PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF FISHERS IN WISCONSIN: AN ATTITUDINAL STUDY
by
Gordy J. Krahn
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE
College of Natural Resources
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Stevens Point, Wisconsin
December 1999 APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE OF:
,._., Christine L. fhomas Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Professor of Resource Management
,.// James W. Hardin / / Professor of Wildlife !L/ !
Eric M. Anderson Associate Professor of Wildlife Discipline Coordinator
ii Abstract A survey questionnaire was distributed in May, 1998, to a random sample of northern Wisconsin residents to gather data on their attitudes toward fishers, knowledge of fisher behavior and feeding habits and attitudes toward trapping fishers. Fishers were extirpated from Wisconsin by 1932 and reintroduced in the 1950s to reduce damage to timber caused by porcupines. The sample (n=458) was divided into 4 special interest groups: Northern Wisconsin Residents (n=213), Small-Game Hunters (n=60), Trappers (n=l 13) and Forestry Personnel (n=72). Subgroups including pet owners (n=46), livestock owners (n=9) and small-game hunters (n=64) were identified in the Northern Wisconsin Residents group to analyze perceived threats fishers pose to small pets, small domestic livestock and small-game species. There was a significant difference (p<0.01) in the level of knowledge about fishers between the groups, but no significant difference (p=0.45) in the groups' attitudes toward fishers. Forestry Personnel had the highest level of knowledge about fisher habits, followed by Trappers, Small-Game Hunters and Northern Wisconsin Residents. A positive correlation (p<0.01) was exhibited between knowledge of fishers and attitudes toward fishers in the Northern Wisconsin Resident (r2=10 percent) and Trapper (r2=24 percent) groups and when all cases were combined (r2=8 percent). There was no significant correlation between knowledge and attitudes in Small-Game Hunters and Forestry Personnel (p=0.56 and p=0.74 respectively). Males demonstrated significantly higher knowledge of fishers than females (p<0.01), but there was no significant difference in attitudes toward fishers between genders (p=0.95). Respondents' level of education appeared to be a significant predictor of attitudes toward fishers (p<0.01) (r2=9 percent), but the size of the community where they resided did not (p=0.08) (r2= 2 percent). There was no significant difference (p=O. 78) between hunters and non-hunters in regard to whether they viewed fishers as a threat to small-game species. Nor was there a statistical difference between pet owners and non-pet owners (p=0.83). However, 66 percent of small-game hunters and 64.1 percent of non-small-game hunters believed that fishers were a threat to small game animals. Forty-one percent of pet owners and 39.5 percent of non-pet owners 111 indicated that they believed fishers were a threat to small pets. The majority of livestock owners (56.3 percent) viewed fishers as a threat to small domestic livestock, while 37.1 percent of non-livestock owners viewed them as a threat. However, there was no statistical difference (p=0.18) between livestock owners and those who did not own livestock. The majority in all groups approved of trapping fishers in response to nuisance complaints and for population control, but significantly fewer (p<0.01) Northern Wisconsin Residents favored trapping fishers for recreation (43 .2 percent strongly or moderately disapproved ) or to sell their fur (26. 7 percent strongly or moderately disapproved). All groups favored habitat improvement over reducing fisher populations, reducing the number of hunters or letting nature take its course as the most viable means of improving small-game populations.
iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I wish to thank the gracious members of my graduate committee-Dr. Christine L. Thomas, Dr. James Hardin and Eric Anderson-for their guidance and support throughout the long and arduous process of compiling this study. Their direction and feedback was invaluable in helping to formulate and carry out each stage of this project. I also wish to thank John Olson and Bruce Kohn of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for their willingness to share their professional views on the state of fishers and fisher management in Wisconsin. Few studies are possible without financial support and I am grateful to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Trappers Association and Krause Publications for providing the funding for this undertaking. A project such as this is never the sole work of the individual whose signature graces the cover, but a combined effort of all of those involved, no matter how large or small the contribution. Thank you all.
V TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv
LIST OF TABLES ...... vi
LIST OF FIGlJRES ...... vii
IN'fRODUCTION ...... 1
METHODS ...... 11
Selection of Respondents ...... 11
Survey Instrument ...... 13
Statistical Tests ...... 14
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 15
Response Rates ...... 15
Attitudes Toward Fishers ...... 16
Knowledge of Fishers ...... 18
Trapping Fishers ...... 20
The Fisher As a Perceived Threat...... 24
SUMMARY ...... 28
CONCLUSION ...... 30
FUTURE STUDIES ...... 33
LITERA TlJRE CITED ...... 35
vi LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Complaints Against Fishers Filed With USDA ...... 7
Table 2. Questionnaire Response Rates ...... 15
Table 3. Mean Attitude Scores For Special Interest Groups ...... 17
Table 4. Approval Ratings For Reasons To Trap Fishers ...... 23
vii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Fisher Food Habits Study ...... 5
Figure 2. Fisher Population Estimates And Harvest Numbers ...... 9
Figure 3. Respondents' Mean Knowledge Scores ...... 19
Figure 4. Approval Ratings For Trapping Fishers ...... 20
Figure 5. Options For Improving Small-Grune Populations ...... 25
viii LIST OF APPENDICES
No. 1. Study Questionnaire ...... 39
ix INTRODUCTION Historically, fishers (Martes pennanti) occurred throughout Wisconsin, wherever mature stands of timber existed (Jackson 1960). Fisher sightings were documented as far south as Milwaukee, Jefferson, Sauk, Vernon and La Crosse counties prior to 1870 (Jackson 1960 ). Before European settlement, fishers occupied from what is now northern British Columbia into central California in the Pacific coastal mountains south into Idaho, Montana and Wyoming in the Rocky Mountains.
In central and eastern United States, they occupied all states from Minnesota east to the Atlantic Coast, and as far south as Illinois, Tennessee and North Carolina.
During the last part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century,
fisher numbers decreased strikingly, and they were extirpated from much of their
former range in the United States (Brander and Books 1973; Coulter 1966; de Vos
1951). There were two reasons for the decline in fisher populations: trapping and
habitat loss as a result of intensive logging. Both are capable of reducing fisher
populations, and information available about the decline does not indicate if one
might have been more important than the other. Trapping and logging are not
independent of each other because logging increases the access trappers have to
forested regions (Powell 1993). Regulated (controlled) logging on a sustained basis
causes little threat to fisher populations. It was the effect of massive changes in
northern forests that impacted fisher populations (Olson, personal communication,
1997). By the beginning of the 20th century, the fisher in Wisconsin was near
extinction (Hine 1975). Fishers were finally given legal protection in 1921, but failed
to respond, and the last known native was found in 1932 (Hine 1975).
I The U.S. Forest Service and the Wisconsin Conservation Department, now the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), cooperated to reestablish a fisher population during 1956-57 (Petersen et al. 1977). The main objectives were to reduce the extensive damage to timber by porcupines and to return a native species to
Wisconsin (Olson 1966). Cook and Hamilton (1957) suggested using fishers as a biological agent to control extremely high porcupine populations. They found during their study of fishers in the Adirondacks that high porcupine populations were never found in areas with fisher populations. Anecdotal evidence from trappers and loggers indicated that predation on porcupines by fishers was the reason for the low porcupine populations in areas with fisher populations (Cook and Hamilton 1957).
Coulter (1966) warned, however, that there was no evidence that fishers could limit porcupine populations for long periods of time. Sixty fishers from New York and
Minnesota were released into the Nicolet National Forest during 1956-63 and 60 fishers from Minnesota were released into the Chequamegon National Forest during
1966-67. Dry-land trapping was prohibited in these areas to reduce accidental trapping losses. These reintroductions were successful and an estimated 7,800 fishers inhabited the state in 1998 (John Olson, personal communication, 1998). The DNR's management goal is 9,200 fishers across six northern management zones. Two of these zones are currently closed to any fisher harvest. Management plans will focus on controlled harvest (Olson, personal communication, 1998).
Some Wisconsin residents have expressed concerns about the increasing fisher population and the expansion of its range. Fishers are being blamed for low
2 grouse and hare numbers and, in rare cases, diminishing white-tailed deer and black bear numbers in northern Wisconsin (John Olson, personal communication, 1994).
Stomach content studies verified that fishers do feed on deer (Coues 1877;
Grinnell, et al. 1937; Hardy 1899; Quick 1953; Schoonmaker 1938 ). However, foods identified from fecal remains or GI tracts give no indication about where, when or how they were obtained. Most researchers agree that fishers probably feed on deer killed by larger predators, automobiles and hunters. Kuehn ( 1989) found that the amount of fat carried by fishers in Minnesota increased when the number of deer harvested by hunters increased. Hunters leave viscera and other deer parts that fishers scavenge. Fishers opportunistically feed on carrion when available. No recent research has substantiated the secondhand reports of Hardy (1899) that fishers can kill healthy adult deer (Powell 1993).
Because fishers are solitary hunters, the size of the prey they catch is determined by their own size. Mammals that hunt in groups or packs can kill prey much larger than they are. Large mammals, such as adult deer and moose, are too large for a fisher to kill; a fisher weighs only a small percentage of the weight of such animals. Therefore, fishers are limited to hunting animals of approximately their own size and smaller (Rosenzweiz 1966) - prey they can catch and handle without the help of other fishers. Early reports listed small- to medium-sized rodents (such as mice and squirrels), hares and rabbits, birds (especially ruffed grouse) and porcupines as common food items for fishers (Coues 1877; Grinnell, et al. 1937; Hardy 1899; Quick
1953; Schoonmaker 1938). Recently, specific data supported early reports and diet
3 studies. Large samples have shown the great breadth of prey eaten by fishers. These data were collected from fishers' gastric intestinal tracts (GI tracts, primarily those obtained from trappers) and feces (scats) collected along fisher tracks (Powell 1993).
While fisher behavioral studies clearly show that fishers prey on small-game species such as ruffed grouse, snowshoe hares and squirrels, two food-habit studies conducted in Wisconsin also suggest fisher predation on those species does not adversely impact their populations. One study conducted by graduate students Dave
Lautn and Chris Balzer, under the direction of wildlife ecologist Don Rusch (UW
Madison), disclosed that "fishers killed some grouse, but grouse do not make up a significant proportion of their diet" (C. Balzer and D. Rusch, unpublished data). The fates of 474 grouse were monitored from 1989 to 1993 and data showed that the highest predation on grouse was from migrating raptors. The study concluded that while fishers hunted and killed grouse, they only took "an occasional grouse in the winter." Gilbert, (Figure 1) found that in more than 550 fisher stomachs examined in
Wisconsin, ruffed grouse made up less than 4 percent of the biomass (J. Gilbert,
Great Lakes Fisheries and Wildlife Commission, unpublished data).
Twelve other food habits studies conducted in various regions across North
America substantiate the opportunistic and wide-ranging diet of the fisher and give an index of fisher prey species. The number of identifiable food items ranged from five to 18. The number of food items that represented at least 10 percent of the identifiable diet ranged from two to five. In four studies, the dominant food item represented at least 30 percent of the identifiable diet (Buskirk et al. 1994 ).
4 Percent.of l>iet
aneous ~~
Figure 1. Fisher food habits in Wisconsin based on stomach contents and GI tracts of 550 fishers collected in the winters of 1992-1993. (J. Gilbert, Great Lakes Fisheries and Wildlife Commission, unpublished data.)
5 There is a great deal of commonality in the diets reported in all 12 studies.
Five food items were reported repeatedly as important parts of fisher diets: snowshoe hares, porcupine, deer, passerine birds and vegetation. All studies found at least two of these items to contribute 5 percent or more to fisher diets. All studies except one
(Grenfell and Fasenfest 1979) reported snowshoe hares, porcupines or both important food items. The relative contribution of these prey to fisher diets appears to vary geographically.
Some northern Wisconsin residents also consider the fisher a threat to pets and small domestic livestock. Some have filed complaints with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture-Animal Damage Control Division (USDA-ADC), which records wildlife complaints in four categories each year. From 1993 to 1997 there were 139 complaints received in regard to fishers (Table 1 ). These categories include
Agriculture, which is damage to crops and livestock; Health and Safety, which included injuries to humans, and fishers seen on porches and in yards that are considered a threat; Property, which refers to injuries to small pets; and Natural
Resources, which is damage to wildlife species such as grouse, rabbits, ducks, etc.
These complaints substantiate that fishers have attacked small pets and small domestic livestock and are seen as a nuisance by some northern Wisconsin residents.
While only one complaint was reported to the USDA-ADC in regard to small-game
species, Olson says that their department hears many complaints regarding fishers and their effect on game species (Olson, personal communication, 1998).
Concerns about the threat fishers pose to small-game species, pets and
6 Table 1. Complaints against fishers in Wisconsin filed with the USDA-ADC between 1993-1997.
Year Agriculture Health & Safet~ Proeert~ Natural Resources Total 1993 7 15 4 0 26 1994 11 9 16 0 36 1995 6 5 6 1 18 1996 6 7 18 0 31 1997 8 8 12 0 28 Totals 38 44 56 1 139
7 small domestic livestock from people who live in fisher habitat is an overriding factor that is likely to have a profound effect on how this animal is managed in the future. It is imperative, from a wildlife manager's point of view, to consider public opinion when developing an objective management plan for the fisher - one that can be implemented with support from the citizens of Wisconsin. Some studies have indicated relatively low levels of awareness about the issues surrounding predator reintroduction (Duda et al. 1997; Biggs 1988). There were very strong attitudes, beliefs and especially values concerning conservation management programs which did not include local social, economic and cultural issues as a major consideration. In many cases, there were not strongly held attitudes, beliefs or values (either positive or negative) strictly concerning predator reintroduction (Duda et al. 1998).
Trapping is a viable means of controlling fisher populations (Powell 1993;
Olson, personal communication, 1994). Wisconsin had its first fisher trapping season in 1985, and as their population and fur prices increased in the mid-1990s, and more permits were issued, more trappers pursued fishers and harvest figures increased
(Figure 2).
In 1993, Assembly Bill 745 was introduced which, if passed, would have outlawed steel-jawed traps in Wisconsin. The bill made it as far as a hearing before the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources where, after public input was heard on both sides of the issue, it was dismissed. There has been no similar legislation introduced in Wisconsin since 1993. Trapping in Wisconsin is deeply rooted in tradition and culture, and the dismissal of AB 745 would suggest that Wisconsin
8 ■ Population 8700 9900 Cl Harvest 339 204
Figure 2. Wisconsin fisher harvest and population figures from 1990-1998.
9 citizens view trapping as an appropriate wildlife management tool. Nationwide data shows that the majority of Americans are opposed to trapping animals for their fur. A study done by Responsive Management (Duda et al. 1998) found that 14 percent of
Americans strongly approved, 20 percent moderately approved, 13 percent moderately disapproved and 46 percent strongly disapproved of legal trapping.
However, a study conducted on trapping approval in Illinois showed strong support for trapping to control animal populations and for nuisance control. Illinois residents were asked for their opinions of trapping under seven different circumstances. The circumstances that received the most approval were trapping for animal damage control (71 percent) and trapping for population control (70 percent). Illinois residents were much less supportive of trapping animals to sell their fur (27 percent), as a way to be close to nature and experience the outdoors (18 percent) or for recreation or sport (15 percent)
(Duda et al. 1998).
This survey was conducted to characterize those Wisconsin residents who reside north of Highway 64 - which has been designated as primary fisher habitat by the Wisconsin DNR - in regard to their knowledge, attitudes and values concerning fishers to test several hypotheses: (1) To see if there is a relationship between knowledge of fishers and attitudes toward fisher; (2) to compare variances among
special interest groups in regard to attitudes about trapping, small-game management,
and the perceived threat fishers pose to small-game species, small pets and small
domestic livestock; (3) and to analyze demographic variances in regard to attitudes
toward fishers. Information from this study will provide the basis for further in-depth studies into Wisconsin residents' knowledge of and attitudes toward fishers. It also will provide insight for wildlife managers in Wisconsin to better understand the diversity of opinions in the publics they serve.
Wildlife managers should recognize that there is no such thing as a general public. Opinions on consumptive, wildlife-related activities vary dramatically among segments of the American people (Duda et al. 1998). There is a broad diversity in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and values when it comes to managing wildlife species such as fishers.
METHODS
Selection of respondents
A survey of northern Wisconsin residents representing the general public, small-game hunters, trappers and forestry industry personnel was administered to assess their knowledge of and attitudes and behaviors toward fishers. The survey was designed to compare knowledge and attitudes among various interest groups and the general public. All samples were selected randomly from Wisconsin residents who reside in the 19 counties situated north of Highway 64, which has been designated as primary fisher habitat by the Wisconsin DNR. These include: Taylor, Sawyer,
Langlade, Price, Vilas, Florence, Marinette, Lincoln, Rusk, Barron, Polk, Burnett,
Washburn, Douglas, Bayfield, Oneida, Forest, Ashland and Iron counties. Sub population groups were selected as representatives of special-interest groups that have varying interests in fishers and fisher management. Trappers were chosen as a special-interest group because they benefit financially from harvesting fishers and
11 would profit from high fisher populations and liberal trapping seasons. Small-Gatne
Hunters were selected because of their interest in small-game species. There is evidence to suggest that some small-game hunters view the fisher as a threat to small game species and might be in favor of reduced fisher populations. The Northern
Wisconsin Resident group was a cross-section of those individuals who reside in fisher habitat. They represented a control group to a degree, even though they could be considered a special-interest group because they reside in fisher habitat and might be directly affected by high or low fisher populations. Forestry Personnel have a vested interest in fisher habitat. They might have concerns about gaining access to fisher habitat if populations were ever threatened. They might also favor high fisher numbers to help keep porcupine populations in check.
Theoretically, these groups are not mutually exclusive because some respondents in the Northern Wisconsin Resident group are also trappers or small game hunters, etc. No individual, however, occurred in more than one sample group, so, for the purpose of this study, the samples were regarded as independent. The
Northern Wisconsin Resident respondents (and in some instances all cases) were combined and divided into a number of demographic and sub-groups for further data
analysis. These included pet owners, farmers and demographic categories including
gender, education level and place of residency. The Northern Wisconsin Residents
were selected randomly from Pro CD Select Phone/1992-97, a database of phone
listings. Businesses were excluded from the sample. To obtain a proportionate
representation of respondents from each county, the total sample number of residents
in each county was divided by the total sample population of all 19 counties. This
12 resulted in the sample population percentage needed for each county. Multiplying that by the total number of questionnaires (1,250) resulted in the sample required for each county. Example: Taylor County had a population of 19,247, which was divided by the total population of 408,887. Taylor County accounted for 4.71 percent of the total sample population, or 59 of the 1,250 surveys mailed to Northern Wisconsin
Residents. Small-Game Hunters were randomly selected from 1997-98 small-game license holders, Trappers were selected randomly from 1997-98 trapping license holders and Forestry Personnel consisted of a random sample of Wisconsin County
Forest Association members, Wisconsin County Forest Administrators and Wisconsin
Primary Wood Users.
Survey instrument
The two-page, 55-item questionnaire was designed to gather information about northern Wisconsin residents' knowledge of and attitudes toward fishers
(Appendix 1). Respondents also were asked questions regarding their attitudes toward trapping fishers and their perceptions of fishers as a threat to small-game animals, small pets and domestic livestock. Questions also examined respondents' perception of the importance of fishers in Wisconsin. Respondents' knowledge of the fisher and its predatory and feeding habits, and group mean knowledge scores, were
determined using 23 true/false statements dealing specifically with fisher ecology, habits and feeding behavior. Questions were weighted (Appendix 1) by degree of
difficulty for a possible 53 points. Respondents' attitudes toward fishers were
determined using seven contrasting depictions of fishers. Response scores ranged
13 from the most positive response ( +2) to the most negative_ response (-2). Example:
Fishers are very valuable ( +2); Fishers are moderately valuable (+ 1); Fishers are neither valuable or useless (O); Fishers are moderately useless (-1 ); Fishers are very useless (-2).
In May, 1998, the questionnaires, a cover letter and a postage-paid reply envelope were sent to all potential respondents. Responses were accepted until July
15, 1998. Due to time and monetary constraints, no follow-up surveys were conducted.
Statistical testing
Data gathered from the survey questionnaires were analyzed in the software program SPSS for Windows Version 7.5. Various statistical tests were used including: Independent T-Test, One-Way ANOVA, Pearson Correlation, Regression and Chi-Square Statistical Testing.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Response rates
The overall response rate of mailed surveys was 23 percent, which accounted for a total sample population of 458 respondents. The response rate for Trappers was the highestat45 percent for a sample size of 113; followed by 29 percent for Forestry
Personnel with a sample of 72; 24 percent for Small-Game Hunters with a sample of
60; and 17 percent for Northern Wisconsin Residents for a sample size of 213 respondents (Table 2).
14 Tab le 2. Comparison of response rates of special-interest groups. Survey conducted in northern Wisconsin during 1998.
Group Number of Number of Response Surveys Sent Surveys Returned Rate N. Wisconsin Residents 1,250 213 17% Trappers 250 113 45% Small-Game Hunters 250 60 24% Forestry Personnel 250 72 29% Total Populations 2,000 458 23%
15 Attitudes toward fishers
The majority of respondents in all groups agreed fishers are an important part of the northern Wisconsin forest ecosystem and that there should be fishers in
Wisconsin. The only detectable difference between groups in regard to whether there are too many fishers in Wisconsin was between Northern Wisconsin Residents and
Trappers (p<0.01) (Table 3). The majority of Trappers (58 percent) and Forestry
Personnel (54 percent) indicated they think there are too many fishers in Wisconsin.
Forty-Eight percent of Small-Game Hunters and 39 percent of Northern Wisconsin
Residents indicated there are too many fishers in Wisconsin.
There was no significant difference (p=0.45) in mean attitude scores among the four groups. Forestry Personnel had the only positive mean score of0.60.
Northern Wisconsin Residents had a negative mean score of -0.37, followed by
Small-Game Hunters with a mean score of -0.62, and Trappers with a mean score of
-0.68 (Table 3). This is from a possible range of-14 to+ 14. There were, however, a wide range of attitudes within each group, representing a bell curve in each case, which accounted for the flat mean scores in each group. This indicated that there was a great deal of variation within each group in regard to attitudes toward fishers.
Mean attitude scores were compared between male (n=166) and female
(n=43) respondents in the Northern Wisconsin sample population to determine if there was a relationship between gender and attitudes toward fishers. Males scored a mean of-0.36 compared to -0.42 in females. An independent samples T-test showed no significant difference in mean attitudes toward fishers between males and females
(p=0.95).
16 Table 3. Mean attitudes scores for special-interest groups. Maximum range of-14 to+ 14 possible.
Group Mean Attitude Standard Sample Size Scores Deviations N. Wisconsin Residents -0.37 5.65 213 Small-Game Hunters -0.62 5.67 60 Trappers -0.68 6.10 113 Forestry Personnel 0.60 3.86 72
17 Knowledge of fishers
Forestry Personnel had the highest level of knowledge of fishers (74 percent correct response to knowledge questions), followed by Trappers (73 percent), Small
Game Hunters (64 percent) and Northern Wisconsin Residents (62 percent) (Figure
3). There was a significant difference in knowledge between Northern Wisconsin
Residents and Trappers and Northern Wisconsin Residents and Forestry Personnel
(p<0.01); there was also a significant difference in knowledge between Small-Game
Hunters and Trappers and Small-Game Hunters and Forestry Personnel (p<0.01).
Mean knowledge scores were compared between males (n=l66) and females
(n=43) in the Northern Wisconsin sample population (n=209). Males scored a significantly higher mean of34.0 points compared to a mean of28.8 points for females (out of 53 possible points) (p<0.01), suggesting males have more knowledge about fishers than females.
In the overall sample, (n=458) there was a significant positive correlation between knowledge and attitude (p<0.01) (Figure 4). However, the low r2 value (7.7 percent) indicated other variables affected this relationship. There were further variations when attitudes and knowledge were compared within the groups. Northern
Wisconsin Residents showed a positive relationship between the two variables
(p<0.01), as did Trappers (p<0.01). However, once again r2 values were low for
Northern Wisconsin Residents (9.9 percent) but somewhat higher (24 percent) for
Trappers. Once again this would indicate that other factors affected the relationship between knowledge and attitudes. Neither Small-Game Hunters (p=0.56) or Forestry
Personnel (p=0.74) exhibited a positive correlation between the two variables.
18 ■ Knoiwed e
Figure 3. Mean Knowledge scores for special interest groups. Survey conducted in northern Wisconsin in 1998.
19 15 ....-~------
10 ---t------~,-----.,c------,...... ----,,------i
0 & 0+w-•- ~ ---=r CD I• Attitudes I -g -5 +-----~-. .., ...... ,.. ; - -10 --~~-~---.:---"------1 -15 -----.....:....-----'---~-----"-'-I -20 ---'------' Knowledge Scores
Figure 3. This scattergram shows a significant positive correlation (p<0.01) between knowledge of fisher habits and attitudes toward fishers in northern Wisconsin residents (n=458) polled in 1998.
20 Overall, there was a positive correlation (p<0.01) between how much knowledge a person had about fishers and his or her attitude toward fishers. This was exhibited in the control group (Northern Wisconsin Residents) and when all groups were combined.
This supported the hypothesis that northern Wisconsin residents with more knowledge about fishers have a more positive attitude toward fishers. The lack of a correlation between knowledge and attitudes in Small-Game Hunters (n=60) and
Forestry Personnel (n=72) might be attributed to smaller sample sizes or a prejudice toward fishers. In the case of Small-Game Hunters, several respondents had very low attitude scores, even though their knowledge scores were high. However, chi-square analysis showed that there was not a significant difference (p=0.78) between small game hunters and respondents who are not small-game hunters in the Northern
Wisconsin Resident population group in regard to whether they viewed fishers as a threat to small-game animals. The majority in both groups indicated that they believed fishers were a threat to small-game species: hunters, 66 percent; non hunters, 64.1 percent.
While gender did not appear to affect attitudes toward fishers in this group, there was a relationship between gender and knowledge of fishers. Males (Knowledge mean=33.98 ±6.91) in this group have more knowledge (p<0.01) of fishers than females (Knowledge mean=28.81 ±9.26). There was also a positive relationship between level of education and attitudes toward fishers (p<0.01) and membership to the Ruffed Grouse Society and attitudes toward fishers (p<0.01). Neither gender nor
21 membership in other conservation organizations significantly affected attitude
(p=0.32) (Appendix 1, question 3).
Trapping fishers
The majority in all groups agreed that it is all right to trap fishers. Trappers
(100 percent) gave the highest approval of trapping, followed by Forestry Personnel
(93 percent), Small-Grune Hunters (86 percent) and Northern Wisconsin Residents
(69 percent). Only Northern Wisconsin Residents indicated a significantly lower level of support for trapping (p<0.01) than other groups.
There were significant differences between groups (Table 4) in all categories
(p<0.01) when respondents were asked to rate their approval of various reasons for trapping fishers: trapping fishers for recreation, trapping fishers to sell their fur, trapping fishers for recreation and to sell their fur, trapping fishers in response to
nuisance complaints and trapping fishers to control their population.
As might be expected, the majority of Trappers were in favor of trapping
fishers for all of the above reasons (96 percent approved of trapping fishers to sell
their fur, 73 percent for recreation, 96 percent to control their population and 79
percent in response to nuisance complaints. The majority of Forestry Personnel
approved of trapping fishers for nuisance complaints (80 percent), population control
(87 percent) and to sell their fur (90 percent). Only 67 percent in this group approved
of trapping fishers for recreation. The majority of Small-Grune Hunters approved of
trapping fishers for population control and nuisance complaints (85 percent). Fewer in
this group approved of trapping fishers to sell their fur and for recreation (73 percent
22 Table 4. This table details the mean approval ratings each group gave for various reasons to trap fishers. A +2 indicates the highest approval rating possible and a -2 indicates the lowest approval rating possible. (Standard Deviation). All groups gave high approval rating for trapping fishers for nuisance complaints and to control their populations.
GrouQ N Recreation Sell Their Fur Recreation & Sell Nuisance Control PoQulation Northern Wisconsin Residents 213 -0.32 0.06 0.32 .82 .88 (1.43) (1.43) (1.41) (1.26) (1.26) Small-Game Hunters 60 0.28 0.75 0.93 1.35 1.37 (1.61) (1.55) (1.40) (.92) (1.01) Trappers 113 1.04 1.71 1.74 1.34 1.80 (1.34 (0.64) (0.56) (1.05) (.50) Forestry Personnel 72 0.72 1.46 1.53 1.25 1.50 (] .462 {0.842 (0.792 {1.152 {.92} and 47 percent respectively). Northern Wisconsin Resident gave lower approval ratings in all categories (70 percent approval for population control, 68 percent for nuisance trapping, 52 percent to sell their fur and 30 percent for recreation).
Improving small-game populations
All groups strongly agreed that improving small-game habitat was the most viable option for improving small-game populations (Figure 5). Forestry Personnel
were most in favor of improving small-game habitat (69 percent), followed by Small
Game Hunters (56 percent), Northern Wisconsin Residents (51 percent) and Trappers
(48 percent). None of the groups favored reducing the number of hunters (Small
Game Hunters, 5.5 percent; Northern Wisconsin Residents, 3 percent; Trappers, 2
percent; Forestry Personnel, 0 percent), or letting nature take its course (Northern
Wisconsin Residents, 16.8 percent; Small Game Hunters, 10.9 percent; Forestry
Personnel, 11.9 percent; Trappers, 4.5 percent). Forty-one percent of Trappers were in
favor of reducing fisher numbers to improve small-game numbers. Nearly as many
Trappers were in favor reducing fisher numbers as improving small-game habitat.
Twenty-two percent of Northern Wisconsin Residents, 21.8 percent of Small Game
Hunters, and 17.9 percent of Forestry Personnel viewed lowering fisher populations
as an option.
Threat to small-game animals
Northern Wisconsin residents who hunt small-game and those who do not
hunt small game agreed that fishers are a threat to small-game animals. Sixty
Sixpercent of small-game hunters and 64.1 percent of non-small-game hunters
24 Figure 5. The majority of respondents in all groups agreed that habitat improvement was the best option for improving small-game populations. A significant number of trappers (41 percent) indicated that reducing fisher numbers would improve small-game populations.
25 believed fishers were a threat to small-game animals. While there is no significant difference between these groups (p=0.78), it should be noted that 65 percent of northern Wisconsin residents believe fishers are a threat to small-game animals. This supports reports to the Wisconsin DNR that many Wisconsin residents, hunters and non-hunters, view fishers as a threat to small-game species. Sixty-four percent of ruffed grouse hunters, 66.7 percent of pheasant hunters, 64.7 percent of rabbit hunters, 66.0 percent of squirrel hunters, and 60.0 percent of woodcock hunters indicated fishers were a threat to small game. There was no significant difference
(p=0.19) between groups.
Threat to pets
The majority of Northern Wisconsin Residents (59.6 percent) indicated that
they do not believe fishers pose a threat to small pets that spend time outdoors. There
was no significant statistical difference (p=0.83) between pet owners (41.l percent
agreed fishers pose a threat to pets) and non-pet-owners (39.5 percent indicated that
fishers pose a threat to pets) in regard to their concern that fishers pose a threat to
small pets. It should be noted, however, that 40.4 percent of respondents agreed that
fishers are a threat to small pets. This supports concerns by Wisconsin residents who
filed fishers complaints with USDA-ADC that fishers pose a threat to small pets that
spend time outdoors. It also indicates that this perceived threat is real among these
population groups. A significant number of Northern Wisconsin Residents believe
that fishers are a threat to small pets that spend time outdoors whether they own small
pets or not.
26 Threat to domestic Uvestock
There was no significant statistical difference (p=0.13) between owners of small domestic livestock (56.3 percent said the fisher was a threat) and non-livestock owners (37.4 percent said the fisher was a threat) in the Northern Wisconsin Resident group in regard to their perceptions that fishers pose a threat to small domestic livestock. However, the sample size of farmers was small in this group (n=16) and the power of the test low. When chi-square analysis was done using all cases (n=458) the results were significant (p<0.01). Of the 45 farmers in this group, 64.4 percent indicated they thought fishers were a threat to small domestic animals compared to only 39.1 percent of those 379 respondents who did not own domestic livestock.
Level of education vs. attitude
Regression analysis showed that educational attainment was a significant predictor of knowledge of fishers (p<0.01) in the Northern Wisconsin Residents group (n=213). However, a low r2 value (8.7 percent) indicated other variables affected this relationship. Northern Wisconsin residents with higher education attainment had more positive attitudes toward fishers. This supports the general finding that there is a positive correlation between knowledge of fishers and attitudes toward fishers in this study.
Size of community vs. attitude
Regression analysis showed that the size of community where the respondent resided was not a significant predictor of attitudes toward fishers (p=0.08) (r2 = 2
27 percent) in the Northern Wisconsin group (n=204). Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected in this case and there is no basis for the hypothesis that people who live in smaller communities have a more positive attitude toward fishers than people who live in larger communities.
SUMMARY
The majority of Northern Wisconsin Residents agreed that fishers are an important part of the northern Wisconsin forest ecosystem. They had different opinions, however, on how many fishers should inhabit this region. Of the interest groups surveyed, Forestry Personnel and Trappers indicated they believed there were too many fishers in Wisconsin, while Small-Game Hunters and Northern Wisconsin
Residents did not indicate they believed there were too many fishers in Wisconsin.
While the majority of the respondents viewed trapping as a viable resource management tool, they were at odds regarding under what conditions trapping should be implemented. All groups favored trapping fishers for nuisance complaints and population control, but the majority of Northern Wisconsin Residents were not in favor of trapping fishers for recreation or to sell their fur.
There was a significant difference (p<0.01) in the level of knowledge about fishers between the groups, however, their attitudes toward fishers did not differ
(p=0.45). Trappers had the highest level of knowledge about fisher habits, followed by Forestry Personnel, Small-Game Hunters and Northern Wisconsin Residents.
There was a significant positive relationship (p<0.01) between knowledge about fishers and attitudes toward fishers when all groups were combined (n=458). There
28 were differences, however, among the sub-groups. While Northern Wisconsin
Residents and Trappers showed a positive relationship between knowledge and attitude (p<0.01), Small-Game Hunters (p=0.56) and Forestry Personnel (p=0.74) did not. This might be explained by smaller sample sizes in Small-Game Hunters (n=60) and Forestry Personnel (n=72), or a strong bias toward fishers in these sub-groups.
Complaints filed with the Wisconsin DNR and USDA-ADC suggest that some
Wisconsin residents view the fisher as a threat to small-game species, small pets and
small domestic livestock. This study showed no significant difference (p=O. 78)
between hunters and non-hunters in regard to whether they view fishers as a threat to
small-game species, but the majority (66 percent and 64 percent respectively) viewed
the fisher as a threat to small-game animals. Nor was there a statistical difference
between pet owners and non-pet owners (p=0.83) in regard to whether they view
fishers as a threat to small pets. While the majority of respondents (59.6 percent)
indicated they do not perceive fishers as a threat to small pets, 40.4 percent felt that
fishers were a threat to small pets.
There was no significant difference (p=0.13) between livestock owners and
non-livestock owners in the Northern Wisconsin Resident group in regard to whether
they view fishers as a threat to livestock. However, in this group the sample size for
farmers was small - only 19. When all cases were used (n=458). The majority of
farmers (64.4 percent) viewed fishers as a threat to livestock while only 39.1 percent
of non-farmers in this group viewed fishers as a threat to domestic livestock (p<0.01).
Males scored significantly higher than females when questioned about fisher
habits(p<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in attitudes toward
29 fishers between the genders (p=O. 95). Interestingly, a Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive relationship between knowledge and attitude in Northern
Wisconsin males. That relationship did not exist in Northern Wisconsin females.
Educational attainment appears to be a significant predictor of knowledge of fishers
(p<0.01). Northern Wisconsin residents with higher levels of education also have a more positive attitude toward fishers. The size of the community where the respondent resided was not a significant predictor of attitudes toward fishers (p=0.08)
(r2 = 2 percent).
CONCLUSION
As long as differing opinions exist about fishers, they will continue to be a controversial animal in Wisconsin. And as fisher populations increase and the boundaries of their range expands, more Wisconsin residents will come into contact with them ..
Wisconsin's human population is segmented into diverse special-interest groups with differing opinions on how the state's natural resources should be managed, and this. burgeoning population continues to place more demands on finite natural resources. Natural resource managers must weigh the best interest of these resources against the wants and needs of the publics· they serve. Wisconsin's population pool should not be viewed as homogeneous, but rather a diverse array of individuals and special-interest groups - many who don't see eye-to... eye when it comes to natural resource management. Wildlife managers will be better prepared to deal with public relations issues if they better understand the extent of the diversity
30 among these publics and are equipped to deal with their differences, or in some cases their similarities. Only then, as they develop management plans for fishers and other
Wisconsin species, will they be equipped to implement strategies and compromises that none will find too dissonant.
Community attitudes, beliefs and values can be, and most often are, in conflict with awareness and opinions. For example, there were individuals in [predator reintroduction] studies conducted by Responsive Management (Duda et al. 1998) who were both positively and negatively predisposed toward predator reintroduction.
These individuals could be influenced to change or modify their opinions and even act in contradiction to their factual awareness if these were seen to conflict with community attitudes, beliefs and values. Thus, an individual who was aware of the positive aspects of predator reintroduction and with an initial opinion that such a plan would be a good idea could easily stand in opposition to such a program if it were widely held to be forced on the community by "outside'' entities. Conversely, an individual who had little factual awareness or negative feelings about predators could be convinced to cooperate with a predator reintroduction program which they viewed as being generated by the local community (Duda et al. 1998).
While the reintroduction ofthe fisher has been successful from a wildlife management perspective, the public has expressed concerns that all is not well in the
North Woods in regard to this species. This overriding factor is likely to have a profound effect on how this animal is managed in the future. It is interesting that it was foresters• concern over a natural resource, timber, that initiated the reintroduction of the fisher. And now it is the public's concern about the fisher's predatory
31 tendencies that might have a profound impact on its management. It is imperative, from a wildlife manager's point of view, to consider public opinion when developing an objective management plan for the fisher - one that can be implemented with support from the citizens of Wisconsin.
It is important that wildlife managers recognize that there is no such thing as a general public. Opinions on consumptive, wildlife-related activities vary dramatically among segments of the American public. For example, the public might support hunting or trapping for one reason while they might not support it for another reason.
Wildlife managers need to understand what aspects of hunting and trapping are important to the public and communicate those benefits to the public. In Illinois, trapping for animal damage control is very acceptable~ while trapping for recreation or sport is not acceptable (Duda et al. 1998). Since nuisance trapping and trapping for recreation are basically the same activity, using the same tools, wildlife managers must help educate the public on the benefits of trapping as a tool to manage wildlife populations to reduce complaints such as those filed with the USDA-ADC. They must promote trapping, as a whole, to be a viable wildlife management tool for population control and wise use of a natural resource. Not just a tool for damage control.
It's important to address what people think about fishers because in ecosystem management the only common sense way to view the natural world is with humans in it. For the public to accept the need for ecological considerations, it will have to be with an awareness ofthe impacts not only to the economic world but to society as well.
32 The fisher's relationship with humans has been beneficial at best, disastrous at its worse-as in the case of its extirpation from Wisconsin and other states. But in the modern world, the fisher's relationship with man could determine the extent of its proliferation and certainly the extent of its range. It is ironic that the fisher's relationship with man has been somewhat cyclic, a marked characteristic of many species that inhabit boreal forest habitat. Unchecked trapping and timber exploitation in the 1800s led to extermination of the species in much of its traditional range.
Relocation and habitat improvement programs in the 1990s have ushered in an era of
prosperity for fishers and in many regions their numbers are inclining dramatically.
Without a doubt, the future of this species relies on proper resource management and
a regulated harvest.
Managing this controversial forbearer will be a challenge for wildlife experts,
as they must weigh public sentiment against the good of the resource. Powell (1993)
infers that education will be the key factor in the acceptance of this predator, and that
the conflict between people who believe fishers have a detrimental effect on game
animals and want their numbers reduced and those who wish to maintain and expand
fisher populations can best be resolved through education.
FUTURE STUDIES
This study indicates that education might be the key to improving peoples'
attitudes toward fishers in Wisconsin. Clearly, data show a correlation between how
much northern Wisconsin residents know about fisher habits and their attitudes
toward fishers. This study also shows that different interest groups have different
33 knowledge levels regarding the fisher. Only when Wisconsin residents understand that fishers are a natural and beneficial component of the northern Wisconsin biota
will their attitudes toward them improve.
There is a great need. however, for further studies and more conclusive data
on the predatory habits of fishers. Before the public can be educated about the life
habits of the fisher, we must first determine precisely what impact this animal might
be having on other native species, domestic pets and domestic livestock. While
current food habits studies show fishers have yery little effect on any species, the
validity of some of these studies is suspect. Many of the fisher carcasses, from which
the stomachs and GI tracts were examined, were submitted by trappers during fisher
trapping seasons. Since this time period coincides with white-tailed deer hunting
seasons, a high percentage of the fisher's diet was deer carrion - as high as 21 percent
in the Gilbert study. Surely this skewed the results of the study and is not a true
representation of fisher eating habits. And, according to Fly et al. (1978), Korschgen
(1980), and Zielinski (1986), the occurrence of a food item in one scat, or even one
gastrointestinal tract or stomach (for larger prey) does not necessarily equate to one
prey animal killed and eaten. Occurrence data can be used as an index of actual diet,
but until captive feeding trials with fishers are conducted, no credible correction
factors exist with which to treat these data.
Because of the monetary and time constraints this study used a relatively
small sample population, and there would be great value in expanding the sample size
and re-testing. And since Wisconsin residents throughout the state might have
concerns regarding the management of this species, it would be appropriate to expand
34 the test to include samples from the entire state. Of greater value would be in-depth case studies with those individuals who have strong opinions, good or bad, about fishers to help ascertain how deeply rooted their attitudes are and how they might be changed. It would be helpful to interview those individuals who have logged complaints against fishers with the USDA and document those events and those person's responses about what occurred and how they feel about it. Most importantly, all Wisconsin residents have to work together to maintain a viable management plan for the fisher. Cooperation has not yet developed between wildlife agencies, trappers, animal rights activists, forest management agencies and industries and researchers to lead to proper understanding of fishers and other forest species and how they interact.
The future of the fisher may look good, but that future depends upon proper management (Powell, 1993 ).
LITERATURE CITED
Arthur, S. M., W. B. Krohn, and J. A. Gilbert. 1989. Home range characteristics of
adult fishers. J. Wildlife Mang. 53:674-679.
Biggs, J. R. 1988. Reintroduction of the Mexican wolf in New Mexico.
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Brander, R. B., and D. J. Books. 1973. Return of the fisher. N. History. 82:52-57.
Bulmer, M. G. 1974. A statistical analysis of the ten-year cycle in Canada. J.
Animal Ecol. 43:701-718.
Bulmer, M. G. 1975. Phase relations in the ten-year cycle. J. Animal Ecol. 44:609-
622.
35 Brown, MK., and G. Will. 1979. Food habits of the fisher in northern New York.
New York Fish Game J. 26:87-92.
Buskirk, S., A. Harestad, M. Raphael and R. Powell. 1994. Martens, sables and
fishers biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Cook, D. E., and W. J. Hamilton Jr. 1957. The forest, the fishers and the porcupine.
J. Forestry. 55:719-722.
Coues, E. 1877. Furbearing mammals: A monograph of North American
mustelidaes. USDI Misc. Pub. No. 8.
Coulter, M. W. 1966. Ecology and management of fishers in Maine. PhD. Thesis. St.
University College of Forestry, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York.
de Vos, A. 1951. Recent findings in fisher and marten ecology and management.
Trans. North America Wildlife Conference. 16:498-507.
Duda, M. D., S. J. Bissell and K. C. Young, 1998. Wildlife and the American mind.
Responsive Management. 9:230-231, 273-280.
Floyd, T. J., L. D. Mech, and P. A. Jordan. 1978. Relating wolf scat content to prey
consumed. J. of Wildlife Mang. 42:528-532.
Gilbert, J. 1995. Food habits of the fisher in Wisconsin. Great Lakes Fisheries and
Wildlife Commission, unpublished data.
Grenfell, W. E., and M. Fasenfest. 1979. Winter food habits of fishers in
northwestern California. California Fish and Game. 65: 186-189.
Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, and L. M. Linsdale. 1937. Furbearing mammals of
California: their natural history, systematic status and relations to man. Vol. 1.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
36 Hamilton, W. J. Jr., and AH. Cook. 1955. The biology and management of the
fisher in New York. New York Fish Game J. 2: 13-35.
Hardy, M. 1899. The fisher. Shooting and Fishing. 25:526.
Hine, R. L. 1975. Endangered animals in Wisconsin. Wisconsin DNR, Madison,
Wisconsin. Unpublished report.
Jackson, H. T. 1960. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison, Wisconsin.
Kellert, S. R. 1979. Public attitudes toward critical wildlife and natural habitat
issues. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University.
Kellert, S. R. 1985. The public and the timber wolf in Minnesota. School of Forestry
and Environmental Studies, Yale University.
Kelly, G. M. 1977. Fisher biology in White Mountain National Forest and adjacent
areas. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Massachusetts. l 78pp.
Korschgen, J. L. 1980. Procedures for food-habits analyses. Wildlife Mang.
Techniques Manual. Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. l 13-127pp.
Kuehn, D. W. 1989. Winter foods of fishers during a snowshoe hare decline. J. of
Wildlife Mang. 53 :688-692.
Olson, H.F. 1966. Return of a native. Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin 31. 3:22-23.
Olson, J. 1994. Wisconsin DNR forbearer specialist. Personal communication.
Olson, J. 1997. Wisconsin DNR forbearer specialist. Personal communication.
Olson, J. 1998. Wisconsin DNR forbearer specialist. Personal communication.
Petersen, L. R., M.A. Martin, and C. M. Pils. 1977. Status of fishers in Wisconsin
37 1975. Wisconsin DNR Report #92.
Powell, Roger A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. University of
Minnesota Press.
Quick, H.F. 1953. Wolverine, fisher and marten studies in a wilderness region.
Trans North America Wildlife Conference. 18:513-533.
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1966. Community structure in sympatric camivora. J. Mammal.
47:602-612.
Schoonmaker, W. J. 1938. The fisher as a foe of the porcupine in New York State.
J. Mammal. 19:373-374.
Stevens, C. L. 1968. The food of fishers in New Hampshire. N.H. Department of Fish
& Game, Unpublished Report.
Zielinski, W. J. 1986. Relating marten scat contents to prey consumed. California
Fish and Game. 72:110-116.
APPENDIX!
1. Please indicate whether you think these statements are "True" or
"False."
A. Fishers will kill and eat domestic pets (T-3)
B. Fishers kill only animals that are sick or injured (F-3)
C. An estimated 100,000 fishers live in Wisconsin (F-2)
D. Fishers can be found throughout Wisconsin (F-2)
E. Fishers will eat animals that are already dead (T-3)
38 F. An adult male fisher weighs about 30 pounds (F-2)
G. Fishers have been known to attack humans (F-2)
H. Plants comprise about 17 percent of the fisher's diet (T-3)
I. Ruffed Grouse account for a major part of the fisher's diet (F-3)
J. Fishers were introduced into Wisconsin to help control rampant porcupine populations (T-3)
K. Extensive logging in Wisconsin in the 1800s contributed to the elimination of the fisher in Wisconsin (T-3)
L. The fisher is a member of the canine family, the same as the timber wolf and coyote (F-2)
M. The fisher and pine marten are different names for the same animal (F-2)
N. The fisher is found only in North America (T-2)
0. The fisher is an endangered species in Wisconsin (F-2)
P. It is illegal the trap fishers for their fur in Wisconsin (F-2)
Q. Where fisher populations are high, studies show that small game species such as ruffed grouse, rabbits and squirrels are scarce because of predation by fishers (F-3)
R. Fisher numbers are on the increase in Wisconsin (T-2)
S. Fishers are excellent climbers and hunt in trees as well as on the ground (T-3)
T. Fishers effectively prey on porcupines (T-3)
U. The fisher is a rare species of fish that resides in the remote regions of Wisconsin (F-1)
V. The fishers is a small predatory animal that lives in northern Wisconsin (T-1)
W. The fisher is just another name for osprey, or fish eagle (F-1) 39 (53 points possible)
2. The fisher has been described in many different ways (e.g. aggressive, passive, vicious, docile, etc.). We would like to know your impressions of the fisher. Please indicate yeur impressions of the fisher by checking one box in each of the following comparisons.
Aggressive vs. Passive Fishers are very passive (+2) Fishers are moderately passive (+ 1) Fishers are neither passive nor aggressive (0) Fishers are moderately aggressive (-1) Fishers are very aggressive (-2)
Essential vs. Worthless Fishers are very essential (+2) Fishers are moderately essential (+ 1) Fishers are neither essential nor worthless (0) Fishers are moderately worthless (-1) Fishers are very worthless (-2)
Appealing vs. Unappealing Fishers are very appealing (+2) Fishers are moderately appealing (+ 1) Fishers are neither appealing nor unappealing (0) Fishers are moderately unappealing (-1) Fishers are very unappealing (-2)
Vicious vs. Docile Fishers are very docile (+2) Fishers are moderately docile (+ 1) Fishers are neither docile nor vicious (0) Fishers are moderately vicious ( -1) Fishers are very vicious (-2)
Valuable vs. Useless Fishers are very valuable (+2) Fishers are moderately valuable (+ 1) Fishers are neither valuable nor useless (0) Fishers are moderately useless (-1) Fishers are very useless (-2)
Helpful vs. Harmful Fishers are very helpful (+2) Fishers are moderately helpful (+ 1) 40 Fishers are neither helpful nor harmful (0) Fishers are moderately harmful (-1) Fishers are very harmful (-2)
Destructive vs. Beneficial Fishers are vecy beneficial (+2) Fishers are moderately beneficial (+ 1) Fishers are neither beneficial nor destructive (0) Fishers are moderately destructive (-1) Fishers are very destructive (-2)
3. Check all that apply: Which of the following organi7.ations have you belonged to in the past three years? __ Izaak Walton League PETA -- -- __ National Audubon Society HSUS Sierra Club __ Ruffed Grouse Society Funds for Animals Safari Club National Rifle Association None of these
4. Do you agree or disagree with each ofthe following statements? A. I think it is all right to trap fishers. B. I think there are too many fishers in Wisconsin. C. I think fishers pose a threat to small pets. D. I think fishers pose a threat to small farm animals. E. I think fishers pose a threat to small-game animals. F. I think fishers should be a part of our Wisconsin forests.
5. Have you trapped furbearing animals in the past three years.
6. If you selected "Yes" in the previous question, which of the following species offurbearers have you trapped? Fox, Beaver, Otter, Coyote, Mink, Fisher, Muskrat, Raccoon, None of these.
7. Have you hunted small-game species in the past three years.
8. If you selected "Yes" in the previous question, which of the following species of small game have you hunted? Squirrel, Pheasant, Ruffed Grouse, Rabbit, Woodcock, None of these.
9. Do you own any small pets that spend time outdoors in your yard?
10. If you selected "Yes" in the previous question, which of the following pets do you own that spend time outdoors in your yard? Cat, Dog, Other.
41 11. Do you own small fann animals.
12. If you selected "Yes" in the previous question, which of the following small fann animals do you own? Poultry, Sheep, Hogs, None of these.
13. Please indicate whether you Strongly Approve, Moderately Approve, Have No Opinion, Moderately Disapprove or Strongly Disapprove of the following reasons for trapping fishers.
A. Trapping fishers for recreation. B. Trapping fishers to sell their fur. C. Trapping fishers for recreation and to sell their fur. D. Trapping fishers due to nuisance complaints. E. Trapping fishers to control their numbers.
14. Choose only one: If efforts were made to increase small-game populations in northern Wisconsin, which one of the following methods would you most prefer?
A. Reduce the number of fishers. B. Reduce the number of hunters. C. Reduce both the number of fishers and hunters. D. Do nothing and let nature take its course. E. Improve small-game habitat.
15. Are you male or female?
16. Choose only one: What is the highest level of education you have attained to date?
A. Grade school B. Attended high school C. Graduated from high school D. Attended technical school E. Graduated from technical school F. Attended a four-year college G. Graduated from a four-year college H. Post-graduate study without a degree I. Master's degree J. Doctoral degree
17. Choose only one: How would you describe the area in which you live?
A. City B. Suburb C. Small town 42 D. Rural area E. College F. Other
18. Approximately how many people live in the town/city/village where yeureside.
A. Less than 500 people B. 500 to 2,000 people C. 2,00 to 10,000 people D. 10,000 to 50,000 people E. 50,000 to 250,000 people F. 250,000 to 1 million people G. More than 1 million people
43