opinions on fish, wildlife, and land use among vermont residents, hunters, and...

OPINIONS ON FISH, WILDLIFE, AND LAND USE AMONG VERMONT RESIDENTS,

HUNTERS, AND ANGLERS

Conducted for the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department

by Responsive Management

2015

OPINIONS ON FISH, WILDLIFE, AND LAND USE AMONG VERMONT RESIDENTS,

HUNTERS, AND ANGLERS

2015

Responsive Management National Office Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director

Martin Jones, Senior Research Associate Tom Beppler, Research Associate

Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Associate Amanda Center, Research Associate

Andrea Criscione, Research Associate Patrick Doherty, Research Associate

Gregory L. Hughes, P.E., Research Associate Tristan Kirkman, Research Associate

Claudia Reilly, Survey Center Manager Alison Lanier, Business Manager

130 Franklin Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801

540/432-1888 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.responsivemanagement.com

Acknowledgments

Responsive Management would like to thank Kim Royar of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department for her input, support, and guidance on this project.

Opinions on Fish, Wildlife, and Land Use Among Vermont Residents, Hunters, and Anglers i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted for the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (hereinafter referred to

as the Department) to determine the opinions of residents, hunters, and anglers on issues

pertaining to the intersection of land use and the management of fish and wildlife. The study

entailed three scientific telephone surveys of Vermont residents, hunters, and anglers.

For the surveys, telephones were selected as the preferred sampling medium because of the

almost universal ownership of telephones among all three samples in Vermont. Note that both

landlines and cell phones were called in their proper proportions for the sample of Vermont

residents; landlines and cell phones were called for the samples of hunters and anglers depending

on the telephone that was associated with their license. Note that telephone surveys, relative to

mail or Internet surveys, allow for more scientific sampling and data collection, provide higher

quality data, obtain higher response rates, are more timely, and are more cost-effective for

general population surveys such as the survey of residents. Telephone surveys also have fewer

negative effects on the environment than do mail surveys because of reduced use of paper and

reduced energy consumption for delivering and returning the questionnaires.

The telephone survey questionnaire (the same questionnaire was used for all three surveys) was

developed cooperatively by Responsive Management and the Department.

The sample of Vermont residents comprised a random landline sample and a random cell phone

sample. This is called a dual-frame sample of residents because it consists of these two separate

samples. Both the landline sample and the cell phone sample were obtained from SSI, a firm

that specializes in providing scientifically valid samples for survey research. The two parts of

the dual-frame sample were called in their proper proportions to be representative of Vermont

residents, including those with landlines only, those with cell phones only, and those with both.

The samples of hunters and anglers were obtained from the Department; it consisted of those

who held a hunting and/or fishing license.

ii Responsive Management

The surveys were conducted in June and July 2015. The software used for data collection was

Questionnaire Programming Language. Responsive Management obtained a total of 802

completed interviews with residents, 200 completed interviews with hunters, and 203 completed

interviews with anglers.

The analysis of data was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences as well as

proprietary software developed by Responsive Management.

PROBLEMS THAT VERMONT FACES

� The survey asked about the most important issues/factors that negatively affect the quality of

life. This was open-ended and allowed multiple issues/factors to be named.

• Among residents, the top responses relate to pollution/environmental degradation (21%),

financial issues (17%), and poor health/age (14%).

• Among hunters and anglers, the same responses that residents give are prominent:

pollution/environmental degradation (11% of hunters, 15% of anglers), financial issues

(17% and 18%), and poor health/age (14% and 12%)

� The survey presented six potential problems to respondents. For each potential problem,

they were asked to rate it as a big problem, a small problem, or no problem.

• Among residents, the problem of invasive species has the most saying it is a big problem

(71% say it is a big problem), followed by global climate change (64% say it is a big

problem).

o A similar study in 1992 showed only 57% of respondents stating that invasive

species is a big problem; however, note that the 1992 study referred to “nuisance

aquatic plants” rather than “invasive species.”

• Among hunters, two problems are at the top: invasive species (70% say it is a big

problem) and the posting of private land (55%). Among anglers, the top problems are

invasive species (68%) and forest/habitat fragmentation (48%).

Opinions on Fish, Wildlife, and Land Use Among Vermont Residents, Hunters, and Anglers iii

Q24-29: Percent of residents who believe each of

the following is a big problem:

71

64

46

46

41

26

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q25. Invasivespecies

Q24. Globalclimate change

Q26. Forest andhabitat

fragmentation

Q27. Fish and

wildlife habitatloss

Q28. Loss of

Vermont'sscenic

landscape

Q29. Posting ofprivate land

Percent

iv Responsive Management

� The survey directly asked about another potential problem: suburban sprawl. The statement

was made that “suburban sprawl is not yet a problem in Vermont,” and respondents were

asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement.

• A slight majority of residents think this is a problem, with 52% disagreeing with the

statement. On the other hand, 39% agree that it is not yet a problem.

o A similar survey in 1998 showed 29% of respondents agreeing with the statement

that suburban sprawl is not yet a problem.

• Among hunters, 48% disagree (i.e., think suburban sprawl is a problem), while 44%

agree. Among anglers, 49% disagree, while 44% agree.

� The survey directly asked about another potential problem, somewhat related to the above

problem: forest fragmentation and loss. Again, respondents were asked if they agree or

disagree that “forest fragmentation and loss is a problem in Vermont.”

• The large majority of residents agree with this statement (i.e., think it is a problem): 61%

agree, while 18% disagree.

• Hunters and anglers are more likely than the general population to agree. Among

hunters, 68% agree, while 23% disagree. Among anglers, 67% agree, and 21% disagree.

PARTICIPATION IN WILDLIFE-ASSOCIATED RECREATION

� The survey asked about participation in a dozen wildlife-associated activities.

• Very large majorities of residents have participated in the past 12 months in wildlife

viewing (81% did so within 1 mile of home; 74% did so greater than 1 mile from home).

Large majorities also visited a state or national park (63%) or went hiking (61%). A

majority participated in birdwatching (55%).

o The trend graph shows substantial increases in participation, since 2003, in

wildlife viewing more than one mile from home (74% in 2015 compared to 53%

in 2003), visiting state or national parks (63% in 2015 versus 49% in 2003), and

canoeing/kayaking (40% in 2015 versus 27% in 2003).

• Among hunters, top activities are hunting (86%—note that the sample is from licenses, so

the hunter need not have hunted in the past year to be in the sample), viewing wildlife

Opinions on Fish, Wildlife, and Land Use Among Vermont Residents, Hunters, and Anglers v

within a mile of home (86%), viewing wildlife more than a mile from home (79%),

fishing (79%), and hiking (51%).

• Among anglers, top activities are fishing (85%), wildlife viewing within a mile of home

(78%), wildlife viewing more than a mile from home (76%), hiking (60%), hunting

(52%), and camping (50%).

� In follow-up to the above question, the survey asked about the importance that people have

the opportunity in Vermont to participate in wildlife-related outdoor recreation.

• The large majority of residents (91%) say it is very important, and another 8% say it is

somewhat important, which is nearly all the respondents.

o This is an increase compared to a similar study in 2000, in which 80% of

respondents stated it is very important.

• This is even more important for hunters and anglers: 96% (hunters) and 95% (anglers)

say it is very important, and nearly all say it is very or somewhat important.

KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION OF THE VERMONT FISH AND WILDLIFE

DEPARTMENT

� The amount of knowledge that respondents have of the Department was assessed (self-

professed knowledge, no “test” was given). Not surprisingly, hunters and anglers claim more

knowledge of the Department, compared to residents.

• Most commonly, residents say that they know a moderate amount about the Department

(41% give this response) or they know a little (40%). Only 14% claim to know a great

deal.

• Hunters appear to be the most knowledgeable. Half of hunters claim to know a moderate

amount (50%), and another 29% claim to know a great deal. Among anglers, 37% claim

to know a moderate amount, and 28% claim to know a great deal.

� The survey asked about satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the Department as a government

agency.

• The large majority of residents are satisfied with the Department (76%, including 44%

being very satisfied). Only 3% are dissatisfied (the remainder giving a neutral response).

vi Responsive Management

o Those who went fishing in the previous 12 months are most often very satisfied

with the Department (52% stated this), whereas those who did not do any wildlife

viewing or birdwatching in the previous 12 months are least often very satisfied

(37%).

o The percent of residents who are very satisfied with the Department (44%)

increased substantially since 2003 (25%).

• Large majorities of hunters and anglers are satisfied: 76% of hunters and 80% of anglers

are satisfied (40% and 47%, respectively, are very satisfied).

� The survey asked about how the Department does at effectively balancing the interests of

anglers, hunters, conservation groups, and the general public.

• Most residents agree that the Department achieves this balance (76% agree); meanwhile,

a small percentage disagree (7%).

o Residents who most often strongly agree are those with an income less than

$50,000 per year (54% stated this) and those who indicated they are satisfied with

the Department in general (53%).

o Residents who strongly agree that the Department achieves this balance increased

from 33% in 2003 to 42% in 2015.

• While hunters and anglers agree at about the same rate as does the general population,

their rate of disagreement is higher (at the expense of “don’t know” responses): 77% of

hunters and 75% of anglers agree; however, 17% of hunters and 11% of anglers disagree.

IMPORTANCE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

� One question directly compared wildlife with economic development. Wildlife is favored by

survey respondents by a large amount in these general questions.

• The large majority of Vermont residents (75%) disagree that economic development is

more important than wildlife. Most of that is strong disagreement (49%). Only 12%

agree, the rest being neutral.

• Likewise, the large majority of hunters (81%) and anglers (76%) disagree, with most of

that being strong disagreement (55% of hunters, 57% of anglers). The percentages that

agree are 8% of hunters and 11% of anglers.

Opinions on Fish, Wildlife, and Land Use Among Vermont Residents, Hunters, and Anglers vii

� The survey asked about agreement or disagreement with this statement: Threatened and

endangered species must be protected. Agreement is overwhelming. Agreement is also

overwhelming with this statement: Knowing that Vermont’s native fish and wildlife

populations are healthy and surviving well is very important to me even if I don’t get to see

them.

OPINIONS ON LAND USE IN VERMONT

� The survey asked for opinions on the amount of state-owned land in Vermont: should it be

increased, decreased, or stay the same? It is roughly split between stay the same and

increased; very few want it decreased.

• Most commonly, residents think that the amount of state-owned land should stay the

same (47% give this response). Otherwise, residents are much more likely to say that

they want it increased (39%) than decreased (5%).

o Since 1997, the percent of residents who want the amount of state-owned land to

increase has declined (61% in 1997 compared to 39% in 2015), with more

residents now wanting the amount to stay the same (28% in 1997 versus 47% in

2015).

• Responses are similar among hunters and anglers. The most common response is stay the

same (45% of hunters, 48% of anglers), and those wanting an increase (44% of hunters,

40% of anglers) far outnumber those wanting a decrease (5% of hunters, 6% of anglers).

� Respondents generally think that state ownership of land is important to maintain biological

diversity.

• The overwhelming majority of residents (89%) think that state ownership of land is

important to maintain biological diversity, most of that being in the very important

response.

• Hunters and anglers are similar to residents on this question: 90% of hunters think it is

important (62% thinking it is very important), and 87% of anglers think it is important

(61% saying very important).

viii Responsive Management

� Respondents overwhelmingly think it is important that ecologically important habitats and

land in Vermont are being protected and preserved.

• Among residents, 97% think this is important, including 75% who say it is very

important. There is little change since 2000.

o Residents who most often think this is very important are those who live in a large

city, urban area, or suburban area (87% stated this) and those with an income less

than $50,000 per year (82%).

• Hunters and anglers, as with residents, also overwhelmingly think it is important.

� Finally in this section, the survey presented four statements to respondents that pertain to the

tradeoff between land development and habitat protection. For each, respondents indicated if

they agree or disagree with it. In general, they side with habitat protection over unfettered

use of land.

• Among residents, agreement is high that the use and development of land should be

restricted to protect fish and wildlife (83%) and that wildlife habitat must be protected

even if it reduces the land use options of some landowners and developers (81%), as

shown on the graph. However, statements favoring development are not well received:

disagreement ranges from 74% to 77% on the two statements that favor development

over wildlife. There is little marked change since 2003.

• Hunters and anglers are much the same as residents.

Opinions on Fish, Wildlife, and Land Use Among Vermont Residents, Hunters, and Anglers ix

Q44-47: Percent of residents who strongly or

moderately agree with the following:

83

81

20

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q45. The use and development of land

should be restricted to protect fish andwildlife.

Q44. Wildlife habitat must be protected

even if it reduces the land use optionsof some landowners and developers.

Q46. Landowners should be allowed todevelop their land regardless of its

impact on wildlife.

Q47. If it came down to a choice

between preserving wildlife habitat orproviding land for new homes, we

should always side with providing newhomes for the residents of our state.

Percent

x Responsive Management

OPINIONS ON DEPARTMENT ACTIONS AS THEY RELATE TO BOTH LAND USE

AND FISH/WILDLIFE

� Respondents overwhelmingly agree that hunting and fishing are part of scientific

management of healthy fish and wildlife populations.

• Among residents, 91% agree, with 67% strongly agreeing. There is little change since

2003.

• Among recreationists, hunters are almost unanimous (98% agree); with anglers just under

that (93% agree).

� Respondents generally place much importance on protecting endangered species.

• The huge majority of residents (95%) think protecting endangered species is very or

somewhat important (with 76% saying very important). There is little change since 2003.

• Hunters and anglers are like the general population: 95% of hunters and 97% of anglers

place importance on this.

� There is much support for having the Department protect important wildlife habitat by

purchasing land.

• The large majority of residents support (83%); opposition is low (9%). There is little

change since 2003.

• Hunters and anglers generally support (85% and 87%, respectively).

� The survey presented six possible strategies for protecting land for fish and wildlife. For

each strategy, respondents rated their level of support for it or opposition to it.

• Residents most favor the provision of technical assistance/guidance (75% strongly

support) and tax incentives (70%). Furthermore, the purchase of conservation easements

(62%) is favored over outright purchase of land (46%). (Note that when looking at strong

or moderate support, the percentages are very high—from 78% to 95%.) In the middle

are two strategies that entail more regulation.

• Hunters and anglers also show the most support for technical assistance/guidance and tax

incentives. In the middle are requiring developers to provide mitigation actions and the

Opinions on Fish, Wildlife, and Land Use Among Vermont Residents, Hunters, and Anglers xi

purchase of conservation easements. At the bottom for hunters and anglers are

purchasing more state land and more government regulations.

Q52-57: Percent of residents who strongly support

each of the following strategies for protecting land

for fish and wildlife:

75

70

62

57

49

46

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q53. Providing technical assistanceand guidance to landowners and towns

for managing land for the purpose ofprotecting fish and wildlife

Q55. Offering a "current use" propertytax incentive

Q54. Purchasing conservationeasements

Q56. Requiring developers to offsetimpacts on wildlife habitat by providing

mitigation

Q57. Legislation or governmentregulation that would further protect

land for fish and wildlife

Q52. Acquiring more state land for thepurpose of protecting fish and wildlife

Percent

xii Responsive Management

FUNDING OF FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

� The survey listed four items to see where open land falls on the spectrum (the other items

were police/fire services, roads, and schools). Respondents were asked if they would be

willing to pay an extra percentage in taxes for each.

• The top of the list among residents is roads (61% would pay extra in taxes for them) and

police/fire services (56%). These are both slightly above open land (52%) and

schools (51%).

o Similar surveys were conducted in 1990, 1995, and 2000. Respondents’

willingness to pay extra taxes for open land has remained relatively stable over

the years, while it has steadily increased for roads and police and fire services.

• While the percentage of hunters saying that they would pay extra taxes for open land is

about the same as among residents, their ranking of it is higher than the ranking among

residents. Anglers also say open land at about the same rate as do residents, but they rank

open land last in the items for which they would pay more taxes.

� Respondents are split between wanting funding for fish and wildlife conservation programs

to be increased or kept the same (with very few wanting funding to be decreased).

• Among residents, 44% want funding to stay the same (the most common response), while

38% want it increased; only 2% want it decreased. There is little change since 1995.

o Residents most likely to want funding increased are those who went canoeing or

kayaking in the past 12 months (45% stated this) and those who went camping

(43%).

• Hunters and anglers are even more in the conservationist camp: 48% of hunters and 49%

of anglers want funding to stay the same; meanwhile, 44% of hunters and 41% of anglers

want funding increased (the decreased responses are at 2% and 3%).

� Finally, five funding options were presented in the survey. Respondents were told that the

funding would be used for a land conservation initiative to ensure the future of fish and

wildlife populations, habitat, and public access to lands for recreation. For each,

respondents were asked if they would support or oppose it.

• A majority of residents strongly or moderately support three of the five taxes: a one-

eighth of 1% increase in the state general sales tax, a state tax on sporting equipment, and

Opinions on Fish, Wildlife, and Land Use Among Vermont Residents, Hunters, and Anglers xiii

a bond (support ranges from 59% to 61%). There is less than a majority who support a

parking fee on state lands or a registration fee for kayaks and canoes.

• Hunters’ and anglers’ opinions mirror those of residents. At the top is the bond, followed

by the one-eighth of 1% sales tax and the tax on sporting equipment. At the bottom are

the registration fee for kayaks/canoes and the parking fee.


moderately support each of the following to

provide funding for a land conservation initiative:

61

59

59

45

43

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q73. A one-eighthof 1% increase inthe state general

sales tax

Q74. A state tax inVermont on

sporting equipment

Q72. A bond tofund land

acquisition

Q71. A parking fee

on state lands

Q70. A registrationfee for kayaks and

canoes

Percent

xiv Responsive Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 1 Use of Telephones for the Survey........................................................................................................ 1 Questionnaire Design........................................................................................................................... 1 Survey Samples.................................................................................................................................... 2 Telephone Interviewing Facilities........................................................................................................ 2 Interviewing Dates and Times ............................................................................................................. 3 Telephone Survey Data Collection and Quality Control ..................................................................... 3 Data Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 3 Sampling Error..................................................................................................................................... 4 Additional Information About the Presentation of Results in the Report............................................ 5 How to Interpret the Demographic Correlation Graphs....................................................................... 6

Problems That Vermont Faces...................................................................................................................... 7 Participation in Wildlife-Associated Recreation......................................................................................... 28 Knowledge and Opinion of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department ................................................... 35 The Intersection of Land Use and Fish/Wildlife Management ................................................................... 50

Importance of Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 50 Opinions on Land Use in Vermont .................................................................................................... 60 Opinions on Department Actions as They Relate to Both Land Use and Fish/Wildlife.................... 81

Funding of Fish and Wildlife Management .............................................................................................. 101 Demographic Questions............................................................................................................................ 118 About Responsive Management ............................................................................................................... 129

Opinions on Fish, Wildlife, and Land Use Among Vermont Residents, Hunters, and Anglers 1

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted for the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (hereinafter referred to

as the Department) to determine the opinions of residents, hunters, and anglers on issues

pertaining to the intersection of land use and the management of fish and wildlife. The study

entailed three scientific telephone surveys of Vermont residents, hunters, and anglers. Specific

aspects of the research methodology are discussed below.

USE OF TELEPHONES FOR THE SURVEY

For the surveys, telephones were selected as the preferred sampling medium because of the

almost universal ownership of telephones among all three samples in Vermont. Note that both

landlines and cell phones were called in their proper proportions for the sample of Vermont

residents; landlines and cell phones were called for the samples of hunters and anglers depending

on the telephone that was associated with their license. Note that telephone surveys, relative to

mail or Internet surveys, allow for more scientific sampling and data collection, provide higher

quality data, obtain higher response rates, are more timely, and are more cost-effective for

general population surveys such as the survey of residents. Telephone surveys also have fewer

negative effects on the environment than do mail surveys because of reduced use of paper and

reduced energy consumption for delivering and returning the questionnaires.

QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

The telephone survey questionnaire (the same questionnaire was used for all three surveys) was

developed cooperatively by Responsive Management and the Department, based on the research

team’s familiarity with natural resources, land use, and wildlife-associated recreation in general,

as well as hunting and fishing specifically.

The survey included questions that had been asked in previous surveys conducted by various

researchers. These studies are listed further on in the section, “Data Analysis.”

2 Responsive Management

SURVEY SAMPLES

The sample of Vermont residents comprised a random landline sample and a random cell phone

sample. This is called a dual-frame sample of residents because it consists of these two separate

samples. Both the landline sample and the cell phone sample were obtained from SSI, a firm

that specializes in providing scientifically valid samples for survey research. The two parts of

the dual-frame sample were called in their proper proportions to be representative of Vermont

residents, including those with landlines only, those with cell phones only, and those with both.

This dual-frame sample of residents used a probability-based selection process that ensured that

each adult resident had an essentially equal chance of being selected for the survey.

The samples of hunters and anglers were obtained from the Department; it consisted of those

who held a hunting and/or fishing license.

TELEPHONE INTERVIEWING FACILITIES

A central polling site at the Responsive Management office allowed for rigorous quality control

over the interviews and data collection. Responsive Management maintains its own in-house

telephone interviewing facilities. These facilities are staffed by interviewers with experience

conducting computer-assisted telephone interviews on the subjects of outdoor recreation and

natural resources.

To ensure the integrity of the telephone survey data, Responsive Management has interviewers

who have been trained according to the standards established by the Council of American Survey

Research Organizations. Methods of instruction included lecture and role-playing. The Survey

Center Managers and other professional staff conducted a project briefing with the interviewers

prior to the administration of these surveys. Interviewers were instructed on type of study, study

goals and objectives, handling of survey questions, interview length, termination points and

qualifiers for participation, interviewer instructions within the survey questionnaire (one

questionnaire was used for all three surveys), reading of the survey questions, skip patterns, and

probing and clarifying techniques necessary for specific questions on the survey questionnaire.


INTERVIEWING DATES AND TIMES

Telephone surveying times are Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday

from noon to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., local time. A five-callback

design was used to maintain the representativeness of the sample, to avoid bias toward people

easy to reach by telephone, and to provide an equal opportunity for all to participate. When a

respondent could not be reached on the first call, subsequent calls were placed on different days

of the week and at different times of the day. The surveys were conducted in June and

July 2015.

TELEPHONE SURVEY DATA COLLECTION AND QUALITY CONTROL

The software used for data collection was Questionnaire Programming Language (QPL). The

survey data were entered into the computer as each interview was being conducted, eliminating

manual data entry after the completion of the survey and the concomitant data entry errors that

may occur with manual data entry. The survey questionnaire was programmed so that QPL

branched, coded, and substituted phrases in the survey based on previous responses to ensure the

integrity and consistency of the data collection.

The Survey Center Managers and statisticians monitored the data collection, including

monitoring of the actual telephone interviews without the interviewers’ knowledge, to evaluate

the performance of each interviewer and ensure the integrity of the data. The survey

questionnaire itself contains error checkers and computation statements to ensure quality and

consistent data. After the surveys were obtained by the interviewers, the Survey Center

Managers and/or statisticians checked each completed survey to ensure clarity and completeness.

Responsive Management obtained a total of 802 completed interviews with residents, 200

completed interviews with hunters, and 203 completed interviews with anglers.

DATA ANALYSIS

The analysis of data was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences as well as

proprietary software developed by Responsive Management. Although the respondents from

whom interviews were gathered as a whole fairly closely matched the actual demographic

breakdown of adult residents of Vermont, the general population results were weighted slightly


by age and gender so that the sample was exactly representative of residents of Vermont as a

whole.

Trends were analyzed based on twelve other studies:

• 1990, 1995, 2000: Vermont Business Roundtable. Pulse of Vermont, Quality of Life Study (three studies).

• 1992. Manning, Schmidt, and Wiberg (UVM). Vermont Recreation Survey and Environmental Index.

• 1994. Glass and More. Human Relationships With Wildlife in Vermont. • 1995. Responsive Management (RM). Vermont Residents’ Opinions and Attitudes

Toward Alternative Funding. • 1995. Buck and Williams. Expenditures and Opinions of Vermont Residents

Participating in Non-Consumptive Wildlife-Based Recreation. • 1996. RM. Vermont Residents’ Opinions and Attitudes Toward Species Management. • 1997. ANR. Land Conservation Survey. • 1998. Vermont Population Alliance. Vermont Population Alliance Survey. • 2000. RM. Vermont Residents’ Attitudes Toward Program Priorities and Alternative

Funding Mechanisms for the VFWD. • 2003. RM. Public Opinion on Fish and Wildlife Management Issues and the Reputation

and Credibility of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in the Northeast United States.

SAMPLING ERROR

The sampling errors are shown in the tabulation below, which is followed by the sampling error

equation that was used.

Sample Size Population Size Sampling Error Residents (18 years old and older) 802 504,976 3.46 Hunters 200 118,373 6.92 Anglers 203 184,486 6.87

Sampling Error Equation

( )

( )96.11

25.25.

−

−

=p

s

p

N

N

N

B

Derived from formula: p. 206 in Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys. John Wiley & Sons, NY.

Note: This is a simplified version of the formula that calculates the maximum sampling error using a 50:50 split (the most conservative calculation because a 50:50 split would give maximum variation).

Where: B = maximum sampling error (as decimal) NP = population size (i.e., total number who could be surveyed) NS = sample size (i.e., total number of respondents surveyed)


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESENTATION OF RESULTS IN THE REPORT

In examining the results, it is important to be aware that the questionnaire included several types

of questions:

• Open-ended questions are those in which no answer set is read to the respondents; rather, they can respond with anything that comes to mind from the question.

• Closed-ended questions have an answer set from which to choose. • Single or multiple response questions: Some questions allow only a single response,

while other questions allow respondents to give more than one response or choose all that apply. Those that allow more than a single response are indicated on the graphs with the label, “Multiple Responses Allowed.”

• Scaled questions: Many closed-ended questions (but not all) are in a scale, such as excellent-good-fair-poor.

• Series questions: Many questions are part of a series, and the results are primarily intended to be examined relative to the other questions in that series (although results of the questions individually can also be valuable). Typically, results of all questions in a series are shown together.

Most graphs show results rounded to the nearest integer; however, all data are stored in decimal

format, and all calculations are performed on unrounded numbers. For this reason, some results

may not sum to exactly 100% because of this rounding on the graphs. Additionally, rounding

may cause apparent discrepancies of 1 percentage point between the graphs and the reported

results of combined responses (e.g., when “strongly support” and “moderately support” are

summed to determine the total percentage in support).


HOW TO INTERPRET THE DEMOGRAPHIC CORRELATION GRAPHS

Graphs are included for select questions that show how various demographic characteristics

correlate with various opinions on fish and wildlife management. Each graph shows an overall

result, and then it shows the result for that question among various demographic groups. Those

groups at the top of the graph have a greater percentage giving a specific response, compared to

respondents overall; those groups at the bottom of the graph have a lower percentage giving a

specific response, compared to respondents overall. To better differentiate between the

demographic groups, percentages are shown on these graphs to one decimal point. However,

throughout the narrative and on general graphs, results are presented in whole percentages. An

example of a demographic correlation graph is provided below:

Q59. Percent of residents who are very satisfied

with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department as a

government agency in Vermont.

44.0

43.5

42.4

42.0

41.8

41.1

40.8

40.1

39.8

36.8

44.3

44.4

44.5

44.8

44.9

45.1

46.1

47.0

48.3

50.8

51.0

51.9

45.7

45.7

45.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Went fishing

Has an income less than $50,000 per year

Went hunting

Does not have a bachelor's degree

Went canoeing or kayaking

Visited a state or national park

Went hiking

Went camping

Went wildlife viewing or birdwatching

Has an income of $50,000 or more per year

Below the median age (50)

Lives in a small city or town, or rural area

Median age (50) or older

Female

Total

Male

Did not go camping

Did not go canoeing or kayaking

Did not go hunting

Did not go hiking

Did not visit a state or national parkLives in a large city, urban area, or suburban

areaHas a bachelor's degree or higher

Did not go fishing

Did not do any wildlife viewing or birdwatching

Percent

Groups above the dashed bar are more likely to be very satisfied than are residents as a whole. For instance, those who went fishing in the past 12 months (52%) are more likely to be very satisfied than are residents overall (44%). On the other hand, those who live in a large city/urban area/suburban area (41%) are less likely than residents overall to be very satisfied.


PROBLEMS THAT VERMONT FACES

� The initial question in the survey was not about problems, per se, but led into the discussion

of problems. The question simply asked, in an open-ended format (where no answer set is

presented, instead allowing any response that comes to mind), what first comes to mind when

one hears the expression, “quality of life.” Note that only a single response was allowed.

• The most common responses among residents relate to the general physical environment

(17% give a response related to this), good health (14%), and standard of living (14%).

Other responses run the gamut, as shown in the graph.

o The trend graph shows comparisons to studies conducted in 1990, 1995, and

2000. This survey showed a considerably lower percentage of residents who

stated “pace of life,” compared to the earlier surveys, whereas substantially more

residents stated “good health.”

• The most common responses among hunters and anglers include standard of living (19%

of hunters; 8% of anglers) and general physical environment (12% and 11%,

respectively).

� As indicated, the purpose of the question above was to lead in to the next question that asked

about the most important issues/factors that negatively affect the quality of life. This also

was open-ended, but it allowed multiple issues/factors to be named.

• Among residents, the top responses relate to pollution/environmental degradation (21%),

financial issues (17%), and poor health/age (14%).

• Among hunters and anglers, the same responses that residents give are prominent:

pollution/environmental degradation (11% of hunters, 15% of anglers), financial issues

(17% and 18%), and poor health/age (14% and 12%).


Q11. What first comes to mind when you hear the

expression "quality of life"?

(Vermont residents.)

17

14

14

7

5

5

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

0

4

13

0 20 40 60 80 100

General physical environment

Good health

Standard of living

Freedom and independence

Family, friends, community

Happiness, pleasure, or enjoyment

Vermont

Money or resources

Nature or outdoors environment

Recreational, cultural, educationalopportunities

Pace of life

Social issues, social activism, or

volunteering

Living in accordance with values

Safety, crime-free

Free time

Something negative

Fullness of experience

Other

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q11. What first comes to mind when you hear the expression "quality

of life"?

53

63 4

95

3 47 8

6 7

14

15

4434

27 26

20

57

4

20

2625

8

17

2425

19

7

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

Physical

environment

(air, water,views, land)

Pace of life

(serenity, rural

lifestyle)

Standard of

living

Family,

friends,

community

Freedom and

independence

Safety, crime-

free

Recreational,

cultural,

educationalopportunities

Good health Other

Perc

en

t

1990 VT Business Roundtable



2015 RM


Q11. What first comes to mind when you hear the

expression "quality of life"?

(Hunters and anglers.)

19

12

9

9

7

7

7

5

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

0

3

11

8

11

8

8

9

7

2

8

2

2

2

3

1

1

0

2

0

5

16

0 20 40 60 80 100

Standard of living

General Physical Environment

Happiness, Pleasure, or Enjoyment

Good health

Recreational, cultural, educationalopportunities

Freedom and independence

Nature or Outdoors Environment

Family, friends, community

Pace of Life

Money or resources

Safety, crime-free

Vermont

Living in accordance with values

Free time

Social issues, social activism or

volunteering

Something negative

Fullness of experience

Other

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q13. What are the most important issues or factors

that negatively affect your "quality of life"?


12

5

5

5

21

17

14

11

6

5

4

4

3

2

2

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pollution or environmental degradation

Financial issues

Poor health or age related issues

Negative social interactions / otherindividuals / population growth

Poor weather or natural environment

Work

Nothing

Stress

Lack of free time

Taxes

Governmental interference or political

issues

Traffic

Feeling unsafe / crime

Unemployment

Other

Don't know

Mu

ltip

le R

es

po

ns

es

All

ow

ed

Percent (n=802)


Q13. What are the most important issues or factors

that negatively affect your "quality of life"?


16

15

9

8

6

2

5

7

3

2

0

1

5

14

5

5

5

17

14

14

11

10

6

4

2

2

1

1

5

12

5

18

0 20 40 60 80 100

Financial issues

Nothing

Poor health or age related issues

Pollution or environmental degradation

Negative social interactions / otherindividuals / population growth

Governmental interference or politicalissues

Work

Stress

Taxes

Lack of free time

Traffic

Poor weather or natural environment

Feeling unsafe / crime

Unemployment

Other

Don't know

Mu

ltip

le R

es

po

ns

es

All

ow

ed

Percent

Hunters (n = 200)

Anglers (n = 203)

Q13. What are the most important issues or factors that negatively affect your “quality of life”?



� The survey presented six potential problems to respondents. For each potential problem,

they were asked to rate it as a big problem, a small problem, or no problem.

• Among residents, the problem of invasive species has the most saying it is a big problem

(71% say it is a big problem), followed by global climate change (64% say it is a big

problem).

o A similar study in 1992 showed only 57% of respondents stating that invasive

species is a big problem; however, note that the 1992 study referred to “nuisance

aquatic plants” rather than “invasive species.” Subsequent trend graphs show

little marked change from the 1992 survey responses regarding fish and wildlife

habitat loss, loss of Vermont’s scenic landscape, and posting of private land.

Note that the trend graph for fish and habitat loss is compared to two similar

questions from the 1992 survey: destruction of wildlife habitat and destruction of

habitat for fish.

• Among hunters, two problems are at the top: invasive species (70% say it is a big

problem) and the posting of private land (55%). Among anglers, the top problems are

invasive species (68%) and forest/habitat fragmentation (48%).

o For this series, three graphs are shown for each group: the percentage saying each

is a big problem, the percentage saying each is a big or small problem, and the

percentage saying each is no problem.



the following is a big problem:

71

64

46

46

41

26

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q25. Invasive

species

Q24. Global

climate change

Q26. Forest and

habitatfragmentation

Q27. Fish andwildlife habitat loss

Q28. Loss of

Vermont's sceniclandscape


Percent



the following is a big problem or small problem:

93

86

85

79

78

54

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q25. Invasive

species



fragmentation


Q28. Loss of



Percent



the following is no problem:

39

20

11

11

8

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q29. Posting of

private land

Q28. Loss ofVermont's scenic

landscape


Q27. Fish and

wildlife habitat loss


fragmentation


Percent


Q25. Percent of residents who think invasive species are a big

problem, small problem, or no problem at all in Vermont.

4

57

20

4

19

3

22

71

0

20

40

60

80

100

Big problem Small problem No problem Don't know

Perc

en

t

1992 UVM*

2015 RM

*Question asked about "nuisance aquatic plants" in the 1992 survey.

Q27. Percent of residents who think fish and wildlife habitat loss is a

big problem, small problem, or no problem at all in Vermont.

7

49

34

13

5

11

30

52

11

46

33

11

0

20

40

60

80

100


Perc

en

t

1992 UVM - "destruction of wildlifehabitat"

1992 UVM - "destruction of habitat forfish"

2015 RM


2

41 42

16

1

20

37

41

0

20

40

60

80

100


Perc

en

t

1992 UVM Vermont Recreation Survey

2015 RM

Q28. Percent of residents who think loss of Vermont's scenic landscape is

a big problem, small problem, or no problem at all in Vermont.

Q29. Percent of residents who think posting of private land is a big

problem, small problem, or no problem at all in Vermont.

6

3032

35

3

39

2826

0

20

40

60

80

100


Perc

en

t

1992 UVM Vermont Recreation Survey

2015 RM


Q24-29: Percent who believe each of the following

is a big problem:

48

44

34

70

55

45

45

43

35

68

42

45

0 20 40 60 80 100



Q24. Global climatechange

Q26. Forest and



Q28. Loss ofVermont's scenic

landscape

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)



is a big problem or small problem:

77

80

79

93

84

78

78

77

75

92

87

68

0 20 40 60 80 100



fragmentation

Q29. Posting of

private land

Q27. Fish and

wildlife habitat loss

Q28. Loss of



Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)



is no problem:

18

6

3

21

18

17

17

11

4

26

16

14

0 20 40 60 80 100




Q28. Loss of


Q26. Forest and



Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


� The survey directly asked about another potential problem: suburban sprawl. The statement

was made that “suburban sprawl is not yet a problem in Vermont,” and respondents were

asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement.

• A slight majority of residents think this is a problem, with 52% disagreeing with the

statement. On the other hand, 39% agree that it is not yet a problem.

o A similar survey in 1998 showed 45% of respondents disagreeing that suburban

sprawl is not yet a problem.

• Among hunters, 48% disagree (i.e., think suburban sprawl is a problem), while 44%

agree. Among anglers, 49% disagree, while 44% agree.

� The survey directly asked about another potential problem, somewhat related to the above

problem: forest fragmentation and loss. Again, respondents were asked if they agree or

disagree that “forest fragmentation and loss is a problem in Vermont.”

• The large majority of residents agree with this statement (i.e., think it is a problem): 61%

agree, while 18% disagree.

• Hunters and anglers are more likely than the general population to agree. Among

hunters, 68% agree, while 23% disagree. Among anglers, 67% agree, and 21% disagree.


Q33. Suburban sprawl is not yet a problem in

Vermont.


14

25

4

29

23

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Moderately

disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent (n=802)

39%

52%


Q33. Percent of residents who believe suburban sprawl is not yet a

problem in Vermont.

29

45

24

9

52

39

0

20

40

60

80

100

Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree

Perc

en

t

1998 VT Population Alliance

2015 RM


Q33. Suburban sprawl is not yet a problem in

Vermont.


13

31

4

25

23

5

19

25

4

31

18

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree

Neither agree nordisagree

Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q38. Forest fragmentation and loss is a problem in

Vermont.


33

28

8

13

5

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent (n=802)

61%

18%


Q38. Forest fragmentation and loss is a problem in

Vermont.


38

30

4

16

7

6

36

31

5

13

8

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree


Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


PARTICIPATION IN WILDLIFE-ASSOCIATED RECREATION

� The survey asked about participation in a dozen wildlife-associated activities.

• Very large majorities of residents have participated in the past 12 months in wildlife

viewing (81% did so within 1 mile of home; 74% did so greater than 1 mile from home).

Large majorities also visited a state or national park (63%) or went hiking (61%). A

majority participated in birdwatching (55%).

o The trend graph shows substantial increases in participation, since 2003, in

wildlife viewing greater than 1 mile from home (74% in 2015 compared to 53%

in 2003), visiting state or national parks (63% in 2015 versus 49% in 2003), and

canoeing/kayaking (40% in 2015 versus 27% in 2003).

• Among hunters, top activities are hunting (86%—note that the sample is from licenses, so

the hunter need not have hunted in the past year to be in the sample), viewing wildlife

within 1 mile of home (86%), viewing wildlife greater than 1 mile from home (79%),

fishing (79%), and hiking (51%).

• Among anglers, top activities are fishing (85%), wildlife viewing within 1 mile of home

(78%), wildlife viewing greater than 1 mile from home (76%), hiking (60%), hunting

(52%), and camping (50%).

� In follow-up to the above question, the survey asked about the importance that people have

the opportunity in Vermont to participate in wildlife-related outdoor recreation.

• The large majority of residents (91%) say it is very important, and another 8% say it is

somewhat important, which is nearly all the respondents.

o This is an increase compared to a similar study in 2000, in which 80% of

respondents stated it is very important.

• This is even more important for hunters and anglers: 96% (hunters) and 95% (anglers)

say it is very important, and nearly all say it is very or somewhat important.


Q16. In the past 12 months, have you participated

in the following activities?


36

37

37

81

74

63

61

55

40

27

24

2

2

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Wildlife viewing within 1 mile of home

Wildlife viewing greater than 1 mile fromhome

Visiting state or national park

Hiking

Birdwatching

Canoeing/kayaking

Fishing

Biking

Camping

Motorboating

Hunting

Trapping

None of these

Don't know

Mu

ltip

le R

es

po

ns

es

All

ow

ed

Percent


Q16. In the past 12 months, have you participated in the following

activities?

(Vermont residents.) (Part 1 of 2)

55

63

36 3736

73

54 53 5349

36

74

61

81

0

20

40

60

80

100

Wildlifeviewing within

1 mile of home

Hiking Wildlifeviewing

greater than 1mile from

home

Birdwatching Visiting stateor national

park

Camping Fishing

Perc

en

t

2003 RM

2015 RM

Q16. In the past 12 months, have you participated in the following

activities?

(Vermont residents.) (Part 2 of 2)

24

2 2

34

2725 24

25

27

4037

0

20

40

60

80

100

Biking Canoeing/kayaking Motorboating Hunting Trapping None of these

Perc

en

t

2003 RM

2015 RM


Q16. In the past 12 months, have you participated

in the following activities?


85

60

41

40

49

36

50

29

8

0

0

37

41

42

86

86

79

79

51

49

36

24

7

1

0

76

78

52

0 20 40 60 80 100

Hunting

Wildlife viewing within 1 mile of home

Wildlife viewing greater than 1 mile

from home

Fishing

Hiking

Birdwatching

Canoeing/kayaking

Visiting state or national park

Motorboating

Camping

Biking

Trapping

None of these

Don't know

Mu

ltip

le R

es

po

ns

es

All

ow

ed

Percent

Hunters (n = 200)

Anglers (n = 203)


Q17. How important is it to you that people have

the opportunity in Vermont to participate in wildlife-

related outdoor recreation, such as hunting,

fishing, and wildlife viewing?


91

8

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Not at all

important

Don't know

Percent


Q17. How important is it to you that people have the opportunity in

Vermont to participate in wildlife-related outdoor recreation, such as

hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing?


1

80

17

2 11

8

91

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don't know

Perc

en

t

2000 RM

2015 RM


Q17. How important is it to you that people have

the opportunity in Vermont to participate in wildlife-

related outdoor recreation, such as hunting,

fishing, and wildlife viewing?


96

4

1

0

0

95

4

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhat

important

Not at all important

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION OF THE VERMONT FISH AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

� Knowledge levels of the Department are fairly high.

• Among residents, 66% can correctly name the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department

when asked to name the government agency most responsible for managing and

protecting all fish and wildlife in Vermont. Another 11% give an essentially correct

derivative of that name (such as Fish and Wildlife Division, Fish and Game Department,

and so forth). However, 24% do not know or give an incorrect response. (Note that the

name of the agency was said in the introduction of the survey, so the most pertinent

finding is that 24% still did not know.)

• Hunters and anglers are even more knowledgeable: 73% of hunters and 68% of anglers

name the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, and another 13% of hunters and 16%

of anglers give an essentially correct derivative of that name. Nonetheless, don’t

know/incorrect responses are given by 15% of hunters and 16% of anglers. (Again, take

note that the agency name was said once in the introduction of the survey.)

� The amount of knowledge that respondents have of the Department was assessed (self-

professed knowledge, no “test” was given). Not surprisingly, hunters and anglers claim more

knowledge of the Department, compared to residents.

• Most commonly, residents say that they know a moderate amount about the Department

(41% give this response) or they know a little (40%). Only 14% claim to know a great

deal.

o Self-professed knowledge levels have increased since 2003, in which only 6% of

respondents said they know a great deal and 31% said they know a moderate

amount.

• Hunters appear to be the most knowledgeable. Half of hunters claim to know a moderate

amount (50%), and another 29% claim to know a great deal. Among anglers, 37% claim

to know a moderate amount, and 28% claim to know a great deal.


� The survey asked about satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the Department as a government

agency.

• The large majority of residents are satisfied with the Department (76%, including 44%

being very satisfied). Only 3% are dissatisfied (the remainder giving a neutral response).

o Those who went fishing in the previous 12 months are most often very satisfied

with the Department (52% stated this), whereas those who did not do any wildlife

viewing or birdwatching in the previous 12 months are least often very satisfied

(37%).

o The percent of residents who are very satisfied with the Department (44%)

increased substantially since 2003 (25%).

• Large majorities of hunters and anglers are satisfied: 76% of hunters and 80% of anglers

are satisfied (40% and 47%, respectively, are very satisfied).

� The survey asked about how the Department does at effectively balancing the interests of

anglers, hunters, conservation groups, and the general public.

• Most residents agree that the Department achieves this balance (76% agree); meanwhile,

a small percentage disagree (7%).

o Residents who most often strongly agree are those with an income less than

$50,000 per year (54% stated this) and those who indicated they are satisfied with

the Department in general (53%).

o Residents who strongly agree that the Department achieves this balance increased

from 33% in 2003 to 42% in 2015.

• While hunters and anglers agree at about the same rate as does the general population,

their rate of disagreement is higher (at the expense of “don’t know” responses): 77% of

hunters and 75% of anglers agree; however, 17% of hunters and 11% of anglers disagree.


Q18. Which government agency or department

would you say is most responsible for managing

and protecting all fish and wildlife in Vermont, from

the most common to endangered species?


66

11

6

18

0 20 40 60 80 100

Vermont Fish andWildlife

Department

Essentially correct

derivative of theVermont Fish and

WildlifeDepartment

Incorrect response

Don't know

Percent


Q18. Which government agency or department

would you say is most responsible for managing

and protecting all fish and wildlife in Vermont, from

the most common to endangered species?


73

11

9

8

68

14

6

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Vermont Fish andWildlife Department

Essentially correct

derivative of stateagency

Incorrect response

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q20. Before this survey, would you say you knew a

great deal, a moderate amount, a little, or nothing

about the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department?


14

41

40

5

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

A great deal

A moderate amount

A little

Nothing

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q20. Before this survey, would you say you knew a great deal, a

moderate amount, a little, or nothing about the Vermont Fish and

Wildlife Department? (Vermont residents.)

50

6

31

45

16

0

4041

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

A great deal A moderate amount A little Nothing Don't know

Perc

en

t

2003 RM

2015 RM


Q20. Before this survey, would you say you knew a

great deal, a moderate amount, a little, or nothing

about the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department?


29

50

21

1

28

37

32

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

A great deal

A moderate amount

A little

Nothing

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q59. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with

the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department as a

government agency in Vermont, or do you not

know?


44

32

3

2

1

18

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Neither satisfied nordissatisfied

Somewhatdissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q59. Percent of residents who are very satisfied

with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department as a

government agency in Vermont.

44.0

43.5

42.4

42.0

41.8

41.1

40.8

40.1

39.8

36.8

44.3

44.4

44.5

44.8

44.9

45.1

46.1

47.0

48.3

50.8

51.0

51.9

45.7

45.7

45.1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Went fishing


Went hunting




Went hiking

Went camping





Median age (50) or olderr

Female

Total

Male

Did not go camping


Did not go hunting

Did not go hiking

Did not visit a state or national parkLives in a large city, urban area, or suburban

areaHas a bachelor's degree or higher

Did not go fishing


Percent


Q59. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Vermont Fish

and Wildlife Department as a government agency in Vermont, or do

you not know? (Vermont residents.)

2 1

18

25

32

5 6 4

28

3

32

44

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very satisfied Somewhatsatisfied

Neither satisfiednor dissatisfied


Very dissatisfied Don't know

Perc

en

t

2003 RM

2015 RM


Q59. Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with

the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department as a

government agency in Vermont, or do you not

know?


40

36

4

6

7

9

47

33

1

3

3

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied


Very dissatisfied

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q60. Do you agree or disagree that the Department

effectively balances the interests of anglers,

hunters, conservation groups, and the general

public?


42

34

3

4

3

15

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree


Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q60. Percent of residents who strongly agree that

the Department effectively balances the interests of

anglers, hunters, conservation groups, and the

general public.

42.4

41.8

41.5

40.9

40.5

40.2

39.8

39.5

37.6

35.9

35.4

8.6

42.5

42.5

42.6

42.9

43.1

43.7

46.7

48.8

49.7

51.0

52.8

54.0

45.0

44.8

44.3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Has an income less than $50,000 per yearIndicated they were satisfied with the VT Dept. of

Fish and WildlifeWent fishing

Went hunting



Did not go hiking

Male

Went camping





Total


Did not visit a state or national park


Did not go camping

Went hiking

Female

Did not go hunting



Did not go fishing

Lives in a large city, urban area, or suburban area

Has a bachelor's degree or higherDid not indicate they were satisfied with the VT

Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Percent


Q60. Do you agree or disagree that the Department effectively

balances the interests of anglers, hunters, conservation groups, and

the general public? (Vermont residents.)

4 3

15

33 34

36 5

19

3

34

42

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly agree Moderately agree Neither agree nordisagree

Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree Don't know

Perc

en

t

2003 RM

2015 RM


Q60. Do you agree or disagree that the Department

effectively balances the interests of anglers,

hunters, conservation groups, and the general

public?


46

31

4

9

8

4

42

33

3

5

6

10

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree


Moderately

disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


THE INTERSECTION OF LAND USE AND FISH/WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

IMPORTANCE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

� One question directly compared wildlife with economic development. Wildlife is favored by

survey respondents by a large amount.

• The large majority of Vermont residents (75%) disagree that economic development is

more important than wildlife. Most of that is strong disagreement (49%). Only 12%

agree, the rest being neutral. This reflects little marked change from a 1994 study.

• Likewise, the large majority of hunters (81%) and anglers (76%) disagree, with most of

that being strong disagreement (55% of hunters, 57% of anglers). The percentages that

agree are 8% of hunters and 11% of anglers.

� The survey asked about agreement or disagreement with this statement: Threatened and

endangered species must be protected. Agreement is overwhelming.

• Among residents, 96% agree, with 81% strongly agreeing.

o This strong agreement of 81% is a major increase since 1995 (only 37% in that

survey); most of this movement came from those who moderately agree (42% in

1995 compared to 15% in 2015).

• Among hunters, 97% agree, with 86% strongly agreeing; among anglers, 95% agree, with

86% strongly agreeing.

� Agreement is also overwhelming with this statement: Knowing that Vermont’s native fish

and wildlife populations are healthy and surviving well is very important to me even if I don’t

get to see them.

• Among residents, 98% agree, with 85% strongly agreeing.

o As with the previous question, a major shift occurred since 1995 from those who

moderately agree to those who strongly agree.

• Among hunters, 98% agree, with 90% strongly agreeing; among anglers, 96% agree, with

87% strongly agreeing.


Q34. Economic development is more important

than wildlife.


4

8

11

26

49

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q34. Economic development is more important than wildlife.


6

76

19

13

75

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree

Perc

en

t

1994 R.J. Glass and T.A. More

2015 RM


Q34. Economic development is more important

than wildlife.


3

5

11

26

55

2

1

10

12

19

57

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Moderately

disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q36. Threatened and endangered species must be

protected.


81

15

1

2

0

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Moderately

disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q36. Threatened and endangered species must be protected.


0 2

37

42

86 7

2

15

81

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly agree Moderately agree Moderately disagree Strongly disagree No Opinion

Perc

en

t

1995 J. Buck and B. Williams

2015 RM


Q36. Threatened and endangered species must be

protected.


86

11

1

2

0

1

86

9

2

0

0

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree


Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q37. Knowing that Vermont's native fish and

wildlife populations are healthy and surviving well

is very important to me even if I don't get to see

them.


85

13

0

1

0

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree


Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q37. Knowing that Vermont's native fish and wildlife populations are

healthy and surviving well is very important to me even if I don't get to

see them. (Vermont residents.)

0 0

54

41

1 13

1

13

85

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly agree Moderately agree Moderately disagree Strongly disagree No Opinion

Perc

en

t

1995 J. Buck & B. Williams

2015 RM


Q37. Knowing that Vermont's native fish and

wildlife populations are healthy and surviving well

is very important to me even if I don't get to see

them.


90

8

1

1

1

0

87

9

1

0

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree


Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


OPINIONS ON LAND USE IN VERMONT

� The survey asked for opinions on the amount of state-owned land in Vermont: should it be

increased, decreased, or stay the same? It is roughly split between stay the same and

increased; very few want it decreased.

• Most commonly, residents think that the amount of state-owned land should stay the

same (47% give this response). Otherwise, residents are much more likely to say that

they want it increased (39%) than decreased (5%).

o Since 1997, the percent of residents who want the amount of state-owned land to

increase has declined (61% in 1997 compared to 39% in 2015), with more

residents now wanting the amount to stay the same (28% in 1997 versus 47% in

2015).

• Responses are similar among hunters and anglers. The most common response is stay the

same (45% of hunters, 48% of anglers), and those wanting an increase (44% of hunters,

40% of anglers) far outnumber those wanting a decrease (5% of hunters, 6% of anglers).

� Respondents generally think that state ownership of land is important to maintain biological

diversity. (The survey provided this definition: “Biological diversity is the variety of

organisms, including, but not limited to, plants, animals, fish, insects, and micro-organisms

like bacteria, represented in Vermont and the habitats and processes that support them.”)

• The overwhelming majority of residents (89%) think that state ownership of land is

important to maintain biological diversity, most of that being in the very important

response.

• Hunters and anglers are similar to residents on this question: 90% of hunters think it is

important (62% thinking it is very important), and 87% of anglers think it is important

(61% saying very important).

� Respondents overwhelmingly think it is important that ecologically important habitats and

land in Vermont are being protected and preserved.

• Among residents, 97% think this is important, including 75% who say it is very

important. There is little marked change since 2000.


o Residents who most often think this is very important are those who live in a large

city, urban area, or suburban area (87% stated this) and those with an income less

than $50,000 per year (82%).

• Among hunters, 98% think this is important, including 74% who say it is very important,

and among anglers, 94% think this is important, including 70% who say it is very

important.

Q40. Do you think the percentage of state-owned

land should increase, decrease, or stay the same?


39

47

5

10

0 20 40 60 80 100

Increase

Stay the same

Decrease

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q40. Do you think the percentage of state-owned land should

increase, decrease, or stay the same? (Vermont residents.)

10

61

28

3

85

47

39

0

20

40

60

80

100

Increase Stay the same Decrease Don't know

Pe

rce

nt

1997 ANR

2015 RM


Q40. Do you think the percentage of state-owned

land should increase, decrease, or stay the same?


44

45

5

6

40

48

6

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Increase

Stay the same

Decrease

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q41. Do you think state ownership of land to

maintain biological diversity is important or

unimportant?


64

25

2

5

2

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Neither importantnor unimportant

Somewhat

unimportant

Very unimportant

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q41. Do you think state ownership of land to

maintain biological diversity is important or

unimportant?


62

28

3

5

1

2

61

26

1

5

2

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhat

important


Somewhat

unimportant

Very unimportant

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q48. How important is it to you that ecologically

important habitats and lands in Vermont are being

protected and preserved?


75

22

1

1

0

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant

Neither important

nor unimportant

Somewhat

unimportant

Very unimportant

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q48. Percent of residents who think it is very

important that ecologically important habitats and

lands in Vermont are being protected and

preserved.

73.9

73.8

73.5

73.4

73.1

73.0

72.6

72.1

71.6

70.7

67.4

66.8

75.6

75.7

75.7

87.4

81.7

77.3

77.0

76.0

75.8

75.4

75.2

75.2

74.9

74.6

74.1

0 20 40 60 80 100




Did not go hunting


Went campingIndicated they were satisfied with the VT Dept. of

Fish and WildlifeMale

Went hiking



Did not go fishing

Has a bachelor's degree or higher

Total


Did not go camping


Went fishing

Female


Did not go hiking



Median age (50) or olderrDid not indicate they were satisfied with the VT

Dept. of Fish and WildlifeDid not do any wildlife viewing or birdwatching

Went hunting

Percent


Q48. How important is it to you that ecologically important habitats

and lands in Vermont are being protected and preserved?


2

77

20

1 20

23

75

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very important Somewhat important Very unimportant Don't know / no opinion

Perc

en

t

2000 RM

2015 RM


Q48. How important is it to you that ecologically

important habitats and lands in Vermont are being

protected and preserved?


74

24

1

2

0

1

70

24

4

0

1

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant


Somewhatunimportant

Very unimportant

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


� Finally in this section, the survey presented four statements to respondents that pertain to the

tradeoff between land development and habitat protection. For each, respondents indicated if

they agree or disagree with it. In general, they side with habitat protection over unfettered

use of land.

• Among residents, agreement is high that the use and development of land should be

restricted to protect fish and wildlife (83%) and that wildlife habitat must be protected

even if it reduces the land use options of some landowners and developers (81%).

However, statements favoring development are not well received: disagreement ranges

from 74% to 77% on the two statements that favor development over wildlife, as shown

on the graphs. There is little marked change since 2003.

• Hunters and anglers are much the same as residents.


Q44-47: Percent of residents who strongly agree

with the following:

47

46

5

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q44. Wildlife habitat must be protectedeven if it reduces the land use options of

some landowners and developers.

Q45. The use and development of landshould be restricted to protect fish and

wildlife.

Q46. Landowners should be allowed to

develop their land regardless of itsimpact on wildlife.

Q47. If it came down to a choicebetween preserving wildlife habitat or

providing land for new homes, we shouldalways side with providing new homes

for the residents of our state.

Percent



moderately agree with the following:

83

81

20

12

0 20 40 60 80 100


wildlife.


even if it reduces the land use optionsof some landowners and developers.


impact on wildlife.


between preserving wildlife habitat orproviding land for new homes, we

should always side with providing newhomes for the residents of our state.

Percent


Q44-47: Percent of residents who strongly disagree

with the following:

47

46

4

4

0 20 40 60 80 100


providing land for new homes, weshould always side with providing new

homes for the residents of our state.


impact on wildlife.


even if it reduces the land use options ofsome landowners and developers.


wildlife.

Percent



moderately disagree with the following:

77

74

12

11

0 20 40 60 80 100


providing land for new homes, weshould always side with providing new

homes for the residents of our state.


impact on wildlife.

Q44. Wildlife habitat must be protectedeven if it reduces the land use options

of some landowners and developers.


wildlife.

Percent


Q44. Wildlife habitat must be protected even if it reduces the land use

options of some landowners and developers. (Vermont residents.)

48

34

43

106 78

34

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly agree Moderately agree Moderately disagree Strongly disagree No opinion

Perc

en

t

1995 J. Buck & B. Williams

2015 RM

Q45. The use and development of land should be restricted to protect

fish and wildlife. (Vermont residents.)

74

48

27

8 855

37

46

0

20

40

60

80

100


Moderately disagree Strongly disagree

Perc

en

t

2003 RM

2015 RM


Q46. Landowners should be allowed to develop their land regardless

of its impact on wildlife. (Vermont residents.)

28

46

1

8

14

6

19

47

56

15

5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly agree Moderately agree Neither agree nor

disagree

Moderately

disagree


Perc

en

t

2003 RM

2015 RM

Q47. If it came down to a choice between preserving wildlife habitat or

providing land for new homes, we should always side with providing

new homes for the residents of our state. (Vermont residents.)

30

47

248 8

23

53

599

3

0

20

40

60

80

100


Moderatelydisagree


Perc

en

t

2003 RM

2015 RM


Q44-47: Percent who strongly agree with the

following:

4

57

54

9

3

47

43

10

0 20 40 60 80 100


even if it reduces the land use options ofsome landowners and developers.



Q46. Landowners should be allowed to

develop their land regardless of itsimpact on wildlife.




Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q44-47: Percent who strongly or moderately agree

with the following:

13

84

80

24

11

83

82

21

0 20 40 60 80 100


wildlife.




impact on wildlife.


between preserving wildlife habitat orproviding land for new homes, we should

always side with providing new homesfor the residents of our state.

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q44-47: Percent who strongly disagree with the

following:

3

49

37

6

3

44

38

5

0 20 40 60 80 100





impact on wildlife.




wildlife.

Percent


Q44-47: Percent who strongly or moderately

disagree with the following:

10

76

64

11

10

77

68

10

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q47. If it came down to a choice betweenpreserving wildlife habitat or providing

land for new homes, we should alwaysside with providing new homes for the

residents of our state.

Q46. Landowners should be allowed todevelop their land regardless of its impact

on wildlife.





Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


OPINIONS ON DEPARTMENT ACTIONS AS THEY RELATE TO BOTH LAND USE AND FISH/WILDLIFE

� Respondents overwhelmingly agree that hunting and fishing are part of scientific

management of healthy fish and wildlife populations.

• Among residents, 91% agree, with 67% strongly agreeing. There is little change since

2003.

• Among recreationists, hunters are almost unanimous (98% agree); with anglers just under

that (93% agree).

� Respondents generally place much importance on protecting endangered species.

• The huge majority of residents (95%) think protecting endangered species is very or

somewhat important (with 76% saying very important). There is little change since 2003.

• Hunters and anglers are like the general population: 95% of hunters and 97% of anglers

place importance on this.

� There is much support for having the Department protect important wildlife habitat by

purchasing land.

• The large majority of residents support (83%); opposition is low (9%). There is little

change since 2003.

• Hunters and anglers generally support (85% and 87%, respectively).


Q35. Hunting and fishing are part of scientific

management of healthy fish and wildlife

populations.


67

24

3

3

3

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Moderately

disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q35. Hunting and fishing are part of scientific management of healthy

fish and wildlife populations. (Vermont residents.)

3 3 2

64

24

2 3 26

3

24

67

0

20

40

60

80

100


Moderatelydisagree


Perc

en

t

2003 RM

2015 RM


Q35. Hunting and fishing are part of scientific

management of healthy fish and wildlife

populations.


84

14

0

2

1

1

73

20

2

1

2

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree

Moderately agree


Moderatelydisagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q39. Do you think protecting endangered species

is an important or unimportant program for the

Department?


76

19

1

2

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant


Somewhatunimportant

Very unimportant

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q39. Do you think protecting endangered species is an important or

unimportant program for the Department? (Vermont residents.)

2 1

83

13

1 1 01

19

76

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very important Somewhat important Neither important norunimportant

Somewhatunimportant

Very unimportant

Perc

en

t

2003 RM

2015 RM


Q39. Do you think protecting endangered species

is an important or unimportant program for the

Department?


77

18

1

3

1

0

84

13

0

1

0

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important

Somewhatimportant


Somewhatunimportant

Very unimportant

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q49. Do you support or oppose the Department

protecting important wildlife habitat by purchasing

land?


50

33

4

5

4

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly support

Moderately support

Neither support nor

oppose

Moderately oppose

Strongly oppose

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q49. Do you support or oppose the Department protecting important

wildlife habitat by purchasing land? (Vermont residents.)

48

50

35

5 37

5

33

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly support Moderately support Moderately oppose Strongly oppose Don't know / noopinion

Perc

en

t

RM 1996

RM 2015


Q49. Do you support or oppose the Department

protecting important wildlife habitat by purchasing

land?


57

28

4

6

3

4

51

36

5

5

3

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly support

Moderately support

Neither support noroppose

Moderately oppose

Strongly oppose

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


� The survey presented six possible strategies for protecting land for fish and wildlife. For

each strategy, respondents rated their level of support for it or opposition to it. (Prior to the

question, they were given this introduction: The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department uses

its funding and personnel to support a wide variety of programs, including outdoor

recreation, fish and wildlife management and protection, and land conservation. Having both

enough land and high quality land is important for fish and wildlife management and

protection. Increasing or improving conservation efforts will require additional

expenditures.)

• Residents most favor the provision of technical assistance/guidance (75% strongly

support) and tax incentives (70%). Furthermore, the purchase of conservation easements

(62%) is favored over outright purchase of land (46%). (Note that when looking at strong

or moderate support, the percentages are very high—from 78% to 95%.) In the middle

are two strategies that entail more regulation.

o Support for the Department acquiring more state land has slightly decreased since

1996.

• Hunters and anglers also show the most support for technical assistance/guidance and tax

incentives. In the middle are requiring developers to provide mitigation actions and the

purchase of conservation easements. At the bottom for hunters and anglers are

purchasing more state land and more government regulations.





75

70

62

57

49

46

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q53. Providing technical assistanceand guidance to landowners and towns

for managing land for the purpose ofprotecting fish and wildlife


Q54. Purchasing conservation

easements

Q56. Requiring developers to offset

impacts on wildlife habitat by providingmitigation



Q52. Acquiring more state land for the

purpose of protecting fish and wildlife

Percent



moderately support each of the following

strategies for protecting land for fish and wildlife:

95

90

89

84

79

78

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q53. Providing technical assistance

and guidance to landowners and townsfor managing land for the purpose of

protecting fish and wildlife




mitigation




Percent


Q52-57: Percent of residents who strongly oppose



6

6

5

4

2

1

0 20 40 60 80 100




Q55. Offering a "current use" property

tax incentive


mitigation


Q53. Providing technical assistance andguidance to landowners and towns for

managing land for the purpose ofprotecting fish and wildlife

Percent



moderately oppose each of the following strategies

for protecting land for fish and wildlife:

12

11

9

6

6

3

0 20 40 60 80 100


Q57. Legislation or government

regulation that would further protectland for fish and wildlife


mitigation



easements

Q53. Providing technical assistance

and guidance to landowners and townsfor managing land for the purpose of


Percent


Q52. Do you support or oppose the Vermont Fish and Wildlife

Department acquiring more state land for the purpose of protecting

fish and wildlife? (Vermont residents.)

69

50

35

53

76

34

46

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly support Moderately support Moderately oppose Strongly oppose Don't know / no

opinion

Perc

en

t

1996 RM

2015 RM


Q52-57: Percent who strongly support each of the

following strategies for protecting land for fish and

wildlife:

59

50

48

70

67

58

57

49

46

65

66

54

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q55. Offering a "current use" property taxincentive

Q53. Providing technical assistance andguidance to landowners and towns for

managing land for the purpose of




Q54. Purchasing conservation easements

Q52. Acquiring more state land for the

purpose of protecting fish and wildlife

Q57. Legislation or government regulationthat would further protect land for fish and

wildlife

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)



support each of the following strategies for

protecting land for fish and wildlife:

85

82

78

91

89

88

82

81

78

96

89

91

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q53. Providing technical assistanceand guidance to landowners and

towns for managing land for thepurpose of protecting fish and

wildlife

Q55. Offering a "current use"property tax incentive



impacts on wildlife habitat byproviding mitigation



Q52. Acquiring more state land forthe purpose of protecting fish and

wildlife

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q52-57: Percent who strongly oppose each of the

following strategies for protecting land for fish and

wildlife:

4

0

1

8

8

7

5

3

3

7

4

5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q57. Legislation or government

regulation that would further protect landfor fish and wildlife




Q55. Offering a "current use" property taxincentive

Q53. Providing technical assistance and

guidance to landowners and towns formanaging land for the purpose of



easements

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)



oppose each of the following strategies for

protecting land for fish and wildlife:

7

1

3

16

12

10

7

5

5

15

12

10

0 20 40 60 80 100


Q57. Legislation or governmentregulation that would further protect land

for fish and wildlife


mitigation


Q53. Providing technical assistance and

guidance to landowners and towns formanaging land for the purpose of



Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


FUNDING OF FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

� The survey listed four items to see where open land falls on the spectrum (the other items

were police/fire services, roads, and schools). Respondents were asked if they would be

willing to pay an extra percentage in taxes for each.

• The top of the list among residents is roads (61% would pay extra in taxes for them) and

police/fire services (56%). These are both slightly above open land (52%) and

schools (51%).

o Similar surveys were conducted in 1990, 1995, and 2000. Respondents’

willingness to pay extra taxes for open land has remained relatively stable over

the years, while it has steadily increased for roads and police/fire services.

• While the percentage of hunters saying that they would pay extra taxes for open land is

about the same as among residents, their ranking of it is higher than the ranking among

residents. Anglers also say open land at about the same rate as do residents, but they rank

open land last in the items for which they would pay more taxes.

� Respondents are split between wanting funding for fish and wildlife conservation programs

to be increased or remain the same (with very few wanting funding to be decreased).

• Among residents, 44% want funding to remain the same (the most common response),

while 38% want it increased; only 2% want it decreased. There is little change since

1995.

o Residents most likely to want funding increased are those who went canoeing or

kayaking in the past 12 months (45% stated this) and those who went camping

(43%).

• Hunters and anglers are even more in the conservationist camp: 48% of hunters and 49%

of anglers want funding to remain the same; meanwhile, 44% of hunters and 41% of

anglers want funding increased (the decreased responses are at 2% and 3%).

� Finally, five funding options were presented in the survey. Respondents were told that the

funding would be used for a land conservation initiative to ensure the future of fish and

wildlife populations, habitat, and public access to lands for recreation. For each,

respondents were asked if they would support or oppose it.


• A majority of residents strongly or moderately support three of the five taxes: a one-

eighth of 1% increase in the state general sales tax, a state tax on sporting equipment, and

a bond (support ranges from 59% to 61%). There is less than a majority who support a

parking fee on state lands or a registration fee for kayaks and canoes.

• Hunters’ and anglers’ opinions mirror those of residents. At the top is the bond, followed

by the one-eighth of 1% sales tax and the tax on sporting equipment. At the bottom are

the registration fee for kayaks/canoes and the parking fee.


Q63-66: Percent of residents who are willing to pay

an extra percentage in taxes for each of the

following:

61

56

52

51

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q64. Roads

Q65. Police and

fire services

Q66. Open land

Q63. Schools

Percent


Q63-Q66. Percent of residents who are willing to pay an extra

percentage in taxes for each of the following:

46

5251

39 39

53

3942

48 484852

6056

61

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

Schools Roads Police and fire services Open land

Perc

en

t



2000 VT Business Rountable

2015 RM


Q63-66: Percent who are willing to pay an extra

percentage in taxes for each of the following:

51

54

49

48

38

56

50

54

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q65. Police and fire

services

Q66. Open land

Q64. Roads

Q63. Schools

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q67. Should funding for fish and wildlife

conservation programs be increased, decreased, or

remain the same?


38

44

2

16

0 20 40 60 80 100

Increased

Remain the same

Decreased

Don't know

Percent (n=802)


Q67. Percent of residents who think funding for

fish and wildlife conservation programs should be

increased.

37.3

37.0

36.1

35.0

35.0

34.5

33.7

32.7

32.7

30.3

30.2

29.3

37.5

38.3

38.3

38.4

38.5

38.9

41.8

42.2

42.4

42.4

42.9

44.8

39.7

39.1

39.0

0 20 40 60 80 100


Went camping




Went fishing

Indicated they were satisfied with the VT Dept. of

Fish and Wildlife

Went hiking


Male



Went hunting


Total

Did not go hunting

Has a bachelor's degree or higher

Female

Did not go hiking

Did not go fishing

Did not go camping




Did not indicate they were satisfied with the VT

Dept. of Fish and Wildlife



Percent


Q67. Should funding for fish and wildlife conservation programs be

increased, decreased, or remain the same?


16

39

47

86

2

44

38

0

20

40

60

80

100

Increased Remain the same Decreased Don't know / no opinion

Perc

en

t

1995 RM

2015 RM


Q67. Should funding for fish and wildlife

conservation programs be increased, decreased,

or remain the same?


44

48

2

7

41

49

3

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Increased

Remain the same

Decreased

Don't know

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)



each of the following to provide funding for a land

conservation initiative:

32

28

23

22

17

0 20 40 60 80 100


sales tax

Q74. A state tax in

Vermont onsporting

equipment

Q72. A bond to

fund landacquisition


canoes

Q71. A parking feeon state lands

Percent



moderately support each of the following to

provide funding for a land conservation initiative:

61

59

59

45

43

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q73. A one-eighth

of 1% increase inthe state general

sales tax


sporting equipment


acquisition

Q71. A parking fee

on state lands

Q70. A registration

fee for kayaks andcanoes

Percent


Q70-74: Percent of residents who strongly oppose

each of the following to provide funding for a land


36

33

26

23

14

0 20 40 60 80 100


canoes

Q71. A parking fee

on state lands


sales tax


sporting equipment

Q72. A bond to


Percent



moderately oppose each of the following to provide

funding for a land conservation initiative:

52

49

35

34

26

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q70. A registration

fee for kayaks andcanoes


Q73. A one-eighth


sales tax


sporting equipment


acquisition

Percent


Q70-74: Percent who strongly support each of the

following to provide funding for a land


27

17

33

31

29

29

18

26

29

22

0 20 40 60 80 100


canoes


sales tax


acquisition


sporting equipment

Q71. A parking fee

on state lands

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)



support each of the following to provide funding

for a land conservation initiative:

43

41

60

58

50

48

38

59

59

58

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q72. A bond to


Q73. A one-eighth


sales tax

Q74. A state tax in

Vermont onsporting equipment


canoes


Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q70-74: Percent who strongly oppose each of the

following to provide funding for a land


24

16

43

34

30

27

17

33

37

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q71. A parking

fee on state lands

Q70. Aregistration fee for

kayaks andcanoes

Q73. A one-eighth


sales tax

Q74. A state tax in

Vermont onsporting

equipment

Q72. A bond to


Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)



oppose each of the following to provide funding for

a land conservation initiative:

34

28

58

47

44

40

27

54

53

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Q71. A parking

fee on state lands

Q70. Aregistration fee for

kayaks andcanoes


sportingequipment

Q73. A one-eighth


sales tax


acquisition

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

� Demographic data are shown in this section.

• Gender.

o The resident survey is evenly split between men (49%) and women (51%), while

the licensed recreationists are overwhelmingly male (93% of hunters and 81% of

anglers).

• Age.

o The mean age of residents is 47.83 years old. Likewise, hunters have a mean age

of 47.26 years, while anglers are slightly younger (44.77 years).

• Place of residence.

o Residents most often live in a rural area not on a farm (43% stated this) or in a

small city or town (32%). Hunters and anglers had similar responses.

• Education.

o Regarding levels of education, residents most often have a bachelor’s degree

(30% stated this) or are a high school graduate or equivalent (23%).

o Hunters (47%) and anglers (44%) most often are a high school graduate or

equivalent.

• Household income.

o Residents skew toward the higher income brackets slightly more than hunters or

anglers.


Q86. Respondent's gender (observed by

interviewer; not asked).


49

51

0 20 40 60 80 100

Male

Female

Percent (n=802)


Q86. Respondent's gender (observed by

interviewer; not asked).


93

7

81

19

0 20 40 60 80 100

Male

Female

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q80. May I ask your age?


20

18

18

14

14

13

0

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

65 years old or

older

55-64 years old

45-54 years old

35-44 years old

25-34 years old

18-24 years old

Don't know

Refused

Percent (n=802)

Mean: 47.83

Median: 50


Q80. May I ask your age?


7

28

23

20

15

6

0

3

5

24

24

17

16

10

1

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

65 years old orolder

55-64 years old

45-54 years old

35-44 years old

25-34 years old

18-24 years old

Don't know

Refused

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)

Hunters

Mean: 47.26

Median: 48

Anglers

Mean: 44.77 Median: 47


Q77. Do you consider your place of residence to be

a large city or urban area, a suburban area, a small

city or town, a rural area on a farm, or a rural area

not on a farm?


6

7

32

11

43

0

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Large city or urban

area

Suburban area

Small city or town

Rural area on afarm

Rural area NOT ona farm

Don't know

Refused

Percent (n=802)


Q77. Do you consider your place of residence to be

a large city or urban area, a suburban area, a small

city or town, a rural area on a farm, or a rural area

not on a farm?


5

7

30

13

46

1

1

4

6

40

10

37

1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Large city or urbanarea

Suburban area

Small city or town

Rural area on afarm

Rural area NOT on

a farm

Don't know

Refused

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q78. What is the highest level of education you

have completed?


3

23

19

9

30

12

3

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Not a high school

graduate

High schoolgraduate or

equivalent

Some college or

trade school, nodegree

Associate's ortrade school

degree

Bachelor's degree

Master's degree

Professional or

doctorate degree

Refused

Percent (n=802)


Q78. What is the highest level of education you

have completed?


7

47

13

9

18

3

2

0

3

4

44

15

8

16

7

3

1

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Not a high schoolgraduate

High schoolgraduate orequivalent

Some college or

trade school, nodegree

Associate's or

trade schooldegree

Bachelor's degree

Master's degree

Professional ordoctorate degree

Don't know

Refused

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


Q79. Which of these categories best describes

your total household income before taxes last

year?


9

16

22

14

19

5

16

0 20 40 60 80 100

Less than $25,000

$25,000-$49,999

$50,000-$74,999

$75,000-$99,999

$100,000 or more

Don't know

Refused

Percent (n=802)


Q79. Which of these categories best describes

your total household income before taxes last

year?


9

20

27

13

12

4

17

11

24

24

14

10

3

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

Less than $25,000

$25,000-$49,999

$50,000-$74,999

$75,000-$99,999

$100,000 or more

Don't know

Refused

Percent

Hunter (n=200)

Angler (n=203)


ABOUT RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT

Responsive Management is an internationally recognized public opinion and attitude survey research

firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues. Our mission is to help natural

resource and outdoor recreation agencies and organizations better understand and work with their

constituents, customers, and the public.

Utilizing our in-house, full-service telephone, mail, and web-based survey facilities with 50

professional interviewers, we have conducted more than 1,000 telephone surveys, mail surveys,

personal interviews, and focus groups, as well as numerous marketing and communication plans,

needs assessments, and program evaluations.

Clients include the federal natural resource and land management agencies, most state fish and

wildlife agencies, state departments of natural resources, environmental protection agencies, state

park agencies, tourism boards, most of the major conservation and sportsmen’s organizations, and

numerous private businesses. Responsive Management also collects attitude and opinion data for

many of the nation’s top universities.

Specializing in research on public attitudes toward natural resource and outdoor recreation issues,

Responsive Management has completed a wide range of projects during the past 25 years, including

dozens of studies of hunters, anglers, wildlife viewers, boaters, park visitors, historic site visitors,

hikers, birdwatchers, campers, and rock climbers. Responsive Management has conducted studies

on endangered species; waterfowl and wetlands; and the reintroduction of large predators such as

wolves, grizzly bears, and the Florida panther.

Responsive Management has assisted with research on numerous natural resource ballot initiatives

and referenda and has helped agencies and organizations find alternative funding and increase their

membership and donations. Additionally, Responsive Management has conducted major

organizational and programmatic needs assessments to assist natural resource agencies and

organizations in developing more effective programs based on a solid foundation of fact.


Responsive Management has conducted research on public attitudes toward natural resources and

outdoor recreation in almost every state in the United States, as well as in Canada, Australia, the

United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan. Responsive Management has also conducted focus

groups and personal interviews with residents of the African countries of Algeria, Cameroon,

Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Responsive Management routinely conducts surveys in Spanish and has conducted surveys in

Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese and has completed numerous studies with specific target

audiences, including Hispanics; African-Americans; Asians; women; children; senior citizens; urban,

suburban, and rural residents; large landowners; and farmers.

Responsive Management’s research has been upheld in U.S. District Courts; used in peer-reviewed

journals; and presented at major natural resource, fish and wildlife, and outdoor recreation

conferences across the world. Company research has been featured in most of the nation’s major

media, including CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and on the front pages of USA

Today and The Washington Post. Responsive Management’s research has also been highlighted in

Newsweek magazine.

Visit the Responsive Management website at:

www.responsivemanagement.com

opinions on fish, wildlife, and land use among vermont residents, hunters, and...

Documents