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