The Identification, Life History, and Habitat Requirements of the Wildlife
Viewer 2002
Mark Damian Duda
Responsive Management
October 2002
Overview of Presentation
Wildlife Values of the U.S. Public:
• Where does wildlife viewing fall on the spectrum of wildlife values among the public?
Wildlife Values of Fish and Wildlife Agency Employees:
• Where does wildlife viewing fall on the spectrum of importance among fish and wildlife agency employees?
Trends in Wildlife Viewing:
• What are the trends in wildlife viewing participation?
Latent Demand for Wildlife Viewing:
• Is there a latent demand for wildlife viewing?
Demand for Wildlife Viewing Information:
• Does the public want information about wildlife viewing?
Overview of Presentation, Cont.
Wildlife Viewing Markets:
• Is there such a thing as a “General Wildlife Viewer?”
Wildlife Viewer Attitudes toward Environmental Issues:
• Are wildlife viewers more conservation/environmentally oriented?
Wildlife Values of Wildlife Viewers:
• What kinds of wildlife values do wildlife viewers hold?
Wildlife Viewer Attitudes toward Agency Program Areas:
• What fish and wildlife agency programs do wildlife viewers support?
Wildlife Viewer Donations to Wildlife Organizations:
• How much money do wildlife viewers donate?
Overview of Presentation, Cont.
Wildlife Viewer Attitudes toward Agency Funding:
• Do wildlife viewers support increased funding for fish and wildlife agencies?
Wildlife Viewer Attitudes toward Hunting:
• Are wildlife viewers more likely to oppose hunting?
Wildlife Viewer Attitudes toward Wildlife Viewing:
• What do wildlife viewers want?
Nongame/Nonconsumptive and Species Preference of Wildlife Viewers:
• What species do wildlife viewers watch?
Recreational Interference and Wildlife Viewing:
• Is there a conflict in the field?
Wildlife Values of the U.S. Public:Where does wildlife viewing fall on the spectrum of wildlife values among the
public?
Percent of Virginia residents who reported each value as being very important.
26
33
47
48
49
51
56
58
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wildlife doesn't interfere with otheractivities
People have the opportunity to HUNT
People have the opportunity to BOAT
People have the opportunity to FISH
To have wildlife around your home
People have the opportunity to viewwildlife
Wildlife exists in VA
F&W populations are properly managed
Percent (n=806)
Percent of Texas residents who reported each value as being very important.
93
80
79
77
74
73
72
69
69
66
62
45
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water resources safe & well protected
Wildlife exists in Texas
Natural areas for enjoying/experiencing nature
Historic sites protected & preserved
Opportunity to view wildlife
Fish & wildlife properly managed/conserved
Opportunity to visit state parks
Ecologically important habitats protected/preserved
Opportunity to fish
Opportunity to visit historically significant sites
Opportunity to boat
Opportunity to hunt
Percent (n=2002)
Percent of Georgia residents who reported each value as being very important.
38
56
69
74
77
81
82
83
0 20 40 60 80 100
Being sure that wildlife does not interferewith your other activities
Knowing that people have the opportunityto hunt in Georgia
Knowing that people have the opportunityto boat in Georgia
Knowing that you have wildlife around yourhome
Knowing that people have the opportunityto fish in Georgia
Knowing that people have the opportunityto view wildlife in Georgia
Knowing that wildlife exists in Georgia
Knowing that fish and wildlife are properlycared for in Georgia
Percent (n=904)
Percent of Idaho residents who said that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game should spend more time
and money on each area.65
54
53
50
47
46
45
44
41
38
35
30
25
0 20 40 60 80 100
Protect water resources
Inform & educate public
Manage fisheries
Manage game for fishing
Manage habitat
Manage impacts of growth/development
Manage & conserve T & E species
Enforce fish & wildlife laws
Conduct research
Manage for increased wildl. viewing
Manage game for hunting
Manage wildlife resources
Provide facilities & info. for wildl. Viewing
Percent
Is providing wildlife viewing opportunties an important or unimportant function of the Fish & Boat and Game
Commissions?
1
6
2
22
68
0 20 40 60 80 100
Veryunimportant
Somewhatunimportant
Neither/Don’tknow
Somewhatimportant
Very important
Percent of Pennsylvania Residents (n=1007)
Wildlife Values of Fish and Wildlife Agency Employees:
Where does wildlife viewing fall on the spectrum of importance among fish and
wildlife agency employees?
Percent of VA Game and Inland Fisheries employees that stated that the VDGIF should spend much more
time and money on each program
12
27
0 20 40 60 80 100
Providing WildlifeViewing
Opportunities
Providing HuntingOpportunities
Percent
12
51
67
79
84
84
85
90
0 20 40 60 80 100
Being sure that wildlife does not interfere with yourother activities
Knowing that people have the opportunity to viewwildlife in Georgia
Knowing that people have the opportunity to boatin Georgia
Knowing that you have wildlife around your home
Knowing that fish and wildlife are properly caredfor in Georgia
Knowing that people have the opportunity to fishin Georgia
Knowing that people have the opportunity to huntin Georgia
Knowing that wildlife exists in Georgia
Percent (n=353)
Importance of fish and wildlife-related issues: percent of Georgia Wildlife Resources Division employees saying the
following are very important
Importance of fish and wildlife-related issues: percent saying the following are very important
(ranked by employees' responses)
11
64
51
81
88
68
70
94
12
51
67
79
84
84
85
90
38
81
69
74
83
77
56
82
0 20 40 60 80 100
Being sure that wildlife does not interfere withyour other activities
Knowing that people have the opportunity toview wildlife in Georgia
Knowing that people have the opportunity toboat in Georgia
Knowing that you have wildlife around yourhome
Knowing that fish and wildlife are properly caredfor in Georgia
Knowing that people have the opportunity to fishin Georgia
Knowing that people have the opportunity tohunt in Georgia
Knowing that wildlife exists in Georgia
Percent
GeneralPopulation(n=904)Employees(n=353)
Stakeholders(n=81)
Trends in Wildlife Viewing:What are the trends in wildlife viewing
participation?
Change in number of Americans whoparticipate in birdwatching
(In millions)
21.2
54.1
70.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
1982-83 1994-95 2000-01
YearsSource: NSRE 2001
Nu
mb
er
of
Pe
op
le
Change in percentage of Americans who participate in birdwatching
12
2733
0
20
40
60
80
100
1982-83 1994-95 2000-01
YearsSource: NSRE 2001
Pe
rce
nt
Number of wildlife-watching participants in the U.S.(In millions)
76.1
62.966.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
1991 1996 2001
YearSource: 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Nu
mb
er
of
Pe
op
le
1991-2001 percent change
Wildlife watching, total……………………………… -13
Residential………………………………………… -15
Observe wildlife…………………………………… -23
Photograph wildlife……………………………….. -18
Feed wild birds or other wildlife………………….. -17
Visit public parks or areas………………………… -29
Maintain plantings or natural areas……………….. -4*
Nonresidential…………………………………….. -27
Observe wildlife………………………………….. -30
Photograph wildlife………………………………. -34
Feed wildlife……………………………………… -47
1991-2001 Wildlife Watching Participants(U.S. population 16 years and older. Numbers in thousands.)
*Not different from zero at the 5 percent level. Source: 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Percent of Americans who have participated in wildlife viewing
1815
10
1416 15 16
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
YearSource: The Recreation Roundtable 2000
Pe
rce
nt
Percent of Americans who have participated in bird watching
1411
811 10 11
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
YearSource: The Recreation Roundtable 2000
Pe
rce
nt
Arizona Residents' Wildlife Participation in "Passive" Activities
84
43
73
83
4339
80
3834
81
3733
86
55
42
0
20
40
60
80
100
Indirect enjoyment (e.g.,television, books, zoos)
Special interest in wildlifeat home
Watch/feed/photographwildlife away from home
Per
cen
t
1992 Study 1994 Study 1996 Study 1998 Study 2000 Study
Arizona Residents' Wildlife Participation in "Active" Activities
46
31 30
14
45
27 26
13
44
26 24
12
35
26 25
9
45
2530
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
Off-highwaydriving
Fishing Boating Hunting
Pe
rce
nt
1992 Study 1994 Study 1996 Study 1998 Study 2000 Study
Latent Demand for Wildlife Viewing:Is there a latent demand for wildlife
viewing?
Total interest in various activities: percent of Georgia residents who did not participate but expressed interest in
participating in the following activities
12
25
28
29
32
35
0 20 40 60 80 100
Hunting
Freshwater fishing
View wildlife aroundhome
Saltwater fishing
Boating/jetskiing
Trip to view wildlife
Percent (n=904)
Percent of Virginia residents that reported interest in going hunting/fishing/taking a trip to view wildlife in
Virginia.
52
47
88
11
63
37
0 20 40 60 80 100
No
Yes
Percent
Fishing (n=498)
Hunting (n=703)
Viewing (n=641)
Percent of non-participants in Texas that reported being very interested in participating in each of the following
activities
14
17
20
21
22
24
26
27
28
33
37
0 20 40 60 80 100
Canoeing or kayaking (n=763)
Freshwater fishing (n=503)
Boating (Motorboat) (n=568)
Camping (n=594)
Viewing or enjoying wildlife around home (n=357)
Taking a trip away from home to view wildlife (n=537)
Visiting a nature center (n=607)
Picnicking (n=450)
Visiting historic sites (n=479)
Visiting a park or natural area within 1 mile of home (n=530)
Visiting state parks (n=540)
Percent
Percent of non-participants in Texas that reported being very interested in participating in each of the following
activities (continued)
6
9
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
13
14
0 20 40 60 80 100
Rock climbing (n=774)
Hunting (n=680)
Mountain biking (n=768)
Playing ball sports (n=565)
Target or sport shooting (n=700)
Biking (n=647)
Jet skiing or waverunner (n=713)
Swimming in natural waters (n=495)
Hiking (n=655)
Sailing (n=780)
Saltwater fishing (n=503)
Percent
Demand for Wildlife Viewing Information:
Does the public want information about wildlife viewing?
Percent of Delaware residents that reported interest in the following topics
1
44
53
66
69
71
73
74
76
0 20 40 60 80 100
None of these
Managing farms/forests for wildlife
Creating a backyard habitat
Dealing with nuisance wildlife
Info. about hunting and fishing
How to be active with local groups
How to view wildlife
What to do w/injured wildlife
Places to view wildlife
Mu
ltip
le R
esp
onse
s A
llow
ed
Percent (n=233)
Percent of Virginia residents that reported interest in the following topics
28
30
40
43
45
54
55
57
58
0 20 40 60 80 100
Information about hunting
Managing farms and forests for wildlife
Information on boating
How to become active with local wildlifeconservation
Information about fishing
Enjoying wildlife around your home
Dealing with nuisance wildlife
What to do with injured wildlife
Information about wildlife viewing
Mu
ltip
le R
es
po
ns
es
Allo
we
d
Percent (n = 806)
Wildlife Viewing Markets:Is there such a thing as a “General
Wildlife Viewer?”
Is there such a thing as a “General Wildlife Viewer?”
• “Birder”• Birdwatcher• Wildlife Viewer• Wildlife Watcher• Primary Residential Wildlife Viewer• Primary Nonresidential Wildlife Viewer• Secondary Residential Wildlife Viewer• Secondary Nonresidential Wildlife Viewer• Ability to Identify a Specified Number of Birds
Wildlife Viewer Attitudes toward Environmental Issues:
Are wildlife viewers more conservation/environmentally oriented?
Attitudes toward Environmental Issues, as Measured by the Following Questions:
• Would you say there are too many, about the right amount or too few wetlands in North America?
• Do you think it is important or unimportant to conserve waterfowl populations?
• Do you think it is important or unimportant to protect and conserve wetlands?
Attitudes toward Environmental Issues, Continued.
• Residential wildlife viewers are significantly more likely to think that there are too few wetlands in North America.
• Wildlife viewing trip takers are significantly more likely to think there are too few wetlands in North America.
• Residential wildlife viewers are significantly more likely to think that it is important to conserve waterfowl populations.
• Wildlife viewing trip takers are significantly more likely to think that it is important to conserve waterfowl populations.
Attitudes toward Environmental Issues, Continued.
• Birdwatchers are significantly more likely to think that it is important to conserve waterfowl populations.
• Residential wildlife viewers are significantly more likely to think that it is important to protect and conserve wetlands.
• Wildlife viewing trip takers are significantly more likely to think that it is important to protect and conserve wetlands.
• Birdwatchers are significantly more likely to think that it is important to protect and conserve wetlands.
Wildlife Values of Wildlife Viewers:What kinds of wildlife values do wildlife
viewers hold?
Texas residential wildlife viewers, wildlife viewing trip takers, and birdwatchers are all significantly
higher in their support/importance ratings for knowing that (exceptions noted):
• Wildlife exists• Fish and wildlife populations are being properly managed• People have the opportunity to fish• People have the opportunity to hunt• People have the opportunity to boat• People have the opportunity to view wildlife• Ecologically important habitats and lands are being protected and preserved• Natural areas exist in Texas for enjoying and experiencing nature• Historic sites are protected and preserved• Water resources are safe and well protected (unrelated to nonresidential
wildlife viewing)• People have the opportunity to visit historically significant sites
(significantly lower for nonresidential wildlife viewers)
Wildlife Viewer Attitudes toward Agency Program Areas:
What fish and wildlife agency programs do wildlife viewers support?
Percent of wildlife viewing trip takers in Georgia that felt each program area was extremely
important for the Georgia Wildlife Resources Division
35
35
29
28
26
25
0 20 40 60 80 100
Enforcement
Education
Resource management
Outreach and communication
Land acquisition
Recreation
Percent
Wildlife Viewer Donations to Wildlife Organizations:
How much money do wildlife viewers donate?
How much money would you say you donate, per year, to conservation or wildlife-related
causes or organizations?
$15.01
$17.08
$17.13
$44.08
$49.39
$50.39
$31.89
$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00
Birdwatcher (n=444)
Wildlife viewer around home (n=491)
Wildlife viewing trip taker (n=548)
Not Birdwatcher (n=556)
Not Wildlife viewing trip taker (n=452)
Not Wildlife viewer around home (n=509)
Total (n=1000)
Mean Dollars
Percent of Vermont residents that donated to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department's
NONGAME WILDLIFE FUND in the last 2 years
16
84
31
69
0 20 40 60 80 100
Did not donateto Fund
Donated toFund
Percent
Did not take a specialinterest in wildlife aroundhome (n=202)
Took a special interest inwildlife around home(n=803)
Percent of Vermont residents that donated to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department's
NONGAME WILDLIFE FUND in the last 2 years
18
82
35
65
0 20 40 60 80 100
Did not donateto Fund
Donated toFund
Did not take trip (n=422)
Took trip (n=583)
Wildlife Viewer Attitudes toward Agency Funding:
Do wildlife viewers support increased funding for fish and wildlife agencies?
Percent of Vermont residents that support various funding mechanisms
Part 1
51
37
40
36
67
54
54
50
0 20 40 60 80 100
Q24. Do you support or oppose the Departmentcontinuing to receive this portion of the Rooms
and Meals tax?
Q35. Would you support or oppose theDepartment receiving general fund dollars forprograms and activities in which it participates
but does not receive funding?
Q36. Would you support or opposeredistributing a portion of the current state
sales tax so that the Fish and WildlifeDepartment would receive 1/8 of 1% of the
EXISTING sales tax?
Q29. Would you support or oppose chargingdevelopers a fee for these evaluations to
expand Department programs?
Percent
Did not take a specialinterest in wildlifearound home
Took a special interestin wildlife around home
Percent of Vermont residents that support various funding mechanisms
Part 2
21
34
36
40
31
30
39
47
0 20 40 60 80 100
Q28. Would you support or oppose theDepartment receiving a small percentage of the
CURRENT sales tax that is received fromcertain outdoor recreation items?
Q25. Would you support or oppose requiringpeople to buy an annual "Boating Access AreaPermit" as a way for the Department to expand
current Department programs?
Q31. Would you support or oppose raisingfishing license fees to expand Department
FISHING PROGRAMS?
Q26. Would you support or oppose raisinghunting license fees to expand Department
HUNTING PROGRAMS?
Percent
Did not take a specialinterest in wildlife aroundhome
Took a special interest inwildlife around home
Percent of Vermont residents that support various funding mechanisms
Part 3
16
28
31
25
25
26
26
29
0 20 40 60 80 100
Q27. Would you support or oppose raisinghunting license fees to expand DEPARTMENT
PROGRAMS OVERALL?
Q33. Would you support or oppose requiringpeople to buy an annual "Wildlife Management
Area conservation Use Permit" as a way toexpand Department programs?
Q32. Would you support or oppose raisingfishing license fees to expand DEPARTMENT
PROGRAMS OVERALL?
Q34. Would you support or oppose a 1/8 of 1%INCREASE in the STATE GENERAL SALES TAX
to expand Department programs?
Percent
Did not take a specialinterest in wildlifearound home
Took a special interest inwildlife around home
Would you support or oppose more TPW funding to…
• Provide additional access to outdoor recreation opportunities?
• Preserve more historic sites?
• Enhance efforts for managing and conserving fish and wildlife populations?
• Buy additional land for conservation of natural resources and outdoor recreation use?
*Residential wildlife viewers, wildlife viewing trip takers, and birdwatchers are all significantly higher in their support for funding for these programs.
Wildlife Viewer Attitudes toward Hunting:
Are wildlife viewers more likely to oppose hunting?
Attitudes toward Hunting, Measured by the Following Question:
In general, do you approve or disapprove of hunting?(Asked of U.S. residents, 18 years of age or older)
• Residential wildlife viewers are significantly more likely to approve of hunting.
• Wildlife viewing trip takers are not more likely to approve/disapprove of hunting.
• Birdwatchers are not more likely to approve/disapprove of hunting.
Wildlife Viewer Attitudes toward Wildlife Viewing:
What do wildlife viewers want?
Most important reasons cited by nonresidential wildlife viewers for taking wildlife viewing trips in
Virginia in the past five years
1
2
2
3
3
4
9
12
14
22
22
39
0 20 40 60 80 100
None of these reasons
To use special equipment
To be alone
To get exercise and fresh air
To see unusual or rare species
For spiritual reasons
To get away from it all
Other reasons
To learn more about nature
For relaxation
To be with friends and family
To observe beauty in nature
Mu
ltip
le R
esp
on
ses
Allo
wed
Percent (n = 157)(Regional data averaged for statewide representation)
Percent of nonresidential wildlife viewers that usually bring the following items when taking a
wildlife viewing trip in Virginia
3
5
24
29
31
62
0 20 40 60 80 100
Night visiongoggles
A spotting scope
None of these items
An identificationguide
Food to feed wildanimals
A pair of binoculars
Mu
ltip
le R
esp
on
ses
Allo
wed
Percent (n = 157)(Regional data averaged for statewide representation)
Percent of nonresidential wildlife viewers that reported the following items would strongly add to
enjoyment at wildlife viewing areas in Virginia
22
26
29
37
38
38
41
41
52
62
63
0 20 40 60 80 100
Visitor or nature centers
Guided tours
Picnic grounds
Boardwalks through wetlands
Wildlife viewing areas in wild areas
Self-guided tours
Viewing blinds and observation towers
Restrooms
Outdoor educational displays
Printed materials
Nature trails
Percent (n = 157)(Regional data averaged for statewide representation)
Nongame/Nonconsumptive and Species Preference of Wildlife
Viewers:What species do wildlife viewers watch?
Percent of nonresidential wildlife viewers that reported taking a trip to view each species in the
past two years in Virginia
8
23
26
34
35
36
44
47
49
60
62
69
0 20 40 60 80 100
None of these / Don't know
Other animals
Reptiles or amphibians
Shore birds
Black bear
Butterflies
Fish
Wild turkey
Songbirds
Hawks, owls or eagles
Ducks or geese
White-tailed deer
Mu
ltip
le R
esp
on
ses
All
ow
ed
Percent (n = 157)(Regional data averaged for statewide representation)
Recreational Interference and Wildlife Viewing:
Is there a conflict in the field?
Percent of nonresidential wildlife viewers that reported interference with the following
recreationists while talking wildlife viewing trips in Virginia
1111111333
780
0 20 40 60 80 100
SwimmersCampers
Mountain bikersAnglersHunters
Jet skiersBoaters, excluding jet skiers
HikersPeople four-wheelingOther wildlife viewers
OtherNo: no interference
Mu
ltip
le R
esp
on
ses
Allo
wed
Percent (n = 157)(Regional data averaged for statewide representation)
Do you agree or disagree that a lot of wildlife viewers violate wildlife laws or practice unethical
behavior while viewing wildlife?(Percent of nonresidential wildlife viewers)
10
13
15
24
38
0 20 40 60 80 100
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neutral / Don't know
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Percent (n = 157)(Regional data averaged for statewide representation)
Q62. What types of laws or unethical behavior do wildlife viewers violate most often?
(Percent of nonresidential wildlife viewers)
15
17
17
19
21
27
29
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other
Interrupting animals' normal behavior
Scaring animals
Pollution
Trampling habitats
Feeding animals
Getting too close to wildlife
Mu
ltip
le R
esp
on
ses
Allo
wed
Percent (n = 98)(Regional data averaged for statewide representation)
Would you support or oppose the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries increasing efforts to teach wildlife viewers
appropriate wildlife viewing behavior?(Percent of nonresidential wildlife viewers)
2
1
3
23
71
0 20 40 60 80 100
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Neutral / Don'tknow
Somewhat support
Strongly support
Percent (n = 157)(Regional data averaged for statewide representation)