A Report Submitted to:

The Vennont Departmentof Fish and Wildlife

By

Walter F. Kuentzel and Gino J.M. Giumarro

Schoolof Natural Resources University of Vermont Burlingto~ VT 05405 2 2000 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 25 years, and "nonconsumptive" wildlife recreation has become an important part of wildlife agency's management strategies. This study representsone effort by the Vermont Department ofFish and Wildlife to understandthe 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 10 years.

Researchers in the 1970's began to notice a shift in the attitudes of consumptive wildlife users. Heberlein (1991) has identified several attitude changes in society that help explain these attitude changes.He found that: (1) in the mid 1970's, at least half of the U.S. residents opposed hunting (2) 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 (1991) 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 decreasesin hunting participation and increases in wildlife watching participation. State wildlife management agencies have recognized the need to understandthis 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, 1999) of wildlife.

There is also evidencethat the natureof the wildlife watching experiencehas been changing over the last 20 years.In Vermont, like the rest of the U.S., the numberof wildlife watchersincreased in each of the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation (NSFHWAR) studiesbetween 1980 and 1991(U.S. Departmentof Interior et al. 1996). However, in 1996,participation in wildlife watchingdeclined. Only 48% of Vermontresidents participated in wildlife-watching activities (U.S. Departmentof Interior et al. 1996). While this participationrate is the secondhighest in the nation, it is 21% lower than it was in 1991. Similar declines were recordedin statesthroughout the United States.

While most would agree that large declines in wildlife watching in the early 1990s, which followed equally large increases in the 1980s, 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 changesin the way the public perceives the wildlife watching experience,particularly after 20 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 Table of Contents

ExecutiveSummary 4

Participation in Wildlife Watching...... 8 Participation...... 8

CombiningHoursPerTripParticipationWildlife Photography WildlifeDays Watching With Other Activities .10 .11 .12 .13

Types of Wildlife Observed...... 14 Moose SightingsBy Residence...... 18 Interestin Viewing Typesof Wildlife . 19

Watchable VisitsTravelDistance Wildlife to VemlontSites in WatchableVennont Wildlife Destinations . . . . .20 . . . .20 . . . . 20 Other Wildlife WatchingAreas...... 22

Change Changesin Wildlife in VisitsWatching to Wildlife WatchingSites...... 27 . . . .27 Changesin Participationin Wildlife WatchingActivities . . . .28

WatchableWildlife ManagementIssues...... 29 Infonnation SourcesAbout WatchableWildlife ...... 30

Defining the WatchableWildlife Experience. 3

Wildlife Watching EquipmentUse 33

RespondentProfile Skill and Interestin Wildlife Watching...... 36 . . . . 36 Membershipin EnvironmentalOrganizations . . . .37 SocioeconomicProfile...... 38

Appendix 1 - Methods 40

Appendix 2 - Respondents'Written Comments 47

Appendix 3 - Study Questionnarie. . ...54 4

Participation

In 1999,nearly two-thirdsof all Vermontresidents (64.3%) participate in someform ofwildlife watchingclose to home,while nearlyhalf (43.6%)took a trip further away from hometo watch wildlife. This comparesclosely with 1995data on Vermontwildlife watchingfrom the National Surveyof Fishing Hunting and Wildlife AssociatedRecreation.

.. The averagenumber of days in Vennont that peoplespent watching wildlife near home « 1 mile) was 13 days 1999.The averagewas 10 days amongthose who madewildlife watching trips away from home (> 1 mile).

~ In 1999,two thirds of all Vennonters(65.1%) put out bird seed"occasionally" or more, and nearly half (48.8%) fed birds "often" or "daily." Only 22.3%never fed birds.

Justover 1 in 5 peoplein Vennont photographwildlife nearhome (20.1 %) or away from home (22.8%).The averagenumber of photographydays near home was 7, while the averagenumber of days away from homewas 6.

.. A minority ofVennonters who watch wildlife spendall day doing so. Among thosewho took wildlife watching trips, the averagelength of their trip was 2 hours. The averagelength of a wildlife photographytrips wasconsiderably less than a watchablewildlife trip, only lasting one and a quarterhours. Instead,wildlife watching trips are often combinedwith other activities including hiking trips (62.4%) and sightseeingtrips in the car (58.8%). Other frequently cited activities that are combinedwith watchablewildlife trips include fishing (45.9%), picnicking (43.5%), and canoeing(40.0%).

.. Just underhalf the respondentssaid they hadno interestin wildlife watching,and just over half saidthey hadno interestin wildlife feeding.Nearly three-fourthsof the samplesaid they had no interestin wildlife photography.

Wildlife Sighting

~ The most commonly sighted animals seen by Vermonters were small mammals - squirrels, rabbits, etc. (97.2%). More that 9 out of 10 Vermonters have also seena deer in 1999. Songbirds, game birds, waterfowl, and birds of prey were seenby 80% or more during 1999. 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 1999. 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 1999. 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 (42%) in Southern Vennont (Windham, Windsor, and Bennington counties) and 42% in Northwest Vennont (Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle Counties seeing a moose.

Vermonterswere most interestedin large mammalsand birds of prey. More than have the samplewas "very interested"in seeingmoose (58.8%), deer(55.0%) and eagles,hawks, and owls (52.2%).Nearly haveof the respondentswere "very interested"in seeingbobcats, foxes, andcoyotes (47.8%). The leastinteresting species for Vermonterswere reptiles (snakes, turtles, etc.), bats, amphibians(salamanders, frogs), andmigratory fish (salmon,steelhead).

Where Do People Watch Wildlife in Vermont?

Most people who participated in wildlife watching in 1999 did not travel far. Among residents who participated in wildlife watching, the average distance traveled was 18.3 miles. For people who photographed wildlife, the average distance traveled was 9.2 miles. For those who traveled more than 1 mile from home the average distance was 25.5 miles to watch wildlife and 31.1 miles to photograph wildlife.

Sand Bar Wildlife Management Area on U.S. Highway 2 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 StatePark, 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 increasesin the number of visits between 1989 and 1999 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.

Therewas someevidence that peoplewere spendingfewer days in 1999watching wildlife than in 1989.

However,when respondentswere asked about their participationchange, they felt their wildlife watching participationwas "about the same"or "slightly more" than it was 10 yearsago. 6

Respondentsalso felt they were feedingwildlife slightly more now than 10 yearsago, reading aboutwildlife more, andwatching wildlife relatedTV programsmore now than in 1989.

Conversely.Vennonters felt they wereparticipating less in wildlife photography(both around the homeand away from home).observing fish. visiting a wildlife refuge.visiting a wildlife art gallery. or visiting a wildlife site that requiresan entrancefee.

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 (41.6%) owned a camera, and roughly a third owned a tripod (32.7%) and a telephoto lens (33.4%). Another 31.4% 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 (28.1%) that they use on their excursions. Less frequent use is made of spotting scopes(12.1 %) and the Vermont Watchable Wildlife Guide (10.0%).

Profiling the Wildlife Watcher

Respondentsrated their wildlife watchingskills on the low side.Two thirds of the samplesaid they were either beginneror intermediate,with only 13.5%saying they were "advanced"or "expert." Respondentsrated their wildlife photographyskills somewhatlower with more than half (53.2%) saying they had no wildlife photographyskills, and only 2.6% sayingthey were advancedor expertphotographers. 7

Men are somewhatmore likely than womento be wildlife watchers.

Wildlife watching participation may decline with age. There was a significantly higher proportion of non-wildlife watcherswho were 65 year old or older. Wildlife watching also is more likely to be an activity of peoplebetween 45 and 65 yearsold.

Therewas no significant differencebetween the educationlevels of wildlife watchersand non- wildlife watchers.Income levels, however did differ slightly. Wildlife watchershad higher incomesthan thosewho did not watch wildlife. Therewere more people in the $80,000plus categoryamong wildlife watchers,and more people among non-wildlife watcherswith incomes lessthan $32,000per year.

Wildlife watcherswere more likely to be fully employedthan non-wildlife watchers.Two thirds of the wildlife watcherswere fully employed,while only half of the non-wildlife watcherswere fully employed.There were more non-wildlife watcherswho worked part-time. Finally, non- wildlife watcherswere more likely to be retired than wildlife watchers.

People who are wildlife watchersare less likely than non-wildlife watchersto be single or widowed, and more likely to be marriedor living with a partner. 8

The questionnaireasked respondents to reporttheir participationin wildlife watching.Comparable Vennont data from the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation(NSFHW AR) surveyasks about participation using a dichotomous(yes/no) question. This survey replicatedthe NSFHWAR participation questions,and also askedabout hours of participationper day, participation days,places in Vennont that the respondentwatches wildlife, types of wildlife watched, and distancetraveled to watch wildlife. The survey also askedabout people'sinterest in various speciesof wildlife.

Participation

.. Respondentswere asked whether they took special interest in watching wildlife in 1999 around their home, and if they watched wildlife during 1999 away from home (more than 1 mile from home). Figure 1-1 shows that nearly two-thirds of all Vern1ont 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.

.. Participationin 2000 comparesclosely with the 1996NSFHW AR. An identical proportion of respondentsin the 1996 NSFHWAR and the 2000 survey (73.9%) participatedin wildlife watchingeither nearhome or awayfrom home. A slightly smallerproportion in 1999watched wildlife nearhome while a slightly largerproportion in 1999watched wildlife awayfrom home.

Wildlife Watching Participation

-- - 17i9[~- 80.0 70.0

60.0 ~

_50.0 = 0 ~40.0 0 ~30.0 20.0

10.0t0.0 1996 NSFHW AR 2000 VTWWS 9

Respondentswere askedhow frequently they fed birds and wildlife in 1999. Bird feeding has traditionally beena widespreadfonn of wildlife watchingwith a majority of the populationputting out bird food of one sort or another.The sameis still true in Vennont.

. In 1999, two thirds of all Vermonters (65.1 %) put out bird seedat least occasionally or more, and nearly half (48.8%) fed birds "often" or "daily" (Figure 1-2). Only 22.3% never fed birds.

Fewer Vermontersengage in other forms of wildlife feeding (squirrels,deer, etc.). Only 10% feed wildlife "often" or "daily." Nearly three-fourthsnever fed wildlife, while only 28.3% fed wildlife in 1999.

FeedBirds (mean=3.16) FeedWildlife (mean=1.60)

Figure 1-2. Participationin feedingbirds and feedingwildlife. 10

Participation Days

Respondents who participated in wildlife watching in 1999 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 (35.1%) spent more than 30 days in 1999 (Figure 2-1). 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 10 or fewer days in 1999, and another 27.2% spent between 10 and 30 days watching wildlife in 1999. The average nwnber of days in Vemlont that people spent watching wildlife near home was 13 days.

For those who took trips more than a mile from home in 1999,just under half (44.1%) spent 10 or fewer days watching wildlife (Figure 2-2). Another 38.4% spent between 10 and 30 days, and 1~/O spent more than 30 days watching wildlife away from home in 1999. This latter group were probably the most specialized and committed to wildlife watching. The averagenumber of days spent watching wildlife away from home was 10 days.

Wildlife WatchingAway from Home

. Mean= 13days . Mean-IOdayi Figu re 2-1. Numberof daysin 1999spent watching Figure 2-2. Numberof days in 1999spent watching wildlife lessthan I mile nom home. wildlife more than I mile from home. 11

Wildlife Photography Therewas lessparticipation in wildlife photographythan wildlife watchingamong Vermonters in 1999.Just over 1 in 5 peoplein Vermont photographwildlife nearhome (20.1%) or away from home(22.8%).

.. 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 2-4). Among photographers, it is easier to spend more days photographing wildlife near home, where 18.3% spent 20 days or more (Figure 2-3). For those who photographed wildlife away from home, only 12.1% spent 20 or more days. The averagenwnber of photography days near home was 7, while the average nwnber of days away from home was 6.

1- 609. IS.19d8Yc n_-- . Mean= 7 days . Mean=6days Figure 2.-3. Number of daysin 1999spent Figure 2-4. Numberof daysin 1999spent photographb1gwildlife at home. photographingwildlife away from home. 12

Hours Per Trip

Among those who took wildlife watching trips, the average length of their trip was 2 hours. While half (50.5%) spent 2 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 2- 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 2-6). Among those who took wildlife photography excursions, more than two-thirds spent 2 hours or less (70.2%). Conversely, only 12.2% spent half-a-day or more photographing wildlife. These findings confirm that it is easier for some to photograph wildlife near home. It also suggeststhat the serious wildlife photographer who must spend many hours waiting for the right shot composition are a minority in Vermont

AverageLCDath of Wildlife PhotographyTrip 40 ------

3S 30.

i2S--J !20 IS 10 - S - 0-' 1-2- cl- 2-1- >4~ . MC8ft - 2 hours . Mean- 1.25hours Figure 2-5. Nwnber ofbours spenton a typical Figure 2-6. NumberofhOUl'S spent on an typical wildlife watchingouting in 1999. wildlife photographytrip in ]999. 13

Combining Wildlife Watching With Other Activities

Results from Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6 show that a minority of Vermonters who watch wildlife spend all day doing so. This suggeststhat wildlife watching excursions are more typically combined with other recreational activities. In the questionnaire, respondentswere asked to report what other activities they engaged in while watching wildlife.

. Table 1 showsthat watchablewildlife trips aremost often combinedwith hiking trips (62.4%) andsightseeing trips in the car (58.8%).Other frequently cited activitiesthat arecombined with watchablewildlife 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 (29.3%), auto/RV camping (29.3%), and cross country skiing (28.4%).

~ Men differ from women in some of the ways they combine watchablewildlife with other recreationalactivities. Women are more likely to combinepicnicking with wildlife watching, while men are more likely to combinefishing, backpacking,motorboating, and ORV usewith wildlife watching.

Table1. Partici 'on in otheractivities while wildlife watchin IOta!

Activitv£~--'&.J "!-,~',"; Male-~~~ Female- ::.-~-:.- 1)- Participation.r " c-:; c :c;,.., c:, 65 ' 7 59 . 2 - DS 62 '-4

57.3 35.0 .00 45.9

40.9 39.0 os 40.0

38.5 22.8 .00 30.5

28.2 30.4 os 29.3

27.5 29.2 ns 28.4

20:5 15.2 ns 17.8 14

Respondentswere askedwhat typesof wildlife they observedduring 1999.If they had observeda particulartype of wildlife, they were then askedwhether the siting was intentional or unexpected. Resultsare shown in Figures3-1 through 3-13.

~ The most commonly cited animal types seen by Vennonters were small manunals - squin'els, rabbits, etc. (Figure 3-1). Nearly everyone in the sample (97.2%) had seenthis type of animal at some time during 1999. 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 10 Vemlonterssaw a deerin 1999(Figure 3-2). Like small mammals,two- thirds of thesesightings 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 seenby 800/0or more of all Vermonters during 1999. Songbird sightings were more likely to be intentional (43.2%). One third of the sample intentionally observed water fowl (32.9%), one-fifth intentionally observed game birds (21.4%), while most sightings of birds of prey were accidental (84.2%).

Small Mammals Deer Squirrels, Rabbits, etc.

Figure 3-1. Did you observesmall mammalsin Figure 3-2. Did you observedeer in 1999? 19997 15

Game Birds Songbirds Twkey. Gro\Ise. etc. Warblers. Sparrows, etc.

Figure 3-3. Did you observesongbirds in 1999? Figure 3-4. Did you observegame birds in 19991

Waterfowl Birds of Prey Ducks, Geese,etc. Eagles, Hawks, Owls

Figure 3-5. Did you observewaterfowl in 19991 Figure 3-6. Did you observebirds of prey in 19991 16

Water-basedbirds were lessoften cited by VenIlonters(Figure 3-7 and Figure3-8) with 59.8% sayingthey saw wading birds (herons,egrets, etc.) and only 42.0%saying they saw shorebirds (sandpipers,plovers, etc.). In both cases,only a few of thesesightings were intentional(28.3% for shorebirds and 20.3 for wading birds.

Shore Birds Wading Birds Plovcrs, Sandpipers, etc Herons. Eareta. etc.

Figure 3-7. Did you observeshore birds in 19991 Figure 3-8. Did you observewading birds in 19991

.. Larger mammalssuch as moose,bobcat, fox, and coyoteswere seenby roughly half of all Vermontersin 1999.Among respondents.49.3% saidthey saw moose(Figure 3-9) and 57.8% said they saw carnivores(Figure 3-10). Most of these sightings, however were accidental, particularlythe carnivoresightings (9O.~/o).

Moose Carnivores Bobcat, Fox. Coyote, etc.

Figure 3-9. Did you observemoose in 19991 Figure 3-10. Did you observecarnivores in 1999? 17

A majority of Vermont residents saw various forms of amphibians (salamanders,frogs, etc.) and reptiles (snakes, turtles, etc.) in 1999. Nearly three-fourths (74.1%) of the respondents saw amphibians, and 60.4% saw reptiles (Figures 3-11 and 3-12). Nearly a third of the amphibian sightings (30.3) were intentional, while most of the reptile sightlngs were a surprise (90.0%).

Amphibians Reptiles Salamanders,Frogs, etc. Snakes, Turtles, etc.

Figure 3-11. Did you observeamphibians in 19991 Figu re 3-12. Did you observereptiles in ) 9997

.. Few people(14.1%) in Vermont saw any type of migratory fish (salmon,steelhead, etc.), but amongthose who did, more than two thirds of them (69.1%)were intentional sightings.

Migratory Fish Salmon, Steel1lead, etc.

Figure 3-13. Did you observemigratory fish in 1999? 18 MooseSightings By Residence

Moose sighting datawere analyzedby respondent'sregion of residence.The datadid not specify where respondentsactually saw a moose. Nevertheless,since most moose sightings were unintentional(85%), the analysisshows which regionsof the statemay be more proneto human- mooseencounters.

.. Table 2 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 1999.

~ 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 (42%) in Southern Vermont (Windham, Windsor, and Bennington counties), and 42% of the residentsin Northwest Vermont (Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle Counties seeing a moose.

.. Residents in Franklin, Chitenden, and Bennington counties were least likely to seea moose, while residents in Essex, Caledonia and Lamoille counties were most likely to seea moose.

Table2. Moosesi 'on of residencewithin Vennont. Did not seea Moose a Moose .

Caledonia 31.5 68.4 19 Essex 0.0 100.0 2 Orleans 42.9 57.1 14

Lamoille 26.7 73.3 IS Orange 43.5 56.5 23 WashingtoD 42.5 57.5 40

Bennington 61.9 38.1 21 Windham 52.6 47.4 18 Windsor 57.1 42.9 63

Addison 50.0 50.0 26 Rutland 41.3 58.7 46

Chittenden .57.7 42.3 137 Franklin 59.3 40.7 27 Grand Isle 50.0 50.0 6 * - Regional comparison: X2 = 14.31,df = 4, P = .006 ** - County comparison: X2 = 17..41,df= 13, p = os 19 Interest in Viewing Typesof Wildlife

Respondentswere askedto rate their interestin viewing the various types of wildlife speciesin Vermont. Responsesto the 4-point scalereflected general social attitudesabout 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 (52.2%). Nearly half of the respondents also were "very interested" in viewing bobcats, foxes, and coyotes (47.8%). Average ratings for these speciesfell between "moderately interested" and "very interested."

.. As expected the least interesting wildlife watching speciesfor 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 (29 .~/o), game birds (39.7%), waterfowl (32.0%), and wading birds (33.6%). Interest in bird watching, however, was more. evenly distributed across the 4 responsesthan the distribution for large mammals and birds of prey, so the average responsesfor bird watching were around the "moderately interested" range.

.. The one exceptionto bird watchingwas interestin shorebirds(plovers, sandpipers,etc.). The average responsefor this type of bird watching was between "slightly interested" and "moderatelyinterested."

Table 3. Respondentinterest in viewjng variouswildlife species.(Percent). Not at all Slightly Moderately Very ~ildlife group~~ ~ Interested Interested InteRSted Me81 Moose ~-- 2.1 9.4 30.6 57.8 3.44 20 Watchable Wildlife Sites In Vermont

Respondentswere asked about places in Vermont to watch wildlife. They were first askedto estimatethe typical distancethey traveled to watch wildlife (Table 4). Then, the questionnaire included a map (Appendix 3) of watchable wildlife destinationsin Vermont taken from Brown, 1994.Respondents were askedto checkeach of 50 areasthat they had evervisited. They were then askedto list the 3 most visited sites(of these50) in both 1989and 1999.Finally, they were asked to report the numberof daysthey had visited thesetop 3 sitesin both 1989and 1999(Table 5).

Travel Distance

Most people who participated in wildlife watching in 1999 did not travel far (Table 4). Among residents who participated in wildlife watching, the average distance traveled was 18.3 miles. For people who photographed wildlife, the average distance ti-aveled was 9.2 miles. Those who went more than 1 mile from home traveled on average 25.5 miles to watch wildlife, and 31.1 miles to photograph wildlife.

Table 4. Mean~umber of miles ~eled to watch ~dlife and photograp~ld1ife. Mean miles Mean Miles Activity ~Respondents Traveled> 1 Mile From Home Wildlife watching 18.3 25.5 Wildlife photography 9.2 31.1

Visits to Vermont Watchable Wildlife Destinations

SandBar Wildlife ManagementArea on U.S. Highway 2 wasby far the mostextensively visited site for wildlife watchingout of the 50 sitesoffered (Table 5). More thanhalf of all Vennonters (51.4%) havevisited this site at somepoint in the past.

Otherpopular wildlife watching areasincluded MalleUs Bay StatePark (40.4%),Groton State Forest(39.6%), SmugglersNotch StatePark (38.2%),Willoughby Falls Wildlife Management Area (36.9%), Dead Creek Wildlife ManagementArea (34.6%), Otter Creek Wildlife ManagementArea (34.5%), and MissisquoiNational Wildlife Refuge(31.5%). Other areasin the list had beenvisited by fewer than 30% of all Vermonters.

Respondentswere more likely to list the following sites among their most visited site in 1999: SandBar Wildlife Management Area (12.8%), Dead Creek Wildlife Management Area (1 0.2%), Groton State Forest (8.8%), Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge (7.3%), and Smuggler's Notch State Park (6.3%). 21

.. In 1999, 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 (4.26 days). White Rocks National Recreation Area (4.22 days). and Otter Creek Wildlife Management Area (4.02 days).

.. Conversely, visitors who frequented thesewildlife watching sites in 1999 spent fewer days at the Green Mountain Audubon Center (2.12 days), the Robert Frost Interpretive Trail (2.77 days), Willoughby Falls Wildlife Management Area (2.86 days), Groton State Forest (3.26 days), Sand Bar Wildlife Management Area (3.28 days) and Smuggler's Notch State Park (3.50 days). 22

** ** Mount Horrid 6.1 0.3 0.8

podunk WMA 3.8 0 .. 0 ..

Peavine 3.7 . 0 .. -9- .. umon Villue Mystery Trail 2.7 0.8 .. 0.2 .. . - Percent that mentioned each site as "most visited. .. "21M1most visited, .. or "3'" most visited." .. - Number of people was too small to reliably estimate average days visited.

Other Wildlife Watching Areas

.. Respondentswere askedto list otherwildlife watchingsites that werenot includedin the list of 50 provided.Table 6 lists eachof the sitesmentioned by respondentsand organizedby type of location - e.g., trails, stateparks, mountains, rivers, etc. There were 262 additionalsites mentionedfor 1999and 166additional sitesmentioned for 1989.

~ Most frequentlymentioned sites included Lake Champlain.Camel's Hump StatePark, Green Mountain National Forest,Texas Falls, ConnecticutRiver, Mt. Mansfield, Merck Forest,Lake Dunmore,Lake Elmore. GreenRiver Reservoir,Mt. Ascutney.and "private land."

.. Locations close to water were frequently cited wildlife watching areas.Respondents mentioned 12 sites around Lake Champlain, 58 lakes or ponds, and 41 rivers or streams(including daIns and water falls). There were also 36 mountains mentioned, 28 sites at other state lands (parks, forests, or wildlife management areas), 21 places associated with highways, 18 town parks, and numerous local sites (11 "private property" locations, 30 towns, 33 site-specific locations, and 11 miscellaneous places).

.. Table 6 shows that the average number of days spent at these other sites was 7.7 days in 1999 and 7.4 days in 1989. The averagenumber of days for these sites was significantly more than for any of the 50 sites offered. This suggeststhat 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 1999 that were not listed on the map. (Total number of places mentioned in 1999 was 262, and in 1989 was 166 places. Mean # days participation at these locations was 7.7 days in 1999 ~7.4 days in 1989.) fu!!! ~ 122:2 ~ 1m AppalachianGap 1 MooslamoRecreation Area 1 1 AppalachianTrail 2 2 Lye Brook Wilderness 1 2 Bucklin Trail 1 Marsh Billings National Park 1 Burlington Bike Path 1 Merck Forest .. $ A T/L T ClarendonSection .. Gig Basin Forest 1 Long Trail ChampionLand 2 Long Trail! Hazen'sNotch - 1 MontshireMuseum Long TraiV Brandon Gap 1 HubbartonBattlefield Lincoln Gap ShadyHill Rec Area Lyndon StateHiking Trails - Land Trust Rail Trail . Trail - Lake Chamolain 4 8 Trail Around Middlebury - 2 Burlington Parksand Beaches Underhill XC Ski Trail ... CoatesIsland, Colchester 1 GrandIsle 2 State Parks. Forests. and WMAs Islandsof Lake Champlain Allis StatePark 1 2 Isle La Motte Causeway - BomoseenState Park . Keeler Bay - SouthHero Bradbury StatePark 2 Mallets Bay Brighton StatePark 1 2 MissisquoiWildlife Refuge 3 3 Camel'sHump StatePark 5 7 St Albans Bay 3 Coolidge StatePark 2 ShelburneBay ~ 2 DAR StatePark - 1 SouthHero Town Beach ~ 1 Elmore StatePark 2 3 SouthernLake Champlain 1. EmeraldLake StatePark 3 1 Ft Dummer StatePark 1. Lakes and Ponds Grand Isle StatePark 1 1. Lake Bomoseen JamaicaState Park CaspianLake Kilkare StatePark - Crystal Lake Knights Point StatePark 1 Lake Dunmore S 4 Molly Stark StatePark Lake Elmore 2 5 Plymouth StatePark . Lake Fairlee Silver Lake StatePark GreenRiver Reservoir ., 4 ShaftsburyState Park I Griffith Lake Underhill StatePark 3 Indian Brook Reservoir Windsor StatePark I Lake Groton Woodford StatePark 1 . HarimanReservoir Ainsworth StateForest . Harvey'sLake Bald Hill WMA 1 Lake Memphamagog 2 Downer StateForest 2 Mirror Lake, Calais Ripton StateForest Lake Morey SalisburyFish Hatchery . Lake Parker Tinmouth WMA - Lake Pliead 1 Fish and GameFish Hatchery 1. Lake Power Lake St CatherineState Park f 2 Other Parks. Forests. Museums. Battlefields SearsburgReservoir GreenMountain National Forest 3 6 SomersetLake 2 24

~ 1222 ~ ~ Star Lake, Belmont Lewis CreekArea 1 SunsetLake Little River 2 1 Lake Whitingham . 1 MillslRiverside Park Jericho 1 Lake Willoughby . .1 Otter Creek 1 WaterburyReservoir , ~ RobinsonBrook, Northfield l Woodland Reservoir .1 SeymourBrook, Cambridge 2 #10 Pond StoneyBrook Abbey PondArea 1 Trout River, Montgomery Belvidere Pond and Bogs . 2 Waits River - Berlin Pond 1 West River 1 2 BournePond White River 3 .1 Burr Pond Winooski River 2 . ChittendenPond Winooski Valley Park District 1 3 Coits Pond SalmonHole- Winooski River 3 Colby Pond -}. ChittendenDam ColchesterPond .1 ComerfordDam Curtis Pond t Fairfax Falls - Danby Pond GoshenDam ~ 2 Dry Brook area Moore Dam 3 EastLong Pond North HeartlandDam Franklin Pond Wrightsville Dam Grant Pond - Hartland Falls Joe'sPond 1 JeffersonvilleFalls 1 Kent Pond 3 Falls of Llana 1 Knapp Pond SumnerFalls 3 Lyford Pond 1 TexasFalls 12 LeporadsPond - WarrenFalls 1 Minard Pond - 2 Cascadesin Weathersfield Nichols Pond 1 2 PeachamPond Riparian Areas Rocky Pond Bellows Falls boat landing ShelburnePond 2 Blodgett Beach Silver Lake 4 Burton Island 1 SweatPond, Guildford Floating Bridge Tinmouth Pond 1 Knights Island .. WaldenPond Landings,Benson Tinmouth Channel Rivers and Streams Tinmouth Gulf Black River 1 Bourne Brook Mountains Browns River - Jericho - Mt Abe 2 ConnecticutRiver 4 ,. Mt Ascutney 3 4 ConnecticutRiver, Bellows Falls BirdseyeMountain ConnecticutRiver-Putney Bromley Mountain I ConnecticutRiver, Brattteboro Burke Mountain - ChittendenBrook 2 1 EagleMountain Wilton .1 CraneBrook ConservationArea 1 Lake Eden 2 East Creek WMA 1 ElmoreMountain Lamoille River 1 2 Mt Ellen LaplatteRiver 1 Equinox Mountain 25

~ 1222. !2!? !22.2 Hawks Mountain 1 Rt 103 1 Hazen'sNotch RT 131Ludlow 1 Hunger Mountain 1 Ascutneyto Bellows Falls 1 Mtlndependence 1 Elmore Road Jay PeakArea 1. McCullough Turnpike Mt Kushrnan - Monkton Area Road Mt Mansfield 4 3 New Road,Underhill Mt Mooselock Plot Road,Johnson Nelson Lake, Calais StrattonHill Road,Marlboro Norton Lake, NE Kingdom - Stratton!Arlington Road OregonMountain .. .1 TexasHill Road,Hinesburg 1 Owl's Head - 1 Wheelervill Road Mt Philo StatePark - 3 Pico Mountain .1 Town Forests and Parks Mt Pleasant - Blushhill Woods PutneyMountain Burlington Intervale ShrewsburyPeak .. CalaisTown Forest Smuggler'sNotch 1 ChittendenForest SprucePeak t EthanAllen Homestead StowePinnacle . E. Montpelier Town Forest StrattonMountain 1 Forests,Middle Town Springs 1 Mt Tabor .. GeorgiaTown Park 1 MtTom - HubbardPark WaldenMountain 1 Lower Newton Park WestonMountain MaquamShore Park WorchesterMountain Old Mill Park Jericho Otter CreekCampground Private Land 13 15 ParidisePark - Winsdor Private land, Colchester . RedrocksPark 3 Private land, Tinmouth 2 Town park .. Private land, Worchester WoodburyTown Forest ~ 1 Private land, Burke " Wright Park Middlebury VT 1: Private land, Marshfield 1 Private land, Sandgate Vermont Towns Private land, Pawlet Addison Private land, Washington Andover Private land, North Hero Barnard/Royalton Campin Morgan Bellows FaIls 2 Family Fann, Cavendish Benson - Calais- Hardwick Area t Roads and Hi~hwavs Canaan Rt 5, Windsor 1 Chittenden 1 Rt9 .1 EastBurke, VT Kingdom trails Rt 36 Wetland EastMontepelier Rt 44, BrownsviIle EastJericho RT 58 Montegomery Elmore Rt 67, Shaftsbury Ferrisburgh RtlOO Guilford VT 1 Rt 100,Waitsfield Hartland 1 Rt 100,Wilmington HighgateArea 1 26

~ 1.222 ~ ~ Island Pond 2 Marshfield Dome Jeffersonville-Waterville MunsonFlats Jericho Nickel Ledge Lyndonville - Burke Area - PleasantValley, Underhill Marlboro, VT . PlymouthBat Caves 2 Middleton Springs . Rail Trail, W. Pawlet - North Hero RetreatMeadows - 1 North Williston .2 ShelburneFarms 4 Queechee Spring Lake Ranch 2, Z PawletArea 1 Springfield Meadows - 1 Somerset 2 StateofVT aiJport - 1. Towns in NE Kingdom SunsetRock t 1 Victory Trapp Family Lodge - 1. Westford 1 Tupper Basin, Underhill .. UVM Research Local Places- Site Soecific VT country storenature area 1 BeaverMeadows, Morristown - 1 WeathersfieldBow cornfield 1 BenedictHollow . Bike Snowmobilepath Groton - Miscellaneous Burnt Rock, Fayston i Deer & Bear Hunt areas CampJohnson Berlin Deer hunting ChipmanHill, Middlebury . CalaisDeer hunting ColchesterHigh School Franklin County, farms & fields 1 Cold Hollow, Enosburg - NortheastKingdom Cove at Bellows Falls Rock Quarries .. Coventry Gore Sheffield HeightsArea I Dorset Hollow 2 SmokeshireArea .1 Half Moon Campground I SouthVermont Mountains ). ..I Hawk Inn and Mountain Resort 1 WashingtonCounty Hollister Hill, Plainfield 1 . Kelley Stand 1 Mad River Ski Area 1

Note - The place namesin this table are listed as reported by respondents.-~ No effort has been made to verify the accuracyof the sites,and only the most obviousspelling errorswere corrected. 27

One goal of this study was to explore changes that may have occurred during the 1990s in Vemtonter's wildlife watching behaviors. Since past studies (i.e., NSFHW AR) provide only limited comparisons to assessbehavioral change, we had to rely on retrospective accounts of peoples' participation in 1989. The results are limited by the reliability of the respondents' recall.

We measuredbehavioral change in two ways. First, in addition to reporting their top 3 most visited wildlife watching sites in 1999, we also asked respondentsto report the top 3 most visited sites for 1989. 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 1999 than in 1989. (This may represent some recall bias.) The 1999 ratios were generally about 300/0higher than in 1989. There may be real increasesin frequency of visits, however, where the ratios were more than a 30% between 1989 and 1999. 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 areashad decreased in almost all cases. While this may also reflect some recall bias, the decrease in averagenumber of days in not uniform acrossall sites. So there is some evidence that people are spending fewer days watching wildlife in 1999 than in 1989. For example the mean number of days spent at Sand Bar Wildlife Management Area was 4.02 in 1989. This average had dropped to 3.28 days in 1999. Similar decreaseshad 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 114, and Green Mountain Audubon Center.

The average visitor days to Groton State Fores, Dead Creek Wildlife Management Area, Otter Creek Wildlife ManageD1entArea, Lake CarIni State Park, and the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge held steady between 1989 and 1999.

The averagevisitor days to the Vennont Institute of Natural Scienceand to Vemon/Bellows Falls/Wilder Dam increasedbetween 1989 and 1999. 28 ~ The averagenumber of days that Vennontersvisited other wildlife watching sites (Table 6) remainedthe samebetween 1989 and 1999.Respondents spent an averageof 7.4 daysvisiting other watchablewildlife sitesin 1989and 7.7 daysin 1999.

. Texas Falls, Lake Elmore, Shelburne Farms, Lake Champlain, Merck Forest, Mt. Philo State Park, Silver Lake, Kent Pond, the Connecticut River, and Sumner Pond increasedbetween 1989 and 1999 in the number of people who mentioned these places as their most frequently visited wildlife watching destinations. Green River Reservoir decreasedbetween 1989 and 1999 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 participationin wildlife watchingactivities haschanged between1989 and 1999(Table 7). Respondentsfelt their wildlife watchingparticipation was between"about the same"and "slightly more" than it was 10 yearsago: the meanwas 3.63 for watching wildlife at home and the mean was 3.43 for watching Wildlife away from home. Respondentsalso felt they were feeding wildlife slightly more now than 10 years ago (mean=3.33),reading about wildlife more (mean=3.16),and watching wildlife related TV programsmore now than in 1989(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.

.. In each casebetween a third of the sample(32.8% for wildlife feeding) and nearly half the sample (48.8% for wildlife photographyaway from home) felt like their participation had remainedthe samebetween 1989 and 1999.

Table 7. Changein participation in wildlife watching.activities over the past 10 years(Percent). ---- -~ - - ParticQ)8tionChange Between 1989 and I~ Wildlife Watchinp,Activity Less Aboutthe same More-~M~ -~ 6.5 -- 34.4 59.1 3.78-~-

Fedwildlife at home 21.7 32.8 45.5 3.33 0bIerYed~--" hmBe 16.3 34.4 49.3 Reada wildlife magazineor book - ,,~~-"'..-.-~ -- .'

Visited a site iliat required an entrance fee 31.1 43.8 2.S.0 2.77

44.2 44.2 13.6 2.42 . - 5 point scale with I ="much less." 2="sligbtly less," 3="about the same," 4="sJightly more," and 5="much more." 29

Respondentswere askedtheir opinions about the importanceof facility developmentat wildlife watching sites. They were also askedwhat sourcesof information they used to find watchable wildlife opportunities.Results are shownin Table 8 and Figures4-1 and 4-2.

.. Respondentswere generally more supportive of interpretive and educational facilities at wildlife watching sites, and less supportive of increasedaccess from roads, picnic areas,or campgrounds. While some preferred an absenceof any facilities (mean=2.23), others favored more guidebooks, maps, and brochures (mean=2.96), interpretive trails (mean=2.63), viewing platforms and blinds (mean=2.46), visitor centers(mean=2.22), and staff naturalists (mean=2.24) at wildlife watching areas. Restrooms also were generally supported by a majority of respondents (mean=2.53).

. Accesswas a bit more complex. Respondentsfelt the presenceof hiking trails was important (mean=3.15),yet most did not support road accessinto the area (mean=1.93),and favored watchingwildlife in areaswhere vehicles are not allowed (mean=2.83).The majority wereless supportiveof campgroundaccess (both developmentand primitive), andwere not supportiveof improved boat access(mean=1.91). The later effect probably reflects an anti-motorized sentimentamong wildlife watchers.Finally, most were not supportiveof hunting accessat wildlife watchingarea (mean=1.89), but were more supportiveof fishing access(mean=2.27).

Table 8. ImportanceoffaciIities at wildlife watchingsites (percent). Not at aU Slightly Moderately Very Facility Important Important Impor1ant Important Mean

7.8 14.1 -- 33.0------45.2 3.15

Being in an area where vehicles are not allowed 13.5 23.0 30.0 33.S 2.83 Interpretivenatural history trails ]4.6 27.0 38.8 19.5 2.63 Restrooms 24.9 22.9 2-'.7 26.S 2.53 VioWiDgpJatrc.ms and/or blinds :. ~~ ~~ 15.0 2.46 Staff naturalist 26.9 34.3 26.2 12.6 2.24 c- '~~;i~[~~

-34.8 -26.8 -18.6 -19.8 -2.23 A~ceof~X~:J!~~A ~~;~~'t~~ _. ;J. .. Primitivec~p~~ " -3S.2 -31.4 23.5 9.9 2.08 D:-:- 4-~1- ~ ~ .CjW{; -'~.~' r~_;~." :~,u;: c i7 jJ~ fie ~m Having road accessall the way into the area 41.7 32.0 16.8 9.4 1.93 iM~ ~~ Boat~~~~~~iJ\;!j- fOb; ~~lJ\i !~, lI~i 1.91 Developed~p~ 47.8 25.0 17.7 9.5 1.89 ...A;r,w' Huatina~#]- eS1A ,,~, ,.:.:' ;W 1.89 30 Information Sources A bout Watchable Wildlife

.. The most frequently used SOUl'CeSofinfonJlation (Figure 4-1) on Vermont's Fish and Wildlife come from newsletters (78.1 %), VennontDe partment ofFish and Wildlife (65.90/0)- presumably the hunting and fishing regulation book- and the radio (64.1%). Fewer than half of the sample used printed SOUl'CeSsuch 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(31.9010). Television was also more infrequently used as an infomlation SOUl'Ce.

.. The watchablewildlife icon postedat locations around the state attractedless than half the sample(46.1%) to stop and watch wildlife at thoselocations.

Watchable Wildlife Icon ~

~ . No . Yes F~ 4-2. DoesdIe presenceofdJis sign influence your decisionto stop at outdoor areasthat you have nevervisited? - 31

Respondentswere given a list of 20 different scenariosthat could describea wildlife watching experienceand were askedto rate eachscenario on whetherthey agreedthe experiencedefined watchablewildlife. Resultsare 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 10 people (88.1 %) agreed that "seeing an endangered bird in your backyard" was a watchable wildlife experience. And as few as 6 in 10 people (61.4%) agreedthat "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 31.1% agreed this was a watchable wildlife expenence.

The scenariosthat best describeda watchablewildlife experiencewere thosewhose average responseswere on the "agree" side of the scale(> 3.0). Thesescenarios generally involved seeingrare speciesof animals.They included "seeingan endangeredbird in your backyard," "seeing a rare animal in your backyard," "hiking to the top of Camel's Hump to see an endangeredbird, " "viewing a rare bird at a wildlife managementarea, " "tracking a bobcatto photographit," "photographinga bobcatin your backyard,""stopping at Dead Creek to see thousandsof birds, and "seeinga moosewhile driving to work."

As might be expected.sightings of more commonanimals were lesslikely to be defined as a watchablewildlife experience.These included seeinggulls at the supennarket.birds in the backyard.squirrels. ducks in the park. and racoonswhile driving to work.

Successat seeingone's targetedspecies also had a bearing on whether one agreedit was a watchablewildlife experience.Where one was unsuccessful,they weremore likely to disagree that the experienceswas watchablewildlife.

Subsequentanalysis of thesedefinitional scenariosshow that peoplewith more experienceand thosethat have increasedtheir participationover the past ten years,define wildlife watching more broadly - i.e., aremore likely to agreethat a broaderselection of thesescenarios define the watchable wildlife experience.Also, as individuals increase their skill level, years of participation,and averageamount of time watchingwildlife, they also aremore likely to agree that thesescenarios define the watchablewildlife experience.In other words, agreementwith these scenarios are a function of wildlife watching experience,skill, and frequency of participation. 32

Table9. Respondentdefinition ofa watchablewildlife experlen<;e. - - - -. Strongly Moderately Moderately Strongly Scenario Disaaree Disagree ~ ~ ~~ SeejngarareanimalinyoUfyarti 2.8 7.4 25.6 64.2 3.51

Hiking to the top of Camel's Hump to seeendangered bird 6.6 4.9 31.9 56.6 3.38

Viewing rare bird at wildlife managementarea 4.4 8.1 38.3 49.1 3.32

Photographinga bobcat in your backyard 8.2 12.1 24.3 SS.4 3.27

Seeingbirds at the bird feeder 4.1 14.9 45.7 34.3 3.12

Viewing commonbird at wildlife managementarea 8.7 16.7 44.1 30.5 2.96

Seeingbirds on the lawn while mowing the grass 12.3 20.6 43.1 23.9 2.79

Going to die park to seewildlife, but only hearingbirds 10.7 24.1 45.0 20.2 2.75

Seeinga squirrel while walking the dog 12.8 23.5 42.2 21,S 2.72

Going on an Audubonbirding trip and seeingno birds 16.6 22.9 37.4 24.0 2.68

Seeinggulls in the supennarket k' lot 35.7 33.2 20.2 10.. 2.06 33

Respondentswho participated in wildlife watching in 1999 were asked what sort of equipment they own for wildlife watching, and whether they used that equipment more in 1999 than in 1989. Results are shown in Figures 5-1 through 5-10. . By far the most frequentlyused piece of equipmentin wildlife watchingwas binoculars (Figure 5-1), wherenearly 4 in 5 people(79.6%) owned a pair. A majority of thesebinocular owners (51.5%) said they usedthem more in 1999than in 1989.

.. Over a third of those who watch wildlife (41.6%) owned a camem (Figure 5-2), and roughly a third owned a tripod (32.7%) and a telephoto lens (33.4%). Another 31.4% 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 1999 than in 1989.

.. 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(28.1%) that they use on their excursions (Figures 5-6 to 5-8). While use ofmagni fying glassesand band lens has for the most part remained the same since 1989, wildlife watchers are making more frequent use of field guides (49.6%) and speciality clothing and accessories(60.2%).

~ Less frequent use is made o:f spotting scopes(12.1%) and the Vern1ontWatchable Wildlife Guide (10.00/0).

Binoculars

rMean=2: J;]

Figure 5-1. Wildlife watchingequipment ownership- Figure 5-2. Wildlife watchingequipment ownership binoculars. -still photography equipment. 34

~~

Figure 5-3. Wildlife watchingequipment ownership Figure 5-4. Wildlife watchingequipment ownership -video recording equipment. - telephotolens.

'"

Figure 5-5. Wildlife watchingequipment ownership Figure 5-6. Wildlife watchingequipment ownership - tripod. - magnifyingglass or hand lens.

~ 35

Wildlife Field Guides

Figure S-7. Wildlife watching equipment ownership Figure s-8. Wildlife watchingequipment ownership - wildlife field guides. - Specialty clothing or accessories(cases, vests. straps, etc.)

Vermont Wildlife Viewing Guide

Figure 5-9. Wildlife watchingequipment ownership Figure 5-10. Wildlife watchingequipment - Spotting scope. ownership- Vermont Wildlife Viewing Guide.

. - 3 point scale where 1 = "less use," 2 = "about the sameuse," and 3 = "more use." 36

Respondentswere askedquestions about their wildlife watchingskill andthe yearsthey havebeen interestedin watchablewildlife activities. They were also askedabout how they combine their interestin wildlife watchingwith membershipin environmentalorganizations.

Skill and Interest in Wildlife Watching

.. Respondentsrated their wildlife watching skills just below intermediate (mean = 2.8).Two thirds of the sample said they were either beginner or intermediate, with only 13.5% saying they were .'advanced" or "expert" (Figure 6-1). Respondents rated their wildlife photography skills somewhat lower with an averagescore of2.37. More than half (53.2%) said they had.no wildlife photography skills and only 2.6% said they were advanced or expert photographers.

. While just under half the respondentssaid 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 6-1).

Those who were interestedin wildlife watching had, on averagehad been interestedin the activity for 28 years(Figure 6-2). Interestin wildlife photographyand wildlife feedingwas more recentwith the averageyears of interestin photographyat 19 yearsand the averagelength of interestin feedingat 17 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 10 years (Figure 6-2).

Wildlife WatchingSkill Ye-. ofIn~ in W8Id.bIc WiIdIifc

60.0 10.0 I "ill 70.0- SO.O 60.0 - 40.0f -=: so.o ~._'-"-~'~':'; :~c"' 30.0 1 40.0 ~! 30.0 ~20.0- 2O.0t 10.0 - 0.0 10.0J 0.0 Oy- ~ )8-' ~ ~ E..-t . Wildlife WItChing(me8""27.9 Ye8I) . Wildlife Witching (1De8IF2.8) . WildlifePhotography (mean-19.0 Ye8I) . Wildlife Pbotoarapby(mcan-2.37) [] WildlifeFeediDg (man=17.1 years) Figure 6-1. Perceivedwildlife watchingand wildlife Fipre 6-1. Yearsof interestin watchingwildlife, photographyskill. photographingwildlife, and feedingwildlife. 37

Membership in Environmental Organizations

~ There were 119 people (24.8%) who belonged to environmental organizations of some sort. Respondentsmentioned 60 different clubs and organizations to which they belonged (Table 10). 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 10. Membership in international, national or local environment/conservation related clubs or org: - -- - - The Nature Conservancy 7 Forest and Stream club National Rifle Association 7 GardenClub National Audubon Society 7 GreenCorps Vermont Institute of Natural Science 6 GreenMountain Audubon Society Barre Fish and GameClub 6 Hartford Rod and Gun Club Vermont Natural ResourcesCouncil 5 Institute for Earth Education National Geographic 4 intI. Fund for Animal Welfare Trout Unlimited 4 Lake ChamplainWalleye Assoc. North American Hunting Club 4 Lake ParkerAssociation Natural ResourcesDefense Council 3 Local fish and gameclub SierraClub 3 Lyford PondAssociation Hartland Fish and GameClub 3 Maine Island Trust 1 Keeping Track .3 MassachusettsAudubon GreenMountain Club 3 National Arbor Foundation 1 Greenpeace 3 National ResourceConservation Service BASS 2 National TrappersAssociation .1 CaledoniaFish and GameClub 2 National Wildlife Ducks Unlimited 2 NOFA - Vermont National Wildlife Federation 2 North AmericanFishing Club Vermont Land Trust 2 PalmerBrook Sport Club World Wildlife Fund 2 ProctorFish and Game Arbor Day Foundation 1 Committeeto Protectthe Adirondacks Bassmaster .1 Savethe Whales Black River Rod and Gun Club I SmugglersNotch Ski Club Bonnyvale Env. EducationCenter.'" SportsmanAlliance of Maine Central VT Boating Club .. Tree Farm Association Clover GardenClub of Montpelier 1 Vermont CavesAssociation 1 Cornell Univ. Project FeederWatch 1 VPIRG 1 Coverts l. VT Hunter SafetyrrrapperInstructor ... Cub ScoutDen Leader .. Wildlife Forever 1 38 SocioeconomicProfile

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 seeif there were any systematic differences between the two groups. Results are reported in Table 11.

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 watcherswho were 65 year old or older. Wildlife watching also is more likely to be an activity of peoplebetween 45 and 65 yearsold.

~ 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 $80.000 plus category among wildlife watchers and more people among non-wildlife watchers with incomes less than $32.000 per year.

Wildlife watcherswere more likely to be fully employedthan non-wildlife watchers.Two thirds of the wildlife watcherswere fully employed,while only half of the non-wildlife watcherswere fully employed.There were more non-wildlife watcherswho workedpart-time. These part-time workersmay be include somein the largerproportion of femalesamong non-wildlife watchers. Finally, non-wildlife watcherswere more likely to be retired than wildlife watchers.

People who are wildlife watchersare less likely than non-wildlife watchersto be single or widowed, and more likely to be marriedor living with a partner.

Those who engagedin 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 17.6% 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

Table 11. COtnDaring the socioeconomic characteristics of wildlife watchers and non-wildlife watchers. - - -

Gender Male Female

Age 25 to 34 yearsold 26.0% 29.0% 35 to 44 yearsold 23.8% 24.0% 45 to 54 yearsold 24.5% 14.2% 55 to 64 yearsold 13.00/0 9.8% 65+ yearsold 12.6% 23.0%

Education Lessthan high school 3.0% 4.9% High Schooldiploma 27.6% 29.5% Somecollege 26.9% 25.7% B.A. or equivalent 27.2% 28.4% M.A. or equivalent 9.7% 7.7% M.D., Pill. 5.6% 3.8%

Income < $16,000 8.8' % 17.8% $16,000-$32,000 22.2' % 28.1% $32,000-$48,000 25.8' % 17.2% $48,000-$64,000 19.0 % 13.4% $64,000-$80,000 7.2' % 13.4% $80,000-$96,000 5.6' % 3.8% > $96,000 13.3' % 6.4%

Employmentstatus Full-time 68.4% 50.0% Part-time 10.96/0 19.3% Unemployed 3.4% 5.7% Semi-retired,part-time 3.4% 2.8% Fully retired 13.9% 22.2%

Marital status Single 12.8% 19.7% Separated/divorced 10.5% 10.4% Widowed 4.9% 10.9% Married 64.7% 57.4% Live with partner 7.1% 1.6% ResidentialChoice Influencedby Presenceof Wildlife? (31.2% said "yes") No 59.9% 82.4% Yes 40.1% 17.6%

Current Residence Rural 35.7% 35.00/0 Small Town 41.2% 40.7% Suburban 12.5% 19.8% Urban 10.7% 4.5%

ResidenceGrowing Up Rural 28.8% 31.3% Small Town 40.6% 36.2% Suburban 22.5% 20.3% Urban 8.1% 12.4% 40 APPENDIX 1 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 18. A 13-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.

SampleSelection

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.962 (PQ/52) (Kalton, 1983). With a total Vemlont population of 593,740 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) 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 1024 questionnaires to have an acceptable sample size at the conservative return rate of 37.5%. We assumed at least 15% 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 1200 questionnaires was selected in the preliminary mailing to compensate for a 15% undeliverable rate.

American Consumer Lists of Omaha, Nebraska drew the 1200 random survey based on Vennont telephone directories. The sample was stratified using 1999 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 14,2000. Packets were delivered using first class mail 41 to ensure that undeliverable packets would be returned, and allow us to track the number of non- respondents 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 remailed 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 1 week, a follow-up postcard was mailed to individuals that had not yet returned the survey. Dillman (1978) 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 21 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.

ResponseRate

Of the 1200 questionnaires originally sent, 201 (16.8%) were undeliverable (Table A-I). Response rates were therefore calculated based on 999 valid addresses in the sample. The 16.8% undeliverable rate is fairly typical for samples purchased from private mailing list companies. There may be a 7% to 12% 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 18 - 24 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 responseto the mailed survey was 479 usablequestionnaires or 47.9%. This response exceededthe targetof384 usablequestionnaires. As expect~ putting a surveyin people'shands has more influence on response.More than 35% respondedto either the 151or 3rdmailings. Post cards remindershad lessof an effect on response,particularly the 2ndpost card reminder.

Table A-I. Return ratesfrom the 2000 Vennont Wildlife WatchingSurvey Mailing event Respondents~ ~~t~(ro) _~ndeJiverable Percent First mailing 173 17.3 126 10.5 Reminderpostcard 97 9.7 14 1.1 Secondmailing 180 18.0 51 4.3 2ndReminder postcard 29 2.8 10 0.8 Total

Data coding

All returned surveys that contained any usable infomlation were considered valid returns. Empty returned surveys, unreturned surveys, or respondentswho 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 cleanedand 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 representedthe behaviors and opinions of all Vermont residents. To be representative,however, the profile of respondentsmust mirror the profile of all residents on several key variables. Typically one makes sample and population comparisons basedon 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 sourcesof bias can never be documented. Other sourcesof 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 responsesof under-representedgroups and less emphasis to responsesof over-represented groups. 43

Table A-2 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-2 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 responsesof women and the responsesof younger people were given more weight than the responsesof men and the responsesof older people.

TableA-2 also showsthat the incomeand education of respondentswas higher thanthe incomeand educationof Vermonters.However, when weighting for genderand age in the sample,their income and educationcame closer in line with stateprofiles.

T_~le A-2. Socioeconomicdescriptions of responden!~ 2000 1999Vennont Respondents Census. Gender Male 65.7% 48.4% Female 34.3% 51.6%

Age 20 to 34 yearsold 9.1% 27.2% 35 to 44 yearsold 23.9% 23.9% 45 to 54 yearsold 31.9% 20.3% 55 to 64 yearsold 17.9% 11.8% 65+ yearsold 17.3% 16.7% Median age 49 years old 37 yearsold

Education Lessthan high school 4.5% High Schooldiploma 30.0% Somecollege 25.6% B.A. or equivalent 25.4% M.A. or equivalent 8.9% M.D., PhD. 5.3%

High schoolor more 95.5% 89.3% Collegeor more 39.6% 28.3%

Income < $16,000 9.7% $16,000-$32,000 19.4% $32,000-$48,000 22.7% $48,000-$64,000 19.7% $64,000-$80,000 11.7% $80,000-$96,000 5.9% > $96,000 11.0% Median $44,000 $41,000 44

Questionnaire Design

In this study, the goal was to understand: 1) how Vermonters' definition of the wildlife watching experience has changed, 2) how Vermonters wildlife recreation behaviors have changed, 3) the frequency Vermonters have used wildlife watching areasin the 1990's and in the 1980'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 1980'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 20 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, 1994).

Other questions were designed to measure changes in a respondent's behavior since 1989. One question focused on whether a respondent engaged in a series of wildlife watching situations more or less over the past 10 years, while another questions asked about use of peripheral wildlife watching equipment over the same 10 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, 1984, Martin, 1995, Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America, 1999) 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 1980'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.

NonresponseBias

To detennine the extent of nonresponsebias, a follow up telephone survey of nonrespondents was conducted. An acceptable sample size of nonrespondentsto survey is 10 percent (Buck, 1995). 520 surveys were coded as non-responses,so a total of 52 people needed to be contacted to achieve the 10 percent sample. A random sample of 149 people who never respondedto any of the 4 mailings was selected. The phone calls were made 7 days following the second postcard on March 24, 2000 to March 27,2000 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 11% of all nonrespondents to the mail survey.

Nonrespondentsto the mail survey were asked a series of 11 questionsto compare response differencesbetween those who answeredthe mail surveyand thosewho did not. 46

The mail survey and the nonresponsetelephone 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 1:1.93 (65.9% male), and 1:2.7 (72.9% male) respectively The mean age was also very similar between the mail survey and the nonresponsebias telephone survey. The mean age of the respondents in the mail survey was 51.3 years, while the age of respondents in the nonrespondent telephone survey was 49.2 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 respondentsabout how far, on average,they travel to watch wildlife. The telephone survey responses were 21% 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. Comparisonb~~een non-responsebias telep~e surveyand unweight~~l survey Unweighted Telephone Difference mail survey survey

~ Watchedwildlife at home 66.3% 71.2% 6.88% Watch wildlife away from home 47.3% 50.8% 6.89% Feedbirds at home(mean value) 3.3 3.49 5.44% Hunt while watchingwildlife 37.5% 39% 3.85% Fish while watching wildlife 48.1% 49.2% 2.24% Yearswatching wildlife 31.1 years 28.6 years 8.04% Averagedistance traveled to watch 24.5 miles 19.28miles 21.31% wildlife Skill as a wildlife watcher(mean value) 2.5 2.7 7.41% Genderratio 65.9%male 72.9%male 9.60% Education(mean value) 3.2 3.12 2.50% Age 51 years 49.2 years 3.53% 47 APPENDIX 2 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" experienceI preferred to state-sponsoredtax-supported "programs" .The governor's commercial for the state parks filmed at Mt Philo, is indicative of the worst casewildlife managementthinking. . .Help save Vermont from its "promoters".

If you haveany infonnation on anywheelchair accessible wildlife trails, pleasesend them to me. We love getting out in the wilderness.

If I had known there was a map availablelike the one included I would have gone to allot more places.We've only beenback here since 1998.In ME I seemto be awareof a lot more brochure, maps,information and placeslike the Audubon# that was updatedeach week with what birds had bee spotted.Was also aware of wildlife sanctuariesfor injured animalsin ME and MA. Is there a brochureor anything that tells what is at the locationson the map enclosed?

Spent2 consecutiveyears deer hunting eastof islandpond- spottedover 20 mooseboth years-really enjoyedwatching them in the wild.

In the late 1970'sspotted 2 bobcatsin the abbeypond areaof Ripton aboveRoute 116.Never seen a bobcatin the wild since.I can still visualizethe experiencein my mind today.

Moose in Vermont is not a good thing for deer.

I would characterizemy overall wildlife watchingparticipation as not intentional.but appreciative when I run acrossit in the courseof daily activities.Most havebeen accidental such as seeingdeer. mooseand fox while driving. and viewing deertracks and pleatedwoodpeckers in our yard. I have not as of yet tried attractingwildlife in our currenthome (we havebeen in this newly constructed home lessthan a year) but I am thinking of trying to attractdeer purposely and I have seentracks.

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 1998. Seen 3 blue heron in 99 couple weeks ago. 48

I hope what little information I havegiven is of somehelp

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 surpasseswildlife watching on my priority list- for the past 4 and the next 3 years. You'd get more valid and applicable infonnation from someonewho has a real life, not the limbo I currently exist in.

I believe observationof wildlife shouldbe left to natural occurrencesif needb in publicly owned areas.I don't believe it shouldbe a predefinedoutlined eventin 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.

Pleasedo not put me on any more mailing lists,

Weare pleasedto be living in suchan environment,where these options for recreationare available. We are not by nature a background,"outdoorsy" types, but look forward to becoming so as our children get older and wish to seethe 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 yearspast. Firearms in my mind are at this point in time senselessand dangerousto all~be it thosewho possessthem and to the general public. The constitutionalright to beararms has run its course.Lets stop the senselesskilling of all beings~be it humanor wildlife. Thank you~Lets bar arms.

I guessI will never understand how thesequestionnaires are laid out. Are the people writing them not educated (maybe a sign of our schools) no common senseor 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 respectto the larger carnivoresand their prey. Several organizationsin Vermont are involved in this effort at umbrella speciestracking. Here in the Mad River Valley severalorganizations lead snowshoetracking expeditionsat night. 49

Yearsago my sonsattended a huntersafety course in Franklin County.Our whole family thorough enjoyedabout the deerpopulations and its problems.We totally endorsethe useof videos to teach aboutdeer management, forensics and environment.

Pages11 and 12 do not pertain to wildlife surveyin 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 seeall 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, anlma1 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.

'hereare mountain lions in this state!

I movedback to the eastCoast fonn StateofW A about2-3 yearsago. My primary activity out west was scubadiving, so my wildlife watchingwas donemostly underwaterin salt water environment. Being in VT wi only freshwater, has changed my whole wildlife viewing experience.Also the first pagewas difficult for me to answer.

I don't feel that you needto go to certainsites in VT just to seewildlife. I seemore 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 Rockswe did seeover 50 monarchbutterflies flying south.

supportthe state'swildlife projectseven though we do not usemany of the opportunities

I have absolutelyno interestin wildlife watchingas you probablycan tell by my answers

My experienceswith wildlife aremostly observingbirds and animalsin my areaas I walk eachday nearthe lake and river. It makesall the walking worthwhile.

What purposeswill this surveybe used?Please send me any reportsand future undertakingswhere this information will be used.

Thank you for sendingthis to my partnerand 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? 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/teachingabout sustainableliving.

Weare primarily baCkyard and animal observersdue to our rural location we do seemany 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 separatewildlife 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 outdoorsand 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 watchingthe animals.

Songbirds no longer seenin this area,having disappearedin 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 1996 on Pearson Rd in Waltham VT while driving south towards Middlebury. 1/2 hour before dusk. My wife and I witnessed large cat. Approx 200 lbs with a long black tipped tail run west to east acrossthe 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 2.5-3 " It was beautiful I will never forget it, nor will my wife.

Its interestingto seeall the different animalsyou've listed on your survey.There is one animal you forgot aboutor don't want to recognize.And that would be the catamountwhich doesexist andI've witnessed.

I would like to know why? You do not have food yards on state land like PA does. How come you do not have parking lots by the gate going on state land? Pennsylvania seemsto welcome its hunters. Here in Vermont little over 20 or more years ago it was shame here. When you talk to other hunters and they say only seen 2 to 8 deer all rifle season.Don't you thank something maybe wrong here in Vermont for deer? Would like response.Thank you

Pleasesurvey 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 hostswild turkey flocks, deer,and other animals whose tracks I haven'tlearned (I'd love to). 51

I am greatly opposedto the useof the leg-hold trap and other cruel devicesto trap wild animals.I hopeyour organizationis doing somethingabout this inhumanetreatment of our wildlife - also the control of pollution in the environmentfor our lakes.

Thanksfor caring.

Most of the time I observewildlife while hunting or fishing for them and they aretasty.

We needto maintain undevelopedspace for animalsand for ourselves

Making trips and exploring, seeingwildlife up closeis somethingI personallywould like to be able to do. I just do not havethe meansfor it. But I think it's a real nice advantageto haveaccessible for thosewho are ableto take advantageof it. To makesuch means accessible your doing a good work.

I don't believewildlife areasshould be advertised.Such as Dead Creek Management area. Wildlife shouldbe left alone.It is us who are intruderson their land.

For most of my life I was avidly involved in wildlife activities. However as you can imaging my activities are somewhatrestricted in recentyears.

By filling this out, it showsme I am not taking advantageof the wildlife aroundhere.

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.

Pleasenote that this was completedby Ms. XXXX~ husbandwas not availableat the time.

Endangeredbirds or any endangeredanimals should be left alone

The deer in West Castleare dropping weight and soonwill be dying offbecauseof the amountof turkey within 4 miles of my house.I've seenover 300 turkeysand when I was out hunting I noticed therewas no food for the deerbecause the turkeyshave eaten it all to help this from happeningnext year I think that tur~ey seasonshould be longer andhave 3 tagsfor them.

I'm not to many yearsaway from retirement(-5). I may be interestedat that time in either working part time or volunteeringin supportof wildlife watching.If you havesuch a file, put my nameaway in a drawer and contactme in 5 years.

I would like to seea surveydone on VT hunting and fishing. I would also like to seethese surveys presentedon the computerat somesite everyonecould access. 52 Most of my time is spenthunting and fishing.

We have always beenvery interestedand pleasedwith the managementand concernas expressed with and by the VT Fish and Wildlife.

Usually it just enjoy getting in my car to seewhere the road takes me. It is most often that the opportunity to seeor have a "wildlife" experiencepresents itself on thesetrips. My parentsstarted us off on watchingwildlife, not just becausemy fatherhunted and fished.They enjoyedtaking us to stateparks and fish hatcheries.Camping was a lot of fun for us as a family and a greatway to learn aboutVermont.

To whom it may concern,I do a lot of hunting in VT andout of state.I would like to seethe stateof VT start to make food plots for wildlife. In other statesthey do a lot of this and I think it helps. It would pay for itself in a few years.Food plots for deerand other animals.

You sentthis to my husbandbut 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 seenmany deer, birds, (still hoping for a cardinal) moose, coyote, bear-andhave 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 ChamplainSnakes-a lot of them- Red andblack small snakesyellow and black small snakes. We do a lot of fishing andwe haveseen a lot of snakesin Lake Champlain.They comeright at you, so we do not go fishing with our childrenthere anymore.

No reasonthat I can think of that anyoneshould answer this question(income).

1. Would like to seemore emphasisplaced on wildlife viewing and less on hunting. I'd severely restrict mooseseason and no big cat season. 2. More statelands without hunting. 3. Lessboat access- close somecompletely.

Sorry this is so late. I've beenoverseas for the pasttwo months.

I would like to seebike 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 questions2,3, lIon pages 11 and 12 blank. I do not feel that these are appropriate questionsto be includedon a wildlife survey.I feel that most of this sectionshould not be included on this survey.I strongly disagreewith this type of questions. 53

I feel this survey is not something I should fill out. When I seewildlife 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 seekout wildlife, but am alwayspleased to seeand observe,especially when hiking.

Thanksto this questionnaire,especially the map of sites,we will beginto pmposelygo and look for wildlife. Thanks.

In general I avoid areasthat 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 seetoday 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 20 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 becausethe 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.