public awareness of and attitudes towards black bears and ... · three different black bear-human...

Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears

and their Management in Wisconsin

Jordan Petchenik, Lauren Bradshaw and Robert Holsman

Submitted to:

Bureau of Wildlife Management

Prepared by:

Bureau of Environmental Analysis and Sustainability

June 2018

For additional information please contact:

Jordan Petchenik or Robert Holsman

Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Environmental Analysis and Sustainability

101 S. Webster Street

Madison, WI 53707

[email protected]

[email protected]

Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 2

About this Report

This report presents results of a statewide survey of Wisconsin residents regarding their awareness of

and attitudes about black bears. It also examines the public’s tolerance for various bear behaviors and

preferences for management actions in response to three different black bear–human interaction

scenarios. The study was conducted to support the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’

wildlife management program. This report presents study findings, interprets the information within

pertinent contexts, and may identify potentially useful lines of additional inquiry. This report does not,

however, include specific recommendations or policy prescriptions.

Acknowledgements

• Lauren Bradshaw managed survey logistics, including printing and assembling the mail survey

She was also responsible for entering the majority of the survey data in addition to her roles as

analyst and co-author of this report.

• David MacFarland, the department’s carnivore specialist in Wildlife Management when the

project was initiated, was the lead proponent for the conduct of this study. Dave also

contributed much thinking to the design of sampling procedures and research questions we

addressed.

• Members of the department’s Bear Advisory Committee were influential in the study design

and reviewed survey questions prior to focus group testing. External partner members included

Dan Eklund, Ralph Fritsch, Mike Gappa, Rich Kirchmeyer, Joe Koback, Al Lobner, Nick

McCann, Mike Rogers and Robert Willging; department members included Brian Dhuey,

Nancy Frost, Wayne Hall, Jr., John Huff, Gregory Kessler, Bradley Koele, Kirk Konichek,

Dave MacFarland (chair), Linda Olver, Nathan Roberts, Robert Rolley (retired), Margaret

Stewart and Michelle Woodford.

• We appreciate the support and direction provided by Sanjay Olson, Eric Lobner and Bob Nack

in undertaking this effort.

• Dreux Watermolen, Section Chief for Analysis Services, played a critical leadership role in

coordinating meetings between the bureaus of Wildlife Management and Environmental

Analysis and Sustainability.

• Dougal Walker produced the maps for the report and numerous presentations.

• Thanks for pre-testing the questionnaire are extended to William Erikson, Steve Geis, Michael

Halstad, Adam Mednik, Cheryl Moon, Greg Pils and Dougal Walker.

• Funding for this research was provided through a federal Pittman-Robertson grant.


Table of Contents

2 Acknowledgements

4 Introduction

6 Methods: Sampling, Data Collection and Analysis

6 Questionnaire Design and Development

6 Regional Composition

7 Sampling

9 Results and Discussion

9 Awareness of Black Bears in Wisconsin

11 How the Public Feels about Black Bears and Concerns about Safety

13 Thoughts on Wisconsin’s Black Bear Population

19 Public Tolerance for and Preferred Management Response to Black Bear Behavior

31 Respondent Background

36 Literature Cited

37 Regional Snapshots

37 Northwest Respondent Profile

39 Northeast Respondent Profile

41 West Respondent Profile

43 Central Respondent Profile

45 Columbia Respondent Profile

47 East Respondent Profile

49 Appendix: Mailed Questionnaire


Introduction

Wisconsin’s black bear (Ursus americanus) population has increased from approximately 4,000 in the

1980s to over 25,000 today (Kohn 1982, MacFarland 2009, Dennison et al. 2017). In conjunction with

bear population growth, bear range has expanded from the less-populated forested northern counties

into the central and western (and more populated) counties (MacFarland 2009). Today resident bears

are found in more than half of Wisconsin’s counties and have been observed in every county of the

state. A consequence of the range expansion and growth in numbers has been the need to manage black

bear-human interactions; bears are now sighted more frequently throughout the urban-rural fringe.

The public lodged 755 bear complaints in 2017, 55 percent fewer than were received during the

highest year in 1995 (Engstrom et al. 2017). Most of the complaints are defined as nuisance bears that

damage bird feeders, raid garbage cans or other minor property damage. Most of these are resolved

through phone consultations with Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or United States

Department of Agriculture staff. Extreme cases, which include threats to public safety, are addressed

by euthanizing the offending bears; there were five such cases in 2017 (Engstrom et al. 2017).

Trapping and relocating bears is frequently relied on to address problem bears; it is most typically used

where there is documented agricultural losses to crops or bee hives. In 2016, 590 black bears were

trapped and relocated in Wisconsin, an increase from approximately 400 in 1990 (Engstrom et al.

2016). Bear damage to agriculture and nuisance complaints are also managed by issuing landowners

special shooting permits. Fifty bears were killed on these permits in 2017, all in agricultural situations

(Engstrom et al. 2017).

Black bears are managed as a big game animal and Wisconsin boasts one of the highest success rates

among states that allow harvest. Over 100,000 people apply annually to hunt bears with many waiting

seven to 11 years to be drawn for a harvest permit. Hunters harvested over 4,000 bears during the 2017

season (Dhuey et al. 2017).

The Wisconsin DNR has been managing the state’s bear population guided by a plan that was last

updated in the 1980s. In 2012, members of the department’s black bear advisory committee comprised

of department staff and represents from partner organizations, including the Great Lakes Indian Fish

and Wildlife Commission, concluded that an updated black bear management plan would be merited.

The advisory committee also acknowledged that bear population management goals included in the

existing plan may not accurately represent current preferences by the public; a fresh understanding of

the public’s tolerance for bear behavior and human-bear interactions could help better inform

development of an updated management plan.

The research reported here was conducted to inform the Wisconsin DNR’s wildlife management

program on the public’s awareness of and attitudes towards black bears as well as the public’s

tolerance for different types of bear behavior and preferences for management actions in response to

three different black bear-human interaction scenarios.


The results are based on data generated from a questionnaire mailed to 5,700 residents within bear

range and from an on-line panel of 600 residents of the south-eastern counties that are generally

considered non-bear range.

To anticipate the detailed findings, the public generally:

• held similar attitudes across the state towards bears and their management;

• holds positive feelings towards bears, including a willingness to live near where bears live even

after experiencing multiple types of bear nuisance and/or damage;

• considers bear management decisions as being important to them, with residents of the north

significantly more likely than southern residents to say bear management decisions are

important;

• would like to see the bear population maintained or managed at a population level that the

habitat can support;

• does not view bears as being dangerous but has safety concerns for children and pets when they

are outdoors in areas where bears are found;

• is tolerant of bear sightings and minor intrusions such as damage to bird feeders and garbage

cans but considerably less tolerant of the most intrusive and damaging behavior such as

attempting to enter a home or vehicle or attacking livestock;

• supports the state’s current response approach to bear-human interactions by follow-up

consultations and an abatement preference for trapping and relocating offending bears;

• and public support for lethal removal of an offending bear, while still representing an overall

minority, increases after a bear demonstrates more than one type of offense, and in those

situations, there is a greater preference for the landowner rather than a wildlife official to kill

the bear.


Methods: Sampling, Data Collection and Analysis

Questionnaire Design and Development

Public attitudes towards black bears in Wisconsin were assessed using two survey modes: a postal

survey of randomly selected Wisconsin households and an online survey of panelists recruited by a

third-party firm to represent residents of the south-eastern counties that are generally considered non-

bear range. Questions of interest were developed through consultation with the DNR’s carnivore

ecologist, in-depth discussions at two meetings of the bear advisory committee and a review of black

bear related survey work conducted in other states. After an initial draft was developed, it was

presented to the bear advisory committee for review and feedback followed by an internal review by

Bureau of Wildlife Management leadership and agency administration. Two questions regarding the

use of dogs in bear hunting and a question on the number of bait sites allowable per hunter were

subsequently removed. The revised questionnaire was then pretested in a focus group with staff

volunteers; participants were a mix people who own property in traditional northern bear territory and

southern, non-bear territory. Minor revisions (e.g., clarifying ambiguous language, adding response

options) were made to the draft which was then shared with the bear advisory committee for final

review and approval.

Regional Composition

As noted in other studies we’ve conducted, a standard public opinion survey for Wisconsin might

contact between 400 and 1,000 people. We drew a large sample (n = 6,300) because we wanted to

assess potential differences in bear attitudes and preferences across the state and to generate results that

would be applicable to a geographic scale finer than a statewide picture or north-south dichotomy.

Budget constraints prevented sampling at a county level, so we developed six regions. Composition

was determined through consultation with the DNR’s carnivore ecologist and then presented for

review to wildlife managers across the state and the bear advisory committee. In developing the

regions, six county-level criteria were considered: historical bear range, emerging range, bear density,

bear sightings, primary landscape type (e.g., agricultural lands versus forested lands) and human

population. Input from managers and committee members resulted in six regions (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Adjacent counties comprising the six

analytical regions used in this study.


The ‘northwest’ region is considered primary bear range. It contains copious, large public land areas

including national, state and county forests. There is some agriculture present in this region. It also is

generally considered to have the highest bear densities in the state. Correspondingly, this region also

has the highest number of bear complaints annually.

The ‘northeast’ region is also considered primary bear range with large forested blocks. This region

has less agriculture than the northwest but has many lake homes and cottages. Bear densities are also

relatively high throughout this region, especially in its western most counties.

The ‘central’ region corresponds to an area where large forests transition to smaller blocks of wooded

habitat interspersed with agriculture. There are also several metropolitan communities in this region.

Bear numbers are lower here than the two more northerly zones, but the species is still relatively

common and its population is likely increasing in the area.

The ‘west’ region follows the Mississippi River corridor and the state’s Driftless Region. Historically,

bears would have been considered rare in this area, and today are still not common. This region,

however, has experienced some degree of range expansion for black bears as more northerly habitats

may have become saturated.

The ‘Columbia’ region consists of five rural counties where resident bear numbers are considered low

and habitat is generally fragmented other than along a connecting corridor along the Wisconsin River.

This area was singled out because of its potential to see future bear expansion if statewide population

increases were to occur.

Finally, the ‘east’ region includes the most urbanized counties of the state and is not considered to

provide bear habitat. Residents of this region are assumed to only encounter bears on very rare

occasions, usually transient males.

Sampling

An eight-page questionnaire was mailed to 5,700 randomly selected Wisconsin adults (minimum age

of 18 years) residing in households in all regions except the east. Household addresses were purchased

from a commercial firm and randomly drawn within each sampling region using a mix of address-

based-sampling of U.S. Census records with an oversample of known rentals and households with

younger adults. Sample size across the five regions varied based on anticipated response rate and total

region population. We followed standard mail survey protocols. A maximum of three contacts were

made with each household: 1) an initial questionnaire with a cover letter (signed by the Wildlife

Management bureau director) and a first-class hand-stamped, addressed return envelope (known as the

full mailing); 2) a follow-up letter which served as a “thank you” for returning the questionnaire or as a

reminder to please complete and return it; 3) and a second full mailing sent to all non-respondents.

Mailings were conducted in May-June 2017.

The survey of adults in the east region was conducted via an online panel. Rather than a mail survey,

an on-line panel was selected due to our belief that the topic would not be as salient to residents of this

part of the state (i.e. non-bear range, rare sightings of bears, very limited interactions) and thereby

reducing the likelihood of achieving a response rate sufficient to develop a picture of resident attitudes

towards black bears. The third-party survey firm guaranteed 600 completed questionnaires from

participants selected to mirror the demographics of the region (or a better representation of the


demographics than would be obtained from a mailed survey). Questions in the mail survey which were

not applicable to this region were not asked of the panel participants (e.g., perception of bear numbers

in panelist’s home county). Online panelists were sent an e-mail link to an electronic questionnaire

posted on the department’s survey platform. The e-mail message was routed through the company

from which the panel was recruited and maintained. Access to the survey was closed when the number

of completed surveys reached 600. (NOTE: Omission of the east region in the main body of the report,

whether in table or summary text, indicates that the question was not included in the panel survey.)

Responses to the mail and panel surveys were weighted to reflect within-region demographics using

U.S. Census data. We also weighted data to correct for geographic oversampling of some regions and

pooled the resulting responses to create a statewide composite of attitudes and preferences.

The response rate is based on a formula that divides the number of returned questionnaires by the total

number mailed, minus the number of cases determined to be ‘non-sample.’ For this study a non-

sample is defined as respondents who are deceased or mailings undelivered with no forwarding address

provided. The on-line panel survey achieved its target of 600 completes, essentially a 100 percent

usable response. Of the 5,700 mail questionnaires, 569 were eliminated as non-sample. Usable

questionnaires were returned by 2,761 residents for a mailed questionnaire response rate of 54 percent.

Including the returns from the on-line panel yields a total response rate of 59 percent (Table 1).

Table 1. Sample size and response rate per region.

Region Sample size Non-deliverable Returned Response rate

Northwest 1,000 94 514 57%

Northeast 1,200 103 626 57%

West 1,200 129 551 51%

Central 1,300 148 603 52%

Columbia 1,000 95 467 52%

East 600 0 600 100%

Total 6,300 569 3,361 59%

The Bureau of Environmental Analysis and Sustainability conducted all tasks associated with the

survey effort. This included assembling the mailings, tracking the response rate, performing the

necessary data entry and data cleaning, and conducting all analyses using SPSS version 24. All

mailings originated from and were returned to the Bureau of Environmental Analysis and

Sustainability in Madison. The margin of error for the study is +/-3 percent.


Results and Discussion

Awareness of Black Bears in Wisconsin

Survey respondents were asked four questions to assess their awareness of black bears in Wisconsin

and their experience with bear damage. Nearly everyone said that prior to receiving the survey they

were aware that black bears lived in Wisconsin. Ninety one percent of the east respondents knew bears

resided in the state; awareness in the other five regions was 98 percent to 100 percent.

A majority of state residents have seen a black bear in the wild somewhere in Wisconsin. Sightings

were most common among residents living in primary bear range; 98 percent of residents in the

northwest region and 95 percent of residents in the northeast region have at some point seen a wild

bear (Table 2). Sightings were next most common in the central region where more than eight residents

in ten (86%) said they have seen a wild bear. Sightings were also common in the west (65%) and

Columbia (70%) regions. Bear sightings by residents of the east region explain the significant finding;

two-fifths of the residents (41%) indicated they have seen a wild black bear in Wisconsin.

Table 2. Percent of respondents who indicated seeing a black bear in Wisconsin (not including zoos)

and the number of wild bear sightings in past 12 months.

Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide

Seen a bear in Wisconsin (not including zoos?) (p < 0.000)

Yes 98% 95% 65% 86% 70% 41% 76%

No 2 5 35 14 30 59 24

Number of wild bear sighting in past 12 months (% Yes, above) (p < 0.000)

Zero 9% 20% 46% 31% 55% 43% 31%

Once 15 20 27 29 24 39 24

2–5 times 47 43 22 33 18 17 33

6–10 times 16 8 3 4 2 1 7

11+ 13 8 2 3 2 0 5

Of the respondents who have seen a wild black bear in Wisconsin, a majority had seen a bear within

the 12 months prior to the survey (Table 2). Only the Columbia region included a majority of

respondents who had not seen a bear during the past 12 months. As expected, sightings were most

frequent (two or more times) by residents of the northwest (76%) and northeast regions (59%),

followed by residents of the central region (40%). Sightings reported by residents of the east region

were assumed to have occurred in parts of the state where bears inhabit and may be explained by

ownership of or renting property in northern Wisconsin.

Experience with damage from black bears was addressed with a question asking if the respondents had

ever experienced any damage from bears, allowing the respondent to check as many from a list of 11

experiences or checking “None of the above:”


Have you experienced damage from bears in Wisconsin to any of the following? (check all that

apply)

□ Bird feeders □ Crops grown for commercial purpose

□ Garbage cans □ Residential vegetable gardens

□ Buildings □ Livestock raised for commercial purpose

□ Car or truck (from hitting a bear) □ Residential poultry and/or rabbits

□ Bee hives □ Something else? Please specify below.

□ Apple and/or Christmas trees _________________________________

□ None of the above

Across the five regions (damage experience was excluded from the east region survey), damage to

birdfeeders was most commonly reported (28%) followed by garbage cans (13%). No other damage

type in any region exceeded five percent. As might be expected, respondents who derive an income

from farming (including beekeeping) were more likely (49%) than non-farmers (36%) to report some

form of damage (p < 0.000).

For analysis simplicity, the response to the damage question was summed to create a 3-point damage

scale identifying those that have never experienced any damage from bears, those that have

experienced one form of damage and those that have experienced two or more forms of damage. It is

important to note that the question addressed types of damage, not total occurrences. It is possible that

a respondent experienced one type of damage (e.g., raided garbage cans) but the damage occurred

more than one time.

Table 3. Respondents’ experience with black bear damage.

Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia 5 Regions

No damage 35% 43% 82% 72% 85% 63%

One type 28 31 12 16 11 20

Two or more types 37 26 6 12 4 17

Table 3 indicates that more than one-third of the respondents (37%) had experienced some form of

damage attributed to black bears. As might be expected, respondents from the two northern regions

were most likely to experience damage (p < 0.000); two-thirds of the northwest respondents (65%) and

more than one-half of the northeast respondents (57%) reported damage. Respondents from the other

three regions were considerably less likely to experience bear damage (p < 0.000); one-fifth (21%) of

the aggregate population reported some form of damage.


How the Public Feels about Black Bears and Concerns about Safety

Three questions addressed the respondents’ feelings towards bears and one three-part question

addressed potential concerns about safety. Across the six regions, respondents expressed favorable

feelings towards bears. Although a statistical difference was found (p < 0.005), substantive differences

across the regions were small. Favorable or very favorable feelings ranged from a minimum of 55

percent in the Columbia region to 60 percent in the northeast region. Unfavorable or very unfavorable

feelings were noted by at most 13 percent of residents of the northwest region. Further analysis reveals

that residents with the most occurrences of damage by bears had significantly higher unfavorable

feelings (22% unfavorable) than those without damage experience (8%) (p < 0.000). Note, however,

that a slight majority of 51 percent of those experiencing the most types of damage still express

favorable feelings towards bears.

Another question focused on the importance of bear management to the respondent. When asked,

“How important are the decisions regarding bear management in Wisconsin to you personally?,”

results align as one might expect. Respondents from the two northern regions were significantly more

likely to say that bear management decisions are important to them than were respondents from any

other region (Table 4; p < 0.000). Additionally, respondents from the east region were least likely to

say bear management decisions are important to them and most likely to indicate indifference,

meaning management decisions are neither important nor unimportant to them (p < 0.000).

Table 4. Importance of black bear management decisions to the respondents.


Very important 33% 34% 19% 24% 19% 13% 23%

Somewhat important 48 44 48 46 48 39 45

Neither 14 16 27 23 26 35 24

Somewhat unimportant 4 4 4 5 6 11 6

Very unimportant 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

Regardless of where a person lives across the state, the vast majority of the public (81%) agreed that

bears deserve our appreciation (Table 5). Although significant differences were found across the

regions, substantive differences were not important, meaning appreciation levels were generally

similar across the regions. Likewise, a majority of the public (77%) agreed that bears help keep nature

in balance. The east region stands out by offering the strongest level of agreement (87% agree or

strongly agree – approximately ten percentage points higher than the five other regions; p < 0.000).

Respondents were also asked if they agreed or disagreed that in general, black bears are not dangerous

to people. Overall, seven respondents in ten (70%) agreed that bears do not pose a danger to humans.

The standout region, as noted elsewhere, is the east. The region where respondents were least likely to

have ever seen a wild bear in Wisconsin offered the lowest level of agreement (though a slight

majority of 51%) that black bears are not dangerous to people. In contrast, more than three-fourths of

the respondents from the northwest region (78%) agreed that bears are not dangerous to people.


Table 5. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree that black bears deserve appreciation and that

black bears help balance nature.


Black bears deserve our appreciation. (p < 0.004)

Strongly agree 28% 34% 29% 32% 24% 34% 30%

Agree 52 49 56 49 54 49 51

Unsure 14 13 12 14 19 14 14

Disagree 5 4 3 4 2 2 3

Strongly disagree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Black bears help keep nature in balance. (p < 0.000)

Strongly agree 23% 27% 24% 25% 18% 28% 24%

Agree 49 50 55 51 55 59 53

Unsure 21 18 17 19 23 12 18

Disagree 6 4 4 3 3 2 4


We explored safety concerns further by presenting three situations, each with a different focus: concern

for personal safety while outdoors in black bear areas, concern for the safety of children who are

outdoors in bear areas, and concern for pets while they are outdoors in areas where bears live. Results

overall indicate that when outdoors in areas where bears live, respondents would worry less about their

personal safety than about the safety of children or pets (Table 6). On a statewide level, as many people

would worry about their personal safety (37%) when outdoors in areas where black bears live as would

not worry (38%). The greatest disparity occurred between respondents from the east region and those

from the northeast region. Respondents from the east were most likely to agree that they would worry

(50%) while respondents from the northeast were least likely to agree they would worry (29%).

Respondents expressed being considerably more worried about the safety of children when they are

outdoors in areas where black bears live. When the five regions are aggregated (i.e. east region

excluded), 62 percent agreed that they would worry compared to 24 percent that disagreed they would

worry. Without respondents from the east the disparity between regions is not as striking, yet statistical

differences were found. Respondents from the Columbia region were most likely to agree that they

would worry about the safety of children (66%) while respondents from the northeast were least likely

(but nevertheless a majority) to agree they would worry (58%) (p < 0.048; Table 6). We found similar

results for worrying about the safety of pets (results apply only to the 80% that indicate pet ownership).

Across the five regions, more than one-half (54%) agreed that they would worry about their pets

compared to 28 percent that disagreed they would worry (Table 6). The most notable differences were

again found between the Columbia and northeast regions. Respondents from the Columbia region were

most likely to agree that they would worry about the safety of their pets (61%) while respondents from

the northeast were least likely to agree they would worry (nearly one-half, 48%) (p < 0.000; Table 6).


Table 6. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree that they would worry about safety (percent

responses to “I would worry about…”).

Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East1 Statewide

…my personal safety while outdoors in areas where bears live.” (p < 0.000)

Strongly agree 9% 7% 9% 10% 9% 17% 10%

Agree 27 22 28 24 30 33 27

Neither 26 23 24 26 26 25 25

Disagree 21 33 30 29 27 22 27


…the safety of children who are outdoors in areas where bears live.” 2 (p < 0.048)

Strongly agree 20% 20% 20% 23% 24% 21%

Agree 43 38 44 39 42 41

Neither 13 15 16 15 15 15

Disagree 16 20 15 17 15 17

Strongly disagree 9 8 5 6 4 7

…the safety of my pets while outdoors in areas where bears live.” 2 (p < 0.000)

Strongly agree 17% 17% 18% 21% 16% 18%

Agree 39 31 36 31 45 36

Neither 17 18 20 20 18 18

Disagree 18 26 20 22 17 21

Strongly disagree 10 9 6 7 4 7 1 To minimize response burden, respondents to the east region survey were not asked about safety of children or

safety of pets. 2 Non-pet owners were excluded via the “Not applicable” response option.

Thoughts on Wisconsin’s Black Bear Population

Understanding the public’s perception of the black bear population, the willingness to have bears live

near where people live, as well as desired changes in the bear population are essential for establishing

regional population goals across the state. We considered the public’s perception of the current bear

population and range along with their preference for bear numbers near where they live and across the

state using a series of questions. Due to the esoteric nature of the topic and to ease respondent burden,

response options were generalized, meaning “increase” or “decrease” rather than presenting specific

population goals.

When asked, “Prior to receiving this survey, would you have said the number of bears across

Wisconsin is…[increasing or decreasing]?”, a slight majority of respondents (51%) said the black bear

population was either greatly (16%) or slightly (35%) increasing (Table 7). Perceptions of increase

were greatest in the northwest (58%) and northeast (59%) regions; those from the east region were

least likely to say that bear numbers were increasing (34%) and most likely to say that bear numbers

were decreasing (17%, compared to 8% for the entire state) (p < 0.000). Black bear numbers were

perceived to be stable by about one-fifth to one-fourth of the total respondents, although about one-

third of the respondents from the east region (34%) thought that bear numbers have remained stable.


Table 7. Respondents’ perceptions of Wisconsin’s black bear population (percent responses to “Prior

to receiving this survey, would you have said the number of bears across Wisconsin is…?”).


Greatly increasing 28% 23% 11% 18% 11% 5% 16%

Slightly increasing 30 36 38 37 43 29 35

Remaining stable 24 22 21 21 23 34 24

Slightly decreasing 3 5 7 4 4 15 7

Greatly decreasing 0 1 0 1 0 2 1

Unsure 15 14 24 20 20 15 18

Results also indicate that one-half or more of the respondents believe that black bears have been

expanding their range across the state (Table 8). As one might expect, respondents from the two

regions where bears have most recently expanded their range were most likely to agree that bear range

is expanding: sixty-one percent of respondents from the west region and seven respondents in ten

(70%) from the Columbia region believe that bears are expanding their range. Respondents from the

east region were least likely to say that bear range is expanding (42%) and most likely to say that bear

range has been shrinking (19%, compared to 8% for the entire state; p < 0.000; Table 8). Black bear

range was perceived to have remained unchanged by about one-fifth of the respondents, with the

exception of those residing in the west and Columbia regions where slightly more than one respondent

in ten (13% and 11%, respectively) perceived range stability.

Table 8. Respondents’ perceptions of black bear distribution in Wisconsin (percent responses to

“Prior to receiving this survey, would you have said the geographic range of bears across

Wisconsin is…?”).


Greatly expanding 23% 18% 17% 18% 16% 9% 17%

Slightly expanding 29 32 44 37 54 33 38

Remaining stable 25 25 13 19 11 28 21

Slightly shrinking 4 4 7 5 3 15 6

Greatly shrinking 1 1 3 2 1 4 2

Unsure 18 20 17 19 16 12 17

Respondents expressed positive feelings towards having bears in Wisconsin. Table 9 indicates that

regardless of region, about three-fourths of the respondents (75%) disagreed with the statement that

Wisconsin should have as few bears as possible. (A significant difference across the regions was noted

but the difference was not substantive.) About one respondent in ten (10%) felt otherwise, agreeing

that the state should have as few bears as possible. Results also indicate that across the regions, more

than one-half of the respondents (54% to 59%) believed the state should have as many bears as the

habitat can support; a possible indication that respondents considered the role bears play in maintaining

a balanced ecosystem. There was some disparity across the regions for those who disagreed. Measures

of disagreement with having as many bears as the habitat can support were nearly doubled in the

northwest region (28% disagreeing) to that found in the east region (15% disagreeing). About one-fifth

to one-fourth of the respondents from the other four regions disagreed.


Table 9. Percentage of respondents who agree or disagree that Wisconsin should have as few bears as

possible and as many bears as the habitat will support.


“I think the state should have as few bears as possible.” (p < 0.043)

Strongly Agree 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2%

Agree 7 10 7 10 7 6 8

Unsure 15 13 15 15 16 17 15

Disagree 42 40 45 41 48 44 43


“I think the state should have as many bears as the habitat in the state will support.” (p < 0.000)

Strongly agree 16% 16% 15% 18% 14% 19% 16%

Agree 40 43 39 37 40 36 39

Unsure 16 20 22 22 25 31 23

Disagree 22 15 22 19 17 12 18


Three questions asked respondents to think about black bears closer to where they live rather than at a

statewide perspective. Results were as expected when asked to assess the abundance of bears in the

respondent’s home county (Table 10). Black bear numbers were perceived to be “abundant” or “very

abundant” by respondents from the northwest region (50%) and those from the northeast region (53%).

Although these regions hold the highest black bear density in the state, two-fifths or more of the

respondents from the northwest and the northeast thought bears were present in their region, but not

abundant (40% and 46%, respectively). An assessment of “present, but not abundant” was the most

common response from respondents residing in the west (46%), central (58%) and Columbia (54%)

regions. The west region was most likely to offer an assessment of “rare” or “very rare” (35%). East

region residents were not asked this question.

Results continue to reveal public acceptance for black bears residing on Wisconsin’s landscape. Table

10 further tells us that regardless of region, more than one-half of the respondents are willing to have

black bears residing near where they live. Willingness to live near bears was strongest in the northwest

(69%) and northeast (67%) regions, perhaps indicative of respondents’ history of and numerous

experiences from living near bears. To be fair, not all northern respondents were willing to live near

bears; slightly less than one-fourth (23%) of people residing in the northwest and northeast regions

would prefer not to live near bears. A willingness to live near bears was also expressed by a majority

of respondents from the west (54%), central (56%) and Columbia (53%) regions. Approximately three

respondents in ten (28% to 31%) from these latter regions would prefer not to live near bears.


Table 10. Respondents’ perceptions of bear numbers in their county of residence and willingness to

have bears near where they live.


“Would you say the number of bears occurring in your county of residence is…” (p < 0.000)

Very abundant 16% 12% 1% 3% 0% 7%

Abundant 34 43 6 14 7 19

Present, not abundant 40 46 46 58 54 49

Rare 3 3 27 13 22 13

Very rare 1 1 8 3 7 4

Not present 0 1 2 1 1 1

Unsure 5 5 11 8 10 8

“Are you willing to have bears residing near where you live?” (p < 0.000)

Yes, absolutely 28% 30% 18% 20% 17% 23%

Yes, probably 41 37 36 36 36 37

Not sure 7 11 19 14 15 13

No, probably not 20 17 21 21 24 21

Absolutely not 3 6 7 8 7 6

One might hypothesize that a willingness to live near bears is in-part derived from good or bad

experiences with bears. We questioned if respondents who have experienced bear damage were more

likely to report an unwillingness to live near bears. Regardless of damage experience, no correlation

was found with the willingness to live near bears. In each region, respondents who experienced two or

more types of damage were just as likely to say they were willing to live near bears as were

respondents who have never experienced bear damage. This may be an indication that the experienced

damage is not great (i.e. costly to repair, frequently occurring or extensive) or that bear damage is an

acceptable consequence of residing in bear country. Such an explanation may be supported by the

finding that respondents who perceived bears to be abundant or present in their home county were

significantly most likely to say they were willing to live near bears (p < 0.000). Further exploration

(via interviews or focus groups) would be needed to better understand the dynamics of the relationship.

Respondents were next asked if they would like to see black bear numbers increase or decrease in their

residential county as well as in the rest of the state. Results indicate a preference for the status quo.

One-half or more of the respondents from each region (50% to 56%) said they would like to see black

bear numbers in their county remain stable (Table 11). Preference for fewer black bears was greatest in

the northwest (29%) and northeast (25%) regions. Respondents from the west region were most likely

to indicate a preference for an increase in black bear numbers (24%), although the preference was

nearly uniform across the regions. Similar results are found when the perspective switches from the

respondent’s home county to the state as a whole. Nearly one-half of the respondents from each region

(44% to 48%) would prefer statewide black bear numbers to remain at current levels. A preference for

black bear numbers to increase outside a respondent’s home county was noted among respondents in

the west (30%) and Columbia (29%) regions. A preference for black bear numbers to decrease

statewide was observed in the northwest (23%) and northeast (19%) regions. Further analysis did not

reveal any differences in preferred black bear numbers in the respondent’s home county and the rest of

the state. In other words, black bear numbers that respondents most preferred for their home county

were also what they most preferred for the rest of the state.


Table 11. Respondents’ preference for black bear numbers to increase or decrease in their county of

residence and elsewhere in Wisconsin.


“In your county of residence, would you like to see the number of bears…” (p < 0.000)

Greatly increase 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 3%

Slightly increase 13 15 22 15 17 16

Remain the same 50 51 51 55 56 53

Slightly decrease 19 18 4 11 7 12

Greatly decrease 10 7 7 6 5 7

Unsure 5 6 12 10 12 9

“What about for the rest of Wisconsin? Would you like to see the number of bears…” (p < 0.000)

Greatly increase 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 4%

Slightly increase 13 16 25 19 24 19

Remain the same 44 46 44 48 48 46

Slightly decrease 17 15 7 12 6 12

Greatly decrease 6 4 4 3 4 4

Unsure 17 15 15 13 14 15

Survey participants were asked if they regularly visited another area of the state outside their home

county for vacations or recreation. Three in five respondents (61%) from the east region said they

regularly visit counties other than their home county. Within the other regions, 37 percent of

respondents from the northwest and 35 percent from the northeast regularly visit other counties; 44

percent of respondents from the west, central and Columbia regions visit other counties regularly.

Table 12. Respondents’ perceptions of black bear abundance in their vacation regions.

Perception of black bear population Northern respondents who vacation in…

Central East

Abundant 24%

Present 49

Rare/Not present 17

Unsure 10

Central respondents who vacation in…

North East

Abundant 59% 0%

Present 32 18

Rare/Not present 4 60

Unsure 4 22

East respondents who vacation in…

North Central

Abundant 42% 9%

Present 48 41

Rare/Not present 8 36

Unsure 2 14


Except within the east region, response numbers were insufficient to assess respondent perceptions of

black bear abundance and preferences for bear numbers in each vacationing region. To permit further

analysis, we combined the northeast and northwest regions into a “north” region and combined the

west, central and Columbia regions into a “central” region. The east region remained unchanged. Even

when combining the northern regions, however, the number of respondents in the combined group who

indicated that they vacation in the east region was insufficient to allow statistical measures (blank cells

in Tables 12 and 13).

Black bears were perceived to be abundant in the combined three central regions by one-fourth (24%)

of respondents from the two northern regions (Table 12). Approximately one-half (49%) of northern

respondents perceived black bears to be present but not abundant in the central regions. Approximately

three in five (59%) respondents from the central regions perceived black bears to be abundant in the

two northern regions, while one-third (32%) from the central regions perceived bears to be present but

not abundant in the north regions. Three-fifths (60%) of respondents from the central regions perceived

black bears to be rare or not present in the east region. Approximately two-fifths (42%) of respondents

from the east region perceived black bears to be abundant in the combined northern regions. About one

respondent in ten (9%) from the east perceived black bears to be abundant in the combined central

regions; 41 percent perceived bears to be present but not abundant in the central regions.

Table 13. Respondents’ preferences for black bear numbers in their vacation region.

Preference for black bear numbers Northern respondents who vacation in…

Central East

Increase 27%

No change 45

Decrease 18

Unsure 9

Central respondents who vacation in…

North East

Increase 23% 12%

No change 59 64

Decrease 14 0

Unsure 5 24

East respondents who vacation in…

North Central

Increase 25% 29%

No change 66 58

Decrease 9 8

Unsure 0 5

Respondents who regularly visit areas outside their home county expressed preferences for black bear

numbers in the areas they visit (Table 13). As above, the number of respondents in the combined

northern region who vacation in the east region was insufficient to allow statistical measures. Northern

respondents were most likely to prefer that bear numbers remain unchanged (45%) in their central

region vacation counties. Slightly more than one-fourth (27%) of northern respondents would like to

see bear numbers increase in the central regions, while 18 percent would like to see fewer bears in the

central regions. Nearly three-fifths (59%) of respondents from the central regions preferred the status


quo in the northern regions; nearly one-quarter (23%) preferred bear numbers to increase in the

northern regions while 14 percent preferred bear numbers to decrease. Respondents from the central

region overwhelmingly preferred bear numbers to remain unchanged in the east region (64%). Slightly

more than one respondent in ten (12%) from the central regions would like to see bear numbers

increase in the east. Lastly, one-fourth (25%) of respondents from the east region preferred bear

numbers in the northern regions to increase while two-thirds (66%) preferred no change. About three

respondents in ten (29%) from the east preferred bear numbers to increase in the central regions; more

than one-half (58%) preferred bear numbers to remain unchanged in the central regions.

The perceptions of those living in a particular region (Tables 10 and 11) differed somewhat from the

perceptions of those visiting that same region (Tables 12 and 13). For the northern regions, black bears

were perceived to be abundant by 47 percent of northern residents compared to 59 percent of

respondents from the central regions and 42 percent of respondents from the east region. For the

central regions, black bears were perceived to be abundant by ten percent of central region residents

compared to 24 percent of northern respondents and nine percent of east region respondents. Similar

observations can be made with respect to preferences for black bear numbers. For the northern regions,

17 percent of the northern residents preferred bear numbers to increase compared to 23 percent and 25

percent of respondents from the central and east regions, respectively. Further, 27 percent of residents

of the northern regions preferred black bear numbers to decline compared to 14 percent and 9 percent

of respondents from the central and east regions, respectively. For the central regions, 21 percent of

central region residents preferred black bear numbers to increase compared to 27 percent and 29

percent of northern and east region respondents, respectively. Lastly, 13 percent of residents of the

central regions preferred black bear numbers to decline compared to 18 percent and 8 percent of

northern and east region respondents, respectively.

Public Tolerance for and Preferred Management Response to Black Bear Behavior

Due to the esoteric nature of black bear management for much of the public, we minimized the number

of detailed management questions in our survey.

We asked one question regarding the season length for baiting:

The use of bait is a popular way to hunt black bears in Wisconsin. Current rules allow

hunters to place bait in mid-April through the end of the hunting season in mid-October.

Which statement best describes your opinion regarding the current regulation about the

length of time that baiting is allowed? (check one)

□ I have no opinion about the baiting timeline

□ I think the current regulation is adequate and should not be changed

□ I think the time allowed for baiting should be lengthened

□ I think the time allowed for baiting should be shortened

We did not find a majority preference within any region, but modal responses perhaps hint at the

saliency of bear management across the state. A preference for shortening the length of time for bear

baiting was noted in the northwest (34%) and northeast (35%) regions (Table 14). These modal

responses are within a few percentages of “no change” in the northwest (33%) and “no opinion” in the

northeast (31%). The modal response for each remaining region was “no opinion” (ranging from 36%

to 44%), perhaps an indication of respondents being unfamiliar with the activity or ambivalent.


Overall, a significant majority within each region either had “no opinion” or preferred the time allowed

for baiting remain unchanged.

Table 14. Respondents’ preference for the length of the black bear baiting season.


No opinion 27% 31% 37% 36% 44% 37% 35%

No change 33 29 30 30 26 26 29

Lengthened 6 5 6 6 4 3 5

Shortened 34 35 28 28 27 33 31

An additional necessity to establish regional population goals across the state is to understand the

public’s tolerance for interactions with black bears (e.g., damage to agricultural crops, raiding garbage

cans, ambling through backyards, etc.). The questionnaire addressed public tolerance for bear behavior

using two different presentations. The first presented seven examples of bear behavior ranging from

most intrusive (i.e. attempting to enter a person’s home) to least intrusive (i.e. sighted on public forest

land) and asked how often such behavior would be acceptable to the survey respondent. Accepted

frequency was measured with five response options:

Never acceptable to you

Acceptable one time, but not after that

Acceptable if it occurs occasionally, but not often

Always acceptable, even if it occurs often

Unsure

Results revealed that the public has little tolerance for the most intrusive and damaging black bear

behavior but considerable tolerance for seeing bears near where respondents live and in forested

public lands (Table 15). Regardless of region, a high majority of respondents (exceeding 70%)

believed it is never acceptable for a black bear to enter a person’s home, garage or vehicle. More

than six respondents in ten (62% overall) believed that a black bear attack on livestock is never

acceptable; 15 percent of the respondents overall are accepting of such behavior. Compared to the

previous two situations, the public is more accepting of black bear damage to agricultural crops.

Regardless of region, crop damage is never acceptable to about one-third of the public (32%);

nearly one-half of the public (48% overall) is considerably more accepting of black bear damage

to crops. While some might hypothesize that seeing a black bear on a camping trip would be

exciting and therefore increase the overall experience, the public expressed low levels of

acceptance for a black bear loitering around their campsite. More than four respondents in ten

(45% overall) expressed no tolerance for campsite loitering while about one respondent in five

(19% overall) was accepting of a single occurrence but not more; approximately one-third of the

respondents (33% overall) expressed higher levels of acceptance of a black bear loitering around a

campsite.


Table 15. Respondents’ acceptance of black bear-human interactions (percent responses to “When is it

acceptable for a bear to…”).


…attempt to enter a person’s home, garage or vehicle? (NS)

Never 75% 74% 74% 72% 71% 73%

One time 14 16 18 17 17 16

Occasionally 9 8 7 8 8 8

Always 0 0 0 1 0 0

Unsure 2 2 2 3 4 2

…attack livestock on an agricultural farm? (NS)

Never 65% 62% 61% 61% 61% 62%

One time 17 21 20 21 20 20


Always 0 1 0 1 0 0

Unsure 4 2 3 3 2 3

…damage agricultural crops? (NS)

Never 30% 33% 31% 33% 32% 32%

One time 17 15 15 16 14 16


Always 4 4 4 5 3 4

Unsure 5 5 4 4 4 5

…be loitering around a campsite? (NS)

Never 42% 44% 46% 47% 45% 45%

One time 22 17 19 19 18 19


Always 1 3 4 2 2 2

Unsure 3 3 3 3 3 3

…destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans on someone’s property near where you live? (p < 0.000)

Never 27% 26% 33% 29% 33% 30%

One time 18 15 23 22 17 19


Always 6 6 4 4 2 4

Unsure 1 3 4 2 3 3

…be sighted in someone’s yard near where you live? (p < 0.000)

Never 13% 13% 21% 15% 20% 16%

One time 10 14 17 17 12 14


Always 15 19 13 10 10 14

Unsure 2 2 2 3 2 2

…be sighted on public forest land (county, state and federally owned land)? (p < 0.000)

Never 1% 1% 5% 2% 4% 3%

One time 1 2 3 2 2 2


Always 64 68 59 60 62 63

Unsure 1 2 2 4 3 3


Statistical differences across the regions are noted for the remaining three situations, although the

differences were not substantively important. About three respondents in ten (30% overall)

indicated it is never acceptable for a black bear to destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans on a

neighboring property. The highest level of intolerance was found for the west region (33% never

acceptable). Across all regions, the modal response was “occasionally,” with the two northern

regions, where respondents are most likely to be familiar with black bears and their behavior,

being most accepting (p < 0.000). Approximately one-half or more of the respondents are

accepting of an occasional sighting of a black bear in a yard near where they live (47% in the west

and 60% in the northwest, p < 0.000). Respondents from the northeast region had the highest level

of tolerance with nearly one in five (19%) accepting such behavior even on a regular basis. Black

bear encounters were most acceptable on public forested lands where the encounters are limited to

a sighting (i.e. damage or intrusion is not a factor). The modal response across the regions

(approximately 60% or greater) was “always” acceptable. This modal response also holds the only

statistical difference; a response of “always” was noted by 59 percent of the west respondents and

68 percent of the northeast respondents (p < 0.000).

Additional analyses examined whether affiliation with farming and experience with damage might

shed greater understanding of the public’s acceptance for bear behaviors. As one might expect,

respondents who derive some part of their income from farming or beekeeping were more likely

than those who do not to indicate it is never acceptable for a bear to attack livestock on a farm

(72% and 60% respectively, p < 0.000). Levels of tolerance for bear damage to agricultural crops,

however, were nearly identical regardless of income derived from farming. Further, a statistical

difference was not found when acceptance of a bear entering a person’s home, garage or vehicle

was explored by respondent experience with bear damage. Regardless of damage experience (no

damage experience, one type of damage experience or two or more types of damage experience),

respondents were equally accepting or unaccepting of a bear entering a person’s home, garage or

vehicle. Likewise, regardless of damage experience, respondents were equally accepting or

unaccepting of a bear damaging agricultural crops.

Statistical differences were found for levels of acceptance for bear attacks on livestock and bear

damage to birdfeeders or raiding garbage cans. Sixty percent of respondents without damage

experience compared to 68 percent of respondents with two or more types of damage experience

indicated that a bear attack on livestock is never acceptable (p < 0.016). Although statistically

significant, the finding’s application loses its “punch” given that a majority is intolerant, regardless

of damage experience, of such behavior. Public acceptance of bear damage to birdfeeders and

raiding garbage cans is less clear. One-third of the respondents (32%) without damage experience

compared to 24 percent and 27 percent of those with one type of damage and two or more types of

damage, respectively, indicated that a bear damaging birdfeeders or raiding garbage cans is never

acceptable. The modal response was “occasionally” acceptable with responses of 42 percent, 51

percent and 46 percent for respondents without damage experience, those with one type of damage

experience and those with two or more types of damage experience, respectively (p < 0.000).

The second approach sought to measure both tolerance and preferences for various management

response to three black bear-human interaction scenarios. We presented the scenarios (see next page)

and allowed respondents to: 1) indicate their support or opposition to five different management

responses to each, and 2) select the management response they most preferred.


Situation 1: A homeowner loses bird feeders to bears and /or has garbage cans raided. Do you

support, oppose or are you unsure about using each of the options for this situation?

(Check one box for each option)

Options Support Unsure Oppose

A. No involvement by wildlife officials. □ □ □ B. Consultation with wildlife officials to only provide

recommendations to discourage future bear visits. □ □ □

C. Wildlife officials capture bear and release

elsewhere. □ □ □

D. Bear is killed by wildlife officials. □ □ □ E. Bear is killed by landowner with special permit. □ □ □

Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears cause damage to

property.

Situation 2: Bears cause damage to a farmer’s crop resulting in loss of revenue for the farmer. Do

you support, oppose or are you unsure about using each of the options for this situation?








Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears damage a farmer’s

crops resulting in revenue loss.

Situation 3: Over time, bears are seen more frequently in non-rural settings, such as towns and

villages, walking through multiple yards, resulting in more frequent bear-human conflicts.

Do you support, oppose or are you unsure about using each of the options for this

situation?








Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears move into non-

rural settings such as towns and villages.


The following text introduced the three scenarios (which appear on page 23):

Sometimes black bears cause problems for people or are perceived to pose safety risks.

Wildlife officials often receive complaints from the public when bear interactions occur.

The following set of questions asks your opinion about how wildlife officials should address

different interactions involving black bears.

To anticipate the detailed findings, people are fairly tolerant of bear damage and the interactions they

have with bears across the state’s geography. Although the state has been working under a 30+ year

old management plan, the state’s response to bear – human interactions is acceptable to the public and

what they most prefer. Little support was found for the lethal removal of offending bears and where

support was noted, a greater percentage of the respondents believe a bear should be killed by the

landowner rather than by a wildlife official.

In response to a black bear destroying a bird feeder or raiding garbage cans, a majority of survey

respondents believe that some kind of response is warranted (indicated by less than one-half of the

respondents supporting “No involvement by wildlife officials, Table 16). Respondents from the two

northern regions were significantly more likely than those from other regions to support no official

involvement (p < 0.000). Regardless of region, consultation with wildlife officials was supported by

three-fourths or more (at least 75%) of the respondents. Although a statistical difference is noted (p <

0.001), a substantive difference of at least eight percent was not found, indicating similar perspectives

across the regions. Capturing the black bear and releasing it elsewhere was another management

response supported by a majority of respondents in each region. A statistical difference was noted (p <

0.000), with respondents from the two northern regions slightly less likely than other respondents to

support such action (perhaps an indication of their experience of residing in black bear territory and

accepting the consequences or their understanding that relocating bears may only create new problem

encounters in someone else’s backyard).

Contacting a wildlife official to kill the black bear was an unpopular response; the management action

was opposed by 70 percent of more within each region. No differences across the five regions were

found. The final option of allowing the landowner to kill the black bear under a special permit was

supported by approximately three respondents in ten; approximately one-half of the respondents

opposed the action, perhaps another example of an extreme and unnecessary response. A possible

foreshadow of findings not yet presented, results from this first scenario may indicate that if an

offending black bear needs to be removed, more respondents view that action as the responsibility (or

perhaps the right?) of the landowner rather than that of a wildlife official.

The preferred management response is as one might expect: approximately two out of five respondents

(41%) equally preferred consultation with wildlife officials or capturing the black bear and releasing it

elsewhere (Table 17). A statistical difference was noted (p < 0.008) with respondents from the two

northern regions showing a slightly stronger preference for consultation rather than capturing and

releasing.


Table 16. Responses to Situation 1: A homeowner loses bird feeders to black bears and/or has garbage

cans raided (percent response to “Do you support, oppose or are you unsure about using

each of the options for this situation?”).


No involvement by wildlife officials (p < 0.000)

Support 42% 41% 33% 35% 31% 37%

Unsure 26 25 23 31 31 27

Oppose 32 34 44 34 38 36

Consultation with wildlife officials (p < 0.001)

Support 83% 84% 81% 79% 75% 81%

Unsure 11 9 13 15 15 12

Oppose 6 7 6 6 10 7

Wildlife officials capture bear and release elsewhere (p < 0.000)

Support 54% 54% 65% 59% 61% 58%

Unsure 21 21 15 24 20 20

Oppose 25 25 20 18 19 21

Bear is killed by wildlife officials (NS)

Support 11% 10% 9% 11% 8% 10%

Unsure 19 16 18 19 22 19

Oppose 70 75 73 70 71 72

Bear is killed by landowner under special permit (p < 0.005)

Support 30% 28% 27% 30% 25% 28%

Unsure 20 19 28 22 28 23

Oppose 50 53 45 48 47 49

Table 17. Respondents’ preferred management responses in Situation 1 (percent who indicated, “Of

the five options, I would prefer…”.


No involvement by wildlife official 5% 7% 4% 5% 3% 5%

Consultation with wildlife officials 44 43 38 39 42 41

Wildlife officials capture bear and

release elsewhere

37 36 47 43 43 41

Bear is killed by wildlife official 2 2 3 4 3 3

Bear is killed by landowner under

special permit

11 12 9 10 9 10

The scenario exploring crop damage yielded similar results as the bird feeder scenario, but with a

higher frequency of support for capture and release (Table 18). A small percentage (approximately one

respondent in five, 21%) supported the option of no involvement from wildlife officials. Respondents

in the east region were least likely to support non-action (13%, p < 0.000). Most respondents (74%

statewide) supported consulting a wildlife official; the east region offered significantly lower, but still

majority support (67%, p < 0.000). Capturing the black bear and releasing it elsewhere was another


management response supported by a majority of respondents. Support was uniform across the regions

(70% to 78%); the east region again was the outlier, offering statistically significant but only slightly

higher support (78%) and slightly lower opposition (5%) for this option (p < 0.000). Contacting a

wildlife official to kill the black bear garnered slightly more support than that noted in the bird feeder

scenario, but this management action continued to be viewed as an unacceptable response; it was

opposed by two-thirds or more (62% or more) of the respondents within each region. A statistical

difference was noted (p < 0.000), but practical interpretation of results would conclude uniformity

across the regions. As foreshadowed above, if a black bear needs to be killed, there is more public

support for the landowner taking on that responsibility than for having a wildlife official dispatch the

bear. Support ranged from 21 percent in the east region to 40 percent in the northwest region (p <

0.000). Overall, a greater percentage of respondents in each region opposed this management action

than supported it.

The preferred management response is clearer in the crop damage scenario than that which emerged

from the bird feeder scenario; more respondents in each region prefer the bear to be captured and

released elsewhere in the state (Table 19). Respondent preferences were similar across five regions

(approximately 50% preference), with the east region being the outlier that showed significantly

greater preference for the trap and relocate option (72%, p < 0.000).

Table 18. Responses to Situation 2: Black bears cause damage to a farmer’s crop resulting in loss of

revenue for the farmer (percent response to “Do you support, oppose or are you unsure

about using each of the options for this situation?”).



Support 21% 23% 23% 22% 24% 13% 21%

Unsure 30 28 28 29 24 31 29

Oppose 49 50 50 49 53 55 50


Support 75% 77% 79% 74% 75% 67% 74%

Unsure 14 13 13 17 18 26 17

Oppose 10 10 9 10 7 7 9

Wildlife officials capture bear and release elsewhere (p <0 .000)

Support 71% 70% 73% 72% 73% 78% 73%

Unsure 15 17 14 17 17 17 16

Oppose 14 14 13 12 10 5 11

Bear is killed by wildlife officials (p < 0.000)

Support 18% 14% 13% 16% 11% 7% 13%

Unsure 16 15 21 22 22 24 20

Oppose 66 71 67 62 67 69 67


Support 40% 33% 37% 38% 32% 21% 33%

Unsure 16 20 22 20 27 29 22

Oppose 44 47 41 42 42 51 45





No involvement by

wildlife official

2% 4% 3% 3% 4% 6% 4%

Consultation with

wildlife officials

30 28 31 26 28 18 27

Wildlife officials capture

bear and release

elsewhere

46 48 49 51 52 72 54

Bear is killed by wildlife

official

3 1 3 3 1 2 2

Bear is killed by

landowner under special

permit

19 19 14 17 15 1 14

The third scenario describing increased sightings of black bears in non-rural settings resulted in the

highest support for the capture and release option (Table 20). As with the previous two scenarios, a

high percentage of respondents across the state believe some form of action is warranted. No

involvement from wildlife officials was opposed by approximately two-thirds of the respondents (56%

to 66%). Respondents from the east region, more so than other regions, showed greater uncertainty (p

< 0.000). Consultation with a wildlife official was similarly supported by 70 percent or more of the

respondents across the regions. Although statistically significant, practical differences are negligible.

Likewise, practical differences are negligible across the regions for capturing and releasing the bear

elsewhere; more than eight respondents in ten (81% to 86%) support this option. Looking at the lethal

action options, even with an increase in bear-human interactions across non-traditional black bear

landscapes, relatively strong opposition was found for the lethal removal of bears. Lethal action by a

wildlife official garnered results similar to those found in the previous two scenarios; approximately 60

percent of respondents opposed the option. Support for lethal control by wildlife officials came from

approximately one respondent in five (20%) in five of the regions; the east region was, again, the

outlier with eight percent of its respondents offering support (p < 0.000). Support for lethal action by

the landowner was statistically the same as lethal action by a wildlife official; approximately one-fifth

of respondents (22%) support the action while more than one-half of the respondents (52% in the east

to 61% in the northwest, p < 0.000) oppose it.


Table 20. Responses to Situation 3: Over time, black bears are seen more frequently in non-rural

settings, such as towns and villages, walking through multiple yards, resulting in more

frequent bear-human conflicts (percent response to “Do you support, oppose or are you

unsure about using each of the options for this situation?”).



Support 17% 17% 15% 15% 18% 14% 16%

Unsure 23 22 19 23 20 30 23

Oppose 60 61 66 62 62 56 61


Support 77% 76% 73% 74% 70% 70% 73%

Unsure 12 13 13 16 17 22 16

Oppose 12 11 14 11 13 8 11

Wildlife officials capture bear and release elsewhere (p < 0.000)

Support 84% 84% 86% 85% 85% 81% 84%

Unsure 7 9 7 11 11 14 10

Oppose 9 8 7 4 4 5 6

Bear is killed by wildlife officials (p < 0.000)

Support 21% 16% 21% 21% 20% 8% 17%

Unsure 18 19 22 21 21 26 21

Oppose 62 65 57 58 60 66 61


Support 24% 22% 25% 23% 18% 20% 22%

Unsure 15 19 21 21 24 28 22

Oppose 61 59 54 56 58 52 56




No involvement by

wildlife official

2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 5% 3%

Consultation with

wildlife officials

25 19 20 20 18 22 21

Wildlife officials capture

bear and release

elsewhere

57 66 69 69 72 66 67

Bear is killed by wildlife

official

9 4 4 6 3 3 5

Bear is killed by

landowner under special

permit

6 7 5 3 6 4 5


The preferred management response for black bear incursions into non-rural settings is clear; more

respondents in each region prefer the black bear to be captured and released elsewhere in the state

(Table 21). Respondent preference ranged from 57 percent in the northwest region to 72 percent in the

Columbia region (p < 0.000).

It should be noted that the east region is comprised of counties considered non-bear range, meaning

black bears are either not present or only rare transients. That configuration may account for the

region’s numerous outlier results, thereby producing statistically significant differences where

substantive ones are not noted in the other five regions. When scenarios two and three presented to east

region residents were removed from analysis, results were as expected–numerous findings were no

longer statistically significant. For the crop damage scenario, statistical significance disappeared for

response options of no involvement from wildlife officials, consultation with wildlife officials and

capture and release. Further, no difference was found across the five regions for the most preferred

management response. For bear excursions into non-rural settings, statistical significance disappeared

for response options of no involvement from wildlife officials, consultation with wildlife officials and

having a wildlife official kill the bear.

To provide a deeper understanding of what might drive respondent preferences for management

actions, we turned our attention to first-hand experiences that respondents may have had with black

bears, particularly any damage experiences. Results seem to indicate a relationship between damage

experience and a slight increase in the preference for the lethal removal of offending bears. For this

analysis, we focused on the preferred management response to each scenario and we eliminated the

east region to more clearly identify any preference differences among the five remaining regions.

Figure 2. Respondents’ preferred management responses to damaged bird feeders or raided garbage

cans by respondents’ experience with damage.


Results of the first scenario indicate that the public has a fairly high tolerance for black bear behavior;

lethal removal of the bear is far from the preferred management response, even from those that are

experiencing multiple types of damage (Figure 2). However, we found an increase in preference for

landowner lethal removal of a black bear as undesirable behavior experiences increase (from 8% to

20%). It’s also worth noting the difference between the preferred response of lethal removal by a

wildlife official and removal by the landowner. The difference between those that have never

experienced any kind of damage and those that have experienced one type of damage was negligible.

Similar results were found for the crop damage scenario but with an even higher percentage of the

public preferring lethal action by the landowner for those experiencing multiple types of damage–30

percent preferred the landowner take lethal responsibility while only three percent preferred a lethal

response by wildlife officials (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Respondents’ preferred management responses to damage to farmer’s crops by respondents’

experience with damage.

The above trend holds when black bears are found in non-rural settings. We found an increase in

preference for lethal landowner response with different offenses, but the disparity between a single

experience (14% preferring landowner lethal response) and multiple experiences (30% preferring

landowner lethal response) is not as strong here as in the prior two scenarios (Figure 4). To uncover

what’s going on here would require additional follow-up work, probably through interviews or focus

groups, but it is possible that frequent sightings alone is not enough to warrant lethal removal and it is

not until a black bear demonstrates multiple types of damaging behavior that public tolerance erodes

and lethal removal becomes more of an acceptable response.


Figure 4. Respondents’ preferred management responses to bears being seen in non-rural settings by

respondents’ experience with damage.

Respondent Background

This final section summarizes seven socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents to help

readers understand who responded to the survey.

Across the state, response to the survey was equally split between males and females (Table 22). The

only disparity was found in the central region where three respondents in five (60%) were male.

Table 22. Gender and age of respondents.


Gender Gender (p < 0.003)

Male 50% 50% 50% 60% 51% 51% 52%

Female 50 50 50 40 49 49 48

Age Age (p < 0.000)

18 – 34 13% 9% 18% 14% 16% 33% 17%

35 – 44 23 25 27 26 23 13 23

45 – 54 16 15 13 12 14 17 15

55 – 64 22 25 22 18 23 16 21

65+ 26 27 20 31 24 21 25

Mean age 53 54 50 53 52 * *

* Mean ages could not be calculated due to categircal responses presented in the east panel survey.


With the exception of the east region, respondent age skewed 55 years and older. In the east, one-third

of the respondents (33%) were under the age of 35 and slightly more than one-third (37%) were 55 or

older. In the remaining five regions, the percentage of respondents under 35 ranged from nine percent

in the northeast region to 18 percent in the west region; approximately one-half of the respondents

from each region was 55 or older. The mean age in all regions other than the east ranged from 50 in the

west region to 54 in the northeast region.

Overall, a small percentage of respondents (12%) derive income from farming or beekeeping (Table

23). Involvement was most prevalent in the central (12%) and Columbia (14%) regions. Those

deriving income from farming or beekeeping were subsequently asked to identify their form of

involvement: grain or vegetable crops, livestock, orchards, tree farm, beekeeping, leasing land to other

producers, leasing land from someone else, and a final open-ended “other” option. Given that

approximately nine in ten respondents were not involved in agriculture, regional differences in types of

involvement were not found. Overall, about one-half of agriculatural respondents were involved in

grain or vegetable crops (47%) and livestock farming (52%). Three agricultural respondents in ten

(29%) leased land to other producers; 15 percent leased land from someone else and another 15 percent

identified some other form of involvement. Fewer than one agricultural respondent in ten was involved

in orchards (7%), tree farming (6%), or beekeeping (6%).

Table 23. Percent response to “Does any part of your income come from farming or beekeeping?”

Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia Statewide

Yes 2% (50) 3% (72) 2% (59) 12% (68) 14% (63) 12% (312)

No 98 97 98 88 86 88

Affiliation with agriculture was further explored to uncover any effects on perceptions of and

preferences for black bear numbers as well as attitudes towards black bears. As previously noted,

respondents who derive an income from farming (including beekeeping) were more likely (49%) than

non-farmers (36%) to report some form of damage (p < 0.000). Farmers were more likely than non-

farmers to prefer black bear numbers decline in their county (29% and 17%, respectively, p < 0.000)

although a modal response of 50 percent for no change was found regardless of agricultural affiliation.

Farmers were also more likely to believe black bears in their county were “abundant” or “very

abundant” (37%) compared to non-farmers (24%) (p < 0.000). A modal response of “present” was

found for both farmers (44%) and non-farmers (50%). Regardless of affiliation with farming, a

majority of all respondents were willing to reside near where black bears live (60%, non-significant).

Analysis also found that although farmers were more likely to hold unfavorable opinions of black

bears (19%) than were non-farmers (10%) (p < 0.000), a majority of farmers (52%) and non-farmers

(58%) held favorable opinions of bears. Lastly, regardless of affiliation with farming, three-fourths or

more of all respondents said that black bears “deserve our appreciation.”

Two questions on residency were asked: where respondents currently live and where they grew up.

Response options for both questions included:

On a farm Town or village of 2,000-9,999

In the country, but not on a farm City or suburb of 10,000-25,000

Town of less than 2,000 City over 25,000

Tribal reservation


Results were as anticipated: approximately one respondent in ten currently resides on a farm (13% in

the Columbia region), respondents from the north were most likely to reside in the country but not on a

farm (44% of northwest respondents and 46% of northeast respondents) and those from the east region

were most likely to reside in a city of 10,000 or greater (68%) (Table 24). Results also document the

expected migration from farm life. Apart from the east region where only three percent indicated

growing up on a farm, all other regions saw a decline in farm residency of approximately one-half or

more between where respondents grew up and where respondents currently reside. Overall, one

respondent in five (20%) grew up on a farm compared to approximately one respondent in ten (9%)

currently residing on a farm.

Table 24. Respondents’ self-description of where they currently live and where they grew up.


Description of current residency (p < 0.000)

Farm 10% 11% 11% 8% 13% 1% 9%

Country, non-farm 44 46 25 27 36 6 30

Town < 2,000 10 13 10 9 12 6 10

Town 2,000-9,999 19 20 27 18 21 19 21

City 10,000-25,000 7 6 15 19 11 19 13

City > 25,000 7 2 12 19 9 49 17

Tribal reservation 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

Description of where respondent grew up (p < 0.000)

Farm 22% 21% 25% 29% 23% 3% 20%

Country, non-farm 27 29 16 21 31 12 22

Town < 2,000 9 10 10 8 6 7 8

Town 2,000-9,999 12 15 19 10 12 18 14

City 10,000-25,000 10 10 11 13 12 18 12

City > 25,000 18 15 19 19 17 42 22

Tribal reservation 2 1 0 1 0 1 1

A more informative analysis considers respondent migration from urban to rural areas, hypothesizing

that urban-rural transplants may hold different opinions and attitudes than life-long rural residents. For

such analysis, residency descriptions were defined by two discrete categories of urban and rural. Rural

included those that live on a farm, in the country, or in a town or village with a population of less than

10,000 people. Urban includes those that live in cities or suburbs with populations of 10,000 or more

people. Among those respondents who grew up in urban areas, nearly one-half (47%) now live in rural

areas and are henceforth referred to as “urban-rural transplants” (Table 25). Respondents who grew up

in rural settings were unlikely to move to an urban setting. A clear majority of 81 percent of those that

grew up rural, remain in rural areas today and this “exclusively rural” group will serve as the main

comparison against urban-rural transplants.

Urban-rural transplants were nearly equal across the six regions with the relative percentage ranging

from 13 percent in the central region to 21 percent in the northeast region (Table 26). While it is

unclear how recently these respondents moved to rural areas of Wisconsin, they do appear to differ

from other exclusively rural residents in their opinions regarding black bears. Overall, those

respondents who grew up in urban areas and now live in rural areas seemed to feel more favorably


about having black bears living nearby, are slightly more interested in increasing the number of bears

in their county and are more willing to have bears live near where they reside (Table 27).

Table 25. Where respondents grew up by where they currently live.

Where respondent currently lives Where respondent grew up

Rural Urban

Rural 81% 47%

Urban 19 53

Table 26. Urban-rural transplants by region.


Urban-rural transplant 19% 21% 16% 13% 17% 14% 16%

Exclusively rural 81 79 84 87 83 86 84

Table 27. Urban-rural transplants’ opinions about black bears and preference for bear numbers.

Urban-rural

transplant

Exclusively

rural

Significance

Favorable feelings towards bears 62% 56% .029

Preference for increasing bear

numbers in home county

23% 18% .000

Willingness to live near bears 65% 59% .046

When examined more closely by cluster, respondents from the northwest, northeast and west regions

who grew up in an urban area and now live in a rural area were proportionally more likely to harbor

favorable feelings towards black bears (62% to 71%) than were life-long rural residents from those

same regions. Discernable differences in feelings towards black bears were not found for respondents

of the other regions based on moving from urban to rural areas. Respondents from the northwest,

northeast and west regions who grew up urban and now live in a rural area were also more likely to

indicate that they want black bear numbers in their county to increase (approximately 25% per region)

whereas those who were life-long rural residents were more likely to want bear numbers to decrease. A

difference was not found for respondents from the central region. Curiously, an anomaly was found

within the Columbia region where proportionally more exclusively rural respondents (22%) than urban

transplants (12%) wanted to see black bear numbers increase in their county. Additionally, urban

transplants in the northwest, northeast and west regions were proportionally more likely to be willing

to have black bears residing near their home (62% to 81%), whereas exclusively rural respondents

were more likely than transplants to be unwilling. Discernable differences in willingness to have black

bears reside near where they live were not found for respondents of the central or Columbia regions.

Table 28 reports the respondents’ self-identification with eight labels or stakeholder groups. The labels

are not mutually exclusive, meaning respondents could identify with multiple labels or groups.


Table 28. Respondent self-identification to eight labels and stakeholder groups.

Labels

Central to who I am

Applies to me, but not

central to who I am

Not me at all

Nature lover 64% 28 8

Conservationist 46% 35 19

Environmentalist 39% 39 22

Birdwatcher 35% 37 28

Deer hunter 19% 26 55

Farmer 9% 16 75

Bear hunter 2% 19 79

Trapper 2% 10 88

Note: Totals to 100% across rows.

More respondents (64%) identified with being a “nature lover” than with any other label or

constituency group. Other labels that resonated with a notable percentage of respondents included

“conservationist” (46%), “environmentalist” (39%) and “birdwatcher” (35%). Self-identification was

lowest for the three consumptive activities and with being a farmer; more than one-half of the

respondents (55%) do not identify at all with being a deer hunter, three-fourths (75%) do not identify

with being a farmer, approximately eight in ten (79%) do not identify with being a bear hunter and

nearly nine in ten (88%) do not identify with being a trapper.

Of the eight labels and groups, three were selected to explore differences in opinions and preferences

for bear numbers; “farmer,” due to possible experience with bear damage, “bear hunter” and “deer

hunter.” Results indicate numerous statistical differences (but not all substantive) between respondents

who indicate the label is central to their identity and those who indicate the label does not describe

them at all. Respondents who identify with being a farmer were nearly equally likely as those without a

farmer identity to prefer black bear numbers in their county of residence to increase (22% and 19%,

respectively) or to decrease (20% and 16%, respectively) and they were significantly more likely to

believe that the number of black bears occurring in their home county was “abundant” (33%)

compared to respondents without a farmer identity (23%) (p < 0.002). A willingness to live near black

bears had a stronger correlation with respondents who self-identified as a farmer (69%) than with those

without a farmer identity (59%) (p < 0.001).

Similar results were found for those who do or do not identify as a bear hunter. Self-identified bear

hunters were considerably more likely (46%) than those without a bear hunter identity (17%) to prefer

black bear numbers in their county of residence to increase (p < 0.000). Respondents who identify with

being a bear hunter were significantly more likely to believe that the number of black bears occurring

in their home county was “abundant” (41%) than were respondents without a bear hunter identity

(21%) (p < 0.002). Likewise, bear hunter identity was more likely to be correlated with a willingness to

live near black bears (74%) than with those without a bear hunter identity (56%) (p < 0.000).

Results for the deer hunter label were similar to the above. Slightly more respondents who identify

with being a deer hunter (25%) preferred black bear numbers in their county of residence to increase

than did non-deer hunters (16%). Deer hunter identity was also more likely than no identity to correlate

with a preference for black bear numbers to decrease (29% and 15%, respectively) (p < 0.000).

Respondents who identify with being a deer hunter were significantly more likely to believe that the

number of black bears occurring in their home county was “abundant” (42%) than were respondents


without a deer hunter identity (16%) (p < 0.000); those identifying as a deer hunter also had a

significantly greater willingness to live near bears (68%) than those without a deer hunter identity

(51%) (p < 0.000).

The number of respondents who indicated that “deer hunter” was central to their identity was sufficient

to permit regional analysis. In both northern regions, self-identified deer hunters were significantly

more likely than those without a deer hunter identity to prefer black bear numbers in their home

counties to decline rather than increase (p < 0.000 for both regions) while self-identified deer hunters

in the remaining three regions (excluding the east) were more likely than those without a deer hunter

identity to prefer black bear numbers to increase (a minimum significance of p < 0.012 per region).

This difference may possibly be explained by the perceived toll that black bears take on whitetail deer

fawns. Likewise, self-identified deer hunters in the two northern regions were significantly more likely

than those without a deer hunter identity to perceive the black bear population in their home counties

as “abundant” (p < 0.000 for each region). Self-identified deer hunters in the other regions were also

more likely than those without a deer hunter identity to perceive an “abundant” black bear population

in their home county, but the disparity between the deer hunter–non-deer hunter identity was not nearly

as great as that found in the northern regions (p < 0.000 for the west and central regions; a non-

significant difference was noted in the Columbia region). Lastly, regardless of region, a greater

percentage of self-identified deer hunters than those without a deer hunter identity indicated a

willingness to reside near where black bears live (p < 0.000 for each region). Within each region the

disparity in percentages between the deer hunter–non-deer hunter identity was approximately 20

percent (e.g., in the central region respondent willingness to live near bears was noted by 69 percent of

the self-identified deer hunters and 49% of those without a deer hunter identity), the exception being in

the northwest where the disparity for respondent willingness to live near bears was six percent (69%

deer hunters compared to 63% non-deer hunter identity).

Literature Cited

Dennison, C.C, N.M. Roberts, and D.M. MacFarland. 2017. Black bear population analyses, 2017. Wisconsin

Wildlife Reports. 6 pp. Wisconsin DNR, Madison. Available at https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/

documents/reports/bearpop.pdf.

Dhuey, B., S. Walter, and B. Koele. 2017. Wisconsin black bear harvest report, 2017. Wisconsin Wildlife

Reports. 11 pp. Wisconsin DNR, Madison. Available at https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/

documents/reports/bbharv17.pdf.

Engstrom, P., B. Willging, and D. Ruid. 2016. Black bear damage and nuisance complaints, 2016. Wisconsin


documents/reports/bbeardamnuiscompl2.pdf.

Engstrom, P., B. Willging, and D. Ruid. 2017. Black bear damage and nuisance complaints, 2017. Wisconsin


documents/reports/bbeardamnuiscompl.pdf.

Kohn, B.E. 1982. Status and management of black bears in Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin 129. Wisconsin DNR,

Madison. Available at https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ss/SS0129.pdf.

MacFarland, D.M. 2009. Population estimation, habitat associations and range expansion of black bears in the

Upper Midwest. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/%20documents/reports/bearpop.pdf

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/%20documents/reports/bearpop.pdf

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/%20documents/reports/bbharv17.pdf

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/%20documents/reports/bbharv17.pdf

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/%20documents/reports/bbeardamnuiscompl2.pdf

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/%20documents/reports/bbeardamnuiscompl2.pdf

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/%20documents/reports/bbeardamnuiscompl.pdf

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/%20documents/reports/bbeardamnuiscompl.pdf

https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ss/SS0129.pdf


Regional Snapshots

Northwest Respondent Profile

Current Residence

Most respondents reside on a farm or in the country but not

on a farm (54%), 29 percent reside in a town of less than

10,000 and 15 percent reside in a suburb or city of at least

10,000 (2% reside on a tribal reservation).

Income from Farming and/or Beekeeping

One respondent in ten (10%) earned at least part of his/her

income from farming and/or beekeeping.

Self-identification

Farmer: Nearly three-fourths of the respondents (73%) do

not identify as a farmer, 11 percent indicate that a farmer identity is central to who they are while 16

percent identify in-part with being a farmer.

Nature lover: Six percent of the respondents do not identify at all as a nature lover, 70 percent indicate

that a nature lover identity is central to who they are while nearly one-fourth (24%) identify in-part

with being a nature lover.

Deer hunter: Nearly one-half of the respondents (47%) do not identify at all as a deer hunter, one-

fourth (25%) indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they are while a nearly equal

percentage (27%) identify in-part with being a deer hunter.

Feelings about Black Bears

A majority of respondents (57%) had “very favorable” (30%) or “favorable” (27%) feelings towards

bears; approximately one respondent in eight (13%) had an unfavorable view of bears.

Concerns for Personal Safety

Slightly more than one-third of the respondents (35%) expressed concern for their personal safety

while outdoors in areas where bears live; a slightly higher percentage (39%) were not concerned.

Experience with Black Bear Damage

Two-thirds of the respondents (66%) had experienced some form of bear damage; more than one-third

(37%) had experience with two or more different types of bear damage.


Preference for Black Bear Numbers

More than one-half of the respondents “strongly agree” (16%) or “agree” (40%) that the state should

have as many bears as the habitat can support.

Exactly one-half of the respondents perceived bears in their home county to be either “very abundant”

(16%) of “abundant” (34%).

Exactly one-half of the respondents (50%) preferred bear numbers in their home county to remain

unchanged; 16% prefer to see the number of bears increase while 29 percent prefer to see the number

of bears decline.

Nearly seven respondents in ten were “absolutely” willing to live near bears (28%) or “probably”

willing to live near bears (41%).

Tolerance for Black Bear Behavior

“When is it acceptable for a bear to…”

Attempt entry into a home, garage or vehicle: 75 percent say “never.”

Attack livestock: 65 percent say “never.”

Damage agricultural crops: 47 percent say “never” (30%) or “one time only” (17%) while 48 percent

say “occasionally” (44%) or “always” (4%).

Destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans: 45 percent say “never” (27%) or “one time only” (18%)

while 53 percent say “occasionally” (48%) or “always” (5%).

Be sighted in a yard near where you live: 24 percent say “never” (14%) or “one time only” (10%)


Preference for Management Response

Homeowner loses bird feeders and/or has garbage cans raided: 44 percent most preferred consultation

with a wildlife official to discuss ways of discouraging future bear visits

Damage to crops resulting in revenue loss for farmer: 46 percent most preferred wildlife officials

capture and release the bear elsewhere.

More frequent sightings of bears in non-rural towns, walking through yards, resulting in increased

bear–human conflicts: 58 percent most preferred wildlife officials capture and release the bear

elsewhere.


Northeast Respondent Profile

Current Residence

Most respondents reside on a farm or in the country but not

on a farm (57%), 33 percent reside in a town of less than

10,000 and 9 percent reside in a suburb or city of at least

10,000 (1% reside on a tribal reservation).


Approximately one respondent in eight (13%) earned at

least part of his/her income from farming and/or

beekeeping.

Self-identification

Farmer: Nearly three-fourths of the respondents (73%) do not identify as a farmer, 10 percent indicate

that a farmer identity is central to who they are while 17 percent identify in-part with being a farmer.

Nature lover: Seven percent of the respondents do not identify at all as a nature lover, 73 percent

indicate that a nature lover identity is central to who they are while one-fifth (21%) identify in-part


Deer hunter: Nearly one-half of the respondents (46%) do not identify at all as a deer hunter, one-

fourth (24%) indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they are while a slightly greater

percentage (30%) identify in-part with being a deer hunter.


A majority of respondents (60%) had “very favorable” (34%) or “favorable” (26%) feelings towards

bears; approximately one respondent in ten (11%) had an unfavorable view of bears.


Approximately three respondents in ten (29%) expressed concern for their personal safety while

outdoors in areas where bears live; nearly one-half of the respondents (48%) were not concerned.


More than one-half of the respondents (57%) had experienced some form of bear damage; one-fourth

of the respondents (26%) had experience with two or more different types of bear damage.





Nearly two-fifths of the respondents perceived bears in their home county to be either “very abundant”

(12%) of “abundant” (32%).

One-half of the respondents (51%) preferred bear numbers in their home county to remain unchanged;

18% prefer to see the number of bears increase while 25 percent prefer to see the number of bears

decline.

Two-thirds of the respondents were “absolutely” willing to live near bears (30%) or “probably” willing

to live near bears (37%).

Tolerance for Bear Black Behavior




Damage agricultural crops: 48 percent say “never” (33%) or “one time only” (15%) while 47 percent

say “occasionally” (44%) or “always” (4%).










More frequent sightings of bears in non-rural towns, walking through yards, resulting in increased bear

– human conflicts: 66 percent most preferred wildlife officials capture and release the bear elsewhere.


West Respondent Profile

Current Residence

Slightly more than one-third of the respondents reside on a

farm or in the country but not on a farm (36%), 37 percent

reside in a town of less than 10,000 and 27 percent reside

in a suburb or city of at least 10,000.


Slightly more than one respondent in ten (12%) earned at


beekeeping.

Self-identification

Farmer: Nearly three-fourths of the respondents (73%) do not identify as a farmer, 10 percent indicate

that a farmer identity is central to who they are while 17 percent identify in-part with being a farmer.

Nature lover: Seven percent of the respondents do not identify at all as a nature lover, 68 percent

indicate that a nature lover identity is central to who they are while one-fourth (25%) identify in-part


Deer hunter: More than one-half of the respondents (53%) do not identify at all as a deer hunter, one-

fifth (19%) indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they and 29 percent identify in-part

with being a deer hunter.


A majority of respondents had “very favorable” (29%) or “favorable” (27%) feelings towards bears;

one respondent in ten (10%) had an unfavorable view of bears.


More than one-third of the respondents (37%) expressed concern for their personal safety while

outdoors in areas where bears live; a similar percentage of respondents (39%) were not concerned.


Approximately one-fifth of the respondents (19%) had experienced some form of bear damage; six

percent had experience with two or more different types of bear damage.





Seven percent of the respondents perceived bears in their home county to be either “very abundant”

(1%) of “abundant” (6%); 46 percent said bears are present but not abundant in their county.

One-half of the respondents (51%) preferred bear numbers in their home county to remain unchanged;

one-fourth of the respondents (25%) preferred to see the number of bears increase while one

respondent in ten (11%) preferred to see the number of bears decline.

Slightly more than one-half of the respondents were “absolutely” willing to live near bears (18%) or

“probably” willing to live near bears (36%).





Damage agricultural crops: 46 percent say “never” (31%) or “one time only” (15%) while one-half

(50%) say “occasionally” (46%) or “always” (4%).












elsewhere.


Central Respondent Profile

Current Residence

Approximately one-third of the respondents reside on a

farm or in the country but not on a farm (34%), 27 percent

reside in a town of less than 10,000 and 38 percent reside

in a suburb or city of at least 10,000.


Slightly more than one respondent in ten (12%) earned at


beekeeping.

Self-identification

Farmer: Slightly more than seven respondents in ten (72%) do not identify as a farmer, 10 percent

indicate that a farmer identity is central to who they are while 18 percent identify in-part with being a

farmer.

Nature lover: Approximately one respondent in ten (11%) does not identify at all as a nature lover, 63

percent indicate that a nature lover identity is central to who they are while 27 percent identify in-part


Deer hunter: Nearly one-half of the respondents (48%) do not identify at all as a deer hunter, nearly

one-fourth (23%) indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they and 30 percent identify in-

part with being a deer hunter.



one respondent in ten (11%) had an unfavorable view of bears.


One-third of the respondents (34%) expressed concern for their personal safety while outdoors in areas

where bears live; two-fifths of the respondents (41%) were not concerned.


More than one-fourth of the respondents (28%) had experienced some form of bear damage; 12

percent had experience with two or more different types of bear damage.





Seventeen percent of the respondents perceived bears in their home county to be either “very

abundant” (3%) of “abundant” (14%); 59 percent said bears are present but not abundant in their

county.

More than one-half of the respondents (55%) preferred bear numbers in their home county to remain

unchanged; 18 percent preferred to see the number of bears increase while a nearly equal 17 percent

preferred to see the number of bears decline.

More than one-half of the respondents were “absolutely” willing to live near bears (20%) or


Tolerance for Bear Black Behavior




Damage agricultural crops: one-half of the respondents (50%) say “never” (33%) or “one time only”

(17%) while 46 percent say “occasionally” (42%) or “always” (4%).

Destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans: Slightly more than one-half (52%) say “never” (30%) or

“one time only” (22%) while 46 percent say “occasionally” (42%) or “always” (4%).

Be sighted in a yard near where you live: one-third of the respondents (34%) say “never” (16%) or



Homeowner loses bird feeders and/or has garbage cans raided: 43 percent most preferred wildlife

officials capture and release the bear elsewhere; consultation with a wildlife official to discuss ways of

discouraging future bear visits was most preferred by 39 percent of the respondents.





elsewhere.


Columbia Respondent Profile

Current Residence

Nearly one-half of the respondents reside on a farm or in the

country but not on a farm (48%), 32 percent reside in a town

of less than 10,000 and 20 percent reside in a suburb or city

of at least 10,000.


One respondent in seven (14%) earned at least part of his/her

income from farming and/or beekeeping.

Self-identification

Farmer: Seven respondents in ten (70%) do not identify as a farmer, nine percent indicate that a farmer

identity is central to who they are while 21 percent identify in-part with being a farmer.

Nature lover: Approximately one respondent in ten (9%) does not identify at all as a nature lover, two-

thirds of the respondents (66%) indicate that a nature lover identity is central to who they are while

one-fourth (25%) identify in-part with being a nature lover.

Deer hunter: Slightly more than one-half of the respondents (52%) do not identify at all as a deer

hunter, nearly one respondent in five (20%) indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they

and 28 percent identify in-part with being a deer hunter.



nearly one respondent in ten (9%) had an unfavorable view of bears.


Nearly two-fifths of the respondents (39%) expressed concern for their personal safety while outdoors

in areas where bears live; 35 percent of the respondents were not concerned.


Approximately one respondent in six (16%) had experienced some form of bear damage; four percent

had experience with two or more different types of bear damage.





Seven percent of the respondents perceived bears in their home county to be either “very abundant”

(0%) of “abundant” (7%); 54 percent said bears are present but not abundant in their county.

More than one-half of the respondents (56%) preferred bear numbers in their home county to remain

unchanged; 20 percent preferred to see the number of bears increase while 11 percent preferred to see

the number of bears decline.

More than one-half of the respondents were “absolutely” willing to live near bears (17%) or






Damage agricultural crops: slightly less than one-half of the respondents (46%) say “never” (32%) or

“one time only” (14%) while exactly one-half (50%) say “occasionally” (47%) or “always” (3%).

Destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans: one-half of the respondents (50%) say “never” (33%) or


Be sighted in a yard near where you live: one-third of the respondents (33%) say “never” (21%) or



Homeowner loses bird feeders and/or has garbage cans raided: 43 percent most preferred wildlife

officials capture and release the bear elsewhere; consultation with a wildlife official to discuss ways of

discouraging future bear visits was most preferred by 42 percent of the respondents.





elsewhere.


East Respondent Profile (Note: Residents of this region received a truncated electronic

version of the mailed paper questionnaire. As such, the profile

is less comprehensive.)

Current Residence

Fewer than one respondent in ten resides on a farm or in

the country but not on a farm (7%), 25 percent reside in a

town of less than 10,000 and 68 percent reside in a suburb

or city of at least 10,000.

Self-identification

Farmer: The vast majority of respondents in ten (85%) do

not identify as a farmer, four percent indicate that a

farmer identity is central to who they are while 11 percent

identify in-part with being a farmer.

Nature lover: Eight percent of the respondents do not identify at all as a nature lover, slightly more

than one-half of the respondents (52%) indicate that a nature lover identity is central to who they are

while approximately two-fifths (40%) identify in-part with being a nature lover.

Deer hunter: Eight respondents in ten (80%) do not identify at all as a deer hunter, three percent of the

respondents indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they and 16 percent identify in-part

with being a deer hunter.


More than one-half of the respondents had “very favorable” (23%) or “favorable” (33%) feelings

towards bears; fewer than one respondent in ten (7%) had an unfavorable view of bears.


One-half of the respondents (50%%) expressed concern for their personal safety while outdoors in

areas where bears live; one-fourth of the respondents (26%) were not concerned.










elsewhere.


Appendix: Mailed Questionnaire

Wisconsin Black Bear Opinion Survey

Black bears are native to Wisconsin. They were historically found

in the extensive forested areas of northern Wisconsin. Over the past

several decades the bear population has grown and expanded.

Today, there are resident bears in more than half of Wisconsin’s

counties and black bears have been observed in every county of the

state. Bears bring many positives to the state but there is also the

potential for bears to cause damage or become a nuisance in areas

where people live. Bears can evoke strong feelings among people

and a diversity of views. Understanding those views is important as

the state makes future bear management decisions.

SECTION 1: YOUR AWARENESS OF BEARS IN WISCONSIN

1. Before receiving this survey, were you aware that black bears live in Wisconsin?

□ Yes □ No If NO, go to Section 2 on next page

2. Have you ever seen a bear in Wisconsin (not including zoos)?

□ Yes □ No If NO, go to Question 4

3. During the last 12 months, approximately how many different occasions have you seen a bear in

Wisconsin (not including zoos)? (check one)

□ Zero □ Once □ 2 – 5 times □ 6 – 10 times □ More than 10 times

4. Overall, how would you describe your feelings about bears? (check one)

□ Very favorable □ Somewhat unfavorable

□ Somewhat favorable □ Neither favorable nor unfavorable □ Very unfavorable

5. Have you experienced damage from bears in Wisconsin to any of the following? (check all that apply)

□ Bird feeders □ Crops grown for commercial purpose

□ Garbage cans □ Residential vegetable gardens

□ Buildings □ Livestock raised for commercial purpose

□ Car or truck (from hitting a bear) □ Residential poultry and/or rabbits

□ Bee hives □ Something else? Please specify.__________________

□ Apple and/or Christmas trees □ None of the above


SECTION 2: YOUR THOUGHTS ON WISCONSIN’S BEAR POPULATION

1. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about bears in Wisconsin:

a) Black bears deserve our appreciation. (check one)

□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Unsure □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree

b) Black bears are generally not dangerous to people. (check one)


c) Black bears help keep nature in balance. (check one)


2. Prior to receiving this survey, would you have said the number of bears across Wisconsin is …?

(check one)

□ Greatly increasing □ Slightly decreasing

□ Slightly increasing □ Remaining stable □ Greatly decreasing □ Unsure

3. Prior to receiving this survey, would you have said the geographic range of bears across Wisconsin is …?

(check one)

□ Greatly expanding □ Slightly shrinking

□ Slightly expanding □ Remaining stable □ Greatly shrinking □ Unsure

4. What is your level of agreement or disagreement with the following two statements about bears?

a) I think the state should have as FEW bears as possible. (check one)


b) I think the state should have as MANY bears as the habitat in the state will support. (check one)


5. In your opinion, would you say the number of bears occurring in your county of residence is… (check

one)

□ Very abundant □ Rare

□ Abundant □ Present, but not abundant □ Very rare□ Not present □ Unsure


6. Are you willing to have bears residing near where you live? (check one)

□ Yes, absolutely □ Yes, probably □ Not sure □ No, probably not □ Absolutely not

7. In your county of residence would you like to see the number of bears… (check one)

□ Greatly increase □ Slightly decrease

□ Slightly increase □ Remain about the same □ Greatly decrease □ Unsure

8. What about for the rest of Wisconsin? Would you like to see the number of bears… (check one)



9. Do you regularly visit another area of the state (outside your home county) for vacations or recreation?

□ Yes In which COUNTY do you spend the most time?________________________ Continue to

Question 10

□ No If NO, SKIP to Question 12 on next page

10. In your opinion, would you say the number of bears occurring in your vacation county is… (check one)

□ Very abundant □ Rare

□ Abundant □ Present, but not abundant □ Very rare□ Not present □ Unsure

11. In your vacation county, would you like to see the number of bears… (check one)




12. People have different levels of comfort regarding wildlife species. Please indicate the extent to which you

agree or disagree with the following statements about bears in Wisconsin. (Check one box in each row.)

Strongly

agree

Agree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Disagree

Strongly

disagree

Does

not

apply

I would worry about my personal

safety while outdoors in areas where

bears live. □ □ □ □ □

I would worry about the safety of

children who are outdoors in areas

where bears live.

□ □ □ □ □

I would worry about the safety of my

pets while outdoors in areas where

bears live. (If you do not have pets

please check the last option “Does

not apply.”)

□ □ □ □ □ □

SECTION 3: OPINIONS ABOUT BEAR MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

1. How important are the decisions regarding bear management in Wisconsin to you personally? (check one)

□ Very important □ Somewhat unimportant

□ Somewhat important □ Very unimportant

□ Neither important nor unimportant

2. The use of bait is a popular way to hunt black bears in Wisconsin. Current rules allow hunters to place bait

in mid-April through the end of the hunting season in mid-October. Which statement best describes your

opinion regarding the current regulation about the length of time that baiting is allowed? (check one)

□ I have no opinion about the baiting timeline

□ I think the current regulation is adequate and should not be changed

□ I think the time allowed for baiting should be lengthened

□ I think the time allowed for baiting should be shortened


3. A possible result of a larger bear population or of bears expanding their range is an increase in encounters

people may have with bears. For each situation below, circle the number that most closely represents your

level of acceptance for that situation in your county of residence, even if you do not think there are

bears in your home county. Indicate if that situation is:

1 = Never acceptable to you

2 = Acceptable one time, but not after that

3 = Acceptable if it occurs occasionally, but not often

4 = Always acceptable, even if it occurs often

5 = Unsure

When is it acceptable for a bear to…

a. …attempt to enter a person’s home, garage or vehicle? (circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5

Never One time only Occasionally Always Unsure

b. …attack livestock on an agricultural farm? (circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5


c. …damage agricultural crops? (circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5


d. …be loitering around a campsite (circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5


e. …destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans on someone’s property near where you live?

(circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5


f. …be sighted in someone’s yard near where you live? (circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5


g. …be sighted on public forest land (county, state and federally owned land) (circle one number)


1 2 3 4 5


4. Sometimes black bears cause problems for people or are perceived to pose safety risks. Wildlife officials

often receive complaints from the public when bear interactions occur. The following set of questions asks

your opinion about how wildlife officials should address different interactions involving black bears.

Situation 1: A homeowner loses bird feeders to bears and /or has garbage cans raided. Do you support, oppose

or are you unsure about using each of the options for this situation?



A. No involvement by wildlife officials. □ □ □

B. Consultation with wildlife officials to only provide

recommendations to discourage future bear visits.

□ □ □

C. Wildlife officials capture bear and release elsewhere. □ □ □

D. Bear is killed by wildlife officials. □ □ □

E. Bear is killed by landowner with special permit. □ □ □

Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears cause damage to property.

Situation 2: Bears cause damage to a farmer’s crop resulting in loss of revenue for the farmer. Do you support,

oppose or are you unsure about using each of the options for this situation?






□ □ □




Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears damage a farmer’s crops

resulting in revenue loss.

Situation 3: Over time, bears are seen more frequently in non-rural settings, such as towns and villages,

walking through multiple yards, resulting in more frequent bear-human conflicts. Do you support,

oppose or are you unsure about using each of the options for this situation?






□ □ □




Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears move into non-rural

settings such as towns and villages.


SECTION 4: GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Are you? □ Male □ Female

2. What is your age? _______ years

3. Please indicate the extent to which the following labels fit you in terms of how you think about yourself.

(Circle one number in each row.)

Identity label….. This is not

me at all

This is only a

small part of

who I am

This applies to

me, but is not the

central part of

who I am

This is

central to

who I am

Bear hunter…………………… 1 2 3 4

Birdwatcher…..……………….. 1 2 3 4

Conservationist….……………. 1 2 3 4

Deer hunter…...….……………. 1 2 3 4

Environmentalist….……………. 1 2 3 4

Farmer…………………………. 1 2 3 4

Nature lover……………………. 1 2 3 4

Trapper………………………... 1 2 3 4

4. What best describes where you live now? (check one)

□ On a farm □ Town or village of 2,000-9,999

□ In the country, but not on a farm □ City or suburb of 10,000-25,000

□ Town of less than 2,000 □ City over 25,000

□ Tribal reservation

5. What best describes the area where you grew up? If you lived in more than one area, select the place you

lived the longest while growing up. (check one)

□ On a farm □ Town or village of 2,000-9,999

□ In the country, but not on a farm □ City or suburb of 10,000-25,000

□ Town of less than 2,000 □ City over 25,000

□ Tribal reservation


6. Does any part of your income come from farming or beekeeping?

□ Yes Continue to Question 7 □ No If NO, skip Question 7. You have completed the survey.

7. What type(s) of farming do you do? (check all that apply)

□ Grain or vegetable crops □ Beekeeping

□ Livestock □ I lease land to other producers

□ Orchards □ I lease land from someone else

□ Tree farm □ Other? ____________________________________________

The space below may be used to offer additional comments on bears, bear hunting or bear management

in Wisconsin.

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please return it at your earliest

convenience in the provided stamped, return envelope.

This study was funded in-part through Wildlife Restoration dollars. PUB-SS-1171-2017

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707-7921

This publication is available upon request in alternate formats for visually impaired persons. Please

contact Jordan Petchenik at (608) 266-8523 to request an alternate format.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment

programs, services and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please

write to: Equal Opportunity Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240

public awareness of and attitudes towards black bears and ... · three different black bear-human...

Documents