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