The Public, Wildlife Management and Law Enforcement Presented to the Pennsylvania Game Commission June 25 th, 2001 Mark Damian Duda Responsive Management

Responsive Management, 2001

Public Priorities

Responsive Management, 2001 Ecological Values are More Important than Recreational Values Top Priorities: Water Resources Endangered Species Education Habitat Protection Law Enforcement

Responsive Management, 2001

Cultural Carrying Capacity

Responsive Management, 2001

Public Opinion on Consumptive Wildlife-Related Recreation

Responsive Management, 2001

GroupPercent Hunter99 Angler87 Male94 Rural residents83 Grew up in rural environment80 High school graduate78 Did not complete high school77 Married77 $20,000 - $39, – 54 years old76 White76 $40,000 - $59, or older75 55 – 64 years old75 College graduate74 $60,000 - $79,99974 Disabled74 Member of wildlife organization73 Americans’ Opinions of Hunting by Demographic Variables. Percent of (demographic group) that approve of legal hunting. GroupPercent 35 – 44 years old73 25 – 34 years old73 Small city/town residents73 $10,000 - $19,99971 $80,000 or more69 Post graduate education68 Some college/trade school68 Non-hunter67 Single/divorced/widowed67 Raised in single-parent household67 Suburban residents67 Have moved residence > 100 miles w/in past 2 years67 Urban residents65 Female63 Non-angler61 18 – 24 years old61 Less than $10,00060 Minority58

Interest in Outdoor Recreation Varies dramatically by demographic group

Responsive Management, 2001

The Changing Face of Outdoor Recreation

Responsive Management, 2001

Conflicts and Interference among Recreation Groups

Responsive Management, 2001

Attitudes Toward Wildlife Viewing

Responsive Management, 2001

Fish and Wildlife Laws and Law Enforcement

Responsive Management, 2001 Contact with Fish and Wildlife/Conservation Officers

Responsive Management, 2001

Attitudes Toward Fish and Wildlife/Conservation Officers

Responsive Management, 2001

Opinions on Fish and Wildlife Laws

Responsive Management, 2001

Other Critical Law Enforcement Issues

Responsive Management, 2001

Colorado Law Enforcement: A Case Study

Responsive Management, 2001 Methodology Telephone Survey Randomly selected: –Colorado Residents (N=405) –Resident Licensed Hunters (N=210) –Resident Licensed Anglers (N=205) Sampling Error at 95% Confidence Intervals –Colorado Residents (+/- 5%) –Resident Licensed Hunters (+/- 7%) –Resident Licensed Anglers (+/- 7%) Those interviewed closely matched the geographic and demographic distribution of Colorado’s population

Responsive Management, 2001

Major Findings 1.Colorado hunters, anglers and residents felt that the Division was doing a good to excellent job enforcing the wildlife laws of the state. 2.Colorado Wildlife Officers performed their duties in a professional manner. 3.Penalties for breaking wildlife laws in Colorado were about right to too low. 4.Colorado residents wanted more law enforcement efforts overall. 5.Colorado hunters, anglers and residents who had contact with an Officer, stated that the Officer they came in contact with was professional, courteous, knowledgeable and fair.

Responsive Management, 2001 On the other hand… 1.Colorado hunters, anglers and residents stated that there were a lot of wildlife laws being broken and that these laws were being broken consciously. 2.Most of the people who felt there were a lot of laws being violated believed that the law being broken most often was harvest-related. 3.Overall, Colorado hunters, anglers and residents believed that violators of wildlife laws were seldom or never caught. 4.Although many hunters and anglers had heard of Operation Game Thief (OGT), and many hunters and anglers had observed a wildlife violation, few of them had ever called OGT to report a violation.

Responsive Management, 2001

Wyoming Law Enforcement

Responsive Management, 2001