The Vennont Department of Fish and Wildlife

Transcription

1 A Report Submitted to: The Vennont Department of Fish and Wildlife By Walter F. Kuentzel and Gino J.M. Giumarro School of Natural Resources University of Vermont Burlingto~ VT 05405

2 000 Vermont Watch able Wildlife Survey Consumptive wildlife activities, such as hunting and fishing, have traditionally dominated recreational use of nature in rural areas. However, social attitudes and patterns of wildlife recreation have changed over the last 5 years, and "nonconsumptive" wildlife recreation has become an important part of wildlife agency's management strategies. This study represents one effort by the Vermont Department offish and Wildlife to understand the behaviors of"nonconsumptive" wildlife users in Vermont, and their attitudes towards watchable wildlife. This research also explores how wildlife watchers' attitudes and behaviors may have changed over the last 0 years. Researchers in the 970's began to notice a shift in the attitudes of consumptive wildlife users. Heberlein (99) has identified several attitude changes in society that help explain these attitude changes. He found that: () in the mid 970's, at least half of the U.S. residents opposed hunting () women and urban residents had the most negative attitudes toward hunting, (3) increasing numbers of people feel that killing for pleasure, bonding, and tradition is inappropriate, and that better alternatives to these activities exist, and (4) there are increasingly popular theories of conservation and preservation. Heberlein (99) also writes that women have an increasing influence in society and consequently in wildlife recreation. These changing attitudes about hunting and wildlife have led to decreases in hunting participation and increases in wildlife watching participation. State wildlife management agencies have recognized the need to understand this emerging clientele, and to provide "a diversity of quality fish and wildlife-based activities and opportunities that allow for the safe and ethical viewing" (Vermont Department offish and Wildlife, 999) of wildlife. There is also evidence that the nature of the wildlife watching experience has been changing over the last 0 years. In Vermont, like the rest of the U.S., the number of wildlife watchers increased in each of the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation (NSFHW AR) studies between 980 and 99 (U.S. Department of Interior et al. 996). However, in 996, participation in wildlife watching declined. Only 48% of Vermont residents participated in wildlife-watching activities (U.S. Department of Interior et al. 996). While this participation rate is the second highest in the nation, it is % lower than it was in 99. Similar declines were recorded in states throughout the United States. While most would agree that large declines in wildlife watching in the early 990s, which followed equally large increases in the 980s, were a methodological artifact, probably due to changes in sampling. Nevertheless, the questions that FHW AR ask have fundamentally remained the same. Wildlife watching surveys are designed to measure activity participation to determine demand for the activity. While declines may be methodological, there may also be some changes in the way the public perceives the wildlife watching experience, particularly after 0 years of active promotion by wildlife management agencies. This study therefore explores participation change in watchable wildlife among Vennonters, and change in the way people define the wildlife watching experience.

3 HoursPerTrip Participation Wildlife Photography Days 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 Participation in Wildlife Watching Participation Combining Wildlife Watching With Other Activities Types of Wildlife Observed Moose Sightings By Residence Interest in Viewing Types of Wildlife. Visits to Vemlont Watchable Wildlife Destinations. Other Wildlife Watching Areas Changes in Visits to Wildlife Watching Sites Changes in Participation in Wildlife Watching Activities Watchable Wildlife Management Issues Infonnation Sources About Watchable Wildlife Defining the Watchable Wildlife Experience. 3 Wildlife Watching Equipment Use 33 Skill and Interest in Wildlife Watching..... Membership in Environmental Organizations Socioeconomic Profile Appendix - Methods 40 Appendix - Respondents' Written Comments 47 Appendix 3 - Study Questionnarie...54

4 4 Participation In 999, nearly two-thirds of all Vermont residents (64.3%) participate in some form ofwildlife watching close to home, while nearly half (43.6%) took a trip further away from home to watch wildlife. This compares closely with 995 data on Vermont wildlife watching from the National Survey of Fishing Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation. The average number of days in Vennont that people spent watching wildlife near home «mile) was 3 days 999. The average was 0 days among those who made wildlife watching trips away from home (> mile). ~ In 999, two thirds of all Vennonters (65.%) put out bird seed "occasionally" or more, and nearly half (48.8%) fed birds "often" or "daily." Only.3% never fed birds. Just over in 5 people in Vennont photograph wildlife near home (0.%) or away from home (.8%). The average number of photography days near home was 7, while the average number of days away from home was 6. A minority ofvennonters who watch wildlife spend all day doing so. Among those who took wildlife watching trips, the average length of their trip was hours. The average length of a wildlife photography trips was considerably less than a watchable wildlife trip, only lasting one and a quarter hours. Instead, wildlife watching trips are often combined with other activities including hiking trips (6.4%) and sightseeing trips in the car (58.8%). Other frequently cited activities that are combined with watchable wildlife trips include fishing (45.9%), picnicking (43.5%), and canoeing (40.0%). Just under half the respondentsaid they had no interest in wildlife watching, and just over half said they had no interest in wildlife feeding. Nearly three-fourths of the sample said they had no interest in wildlife photography. Wildlife Sighting ~ The most commonly sighted animals seen by Vermonters were small mammals - squirrels, rabbits, etc. (97.%). More that 9 out of 0 Vermonters have also seen a deer in 999. Songbirds, game birds, waterfowl, and birds of prey were seen by 80% or more during 999. Water-based birds were less often cited by Vermonters: wading birds (herons, egrets, etc.) and shore birds (sandpipers, plovers, etc.). Larger mammals such as moose, bobcat, fox, and coyotes were seen by roughly half of all Vermonters in 999.

5 More than two-thirds of the residents (67.6%) in the Northeast Kindgom (Caledonia, Essex, and Orleans counties) and 60% of the residents in East Central Vennont (Lamoille, Orange, and Washington counties) saw a moose in 999. Moose sightings were less common among Western and Southern Vennont residents with just over half the people (55%) in Addison and Rutland counties seeing a moose, fewer than half (4%) in Southern Vennont (Windham, Windsor, and Bennington counties) and 4% in Northwest Vennont (Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle Counties seeing a moose. Vermonters were most interested in large mammals and birds of prey. More than have the sample was "very interested" in seeing moose (58.8%), deer (55.0%) and eagles, hawks, and owls (5.%). Nearly have of the respondents were "very interested" in seeing bobcats, foxes, and coyotes (47.8%). The least interesting species for Vermonters were reptiles (snakes, turtles, etc.), bats, amphibians (salamanders, frogs), and migratory fish (salmon, steelhead). 5 Where Do People Watch Wildlife in Vermont? Most people who participated in wildlife watching in 999 did not travel far. Among residents who participated in wildlife watching, the average distance traveled was 8.3 miles. For people who photographed wildlife, the average distance traveled was 9. miles. For those who traveled more than mile from home the average distance was 5.5 miles to watch wildlife and 3. miles to photograph wildlife. Sand Bar Wildlife Management Area on U.S. Highway was by far the most extensively visited site out of 50 sites offered. Other popular wildlife watching areas included Malletls Bay State Park, Groton State Forest, Smugglers Notch State Park, Willoughby Falls Wildlife Management Area, Dead Creek Wildlife Management Area, Otter Creek Wildlife Management Area, and Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge. Changes in Wildlife Watching Participation Sites that showed significant increases in the number of visits between 989 and 999 included Dead Creek Wildlife Management Area, Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Arrowhead Mountain Lake, Robert Frost Interpretive Trail, Mallet's Bay State Park, Willoughby Falls Wildlife Management Area, and Otter Creek Wildlife Management Area. There was some evidence that people were spending fewer days in 999 watching wildlife than in 989. However, when respondents were asked about their participation change, they felt their wildlife watching participation was "about the same" or "slightly more" than it was 0 years ago.

6 Respondents also felt they were feeding wildlife slightly more now than 0 years ago, reading about wildlife more, and watching wildlife related TV programs more now than in 989. Conversely. Vennonters felt they were participating less in wildlife photography (both around the home and away from home). observing fish. visiting a wildlife refuge. visiting a wildlife art gallery. or visiting a wildlife site that requires an entrance fee. 6 Managing Watchable Wildlife in Vermont Respondents were supportive of interpretive and educational facilities and hiking trail development at wildlife watching sites. In general, they were less supportive of other types of facility development. The majority were less supportive of picnic areas and campground access (both development and primitive), and were not supportive of improved boat access. Respondents also did not support road access into wildlife watching areas, and favored watching wildlife in areas where vehicles are not allowed. Finally, most were not supportive of hunting access at wildlife watching area, but were more supportive of fishing access. The most frequently used sources ofinfonnation on Vemlont's Fish and Wildlife came from newsletters, Vemlont Department of Fish and Wildlife offices in Waterbury, and the radio. Fewer than half of the sample used printed sources such as books/pamphlets, magazines, or newspapers. Information from friends or family members was used by only a third of the sample. Television was also infrequently used as an information source. The watchable wildlife icon posted at locations around the state prompted less than half the sample to stop and watch wildlife at those locations. The most frequently used piece of equipment in wildlife watching was binoculars. Over a third of those who watch wildlife (4.6%) owned a camera, and roughly a third owned a tripod (3.7%) and a telephoto lens (33.4%). Another 3.4% owned video recording equipment that they used for wildlife watching. About a third of those who watch wildlife owned wildlife field guides (37.4%), magnifying glass or hand lens, (30.9%), and specialty clothing and accessories (8.%) that they use on their excursions. Less frequent use is made of spotting scopes (. %) and the Vermont Watchable Wildlife Guide (0.0%). Profiling the Wildlife Watcher Respondents rated their wildlife watching skills on the low side. Two thirds of the sample said they were either beginner or intermediate, with only 3.5% saying they were "advanced" or "expert." Respondents rated their wildlife photography skills somewhat lower with more than half (53.%) saying they had no wildlife photography skills, and only.6% saying they were advanced or expert photographers.

7 7 Men are somewhat more likely than women to be wildlife watchers. Wildlife watching participation may decline with age. There was a significantly higher proportion of non-wildlife watchers who were 65 year old or older. Wildlife watching also is more likely to be an activity of people between 45 and 65 years old. There was no significant difference between the education levels of wildlife watchers and nonwildlife watchers. Income levels, however did differ slightly. Wildlife watchers had higher incomes than those who did not watch wildlife. There were more people in the $80,000 plus category among wildlife watchers, and more people among non-wildlife watchers with incomes less than $3,000 per year. Wildlife watchers were more likely to be fully employed than non-wildlife watchers. Two thirds of the wildlife watchers were fully employed, while only half of the non-wildlife watchers were fully employed. There were more non-wildlife watchers who worked part-time. Finally, nonwildlife watchers were more likely to be retired than wildlife watchers. People who are wildlife watchers are less likely than non-wildlife watchers to be single or widowed, and more likely to be married or living with a partner.

8 8 The questionnaire asked respondents to report their participation in wildlife watching. Comparable Vennont data from the 996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation (NSFHW AR) survey asks about participation using a dichotomous (yes/no) question. This survey replicated the NSFHW AR participation questions, and also asked about hours of participation per day, participation days, places in Vennont that the respondent watches wildlife, types of wildlife watched, and distance traveled to watch wildlife. The survey also asked about people's interest in various species of wildlife. Participation Respondents were asked whether they took special interest in watching wildlife in 999 around their home, and if they watched wildlife during 999 away from home (more than mile from home). Figure - shows that nearly two-thirds of all Vernont residents (64.3%) participate in some fonn of wildlife watching close to home, while nearly half( 43.6%) took a trip further away from home to watch wildlife. Participation in 000 compares closely with the 996 NSFHW AR. An identical proportion of respondents in the 996 NSFHWAR and the 000 survey (73.9%) participated in wildlife watching either near home or away from home. A slightly smaller proportion in 999 watched wildlife near home while a slightly larger proportion in 999 watched wildlife away from home Wildlife Watching Participation i9[~- _50.0 = 0 ~ ~ t NSFHW AR 000 VTWWS

9 Respondents were asked how frequently they fed birds and wildlife in 999. Bird feeding has traditionally been a widespread fonn of wildlife watching with a majority of the population putting out bird food of one sort or another. The same is still true in Vennont.. In 999, two thirds of all Vermonters (65.%) put out bird seed at least occasionally or more, and nearly half (48.8%) fed birds "often" or "daily" (Figure -). Only.3% never fed birds. Fewer Vermonters engage in other forms of wildlife feeding (squirrels, deer, etc.). Only 0% feed wildlife "often" or "daily." Nearly three-fourths never fed wildlife, while only 8.3% fed wildlife in Feed Birds (mean=3.6) Feed Wildlife (mean=.60) Figure -. Participation in feeding birds and feeding wildlife.

10 0 Participation Days Respondents who participated in wildlife watching in 999 were asked how many days, and how many hours per day, they spent watching wildlife or photographing wildlife; both close to home (less than a mile away) and away from home (more than a mile away).. Among those who watched wildlife near their homes, the largest proportion (35.%) spent more than 30 days in 999 (Figure -). Some of these presumably may have look. at wildlife watching as a daily event around their home. More than a third of those who watched wildlife near home (37.8%) spent 0 or fewer days in 999, and another 7.% spent between 0 and 30 days watching wildlife in 999. The average nwnber of days in Vemlont that people spent watching wildlife near home was 3 days. For those who took trips more than a mile from home in 999, just under half (44. %) spent 0 or fewer days watching wildlife (Figure -). Another 38.4% spent between 0 and 30 days, and ~/O spent more than 30 days watching wildlife away from home in 999. This latter group were probably the most specialized and committed to wildlife watching. The average number of days spent watching wildlife away from home was 0 days. Wildlife Watching Away from Home. Mean = 3 days Figu re -. Number of days in 999 spent watching wildlife less than I mile nom home.. Mean-IOdayi Figure -. Number of days in 999 spent watching wildlife more than I mile from home.

11 Wildlife Photography There was less participation in wildlife photography than wildlife watching among Vermonters in 999. Just over in 5 people in Vermont photograph wildlife near home (0.%) or away from home (.8%). The largest proportion of people who photograph wildlife in Vermont spend 5 or fewer days at the activity. Among those who photograph wildlife near home, 44.5% spent 5 or fewer days, while more than half (56.9%) of those who photograph wildlife away from home spent 5 or fewer days (Figure -4). Among photographers, it is easier to spend more days photographing wildlife near home, where 8.3% spent 0 days or more (Figure -3). For those who photographed wildlife away from home, only. % spent 0 or more days. The average nwnber of photography days near home was 7, while the average nwnber of days away from home was 6.. Mean = 7 days Figure.-3. Number of days in 999 spent photographbg wildlife at home IS.9d8Yc Mean=6days Figure -4. Number of days in 999 spent photographing wildlife away from home. n_--

12 Hours Per Trip. Among those who took wildlife watching trips, the average length of their trip was hours. While half (50.5%) spent hours or less, nearly a third (30.3%) spent more than 4 hours. The former may incorporate those whose wildlife watching excursions were nearby home (Figure - 5). The latter were more likely the people who took day-long trips to watch wildlife. The average length of a wildlife photography trips was considerably less than a watchable wildlife trip, only lasting one and a quarter hours (Figure -6). Among those who took wildlife photography excursions, more than two-thirds spent hours or less (70.%). Conversely, only.% spent half-a-day or more photographing wildlife. These findings confirm that it is easier for some to photograph wildlife near home. It also suggests that the serious wildlife photographer who must spend many hours waiting for the right shot composition are a minority in Vermont Average LCDath of Wildlife Photography Trip S 30.. MC8ft - hours Figure -5. Nwnber ofbours spent on a typical wildlife watching outing in 999. is--j!0 IS 0 - S - 0-'. -- cl- -- >4~ Mean -.5 hours Figure -6. Number ofhoul's spent on an typical wildlife photography trip in ]999.

13 3 Combining Wildlife Watching With Other Activities Results from Figure -5 and Figure -6 show that a minority of Vermonters who watch wildlife spend all day doing so. This suggests that wildlife watching excursions are more typically combined with other recreational activities. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to report what other activities they engaged in while watching wildlife.. Table shows that watchable wildlife trips are most often combined with hiking trips (6.4%) and sightseeing trips in the car (58.8%). Other frequently cited activities that are combined with watchable wildlife trips include fishing (45.90/0), picnicking (43.5%), and canoeing (40.0%). ~ ~ Roughly one in three people who participate in wildlife watching combine their trips with photography trips (33.0%), backpacking (30.5%), hunting (30.4%), bicycling (9.3%), auto/rv camping (9.3%), and cross country skiing (8.4%). Men differ from women in some of the ways they combine watchable wildlife with other recreational activities. Women are more likely to combine picnicking with wildlife watching, while men are more likely to combine fishing, backpacking, motorboating, and ORV use with wildlife watching. Table. Partici 'on in other activities while wildlife watchin Activitv ~--'&.J "!-,~',"; Male -~~~ Female - ::.-~-:.- ) - Participation.r " c-:; c :c;,, c:, 65 ' DS 6 '-4 IOta! os os ns 0:5 5. ns

14 4 Respondents were asked what types of wildlife they observed during 999. If they had observed a particular type of wildlife, they were then asked whether the siting was intentional or unexpected. Results are shown in Figures 3- through 3-3. ~. The most commonly cited animal types seen by Vennonters were small manunals - squin'els, rabbits, etc. (Figure 3-). Nearly everyone in the sample (97.%) had seen this type of animal at some time during 999. Only a third of these sightings, however, was intentional, with more than two-thirds who saw them while doing something other than wildlife watching. More that 9 out of 0 Vemlonters saw a deer in 999 (Figure 3-). Like small mammals, twothirds of these sightings were unexpected. Most types of birds were commonly sighted by Vermonters. Songbirds (Figure 3-3), game birds (Figure 3-4), waterfowl (Figure 3-5), and birds of prey (Figure 3-6) were seen by 800/0 or more of all Vermonters during 999. Songbird sightings were more likely to be intentional (43.%). One third of the sample intentionally observed water fowl (3.9%), one-fifth intentionally observed game birds (.4%), while most sightings of birds of prey were accidental (84.%). Small Mammals Squirrels, Rabbits, etc. Deer Figure 3-. Did you observe small mammals in 9997 Figure 3-. Did you observe deer in 999?

15 5 Songbirds Warblers. Sparrows, etc. Game Birds Twkey. Gro\Ise. etc. Figure 3-3. Did you observe songbirds in 999? Figure 3-4. Did you observe game birds in 999 Waterfowl Ducks, Geese, etc. Birds of Prey Eagles, Hawks, Owls Figure 3-5. Did you observe waterfowl in 999 Figure 3-6. Did you observe birds of prey in 999

16 Water-based birds were less often cited by VenIlonters (Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8) with 59.8% saying they saw wading birds (herons, egrets, etc.) and only 4.0% saying they saw shore birds (sandpipers, plovers, etc.). In both cases, only a few of these sightings were intentional (8.3% for shore birds and 0.3 for wading birds. 6 Shore Birds Plovcrs, Sandpipers, etc Wading Birds Herons. Eareta. etc. Figure 3-7. Did you observe shore birds in 999 Figure 3-8. Did you observe wading birds in 999 Larger mammals such as moose, bobcat, fox, and coyotes were seen by roughly half of all Vermonters in 999. Among respondents. 49.3% said they saw moose (Figure 3-9) and 57.8% said they saw carnivores (Figure 3-0). Most of these sightings, however were accidental, particularly the carnivore sightings (9O.~/o). Moose Carnivores Bobcat, Fox. Coyote, etc. Figure 3-9. Did you observe moose in 999 Figure 3-0. Did you observe carnivores in 999?

17 A majority of Vermont residents saw various forms of amphibians (salamanders, frogs, etc.) and reptiles (snakes, turtles, etc.) in 999. Nearly three-fourths (74.%) of the respondents saw amphibians, and 60.4% saw reptiles (Figures 3- and 3-). Nearly a third of the amphibian sightings (30.3) were intentional, while most of the reptile sightlngs were a surprise (90.0%). 7 Amphibians Salamanders, Frogs, etc. Reptiles Snakes, Turtles, etc. Figure 3-. Did you observe amphibians in 999 Figu re 3-. Did you observe reptiles in ) 9997 Few people (4.%) in Vermont saw any type of migratory fish (salmon, steelhead, etc.), but among those who did, more than two thirds of them (69.%) were intentional sightings. Migratory Fish Salmon, Steellead, etc. Figure 3-3. Did you observe migratory fish in 999?

18 8 Moose Sightings By Residence Moose sighting data were analyzed by respondent's region of residence. The data did not specify where respondents actually saw a moose. Nevertheless, since most moose sightings were unintentional (85%), the analysis shows which regions of the state may be more prone to humanmoose encounters. ~ Table shows that more than two-thirds of the residents (67.6%) in the Northeast Kindgom (Caledoni~ Essex, and Orleans counties) and 60% of the residents in East Central Vermont (Lamoille, Orange, and Washington counties) saw a moose in 999. Moose sightings were less common among Western and Southern Vermont residents with only a little over half the people (55%) in Addison and Rutland counties seeing a moose, fewer than half the residents (4%) in Southern Vermont (Windham, Windsor, and Bennington counties), and 4% of the residents in Northwest Vermont (Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle Counties seeing a moose. Residents in Franklin, Chitenden, and Bennington counties were least likely to see a moose, while residents in Essex, Caledonia and Lamoille counties were most likely to see a moose. Table. Moose si 'on of residence within Vennont. Did not see a Moose a Moose. Caledonia Essex Orleans Lamoille Orange WashingtoD IS 3 40 Bennington Windham Windsor Addison Rutland Chittenden Franklin Grand Isle * - Regional comparison: X = 4.3, df = 4, P =.006 ** - County comparison: X = 74, df= 3, p = os

19 Interest in Viewing Types of Wildlife 9 Respondents were asked to rate their interest in viewing the various types of wildlife species in Vermont. Responses to the 4-point scale reflected general social attitudes about wildlife (Table 3). Vermonters were most interested in large mammals and birds of prey. More than half the sample was "very interested" in viewing moose (58.8%), deer (55.0%) and eagles, hawks, and owls (5.%). Nearly half of the respondents also were "very interested" in viewing bobcats, foxes, and coyotes (47.8%). Average ratings for these species fell between "moderately interested" and "very interested. " As expected the least interesting wildlife watching species for Vermonters were reptiles (snakes, turtles, etc.), bats~ amphibians (salamanders, frogs), and migratory fish (salmon, steelhead). Average ratings for these species was just over "slightly interested." ~ There is a core of more dedicated bird watchers in Vermon4 with roughly a third of the sample saying they are "very interested" in watching songbirds (9. ~/o), game birds (39.7%), waterfowl (3.0%), and wading birds (33.6%). Interest in bird watching, however, was more. evenly distributed across the 4 responses than the distribution for large mammals and birds of prey, so the average responses for bird watching were around the "moderately interested" range. The one exception to bird watching was interest in shorebirds (plovers, sandpipers, etc.). The average response for this type of bird watching was between "slightly interested" and "moderately interested." Table 3. Respondent interest in viewjng various wildlife species. (Percent). Not at all Slightly Moderately Very ~ildlife group~~ ~ Interested Interested InteRSted Me8 Moose ~

20 Watchable Wildlife Sites In Vermont 0 Respondents were asked about places in Vermont to watch wildlife. They were first asked to estimate the typical distance they traveled to watch wildlife (Table 4). Then, the questionnaire included a map (Appendix 3) of watch able wildlife destinations in Vermont taken from Brown, 994. Respondents were asked to check each of 50 areas that they had ever visited. They were then asked to list the 3 most visited sites (of these 50) in both 989 and 999. Finally, they were asked to report the number of days they had visited these top 3 sites in both 989 and 999 (Table 5). Travel Distance Most people who participated in wildlife watching in 999 did not travel far (Table 4). Among residents who participated in wildlife watching, the average distance traveled was 8.3 miles. For people who photographed wildlife, the average distance ti-aveled was 9. miles. Those who went more than mile from home traveled on average 5.5 miles to watch wildlife, and 3. miles to photograph wildlife. Table 4. Mean~umber of miles ~eled to watch ~dlife and photograp~ldife. Mean miles Mean Miles Activity ~Respondents Traveled> Mile From Home Wildlife watching Wildlife photography Visits to Vermont Watchable Wildlife Destinations Sand Bar Wildlife Management Area on U.S. Highway was by far the most extensively visited site for wildlife watching out of the 50 sites offered (Table 5). More than half of all Vennonters (5.4%) have visited this site at some point in the past. Other popular wildlife watching areas included MalleUs Bay State Park (40.4%), Groton State Forest (39.6%), Smugglers Notch State Park (38.%), Willoughby Falls Wildlife Management Area (36.9%), Dead Creek Wildlife Management Area (34.6%), Otter Creek Wildlife Management Area (34.5%), and Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge (3.5%). Other areas in the list had been visited by fewer than 30% of all Vermonters. Respondents were more likely to list the following sites among their most visited site in 999: Sand Bar Wildlife Management Area (.8%), Dead Creek Wildlife Management Area ( 0.%), Groton State Forest (8.8%), Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge (7.3%), and Smuggler's Notch State Park (6.3%).

21 In 999, visitors who frequented these wildlife watching sites spent, on average, more days at Arrowhead Mountain Lake (5.78 days), Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge (4.96 days), Vernon, Bellow Falls, and Wilder Dam (4.50 days), Blueberry Hill Management Area (4.6 days). White Rocks National Recreation Area (4. days). and Otter Creek Wildlife Management Area (4.0 days). Conversely, visitors who frequented these wildlife watching sites in 999 spent fewer days at the Green Mountain Audubon Center (. days), the Robert Frost Interpretive Trail (.77 days), Willoughby Falls Wildlife Management Area (.86 days), Groton State Forest (3.6 days), Sand Bar Wildlife Management Area (3.8 days) and Smuggler's Notch State Park (3.50 days).

22 Mount Horrid ** 0.8 ** podunk WMA Pea vine umon Villue Mystery Trail Percent that mentioned each site as "most visited. "M most visited, or "3'" most visited." - Number of people was too small to reliably estimate average days visited. 0 Other Wildlife Watching Areas ~ Respondents were asked to list other wildlife watching sites that were not included in the list of 50 provided. Table 6 lists each of the sites mentioned by respondents and organized by type of location - e.g., trails, state parks, mountains, rivers, etc. There were 6 additional sites mentioned for 999 and 66 additional sites mentioned for 989. Most frequently mentioned sites included Lake Champlain. Camel's Hump State Park, Green Mountain National Forest, Texas Falls, Connecticut River, Mt. Mansfield, Merck Forest, Lake Dunmore, Lake Elmore. Green River Reservoir, Mt. Ascutney. and "private land." Locations close to water were frequently cited wildlife watching areas. Respondents mentioned sites around Lake Champlain, 58 lakes or ponds, and 4 rivers or streams (including dains and water falls). There were also 36 mountains mentioned, 8 sites at other state lands (parks, forests, or wildlife management areas), places associated with highways, 8 town parks, and numerous local sites ( "private property" locations, 30 towns, 33 site-specific locations, and miscellaneous places). Table 6 shows that the average number of days spent at these other sites was 7.7 days in 999 and 7.4 days in 989. The average number of days for these sites was significantly more than for any of the 50 sites offered. This suggests that wildlife watching for many Vennonters may still be more an informal experience dependent on an individual's local knowledge, and somewhat less a formal experience dependent on institutional designation of wildlife watching locations.

23 Table 6. Other wildlife watching locations that respondents visited in 999 that were not listed on the map. (Total number of places mentioned in 999 was 6, and in 989 was 66 places. Mean # days participation at these locations was 7.7 days in 999 ~7.4 days in 989.) ~ ~ fu!!! Appalachian Gap Appalachian Trail Bucklin Trail Burlington Bike Path A T/L T Clarendon Section Long Trail Long Trail! Hazen's Notch Long TraiV Brandon Gap Lincoln Gap Lyndon State Hiking Trails Rail Trail Trail Trail Around Middlebury Underhill XC Ski Trail State Parks. Forests. and WMAs Allis State Park Bomoseen State Park Bradbury State Park Brighton State Park Camel's Hump State Park Coolidge State Park DAR State Park Elmore State Park Emerald Lake State Park Ft Dummer State Park Grand Isle State Park Jamaica State Park Kilkare State Park Knights Point State Park Molly Stark State Park Plymouth State Park Silver Lake State Park Shaftsbury State Park Underhill State Park Windsor State Park Woodford State Park Ainsworth State Forest Bald Hill WMA Downer State Forest Ripton State Forest Salisbury Fish Hatchery Tinmouth WMA Fish and Game Fish Hatchery : Mooslamo Recreation Area Lye Brook Wilderness Marsh Billings National Park Merck Forest Gig Basin Forest Champion Land Montshire Museum Hubbarton Battlefield Shady Hill Rec Area Land Trust Lake Chamolain Burlington Parks and Beaches Coates Island, Colchester Grand Isle Islands of Lake Champlain Isle La Motte Causeway Keeler Bay - South Hero Mallets Bay Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge St Albans Bay Shelburne Bay South Hero Town Beach Southern Lake Champlain Caspian Lake - Crystal Lake S.. Lakes and Ponds Lake Bomoseen 4 - m $ ~ ~ Lake Dunmore Lake Elmore. Lake Fairlee 4 5 I 3 Ị Green River Reservoir., 4 Griffith Lake Indian Brook Reservoir Lake Groton Hariman Reservoir Harvey's Lake Lake Memphamagog Mirror Lake, Calais Lake Morey Lake Parker Lake Pliead Lake Power Lake St Catherine State Park -. f Other Parks. Forests. Museums. Battlefields Searsburg Reservoir Green Mountain National Forest 3 6 Somerset Lake. 3

24 4 Star Lake, Belmont Sunset Lake Lake Whitingham Lake Willoughby Waterbury Reservoir Woodland Reservoir #0 Pond Abbey Pond Area Belvidere Pond and Bogs Berlin Pond Bourne Pond Burr Pond Chittenden Pond Coits Pond Colby Pond Colchester Pond Curtis Pond Danby Pond Dry Brook area East Long Pond Franklin Pond Grant Pond Joe's Pond Kent Pond Knapp Pond Lyford Pond Leporads Pond Minard Pond Nichols Pond Peacham Pond Rocky Pond Shelburne Pond Silver Lake Sweat Pond, Guildford Tinmouth Pond Walden Pond Rivers and Streams Black River Bourne Brook Browns River - Jericho Connecticut River Connecticut River, Bellows Falls Connecticut River-Putney Connecticut River, Brattteboro Chittenden Brook Crane Brook Conservation Area East Creek WMA Lamoille River Laplatte River ~..,.. - }.. ~ ~.. t - ~ Lewis Creek Area Little River MillslRiverside Park Jericho. Otter Creek ~ Robinson Brook, Northfield l Seymour Brook, Cambridge Stoney Brook Trout River, Montgomery Waits River West River White River Winooski River Winooski Valley Park District Salmon Hole- Winooski River Chittenden Dam Comerford Dam Fairfax Falls Goshen Dam Moore Dam North Heartland Dam Wrightsville Dam Hartland Falls Jeffersonville Falls Falls of Llana Sumner Falls Texas Falls Warren Falls Cascades in Weathersfield Riparian Areas Bellows Falls boat landing Blodgett Beach Burton Island Floating Bridge Knights Island Landings, Benson Tinmouth Channel Tinmouth Gulf Mountains Mt Abe,. Mt Ascutney 3 4 Birdseye Mountain Bromley Mountain I Burke Mountain - Eagle Mountain Wilton. Lake Eden Elmore Mountain Mt Ellen Equinox Mountain

25 5 Hawks Mountain Hazen's Notch Hunger Mountain Mtlndependence Jay Peak Area Mt Kushrnan Mt Mansfield Mt Mooselock Nelson Lake, Calais Norton Lake, NE Kingdom Oregon Mountain Owl's Head Mt Philo State Park Pico Mountain Mt Pleasant Putney Mountain Shrewsbury Peak Smuggler's Notch Spruce Peak Stowe Pinnacle Stratton Mountain Mt Tabor MtTom Walden Mountain Weston Mountain Worchester Mountain Private Land Private land, Colchester Private land, Tinmouth Private land, Worchester Private land, Burke Private land, Marshfield Private land, Sandgate Private land, Paw let Private land, Washington Private land, North Hero Camp in Morgan Family Fann, Cavendish Roads and Hi~hwavs Rt 5, Windsor Rt9 Rt 36 Wetland Rt 44, BrownsviIle RT 58 Montegomery Rt 67, Shaftsbury RtlOO Rt 00, Waitsfield Rt 00, Wilmington ~ t Rt 03 RT 3 Ludlow Ascutney to Bellows Falls Elmore Road McCullough Turnpike Monkton Area Road New Road, Underhill Plot Road, Johnson Stratton Hill Road, Marlboro Stratton! Arlington Road Texas Hill Road, Hinesburg Wheelervill Road Town Forests and Parks Blushhill Woods Burlington Intervale Calais Town Forest Chittenden Forest Ethan Allen Homestead E. Montpelier Town Forest Forests, Middle Town Springs Georgia Town Park Hubbard Park Lower Newton Park Maquam Shore Park Old Mill Park Jericho Otter Creek Campground 5 Paridise Park - Winsdor Redrocks Park Town park ". Woodbury Town Forest Wright Park Middlebury VT Vermont Towns Addison Andover Barnard/Royalton Bellows FaIls Benson Calais - Hardwick Area Canaan Chittenden East Burke, VT Kingdom trails East Montepelier East Jericho Elmore Ferrisburgh Guilford VT Hartland Highgate Area ~!!? :!. 3 - t

26 6 ~ Island Pond Jeffersonville- Waterville Jericho Lyndonville - Burke Area - Marlboro, VT. Middleton Springs. North Hero North Williston Queechee Pawlet Area Somerset Towns in NE Kingdom Victory Westford Local Places - Site Soecific Beaver Meadows, Morristown Benedict Hollow Bike Snowmobile path Groton Burnt Rock, Fayston Camp Johnson Chipman Hill, Middlebury Colchester High School Cold Hollow, Enosburg Cove at Bellows Falls Coventry Gore Dorset Hollow Half Moon Campground Hawk Inn and Mountain Resort Hollister Hill, Plainfield Kelley Stand Mad River Ski Area -. - i.. Marshfield Dome ~ ~ Munson Flats Nickel Ledge Pleasant Valley, Underhill Plymouth Bat Caves Rail Trail, W. Pawlet Retreat Meadows -. Shelburne Farms 4 Spring Lake Ranch, Z Springfield Meadows - State ofvt aijport -. Sunset Rock t Trapp Family Lodge -. Tupper Basin, Underhill UVM Research VT country store nature area Weathersfield Bow cornfield - I. Miscellaneous Deer & Bear Hunt areas Berlin Deer hunting Calais Deer hunting Franklin County, farms & fields Northeast Kingdom Rock Quarries Sheffield Heights Area Smokeshire Area South Vermont Mountains Washington County. ). I I Note - The place names in this table are listed as reported by respondents. No effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the sites, and only the most obvious spelling errors were corrected.

27 7 One goal of this study was to explore changes that may have occurred during the 990s in Vemtonter's wildlife watching behaviors. Since past studies (i.e., NSFHW AR) provide only limited comparisons to assess behavioral change, we had to rely on retrospective accounts of peoples' participation in 989. The results are limited by the reliability of the respondents' recall. We measured behavioral change in two ways. First, in addition to reporting their top 3 most visited wildlife watching sites in 999, we also asked respondents to report the top 3 most visited sites for 989. These results are reported in Table 5 and Table 6 above. Second, we asked people to evaluate change in various wildlife watching behaviors (observing wildlife, photographing wildlife, feeding wildlife, etc.) over the previous ten years by providing a 5-point scale from "much less" to "much more." Results are reported in Table 7 below. Changes in Visits to Wildlife Watching Sites The ratio of people who listed one of the 50 sites in Table 5 as their most frequently visited sites was consistently higher in 999 than in 989. (This may represent some recall bias.) The 999 ratios were generally about 300/0 higher than in 989. There may be real increases in frequency of visits, however, where the ratios were more than a 30% between 989 and 999. Sites that showed considerably larger increases included Dead Creek Wildlife Management Area, Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Arrowhead Mountain Lake, Robert Frost Interpretive Trail, Mallet's Bay State Park, Willoughby Falls Wildlife Management Area, and Otter Creek Wildlife Management Area. Table 5 also shows that the mean number of days spent at one's most frequently visited areas had decreased in almost all cases. While this may also reflect some recall bias, the decrease in average number of days in not uniform across all sites. So there is some evidence that people are spending fewer days watching wildlife in 999 than in 989. For example the mean number of days spent at Sand Bar Wildlife Management Area was 4.0 in 989. This average had dropped to 3.8 days in 999. Similar decreases had occurred at Mallet's Bay State Park, Smuggler's Notch State Park, Willoughby Falls Wildlife Management Area, White Rocks National Recreation Area, Arrowhead Mountain Lake, Route 4, and Green Mountain Audubon Center. The average visitor days to Groton State Fores, Dead Creek Wildlife Management Area, Otter Creek Wildlife ManageDent Area, Lake CarIni State Park, and the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge held steady between 989 and 999. The average visitor days to the Vennont Institute of Natural Science and to Vemon/Bellows Falls/Wilder Dam increased between 989 and 999.

28 ~ The average number of days that Vennonters visited other wildlife watching sites (Table 6) remained the same between 989 and 999. Respondentspent an average of 7.4 days visiting other watchable wildlife sites in 989 and 7.7 days in Texas Falls, Lake Elmore, Shelburne Farms, Lake Champlain, Merck Forest, Mt. Philo State Park, Silver Lake, Kent Pond, the Connecticut River, and Sumner Pond increased between 989 and 999 in the number of people who mentioned these places as their most frequently visited wildlife watching destinations. Green River Reservoir decreased between 989 and 999 in the number of people who said it was one of their most frequently visited wildlife watching sites. Changes in Participation in Wildlife Watching Activities On average, people perceive that their participation in wildlife watching activities has changed between 989 and 999 (Table 7). Respondents felt their wildlife watching participation was between "about the same" and "slightly more" than it was 0 years ago: the mean was 3.63 for watching wildlife at home and the mean was 3.43 for watching Wildlife away from home. Respondents also felt they were feeding wildlife slightly more now than 0 years ago (mean=3.33), reading about wildlife more (mean=3.6), and watching wildlife related TV programs more now than in 989 (mean = 3.78). ~ Conversely, Vermonters felt they participated less in wildlife photography (both around the home and away from home), observing fish, visiting a wildlife refuge, visiting a wildlife art gallery, or visiting a wildlife site that requires an entrance fee. 8 In each case between a third of the sample (3.8% for wildlife feeding) and nearly half the sample (48.8% for wildlife photography away from home) felt like their participation had remained the same between 989 and 999. Table 7. Change in participation in wildlife watching. activities over the past 0 years (Percent) ~ - - ParticQ)8tion Change Between 989 and I~ Wildlife Watchinp, Activity Less About the same More-~M~ - -~ ~- Fed wildlife at home bIerYed~--" hmbe Read a wildlife magazine or book,,~~-"' -.-~ --.' Visited a site iliat required an entrance fee S point scale with I ="much less. " ="sligbtly less," 3="about the same," 4="sJightly more," and 5="much more."

29 r~_;~." ~ 9 Respondents were asked their opinions about the importance of facility development at wildlife watching sites. They were also asked what sources of information they used to find watchable wildlife opportunities. Results are shown in Table 8 and Figures 4- and 4-. Respondents were generally more supportive of interpretive and educational facilities at wildlife watching sites, and less supportive of increased access from roads, picnic areas, or campgrounds. While some preferred an absence of any facilities (mean=.3), others favored more guidebooks, maps, and brochures (mean=.96), interpretive trails (mean=.63), viewing platforms and blinds (mean=.46), visitor centers( mean=.), and staff naturalists (mean=.4) at wildlife watching areas. Restrooms also were generally supported by a majority of respondents (mean=.53).. Access was a bit more complex. Respondents felt the presence of hiking trails was important (mean=3.5), yet most did not support road access into the area (mean=.93), and favored watching wildlife in areas where vehicles are not allowed (mean=.83). The majority were less supportive of campground access (both development and primitive), and were not supportive of improved boat access (mean=.9). The later effect probably reflects an anti-motorized sentiment among wildlife watchers. Finally, most were not supportive of hunting access at wildlife watching area (mean=.89), but were more supportive of fishing access (mean=.7). Table 8. Importance offaciiities at wildlife watching sites (percent). Not at au Slightly Moderately Very Facility Important Important Imporant Important Mean Being in an area where vehicles are not allowed S.83 Interpretive natural history trails ] Restrooms '.7 6.S.53 VioWiDgpJat rc.ms and/or blinds :. ~~ ~~ D:-:- 4-~- Staff naturalist c- '~~;i~[~~ _. ;J. A~ceof~X~:J!~~ A ~~;~~'t~~ Primitive c~p~~ " -3S ~.CjW{; -'~.~' c i7 :~,u;: jj~ fie ~m Having road access all the way into the area im~ Boat ~~~~~~ij\;!j- ~~ fob; ~~lj\i!~, li~i.9 Developed ~p~ Huatina ~#]-.A;r,w' esa,,~,,.:.:' ;W.89

30 Information Sources A bout Watchable Wildlife 30 The most frequently used SOUl'CeS ofinfonjlation (Figure 4-) on Vermont's Fish and Wildlife come from newsletters (78.%), VennontDe partment offish and Wildlife (65.90/0) - presumably the hunting and fishing regulation book- and the radio (64.%). Fewer than half of the sample used printed SOUl'CeS such as books/pamphlets, magazines, or newspapers. The more traditional fonjl of information that comes from friends or family members was used by only a third of the sample (3.900). Television was also more infrequently used as an infomlation SOUl'Ce. The watchable wildlife icon posted at locations around the state attracted less than half the sample (46.%) to stop and watch wildlife at those locations. Watchable Wildlife Icon ~.. ~ No Yes F~ 4-. Does die presence ofdjis sign influence your decision to stop at outdoor areas that you have never visited? -

31 3 Respondents were given a list of 0 different scenarios that could describe a wildlife watching experience and were asked to rate each scenario on whether they agreed the experience defined watchable wildlife. Results are reported in Table 9 below. A majority of respondents agreed (either "moderately agreed" or "strongly agreed") that all but one of the scenarios constituted a watchable wildlife experience. As many as 9 in 0 people (88. %) agreed that "seeing an endangered bird in your backyard" was a watchable wildlife experience. And as few as 6 in 0 people (6.4%) agreed that "going on an Audubon birding trip and seeing no birds" was a watchable wildlife experience. The only exception was for "see gulls in the parking lot of the supermarket" where only 3. % agreed this was a watchable wildlife expenence. The scenarios that best described a watchable wildlife experience were those whose average responses were on the "agree" side of the scale (> 3.0). These scenarios generally involved seeing rare species of animals. They included "seeing an endangered bird in your backyard," "seeing a rare animal in your backyard," "hiking to the top of Camel's Hump to see an endangered bird, " "viewing a rare bird at a wildlife management area, " "tracking a bobcat to photograph it," "photographing a bobcat in your backyard," "stopping at Dead Creek to see thousands of birds, and "seeing a moose while driving to work." As might be expected. sightings of more common animals were less likely to be defined as a watchable wildlife experience. These included seeing gulls at the supennarket. birds in the backyard. squirrels. ducks in the park. and racoons while driving to work. Success at seeing one's targeted species also had a bearing on whether one agreed it was a watchable wildlife experience. Where one was unsuccessful, they were more likely to disagree that the experiences was watchable wildlife. Subsequent analysis of these definitional scenario show that people with more experience and those that have increased their participation over the past ten years, define wildlife watching more broadly - i.e., are more likely to agree that a broader selection of these scenarios define the watchable wildlife experience. Also, as individuals increase their skill level, years of participation, and average amount of time watching wildlife, they also are more likely to agree that these scenarios define the watchable wildlife experience. In other words, agreement with these scenarios are a function of wildlife watching experience, skill, and frequency of participation.

32 Table 9. Respondent definition ofa watchable wildlife experlen<;e Strongly Moderately Moderately Strongly Scenario Disaaree Disagree ~ ~ ~~ SeejngarareanimalinyoUfyarti Hiking to the top of Camel's Hump to see endangered bird Viewing rare bird at wildlife management area Photographing a bobcat in your backyard SS Seeing birds at the bird feeder Viewing common bird at wildlife management area Seeing birds on the lawn while mowing the grass Going to die park to see wildlife, but only hearing birds Seeing a squirrel while walking the dog ,S.7 Going on an Audubon birding trip and seeing no birds Seeing gulls in the supennarket k' lot

33 33 Respondents who participated in wildlife watching in 999 were asked what sort of equipment they own for wildlife watching, and whether they used that equipment more in 999 than in 989. Results are shown in Figures 5- through By far the most frequently used piece of equipment in wildlife watching was binoculars (Figure 5-), where nearly 4 in 5 people (79.6%) owned a pair. A majority of these binocular owners (5.5%) said they used them more in 999 than in 989. ~ Over a third of those who watch wildlife (4.6%) owned a camem (Figure 5-), and roughly a third owned a tripod (3.7%) and a telephoto lens (33.4%). Another 3.4% owned video recording equipment that they used for wildlife watching (Figure 5-3). Among those who owned these various photographic pieces of equipment, only a third said they used these items more in 999 than in 989. About a third of those who watch wildlife owned wildlife field guides (37.4%), magnifying glass or hand lens, (30.90/0), and specialty clothing and accessories (8.%) that they use on their excursions (Figures 5-6 to 5-8). While use ofmagni fying glasses and band lens has for the most part remained the same since 989, wildlife watchers are making more frequent use of field guides (49.6%) and speciality clothing and accessories (60.%). Less frequent use is made o:f spotting scopes (.%) and the Vernont Watchable Wildlife Guide (0.00/0). Binoculars r Mean=: J;] Figure 5-. Wildlife watching equipment ownershipbinoculars. Figure 5-. Wildlife watching equipment ownership - still photography equipment.

34 ~ 34 ~ ~ Figure 5-3. Wildlife watching equipment ownership - video recording equipment. Figure 5-4. Wildlife watching equipment ownership - telephoto lens. '" Figure 5-5. Wildlife watching equipment ownership - tripod. Figure 5-6. Wildlife watching equipment ownership - magnifying glass or hand lens.

35 35 Wildlife Field Guides Figure S- 7. Wildlife watching equipment ownership - wildlife field guides. Figure s-8. Wildlife watching equipment ownership - Specialty clothing or accessories (cases, vests. straps, etc.) Vermont Wildlife Viewing Guide Figure 5-9. Wildlife watching equipment ownership - Spotting scope. Figure 5-0. Wildlife watching equipment ownership - Vermont Wildlife Viewing Guide point scale where = "less use," = "about the same use," and 3 = "more use."

36 36 Respondents were asked questions about their wildlife watching skill and the years they have been interested in watchable wildlife activities. They were also asked about how they combine their interest in wildlife watching with membership in environmental organizations. Skill and Interest in Wildlife Watching. Respondents rated their wildlife watching skills just below intermediate (mean =.8). Two thirds of the sample said they were either beginner or intermediate, with only 3.5% saying they were.'advanced" or "expert" (Figure 6-). Respondents rated their wildlife photography skills somewhat lower with an average score of.37. More than half (53.%) said they had.no wildlife photography skills and only.6% said they were advanced or expert photographers. While just under half the respondents said they had no interest in wildlife watching, andjust over half said they had no interest in wildlife feeding, nearly three-fourths of the sample said they had no interest in wildlife photography (Figure 6-). Those who were interested in wildlife watching had, on average had been interested in the activity for 8 years (Figure 6-). Interest in wildlife photography and wildlife feeding was more recent with the average years of interest in photography at 9 years and the average length of interest in feeding at 7 years. Distribution across the years of interest was fairly even among wildlife watchers and wildlife photographers, while the distribution of interest in wildlife feeding was more recent, with a larger proportion saying the length of there interest was between I and 0 years (Figure 6-).!~ 60.0 SO.O 40.0f 30.0 O.0t 0.0J 0.0 ~ Wildlife Watching Skill Ye-. ofin~ in W8Id.bIc WiIdIifc -=: 0.0 I "ill so.o ~._'-"-~'~':'; :~c"' ~ Oy- ~ )8-' ~ E-t.. Wildlife Wildlife Witching (De8IF.8) Wildlife Wildlife Pbotoarapby (mcan-.37) Figure 6-. Perceived wildlife watching and wildlife photography skill. WItChing (me8""7.9 Ye8I) Photography (mean-9.0 Ye8I) [] Wildlife FeediDg (man=7. years) Fipre 6-. Years of interest in watching wildlife, photographing wildlife, and feeding wildlife.

37 37 Membership in Environmental Organizations ~ There were 9 people (4.8%) who belonged to environmental organizations of some sort. Respondents mentioned 60 different clubs and organizations to which they belonged (Table 0). The most frequently cited organizations are those national organizations one might expect: The Nature Conservancy, NRA, National Audubon, Trout Unlimited, etc. More frequently mentioned local organizations, however, included VINS and Barre Fish and Game Club. Table 0. Membership in international, national or local environment/conservation related clubs or org: - The Nature Conservancy 7 Forest and Stream club National Rifle Association 7 Garden Club National Audubon Society 7 Green Corps Vermont Institute of Natural Science 6 Green Mountain Audubon Society Barre Fish and Game Club 6 Hartford Rod and Gun Club Vermont Natural Resources Council 5 Institute for Earth Education National Geographic 4 inti. Fund for Animal Welfare Trout Unlimited 4 Lake Champlain Walleye Assoc. North American Hunting Club 4 Lake Parker Association Natural Resources Defense Council 3 Local fish and game club Sierra Club 3 Lyford Pond Association Hartland Fish and Game Club 3 Maine Island Trust Keeping Track.3 Massachusetts Audubon Green Mountain Club 3 National Arbor Foundation Greenpeace 3 National Resource Conservation Service BASS National Trappers Association Caledonia Fish and Game Club National Wildlife Ducks Unlimited NOF A - Vermont National Wildlife Federation North American Fishing Club Vermont Land Trust Palmer Brook Sport Club World Wildlife Fund Proctor Fish and Game Arbor Day Foundation Committee to Protect the Adirondacks Bassmaster. Save the Whales Black River Rod and Gun Club I Smugglers Notch Ski Club Bonnyvale Env. Education Center.'" Sportsman Alliance of Maine Central VT Boating Club Tree Farm Association Clover Garden Club of Montpelier Vermont Caves Association Cornell Univ. Project Feeder Watch VPIRG Coverts l. VT Hunter Safetyrrrapper Instructor Cub Scout Den Leader Wildlife Forever..

38 38 Socioeconomic Profile The questionnaire asked respondents a series,,:f questions about their age, income, education, occupation, marital status, and residence. We then compared wildlife watchers with non-wildlife watchers to see if there were any systematic differences between the two groups. Results are reported in Table. Wildlife watchers differed from non-wildlife watchers on all socioeconomic variables except for three. There was a higher ratio of women among the non wildlife watchers than the wildlife watchers, and a slightly higher proportion of men among the wildlife watcher group. Wildlife watching participation may decline with age. There was a significantly higher proportion of non-wildlife watchers who were 65 year old or older. Wildlife watching also is more likely to be an activity of people between 45 and 65 years old. ~ There were no significant difference in the education levels of wildlife watchers and non-wildlife watchers. Income levels. however did differ slightly. Wildlife watchers had higher incomes than those who did not watch wildlife. There were more people in the $ plus category among wildlife watchers and more people among non-wildlife watchers with incomes less than $3.000 per year. Wildlife watchers were more likely to be fully employed than non-wildlife watchers. Two thirds of the wildlife watchers were fully employed, while only half of the non-wildlife watchers were fully employed. There were more non-wildlife watchers who worked part-time. These part-time workers may be include some in the larger proportion of females among non-wildlife watchers. Finally, non-wildlife watchers were more likely to be retired than wildlife watchers. People who are wildlife watchers are less likely than non-wildlife watchers to be single or widowed, and more likely to be married or living with a partner. Those who engaged in wildlife watching were significantly more likely to say that the presence of wildlife influenced their choice of residence. More than 40% of the wildlife watchers said that wildlife had an effect on their residential choice, while only 7.6% of the non wildlife watchers said wildlife influenced their residential choice. There were no rural/urban residential differences between wildlife watchers and non-wildlife watchers. Those who grew up or currently live in a rural area or small town are no more likely to watch wildlife than are people who currently live or grew up in a suburban area or urban area.

39 39 Table. COtnDaring the socioeconomic characteristics of wildlife watchers and non-wildlife watchers Gender Male Female Age 5 to 34 years old 6.0% 9. 0% 35 to 44 years old 3.8% 4. 0% 45 to 54 years old 55 to 64 years old 65+ years old 4.5% 3.00/0.6% 4. % 9. 8% 3. 0% Education Less than high school High School diploma Some college B.A. or equivalent M.A. or equivalent M.D., Pill. Income < $6,000 $6,000-$3,000 $3,000-$48,000 $48,000-$64,000 $64,000-$80,000 $80,000-$96,000 > $96, % 7.6% 6.9% 7.% 9.7% 5.6% 8.8' %.' % 5.8' % 9.0 % 7.' % 5.6' % 3.3' % 4.9% 9.5% 5.7% 8.4% 7.7% 3.8% 7.8% 8.% 7.% 3.4% 3.4% 3.8% 6.4% Employment status Full-time Part-time Unemployed Semi-retired, part-time Fully retired 68.4% 0.96/0 3.4% 3.4% 3.9% 50.0% 9.3% 5.7%.8%.% Marital status Single Separated/divorced Widowed Married Live with partner.8% 0.5% 4.9% 64.7% 7.% 9.7% 0.4% 0.9% 57.4%.6% Residential Choice Influenced by Presence of Wildlife? (3.% said "yes") No Yes 59.9% 40.% 8.4% 7.6% Current Residence Rural Small Town Suburban Urban 35.7% 4.%.5% 0.7% 35.00/0 40.7% 9.8% 4.5% Residence Growing Up Rural Small Town Suburban Urban 8.8% 40.6%.5% 8.% 3.3% 36.% 0.3%.4%

40 40 APPENDIX Methods Data used to detennine if their has been a shift in the way Vermont residents perceive the wildlife watching experience was obtained from a random statewide survey of Vermont residents over the age of 8. A 3-page questionnaire was designed to measure current and past perceptions of wildlife watching and wildlife watching behaviors. Some questions were designed to be comparable with items in the National Survey of Hunting Fishing and Wildlife Associated Recreation. Sample Selection We used a stratified random sample of Vermont residents in this study. The survey was randomly administered to Vennont residents by county of residence. Due to practical constraints of sampling, the survey population consists only of individuals that have a telephone registered under their name. The sample size was selected using fairly conservative estimates of return rates and number of deliverable addresses from the initial mailing list to ensure a statistically adequate sample size. For this study, an estimator of sample size that is within 5% of the population percentage with 95% probability was detemlined to be adequate. Using this level of precision, the sample size was determined using a standard equation for estimating sample size; n=i.96 (PQ/5) (Kalton, 983). With a total Vemlont population of 593,740 (U.S. Census Bureau, 000) this estimation procedure called for a sample size of 384 respondents. To ensure that 384 usable questionnaires would be returned. a return rate of 37.5% was established as a minimum over which the desired sample size would be returned. This necessitated the successful delivery of 04 questionnaires to have an acceptable sample size at the conservative return rate of 37.5%. We assumed at least 5% of the original mailing would be undeliverable due to inter and intra state migration and the fixed life span of forwarding addresses. A total mailing of 00 questionnaires was selected in the preliminary mailing to compensate for a 5% undeliverable rate. American Consumer Lists of Omaha, Nebraska drew the 00 random survey based on Vennont telephone directories. The sample was stratified using 999 estimated county population levels to accurately distribute surveys according to the geographic distribution of the population. Using Microsoft Access, each name in the sample was assigned an individual respondent number for purposes of administering subsequent mailings and to ensure respondent confidentiality. Mailing protocol Questionnaire packets consisting of the questionnaire, cover letter, and postage-paid return envelope was mailed using first class mail on January 4,000. Packets were delivered using first class mail

41 4 to ensure that undeliverable packets would be returned, and allow us to track the number of nonrespondents and undeliverable questionnaires. As unopened surveys were returned, address corrections were attempted through internet white page searches. The surveys to which address corrections could be made were r ed on the same day that they were returned. Addresses that could not be corrected were considered undeliverable. The cover letter sent with each survey was designed to maximize response to the survey while providing the recipient with all of the infonnation about the project needed to complete the questionnaire. The letter opened with an explanation of the study and how they were chosen to participate. Following this introduction, respondents were infonned of the importance of contributing to this research project. Throughout the letter, participants were assured of their confidentiality as well as the fact that there are no direct costs in participation. Returned and undeliverable surveys were tracked using their individual respondent numbers in the mailing database. After week, a follow-up postcard was mailed to individuals that had not yet returned the survey. Dillman (978) recommends that postcards be sent as reminders I week after the initial mailing to induce individuals who planned to respond, but who were in some way distracted from completing the survey immediately. In this study, post cards were mailed ten days after the initial mailing due to the length and complexity of the questionnaire, and the time required to fill the form out. Undeliverable postcards were tracked, but not considered undeliverable due to the relatively small effort put into delivery of postcards as compared to first class mail. A second mailing of questionnaire packets was mailed days after the initial mailing, a week and a half after the postcard reminder. This second mailing contained questionnaires identical to the initial mailing, but the cover letter was altered to reflect the second attempt. In an effort to prompt any individuals who had completed the survey, but had neglected to return it, a second post card was mailed one month after the second mailing. One week following the second postcard mailing, the data collection period was considered complete. Response Rate Of the 00 questionnaires originally sent, 0 (6.8%) were undeliverable (Table A-I). Response rates were therefore calculated based on 999 valid addresses in the sample. The 6.8% undeliverable rate is fairly typical for samples purchased from private mailing list companies. There may be a 7% to % annual relocation in states like Vermont, and the delay between relocation and listing in a new phone directory may make these lists as much as 8-4 months behind. This should not be a major source of bias however, since with today's mobility, those who moved within the previous year or so should not differ significantly from those have lived in one place for more than a year or two.

42 The total response to the mailed survey was 479 usable questionnaires or 47.9%. This response exceeded the target of384 usable questionnaires. As expect~ putting a survey in people's hands has more influence on response. More than 35% responded to either the 5 or 3rd mailings. Post cards reminders had less of an effect on response, particularly the nd post card reminder. Table A-I. Return rates from the 000 Vennont Wildlife Watching Survey Mailing event Respondents~ ~~t~(ro) _~ndejiverable Percent First mailing Reminder postcard Second mailing nd Reminder postcard Total Data coding All returned surveys that contained any usable infomlation were considered valid returns. Empty returned surveys, unreturned surveys, or respondents who wrote or phoned their desire not to be part of the survey were considered non-responses. Data from the returned questionnaires was coded as numeral or string data and stored in Microsoft Access. After the data collection period, the data was cleaned and exported into the statistical analysis program SPSS. Additional cleaning of data entry errors was accomplished by examining descriptive statistics of all survey variables. Weighting for Sampling Error The goal of this study was to gather data from a sample of Vermonters that represented the behaviors and opinions of all Vermont residents. To be representative, however, the profile of respondents must mirror the profile of all residents on several key variables. Typically one makes sample and population comparisons based on socioeconomic indicators. In this study, we weighted the data based on gender and age. There are many potential sources of sampling error - both known and unknown. One key source of error is the reliability of the sample that was purchased. Other sources of sampling bias may come from systematic differences in age cohort or income group tendency to respond to mailed surveys, or perhaps their tendency to respond to surveys related to natural resource related issues. Some of these sources of bias can never be documented. Other sources of bias can be indicated by age, income, gender, and education and can be corrected through data weighting. In one's statistical analysis, weighting can give greater emphasis to responses of under-represented groups and less emphasis to responses of over-represented groups.

43 Table A- shows that the ratio of men to women in Vemlont is nearly equal. However, men were more likely to respond to the survey than women. Table A- also showed that the sample did not mirror the age distribution ofvemlonters. Those who are older (specifically those 45 to 64 years old) are more likely to respond to the survey than those who are younger. Consequently the responses of women and the responses of younger people were given more weight than the responses of men and the responses of older people. Table A- also shows that the income and education of respondents was higher than the income and education of Vermonters. However, when weighting for gender and age in the sample, their income and education came closer in line with state profiles. 43 T_~le A-. Socioeconomic descriptions of responden!~ 000 Respondents Gender Male 65.7% Female 34.3% 999 Vennont Census. 48.4% 5.6% Age 0 to 34 years old 35 to 44 years old 45 to 54 years old 55 to 64 years old 65+ years old Median age 9.% 3.9% 3.9% 7.9% 7.3% 49 years old 7.% 3.9% 0.3%.8% 6.7% 37 years old Education Less than high school High School diploma Some college B.A. or equivalent M.A. or equivalent M.D., PhD. 4.5% 30.0% 5.6% 5.4% 8.9% 5.3% High school or more College or more 95.5% 39.6% 89.3% 8.3% Income < $6,000 $6,000-$3,000 $3,000-$48,000 $48,000-$64,000 $64,000-$80,000 $80,000-$96,000 > $96,000 Median 9.7% 9.4%.7% 9.7%.7% 5.9%.0% $44,000 $4,000

44 44 Questionnaire Design In this study, the goal was to understand: ) how Vermonters' definition of the wildlife watching experience has changed, ) how Vermonters wildlife recreation behaviors have changed, 3) the frequency Vermonters have used wildlife watching areas in the 990's and in the 980's, 4) which species are most important to Vermonters, and 5) the relationship between user specialization and wildlife recreation. (See questionnaire in Appendix 3.) The survey was also designed to measure current perceptions and behaviors of wildlife watching in addition to constructing a retrospective view of wildlife watching in the 980's. This was done by writing questions about how individuals defined wildlife watching, changes in places they visit to watch wildlife, and changes in interest in wildlife watching. In addition, a series of socioeconomic questions were asked to determine non-response bias and to compare groups of respondents to similar groups in society. Where possible, ordinal or scale questions were used. However, categorical questions were asked in some circumstances where a minimal amount of information is required or where the questions were designed as screener questions. Defining the activity Respondents were asked two questions that allowed them to define wildlife watching. The questions presented a series of scenarios to which they indicated whether they felt it represented a wildlife watching experience. The series of questions listed 0 scenarios, each of which represented a unique combination of elements that comprise a wildlife watching experience. Wildlife watching happens in a variety of settings and focuses on many different types of animals. In addition, individuals may only consider themselves engaging in wildlife watching while they are engaged in a particular set of activities. To capture the complexity of wildlife watching components, scenarios were designed that combined different degrees of: setting formality, rarity of species, and activity specialization. The second question asked respondents about their intent when they saw different species of wildlife. This allowed respondents to choose whether they believed they were engaging in wildlife watching when they saw a particular species of animal by indicating whether it was an intentional or unintentional expenence. Particination The next set of questions was focused on participation in different types of activities. For comparative purposes, respondents were asked a series of questions that quantified participation in the same way as NSFHW AR and other wildlife associated recreation surveys. Respondents were asked about the frequency, duration, and time of initial participation. The data from these questions is used to present an image of user participation today. But, it was also necessary to ask a series of questions that focused on how an individual's participation levels have changed over the past lo years. Several questions were designed to determine if respondents were engaging in wildlife watching in different locations than they did lo years ago. This change in behavior was measured by asking respondents

45 about participating in wildlife watching at 50 sites in Vennont that have been detennined by the National Watchable Wildlife Program to represent a diverse set of wildlife watching opportunities (Brown, 994). Other questions were designed to measure changes in a respondent's behavior since 989. One question focused on whether a respondent engaged in a series of wildlife watching situations more or less over the past 0 years, while another questions asked about use of peripheral wildlife watching equipment over the same 0 year period. S~ecialization Several questions were included to measure user specialization. The specialization questions aimed at use of specialized equipment, involvement in wildlife related organizations, years of participation, skill level, influence of wildlife on home selection, and interest in specific varieties of species. Also, respondents were asked about their preferences of certain amenities found at areas that one would watch wildlife. Other research on specialization of recreationists (Kauffinan & Graefe, 984, Martin, 995, Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America, 999) has shown that users with different levels of specialization have unique preferences for certain activities and species. Socioeconomic A series of socioeconomic questions were asked to analyze how various social groups perceived wildlife watching now and in the 980's. Respondents were asked their gender, year born, level of education, occupation, employment status, marital status, age and gender of children, place of birth, and income. 45 Nonresponse Bias To detennine the extent of nonresponse bias, a follow up telephone survey of nonrespondents was conducted. An acceptable sample size of nonrespondents to survey is 0 percent (Buck, 995). 50 surveys were coded as non-responses, so a total of 5 people needed to be contacted to achieve the 0 percent sample. A random sample of 49 people who never responded to any of the 4 mailings was selected. The phone calls were made 7 days following the second postcard on March 4, 000 to March 7,000 on consecutive nights between 5 pm and 9 pm. The majority of the phone numbers provided by the list company were valid. Attempts were made to look up all phone numbers that were no longer in service, or when the wrong party was reached. From that total, 59 individuals were contacted and provided usable data. This provided a total usable sample of % of all nonrespondents to the mail survey. Nonrespondents to the mail survey were asked a series of questions to compare response differences between those who answered the mail survey and those who did not.

46 The mail survey and the nonresponse telephone survey were similar to each other in gender and age comparisons. The female to male gender ratio for the mail survey and the telephone survey were :.93 (65.9% male), and :.7 (7.9% male) respectively The mean age was also very similar between the mail survey and the nonresponse bias telephone survey. The mean age of the respondents in the mail survey was 5.3 years, while the age of respondents in the nonrespondent telephone survey was 49. years. The remainder of the eleven telephone survey questions were similar to mail survey responses. Eight of the questions differed by less than 8%. The last of the eleven telephone questions did differ from the mail survey. This question asked respondents about how far, on average, they travel to watch wildlife. The telephone survey responses were % lower than the mail survey. However, this difference was only five miles. A complete list of comparisons between the telephone survey and the mail survey are listed in Table A-3. Table A-3. Comparison b~~een non-response bias telep~e survey and unweight~~l survey Unweighted Telephone Difference ~ Watched wildlife at home Watch wildlife away from home Feed birds at home (mean value) Hunt while watching wildlife Fish while watching wildlife Years watching wildlife Average distance traveled to watch wildlife Skill as a wildlife watcher (mean value) Gender ratio Education (mean value) Age mail survey 66.3% 47.3% % 48.% 3. years 4.5 miles % male 3. 5 years survey 7.% 50.8% % 49.% 8.6 years 6.88% 6.89% 5.44% 3.85%.4% 8.04% 9.8 miles.3%.7 7.9% male years 7.4% 9.60%.50% 3.53% 46

47 47 APPENDIX Written Comments I have found over the years that I have learned to appreciate it more than when I was younger. Also I seem to see more unusual wildlife when I least expect it. I spend a great deal of time outdoors, be it hunting, fishing, or just hiking and have experienced a lot more than a lot of people I know. Every time I see wildlife is a great experience for me. I would like to know the results of this survey if possible and thank you for the opportunity to fill this out. "Organized, structured, developed and managed" wildlife watching is artificial and expensive. Independent, "solo", naturalist and philosophical, not "community" or "shared" experience I preferred to state-sponsored tax-supported "programs". The governor's commercial for the state parks filmed at Mt Philo, is indicative of the worst case wildlife management thinking...help save Vermont from its "promoters". If you have any infonnation on any wheelchair accessible wildlife trails, please send them to me. We love getting out in the wilderness. If I had known there was a map available like the one included I would have gone to allot more places. We've only been back here since 998. In ME I seem to be aware of a lot more brochure, maps, information and places like the Audubon # that was updated each week with what birds had bee spotted. Was also aware of wildlife sanctuaries for injured animals in ME and MA. Is there a brochure or anything that tells what is at the locations on the map enclosed? Spent consecutive years deer hunting east of island pond- spotted over 0 moose both years- really enjoyed watching them in the wild. In the late 970's spotted bobcats in the abbey pond area of Ripton above Route 6. Never seen a bobcat in the wild since. I can still visualize the experience in my mind today. Moose in Vermont is not a good thing for deer. I would characterize my overall wildlife watching participation as not intentional. but appreciative when I run across it in the course of daily activities. Most have been accidental such as seeing deer. moose and fox while driving. and viewing deer tracks and pleated woodpeckers in our yard. I have not as of yet tried attracting wildlife in our current home (we have been in this newly constructed home less than a year) but I am thinking of trying to attract deer purposely and I have seen tracks. Large snow owl has quite a experience more people have seen some different places. I just saw the owl stare at me for the longest time no camera though. Seen 3 blue heron in 998. Seen 3 blue heron in 99 couple weeks ago.

48 48 I hope what little information I have given is of some help I'm afraid I'm not the most helpful person for you to survey. Not only am I a recent arrival to VT, but I came here to attend UVM's college of Medicine to pursue my MD degree. Recreation of any sort is at a minimum in my life, and sleep far surpasses wildlife watching on my priority list- for the past 4 and the next 3 years. You'd get more valid and applicable infonnation from someone who has a real life, not the limbo I currently exist in. I believe observation of wildlife should be left to natural occurrences if need b in publicly owned areas. I don't believe it should be a predefined outlined event in any form. A zoo would be a better alternative. I was born and raised in VT and enjoy seeing all the wildlife around me, I'm very lucky. I live on a lake that is mismanaged and feel could be a great place for wildlife watching opportunities. Star lake needs so much help from the state. Although I am not an animal watcher, I appreciate your efforts to strengthen the experience! That's what VT is all about. Thank you. Please do not put me on any more mailing lists, Weare pleased to be living in such an environment, where these options for recreation are available. We are not by nature a background, "outdoorsy" types, but look forward to becoming so as our children get older and wish to see the world. I feel hunting has become a kill/kill situation instead of what was once planned as wildlife management. People are being shot and killed more so than years past. Firearms in my mind are at this point in time senseless and dangerous to all~ be it those who possess them and to the general public. The constitutional right to bear arms has run its course. Lets stop the senseless killing of all beings~ be it human or wildlife. Thank you~ Lets bar arms. I guess I will never understand how these questionnaires are laid out. Are the people writing them not educated (maybe a sign of our schools) no common sense or what? Having said that (putting you in a good mood) my personal (me alone) wildlife watching comes from going bass fishing a lot. It's a big part of my life. While fishing I am very aware of everything around me, part of it wildlife of all kinds. My wife and I enjoy seeing moose, deer, turkeys, and may times that's our reason to go for a ride. Bird watching and photography are fine. Equally interesting are tracking, obtaining habitat knowledge, scat identification, etc. with respect to the larger carnivores and their prey. Several organizations in Vermont are involved in this effort at umbrella species tracking. Here in the Mad River Valley several organizations lead snowshoe tracking expeditions at night.

49 Years ago my sons attended a hunter safety course in Franklin County. Our whole family thorough enjoyed about the deer populations and its problems. We totally endorse the use of videos to teach about deer management, forensics and environment. Pages and do not pertain to wildlife survey in my opinion. I am an avid hiker/backpacker. I hike primarily the long trail- I enjoy seeing wildlife- I do not really look for it. my purpose of hiking is to see all of nature- this wildlife watching does not require (in my eyes) special priority. The more you draw the less will be seen. Richness and abundance of wildlife in VT should be celebrated. Like human population, anlma population is changing in types and numbers. What is the human impact on these changes? VINS, ELF programs very good in protecting and sharing wildlife and natural environments. There are many knowledgeable and dedicated people who should be encouraged and supported in their work. 'here are mountain lions in this state! I moved back to the east Coast fonn State ofw A about -3 years ago. My primary activity out west was scuba diving, so my wildlife watching was done mostly underwater in salt water environment. Being in VT wi only fresh water, has changed my whole wildlife viewing experience. Also the first page was difficult for me to answer. I don't feel that you need to go to certain sites in VT just to see wildlife. I see more birds, squirrels, rabbits, etc in you own back yard or hiking in your area. Than going to White Rocks. Although last time we were at White Rocks we did see over 50 monarch butterflies flying south. support the state's wildlife projects even though we do not use many of the opportunities I have absolutely no interest in wildlife watching as you probably can tell by my answers My experiences with wildlife are mostly observing birds and animals in my area as I walk each day near the lake and river. It makes all the walking worthwhile. What purposes will this survey be used? Please send me any reports and future undertakings where this information will be used. Thank you for sending this to my partner and myself and letting us take the opportunity to help cant go hiking or climbing because have heart trouble. I take very little interest in VT's wildlife. I think VT is a beautiful state and our wildlife is imperative to our success. However, why was I chosen to do this and why did you need Dersonal info? 49

50 I have lived in Belvidere and Eden all my life, so seeing wildlife is something I take for granted. I'm very concerned about the environmental crisis and I'm writing/preaching/teaching about sustainable living. Weare primarily backyard and animal observers due to our rural location we do see many birds and animals. On our trips we make it a point to be wildlife conscious, but have not taken any trips expressly to observe wildlife in the past few years. We listen to the birds with [Name] and [Name] and subscribe to several magazines which have environmental articles. I don't separate wildlife observation from other recreational valves, so much of my interaction with wildlife tends to be secondary to the primary purpose of hiking, skiing, snow shoeing, etc. Furthermore, I enjoy wildlife observations unrelated to watching or photographing it - - i.e. droppings, tracks, evidence of foraging, etc. I love the outdoors and I do a lot of hunting and I really love to watch the wildlife while I am in the woods. You can really learn a lot while watching the animals. Songbirds no longer seen in this area, having disappeared in the past 40+ years. Catbird, wood thrush, veery, wren, white throated sparrow, white crowned sparrow, cedar waxwing, bobolink. A small note. In the fall of 996 on Pearson Rd in Waltham VT while driving south towards Middlebury. / hour before dusk. My wife and I witnessed large cat. Approx 00 lbs with a long black tipped tail run west to east across the road. I believe with all the pics I looked at after that it was a cougar or (catamount) it was not small enough for a fisher cat or bobcat. The paws in the light snow were approx.5-3 " It was beautiful I will never forget it, nor will my wife. 50 Its interesting to see all the different animals you've listed on your survey. There is one animal you forgot about or don't want to recognize. And that would be the catamount which does exist and I've witnessed. I would like to know why? You do not have food yards on state land like P A does. How come you do not have parking lots by the gate going on state land? Pennsylvania seems to welcome its hunters. Here in Vermont little over 0 or more years ago it was shame here. When you talk to other hunters and they say only seen to 8 deer all rifle season. Don't you thank something maybe wrong here in Vermont for deer? Would like response. Thank you Please survey why so much Vermont Private and commercial land is being posted against trespassing, hunting and fishing. Concerned Vermont residents and sportsman. Thank you. My land hosts wild turkey flocks, deer, and other animals whose tracks I haven't learned (I'd love to).

51 I am greatly opposed to the use of the leg-hold trap and other cruel devices to trap wild animals. I hope your organization is doing something about this inhumane treatment of our wildlife - also the control of pollution in the environment for our lakes. Thanks for caring. Most of the time I observe wildlife while hunting or fishing for them and they are tasty. We need to maintain undeveloped space for animals and for ourselves Making trips and exploring, seeing wildlife up close is something I personally would like to be able to do. I just do not have the means for it. But I think it's a real nice advantage to have accessible for those who are able to take advantage of it. To make such means accessible your doing a good work. I don't believe wildlife areas should be advertised. Such as Dead Creek Management area. Wildlife should be left alone. It is us who are intruders on their land. For most of my life I was avidly involved in wildlife activities. However as you can imaging my activities are somewhat restricted in recent years. By filling this out, it shows me I am not taking advantage of the wildlife around here. Thank you for the honor of being a participant. Would like to participate or volunteer in the future. I have lived in Asia, Africa, and South America and have "watched" wildlife globally. I have spent much time in Vermont schools helping kids "learning to see" and trying to encourage a greater appreciation and connection with nature and wildlife. Congratulations on the efforts your undertaking. 5 Please note that this was completed by Ms. XXXX~ husband was not available at the time. Endangered birds or any endangered animals should be left alone The deer in West Castle are dropping weight and soon will be dying offbecause of the amount of turkey within 4 miles of my house. I've seen over 300 turkeys and when I was out hunting I noticed there was no food for the deer because the turkeys have eaten it all to help this from happening next year I think that tur~ey season should be longer and have 3 tags for them. I'm not to many years away from retirement (-5). I may be interested at that time in either working part time or volunteering in support of wildlife watching. If you have such a file, put my name away in a drawer and contact me in 5 years. I would like to see a survey done on VT hunting and fishing. I would also like to see these surveys presented on the computer at some site everyone could access.

52 5 Most of my time is spent hunting and fishing. We have always been very interested and pleased with the management and concern as expressed with and by the VT Fish and Wildlife. Usually it just enjoy getting in my car to see where the road takes me. It is most often that the opportunity to see or have a "wildlife" experience presents itself on these trips. My parents started us off on watching wildlife, not just because my father hunted and fished. They enjoyed taking us to state parks and fish hatcheries. Camping was a lot of fun for us as a family and a great way to learn about Vermont. To whom it may concern, I do a lot of hunting in VT and out of state. I would like to see the state of VT start to make food plots for wildlife. In other states they do a lot of this and I think it helps. It would pay for itself in a few years. Food plots for deer and other animals. You sent this to my husband but he didn't want to fill it out so I did instead. I live in a very rural area. My neighbors are the wildlife that roam around my home. I have seen many deer, birds, (still hoping for a cardinal) moose, coyote, bear-and have heard an owl but have not seen him as yet. There is a nice brook trout brook that runs behind my house and is in walking distances. Lake Champlain Snakes-a lot of them- Red and black small snakes yellow and black small snakes. We do a lot of fishing and we have seen a lot of snakes in Lake Champlain. They come right at you, so we do not go fishing with our children there anymore. No reason that I can think of that anyone should answer this question (income).. Would like to see more emphasis placed on wildlife viewing and less on hunting. I'd severely restrict moose season and no big cat season.. More state lands without hunting. 3. Less boat access - close some completely. Sorry this is so late. I've been overseas for the past two months. I would like to see bike trails and walking trails in Vennont kept as natural as possible. I prefer seeing wildlife in their natural inhabitants. Would like to see rivers and lakes without boats or limited to small boats or canoes. I don't believe in feeding wild animals. I have left questions,3, lion pages and blank. I do not feel that these are appropriate questions to be included on a wildlife survey. I feel that most of this section should not be included on this survey. I strongly disagree with this type of questions.

53 I feel this survey is not something I should fill out. When I see wildlife it is mostly unintentional. This survey is aimed at the avid wildlife watcher. That's not saying I don't like wildlife. Thanks. I don't specifically seek out wildlife, but am always pleased to see and observe, especially when hiking. Thanks to this questionnaire, especially the map of sites, we will begin to pmposely go and look for wildlife. Thanks. In general I avoid areas that attract high levels of people. I prefer to do my sightseeing in more remote areas. I love to fly fish and enjoy primitive camping with close friends and family. I hope my input has helped. When I was a kid I went to fetch the cows in the pasture, there were many more birds than I see today also when I go snow shoeing in the woods there isn't the track from wildlife I used to see. I have visited state parks and wildlife management areas in about 0 states in the past few years. Identification signs are superb-identifying what you might see, a visitors center with examples, photos, background information can be wonderful, especially for kids. Don't forget rocks, trees, other habitat that support wildlife-an evening desert trek in Arizona was superb because the staff indicated what you might fmd where and why. Your survey indicates interest in fonnal wildlife watching. Most all my wildlife experience is an ongoing experience in natural watching, not organized, every waking moment is devoted to watching wildlife since I live in a very rural environment. I very seldom use binoculars or any device to enhance watching. I like doing it in a natural state. 53