (1%) felt that wildlife watching (birdwatching, other wildlife watching, and wildlife photography) was always acceptable. 19

33 Table 3. Demographics of Tennessee State Park Ranger survey respondents. Characteristic Number Percentage Gender Male Female Age Highest Level of Education High School/GED Associate s Degree Bachelor s Degree Master s Degree Childhood Residence Rural Urban

34 Percent of respondents Always Sometimes Never Meat/Consumption Animal Population Control Recreation/Sport Trophy Acceptable Legal Hunting Type Figure 1. Respondents attitudes toward the acceptability of legal hunting types Percent of respondents Meat/Consumption Fish Population Control Recreation/Sport Trophy Always Sometimes Never Acceptable Legal Fishing Type Figure 2. Respondents attitudes toward the acceptability of legal fishing types. 21

35 When asked about methods for attracting wildlife, such as baiting wildlife or using wildlife calls, respondents had varied opinions. Still, the majority of respondents approve of both of these actions toward wildlife, with 74% approving of baiting and 89% approving of the use of calls. When asked, Baiting of wildlife (bird feeders, deer salt licks, turkey corn feeders, etc.) for the purpose of wildlife watching is acceptable., some respondents showed concern over this issue. One respondent replied, For non huntable birds yes, for animals that have a hunting season no. Another commented, Depends on the location, private versus public land., I think it s okay for wildlife observation. But to a point I think it could harm the target population because it starts a dependency that may not be kept up by the baiter. When asked, Using calls for the purpose of attracting wildlife to watch is acceptable., some felt that it was only acceptable under certain circumstances. One respondent replied, Occasional use perhaps, but not if it disrupts territories or courtship. Particularly a problem with some songbirds Another stated, Depends on the wildlife (i.e. do not pish birds during mating seasons, call owls when they are roosting, etc). Two questions focused on attitudes toward the use of wildlife, either living or non-living wildlife items, for interpretive programs. A large majority of respondents (99%) felt that the use of live wildlife or non-living wildlife items (pelts, skulls, etc.) in interpretive programs is acceptable. Seven respondents replied that the use of live wildlife in programming is only acceptable if the animal is non-releasable. The majority (96%) of respondents is supportive of the current rules and regulations regarding hunting and fishing in Tennessee as set in place by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. The preferred source for fish and wildlife information are printed field guides/books (3% of respondents) followed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency website (27% of 22

36 respondents). Ninety-four percent of respondents would like to see increased funding and/or effort for fish and wildlife education programs in the state. When given the opportunity to determine which education programming is most important for Tennessee, 81% felt that educating youth about fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation was most important, followed by 1% for educating/informing the public on the state s fish and wildlife, and 9% for training youth to hunt and fish. Objective 2: To determine what wildlife use activities Tennessee State Park Rangers participate in. Out of 132 respondents, 12 (93%) had participated in some form of wildlife-related recreation in the past 12 months, including hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing. On average, individuals participated in 2 trips over the past 12 month period with the primary purpose of participating in wildlife-related recreation. The greatest percentage of respondents (3%) stay close to home, within an average of -4 miles while participating in wildlife-related recreation. The top choice of wildlife-related recreation participation by percentage of respondents was fishing and other wildlife viewing at 25% (Figure 3). Hunting small game ranked last as a top choice at 2% (Figure 3). Respondents were asked if they hunt and if so what their primary motivation was (meat, animal population control, recreation/sport, or trophy hunting); the same question was asked regarding fishing. Forty-six percent of respondents did not hunt but 33% of respondents hunt for the primary purpose of obtaining meat (Figure 4). Only one respondent chose trophy hunting. A smaller percentage (23%) did not fish, and 5% of respondents selected recreation/sport as their primary motivation to fish (Figure 5). 23

37 Percent of respondents Top Choice of Wildlife-Related Recreation Figure 3. Respondents top choice in personal participation of wildlife-related recreation Percent of respondents I Do Not Hunt 33 Meat/Consumption Animal Population Control 2 18 Recreation/Sport 1 Trophy Hunting Primary Motivation for Hunting Figure 4. Respondents primary motivation for hunting, if they hunt, based on four different hunting motives. 24

38 Percent of respondents I Do Not Fish Meat/Consumption Fish Population Control Recreation/Sport Primary Motivation for Fishing 5 Trophy Fishing Figure 5. Respondents primary motivation for fishing, if they fish, based on four different fishing motives. 25

39 Two questions asked respondents if they 1) bait wildlife (bird feeders, salt licks, corn feeders, etc.) in order to watch wildlife and 2) use calls for the purpose of attracting wildlife to watch. The results were close to a 5-5% yes or no for either question. Forty-eight percent answered yes to baiting and 48% answered yes to using calls; this left 52% who did not use these two wildlife attractants. Several respondents said that the baiting they used were bird feeders. The primary reason given for using calls was as an aid in hunting. Live wildlife were used by 75% of respondents in interpretive programs while 15% did not use them; 7% conducted programs that do not involve wildlife, and 3% do not give programs. Eighty-two percent of respondents use non-living wildlife items such as pelts, skulls, etc. in interpretive programs, with 11% not using them; 5% did not give programs that involve wildlife, and 2% do not give programs (Figure 6). Objective 3. To determine if rural vs. urban childhood residence among Tennessee State Park Rangers is related to attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife use participation. Respondents were asked if they grew up in an urban or rural location. A total of 98 respondents grew up in a rural location and 24 respondents grew up in an urban location. When questioned on their attitudes toward the acceptability of legal hunting or fishing, differences emerged based on the characteristic of rural vs. urban childhood residence. Those respondents who described growing up in a rural location had slightly higher percentages than their urban counterparts related to the attitude that legal hunting and/or fishing for meat is always acceptable (Figures 7, 8), but the relationship between childhood residence and their attitude was not significant (P =.322 for hunting and P =.4827 for fishing; Table 4). The opposite was true for those who held the attitude that legal hunting and/or fishing for sport or trophy is never acceptable. Slightly higher respondent percentages for this attitude were seen for those who grew 26