wildlife values in the west - sites @ wcnr · executive summary this report documents results of a...

State Report for Hawai`i

From the Research Project Entitled

Wildlife Values in the West

© Ram Papish

A Project of the

Human Dimensions Committee of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Produced by the Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit

Colorado State University

In cooperation with Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources

March 2006

Report Authors This project report was produced by Ashley Dayer, Michael Manfredo, Tara Teel, and Alan Bright of the Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit of Colorado State University in coordination with Paul Conry and Jolie Wanger of Hawaiì Department of Land and Natural Resources. Acknowledgements This project report was funded by Hawaiì Department of Land and Natural Resources. Wildlife Values in the West is a project of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Human Dimensions Committee in cooperation with the Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit at Colorado State University (CSU). The project was funded by both participating state agency contributions and through a grant awarded by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) as part of the 2002 Multistate Conservation Grant Program. Special thanks to Terry Steinwand, Ken Ambrock, Steven Huffaker, Jeff Koenings, and Larry Bell (Current and Former WAFWA Presidents); Duane Shroufe (WAFWA Human Dimensions Committee Chair); WAFWA Human Dimensions Committee members; Larry Kruckenberg (WAFWA Secretary); Steve Barton (WAFWA Treasurer); Ty Gray and Linda Sikorowski (Co-Project Managers); and the Directors of the 19 participating states. We would also like to thank the many CSU students who assisted with the data collection and data entry efforts and, particularly, Megan Everett and Robert Hunter, who additionally assisted in the production of figures and tables for this report. Suggested Citation Dayer, A. A., Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Bright, A.D. (2006). State report for

Hawaiì from the research project entitled “Wildlife Values in the West.” (Project Rep. No. 68). Project Report for Hawaiì Department of Land and Natural Resources. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report documents results of a study that assessed the Hawaiì public’s values and attitudes toward wildlife. Findings are part of the larger research program Wildlife Values in the West. Data were collected using a mail-back survey administered to residents in Hawaiì. Six hundred thirty-four completed surveys were returned, and the response rate for the mail-back survey was 15%. A telephone nonresponse survey was completed, and tests for differences between mail survey respondents and nonrespondents were conducted. Based on these tests, data were weighted to correct for age and wildlife-related recreation participation. Key findings include:

• There are diverse types of people, based on wildlife value orientations, in Hawaiì.

The four wildlife value orientation types include Utilitarian, Mutualist, Pluralist, and Distanced. Utilitarians believe that wildlife should be used by humans and strongly support hunting. Mutualists consider wildlife to be like part of an extended family and express an emotional attachment to wildlife. Pluralists hold both utilitarian and mutualism wildlife value orientations, and the situation or context determines which of these orientations plays a role in their thinking. Distanced individuals have less interest in wildlife compared to others in the public. The distribution of these wildlife value orientation types in Hawaiì is: Utilitarian (25%), Mutualist (41%), Pluralist (22%), and Distanced (12%). • The public differed on its perception of the current funding and programming approach of

Hawaiì Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) and its desired approach.

Fifty-three percent of the public perceived that hunting and fishing licenses and taxes fund the agency with programs that benefit all members of the public. Sixty-five percent of the public also desired this to be the agency’s approach. Overall, one out of two individuals thought the current approach of the agency matched their desired approach. • One half of the public trusted the agency to make decisions without their input; although,

generally they did not feel their voices are represented in decision-making through public involvement.

Approximately one-half of the public expressed trust in DLNR to make decisions without their input. However, less than half of the public felt that if they provide input it will make a difference or that DLNR makes a good effort to obtain input. About one third thought their interests are adequately taken into account, while less than a third felt their opinions are heard by decision-makers or that they don’t have an interest in providing input. • The public expressed greater trust in DLNR than in the state or federal governments.

Over 65% of the public indicated that they trust DLNR to do what is right for fish and wildlife management in the state. In contrast, less than half of the public indicated that they trust the state government or the federal government to do what is right for the state and the country respectively.

i

• In bear-human conflict situations and deer-human conflict situations, “conducting controlled hunts using trained agency staff” had the highest public acceptability among a series of population-level control techniques.

A majority of the public (more than 70%) found “doing nothing” to be unacceptable in situations where bears or deer are a nuisance or a safety threat. Less than half of the public supported “providing more recreational opportunities to hunt” for bears in these situations, while over 50% supported the action for deer. For both species, “conducting controlled hunts using trained agency staff” was acceptable to 70% of the public in a nuisance situation and approximately 90% in a safety threat situation. For deer, while the public generally did not support “distributing pellets with permanent contraceptives”, 70% or more of the public did accept “distributing pellets with short-term contraceptives” across both situations. • Given limited funds to allocate to conservation, the public favors native, declining, and

game species to receive the greatest allocation of conservation funding.

In public preference for conservation funding, species origin (i.e., whether a species is native or not) was more important than species use (i.e., whether a species is considered a game species or not) and species status (i.e., whether a species is common, declining, or extirpated). Native species tended to be strongly prioritized over nonnative species. Declining species were more likely to be prioritized over common species, as were extirpated species. Game (i.e., hunted or fished) species tended to be slightly prioritized over nongame species.

• The public was in favor of protecting endangered species and supported techniques for

managing for endangered species in Hawai`i.

The public strongly agreed with the importance of protecting endangered species. The public also agreed with prioritizing protection of endangered species over game animals, hunting or fishing opportunities, and economic concerns. To protect endangered species, the public was in support of “limiting development”, “closing turtle nesting areas”, “increasing fencing and removal of game animals”, and, to a lesser degree, “hunting by the public” and “professional aerial gunning of game animals.”

• The public found a variety of techniques acceptable to prevent, control, and remove

invasive species in Hawai`i.

The public had a considerable level of support for “inspecting ships and cargo”, “developing regulations to prohibit selling plants”, “increasing funding for removal of invasive species”, and “establishing stricter regulations for cargo.” The public also supported, but not as strongly, “developing a buyback program for aquarium pets”, “killing escaped animals in forests”, and “inspecting all entering bags”. There was also a high level of agreement with the importance of increased public education to prevent the spread of invasive species and also a moderate amount of agreement with the need for more funding for inspection and quarantine.

ii

• Killing non-native species in Hawaiì was supported by the public as were all techniques to do so except dispersing poison bait using a helicopter.

The public agreed with killing non-native species to protect endangered species and native animals. Specifically, the killing of rats and mongoose in areas where native species occur was strongly supported. There was somewhat less support for using public resources to do so. The public strongly disagreed with “doing nothing” to control rat and mongoose populations. Instead, they supported “offering incentives to individuals to control rats and mongoose” and “using poison bait to control rats and mongoose.” There was even stronger support for “using poison only when it can be proven not to impact other animals.” The public was neutral, on average, regarding “dispersing poison bait using a helicopter.” • The public agreed with limiting some human activities in nature preserves in Hawaiì.

The public strongly agreed that nature preserves should be set aside on each island. There was strong support for closing some areas to hunting and fishing, while there was also some support for establishing areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted. The public agreed that there should be opportunities to visit preserves but acknowledged that recreational activities can have adverse effects on wildlife. The public disagreed with opening nature preserves to commercial activities. • The public expressed support for proposed new sources of funding for wildlife and aquatic

resource conservation programs in HawaiÌ except establishing an outdoor recreation permit and fee.

The public was most in support of “setting aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife businesses”, “establishing a special wildlife license plate”, and “charging tour companies a fee.” Less acceptable funding sources were “increasing the hotel room tax by $0.50 per day”, “establishing a fishing license fee”, “setting aside a greater share of overall tax revenue”, and “adding a $1 fee to water bills for watershed/stream management.” “Establishing an outdoor recreation permit and fee” was slightly unacceptable on average. • Comparison of responses by wildlife value orientation types allowed for greater

understanding of public attitudes toward key issues measured in the survey than did participation in hunting and fishing or place of residence (urban vs. rural or Honolulu county vs. other counties).

Wildlife value orientation types proved useful in being able to more thoroughly understand the attitudes of the public, especially regarding prioritization of protecting endangered species, management of wildlife involving lethal means, and limits on human activity in nature preserves. Typically, Utilitarians and Mutualists were the value orientation types most dissimilar in their views, with Pluralists and Distanced individuals in between the extremes. There were limited differences between hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers in responses to issues examined in the survey. Most notably, hunters/anglers compared to non-hunters/anglers tended to be more in support of management techniques involving increased recreational hunting but less in support of funding through a fishing license. Also, comparison of responses by place of residence (urban vs. rural or Honolulu vs. other counties) revealed only limited differences of small magnitude.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES xxiii SECTION I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1

A. OBJECTIVES 1 B. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT 2 C. GUIDE FOR READING THE RESULTS 2

SECTION II. WILDLIFE VALUE ORIENTATIONS 4

A. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND: A THEORY ON WILDLIFE VALUE ORIENTATIONS

4

B. SEGMENTATION OF PUBLICS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR WILDLIFE VALUE ORIENTATIONS

7

SECTION III. PHILOSOPHY FOR SERVING AND INVOLVING THE PUBLIC IN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND MANAGING HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT

13 A. FUNDING AND PROGRAMMING APPROACH 13 B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PHILSOPHY 17 C. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT 18 D. POPULATION-LEVEL TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGING HUMAN- WILDLIFE CONFLICT

20

SECTION IV. MANAGING FOR BIODIVERSITY AND SPECIES OF CONCERN

23

A. METHODS 23 B. RESULTS 30

C. AN APPLICATION OF THE MODEL 34 SECTION V. MANAGING HAWAI`IAN ECOSYSTEMS 36

A. MANAGING ENDANGERED SPECIES 35 B. MANAGING INVASIVE SPECIES 39 C. MANAGING NON-NATIVE PREDATORS 42

D. MANAGING NATURE PRESERVES 45 E. FUNDING CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 48

SECTION VI. USE OF PUBLIC CHARACTERISTICS TO EXPLAIN RESPONSES TO ATTITUDE ITEMS

50

A. RESPONSES TO ATTITUDE ITEMS BY WILDLIFE VALUE ORIENTATION TYPE

50

iv

B. RESPONSES TO ATTITUDE ITEMS BY HUNTERS/ANGLERS AND NON-HUNTERS/ANGLERS

107

C. EXPLORATION OF DIFFERENCES BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE (URBAN VS. RURAL; HONOLULU COUNTY VS. OTHER COUNTIES)

123

D. INDICATIONS OF NATIVE HAWAI`IAN ATTITUDINAL DIFFERENCES 123 APPENDIX A. SUPPORTING TABLES 126 APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL FIGURES 220 APPENDIX C. METHODS 229 APPENDIX D. MAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT 234

v

LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE

I.C.1. Margin of error for subgroups at the 90% confidence level. 2

III.A.1. Funding approach cross-tabulation of perceived current approach by desired approach. 14

IV.A.1. Summary of example species for Hawai`i survey. 27

IV.A.2. Percent of respondents that supported each species in the eight scenarios. 27

IV.A.2. Reference and nonreference species factor levels. 29

A-1. Percent scoring “high” on mutualism wildlife orientation scale compared to utilitarian wildlife value orientation scale by respondent characteristics. 126

A-2. Percent scoring “high” on attraction basic wildlife belief dimension compared to concern for safety basic wildlife belief dimension by respondent characteristics. 126

A-3. Correlation of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and cognitive characteristics with selecting same approach and trust for DLNR. 127

A-4. Percent of respondents agreeing with the public involvement statements. 128

A-5. Percent of respondents that trust their government to do what is right. 129

A-6. Percent of respondents agreeing with actions to address bear situations. 129

A-7. Percent of respondents agreeing with actions to address deer situations. 129

A-8. Biodiversity stated choice results for Hawai`i. 130

A-9. Percent of respondents agreeing with beliefs regarding endangered species statements. 131

A-10. PCI means and values for beliefs regarding endangered species statements. 132

A-11. Percent of respondents finding management techniques to protect and restore endangered species acceptable. 133

A-12. PCI means and values for the acceptability of techniques to protect and restore endangered species. 134

A-13. Percent of respondents finding techniques acceptable to prevent the spread of invasive species and repair damage. 135

A-14. PCI means and values for the acceptability of techniques to prevent the spread of invasive species and repair damage. 136

A-15. Percent of respondents agreeing with the invasive species funding and education statements. 137

A-16. PCI means and values for the invasive species funding and education statements. 137

A-17. Percent of respondents agreeing with beliefs about killing non-native species. 138

vi

A-18. PCI means and values for beliefs about killing non-native species. 139

A-19. Percent of respondents finding acceptable techniques to manage non-native predators. 140

A-20. PCI means and values for the acceptability of techniques to manage non-native predators. 141

A-21. Percent of respondents finding it acceptable to close and establish nature preserves. 141

A-22. PCI means and values for the acceptability of closure and establishment of nature preserves. 142

A-23. Percent of respondents agreeing with the nature preserve management statements. 143

A-24. PCI means and values for the nature preserve management statements. 144

A-25. Percent of respondents finding sources of funding acceptable. 145

A-26. PCI means and values for the acceptability of sources of funding. 146

A-27. Percent of wildlife value orientation type indicating each approach as their perceived current approach for the state. 147

A-28. Percent of wildlife value orientation type indicating each approach as their desired approach for the state. 147

A-29. Percent of wildlife value orientation type selecting same approaches for perceived current approach and desired approach in the state. 147

A-30. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.” 148

A-31. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.”

148

A-32. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state.”

148

A-33. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole.”

149

A-34. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state.” 149

A-35. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input.” 149

A-36. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state” by wildlife value orientation type. 150

vii

A-37. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision makers in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

150

A-38. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

150

A-39. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole” by wildlife value orientation type.

151

A-40. PCI means and values for the statement “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state” by wildlife value orientation type. 151

A-41. PCI means and values for the statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input” by wildlife value orientation type. 151

A-42. Percent of wildlife value orientation type that trusts their federal government to do what is right for the country. 152

A-43. Percent of wildlife value orientation type that trusts their state government to do what is right for the Hawai`i. 152

A-44. Percent of wildlife value orientation type that trusts the Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources to do what is right for fish and wildlife management. 152

A-45. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with actions to address bear situation 1. 152

A-46. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with techniques to address bear situation 2. 153

A-47. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with actions to address deer situation 1. 153

A-48. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with actions to address deer situation 2. 153

A-49. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species.” 154

A-50. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species.”

154

A-51. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species.”

154

A-52. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species.” 155

A-53. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. 155

viii

A-54. PCI means and values for the statement “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

156

A-55. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

156

A-56. PCI means and values for the statement “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. 156

A-57. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…increase fencing and removal of game animals to keep them out of certain areas.” 157

A-58. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas.” 157

A-59. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas.”

157

A-60. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities.” 158

A-61. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species.” 158

A-62. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…increase fencing and removal of game animals to keep them out of certain areas” by wildlife value orientation type.

159

A-63. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas” by wildlife value orientation type.

159

A-64. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas” by wildlife value orientation type.

159

A-65. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities” by wildlife value orientation type.

160

A-66. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

160

A-67. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…inspect all baggage before entering Hawai`i even if it added 15 minutes to travel time” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

161

A-68. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

161

ix

A-69. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

161

A-70. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…kill escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

162

A-71. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “... develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawaiì” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

162

A-72. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “… develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

162

A-73. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “… increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them from the State” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

163

A-74. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…inspect all baggage before entering Hawaiì even if it added 15 minutes to travel time” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type.

163

A-75. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type.

164

A-76. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type.

164

A-77. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…kill escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type.

164

A-78. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “... develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawaiì” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type.

165

A-79. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “… develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type.

165

A-80. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “… increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them from the State” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type.

165

x

A-81. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry.” 166

A-82. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands.”

166

A-83. PCI means and values for the statement “More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry” by wildlife value orientation type.

167

A-84. PCI means and values for the statement “Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands” by wildlife value orientation type.

167

A-85. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species.” 168

A-86. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal.” 168

A-87. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist.” 168

A-88. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable only when necessary for protection of endangered species.”

169

A-89. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources.” 169

A-90. PCI means and values for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. 170

A-91. PCI means and values for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal” by wildlife value orientation type. 170

A-92. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist” by wildlife value orientation type.

170

A-93. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable only when necessary for protection of endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

170

A-94. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources” by wildlife value orientation type. 171

A-95. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations.” 171

A-96. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “… offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose.” 171

xi

A-97. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose.”

172

A-98. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals.”

172

A-99. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose.” 172

A-100. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations” by wildlife value orientation type. 173

A-101. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “… offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type.

173

A-102. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type. 173

A-103. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals” by wildlife value orientation type.

174

A-104. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type.

174

A-105. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life.” 175

A-106. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed.” 175

A-107. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted.” 175

A-108. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life” by wildlife value orientation type.

176

A-109. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed” by wildlife value orientation type.

176

A-110. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted” by wildlife value orientation type.

176

A-111. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life.”

177

xii

A-112. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes.”

177

A-113. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats.”

177

A-114. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better.”

178

A-115. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals / tours, whale watching, and hiking tours.”

178

A-116. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life” by wildlife value orientation type.

179

A-117. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes” by wildlife value orientation type.

179

A-118. PCI means and values for the statement “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats” by wildlife value orientation type.

179

A-119. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better” by wildlife value orientation type.

180

A-120. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals / tours, whale watching, and hiking tours” by wildlife value orientation type.

180

A-121. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

181

A-122. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

181

A-123. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

181

A-124. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…establish a license fee for recreational fishing” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

182

xiii

A-125. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

182

A-126. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…establish a special wildlife license plate” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

182

A-127. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

183

A-128. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

183

A-129. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

183

A-130. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type.

184

A-131. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type.

184

A-132. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type.

184

A-133. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…establish a license fee for recreational fishing” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type.

185

A-134. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type.

185

A-135. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…establish a special wildlife license plate” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type.

185

A-136. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type.

186

xiv

A-137. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawai`i by wildlife value orientation type.

186

A-138. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawai`i by wildlife value orientation type.

186

A-139. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers indicating each approach as the perceived current approach in the state. 187

A-140. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers indicating each approach as the desired approach in the state. 187

A-141. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers selecting same approaches for perceived current approach and desired approach in the state. 187

A-142. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.”

188

A-143. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.”

188

A-144. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state.”

188

A-145. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole.”

189

A-146. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state.”

189

A-147. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input.”

189

A-148. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state” by participation in hunting and fishing.

190

A-149. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision makers in my state” by participation in hunting and fishing.

190

A-150. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state” by participation in hunting and fishing.

190

xv

A-151. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole” by participation in hunting and fishing.

190

A-152. PCI means and values for the statement “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state” ” by participation in hunting and fishing.

190

A-153. PCI means and values for the statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input” by participation in hunting and fishing.

191

A-154. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers that trusts their federal government to do what is right for the country. 191

A-155. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers that trusts their state government to do what is right for the Arizona. 191

A-156. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers that trusts the Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources to do what is right for fish and wildlife management.

191

A-157. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with actions to address bear situation 1. 192

A-158. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with actions to address bear situation 2. 192

A-159. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with actions to address deer situation 1. 192

A-160. Percent hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with actions to address deer situation 2. 192

A-161. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species.”

193

A-162. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species.”

193

A-163. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species.”

193

A-164. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species.”

194

A-165. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.

194

xvi

A-166. PCI means and values for the statement “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.

194

A-167. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.

194

A-168. PCI means and values for the statement “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.

195

A-169. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…increase fencing and removal of game animals to keep them out of certain areas.”

195

A-170. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas.” 195

A-171. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas.”

196

A-172. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities.” 196

A-173. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species.” 196

A-174. PCI means and values for the statement “Increase fencing and removal of game animals to keep them out of certain areas” by participation in hunting and fishing.

197

A-175. PCI means and values for the statement “Increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas” by participation in hunting and fishing. 197

A-176. PCI means and values for the statement “Use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas” by participation in hunting and fishing.

197

A-177. PCI means and values for the statement “Close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities” by participation in hunting and fishing. 197

A-178. PCI means and values for the statement “Limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing. 197

A-179. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters finding it acceptable to “…inspect all baggage before entering Hawai`i even if it added 15 minutes to travel time” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

198

A-180. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

198

xvii

A-181. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

198

A-182. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…kill escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

199

A-183. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “... develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawaiì” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

199

A-184. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “… develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

199

A-185. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “… increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them from the State” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.

200

A-186. PCI means and values for the statement “Inspect all baggage before entering Hawaiì even if it added 15 minutes to travel time” by participation in hunting and fishing.

201

A-187. PCI means and values for the statement “Establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo” by participation in hunting and fishing. 201

A-188. PCI means and values for the statement “Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist” by participation in hunting and fishing.

201

A-189. PCI means and values for the statement “Kill escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops” by participation in hunting and fishing.

201

A-190. PCI means and values for the statement “Develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawaiì” by participation in hunting and fishing.

201

A-191. PCI means and values for the statement “Develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them” by participation in hunting and fishing.

202

A-192. PCI means and values for the statement “Increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them form the State” by participation in hunting and fishing.

202

A-193. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry.”

203

xviii

A-194. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands.”

203

A-195. PCI means and values for the statement “More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry” by participation in hunting and fishing.

203

A-196. PCI means and values for the statement “Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands” by participation in hunting and fishing.

204

A-197. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species.” 204

A-198. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal.” 204

A-199. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist.”

205

A-200. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable only when necessary for protection of endangered species.”

205

A-201. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources.” 205

A-202. PCI means and values for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animals to protect endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing. 206

A-203. PCI means and values for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animals to protect a native animal” by participation in hunting and fishing. 206

A-204. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist” by participation in hunting and fishing.

206

A-205. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable only when necessary for protection of endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.

206

A-206. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources” by participation in hunting and fishing. 206

A-207. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations.” 207

A-208. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “… offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose.” 207

A-209. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose.” 207

xix

A-210. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals.”

208

A-211. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose.”

208

A-212. PCI means and values for the statement “Do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations” by participation in hunting and fishing. 208

A-213. PCI means and values for the statement “Offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose” by participation in hunting and fishing. 209

A-214. PCI means and values for the statement “Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose” by participation in hunting and fishing. 209

A-215. PCI means and values for the statement “Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals” by participation in hunting and fishing.

209

A-216. PCI means and values for the statement “Disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose” by participation in hunting and fishing.

209

A-217. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life.”

210

A-218. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed.”

210

A-219. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted.” 210

A-220. PCI means and values for the statement “Close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life” by participation in hunting and fishing.

211

A-221. PCI means and values for the statement “Close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed” by participation in hunting and fishing.

211

A-222. PCI means and values for the statement “Establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted” by participation in hunting and fishing. 211

A-223. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life.”

212

A-224. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes.”

212

xx

A-225. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats.”

212

A-226. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better.”

213

A-227. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals / tours, whale watching, and hiking tours.”

213

A-228. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life” by participation in hunting and fishing.

214

A-229. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes” by participation in hunting and fishing.

214

A-230. PCI means and values for the statement “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling, and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats” by participation in hunting and fishing.

214

A-231. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better” by participation in hunting and fishing.

214

A-232. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals/tours, whale watching, and hiking tours” by participation in hunting and fishing.

214

A-233. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

215

A-234. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

215

A-235. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

215

A-236. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…establish a license fee for recreational fishing” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

216

A-237. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

216

xxi

A-238. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…establish a special wildlife license plate” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

216

A-239. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

217

A-240. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

217

A-241. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.

217

A-242. PCI means and values for the statement “Increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day” by participation in hunting and fishing. 218

A-243. PCI means and values for the statement “Set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business” by participation in hunting and fishing. 218

A-244. PCI means and values for the statement “Add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management” by participation in hunting and fishing. 218

A-245. PCI means and values for the statement “Establish a license fee for recreational fishing” by participation in hunting and fishing. 218

A-246. PCI means and values for the statement “Establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving” by participation in hunting and fishing.

218

A-247. PCI means and values for the statement “Establish a special wildlife license plate” by participation in hunting and fishing. 219

A-248. PCI means and values for the statement “Set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues” by participation in hunting and fishing. 219

A-249. PCI means and values for the statement “Charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources” by participation in hunting and fishing. 219

A-250. PCI means and values for the statement “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding” by participation in hunting and fishing. 219

C-1. A comparison of the distribution across sociodemographic categories of the Hawaiì sample from this study and the US Census or National Survey data. 232

C-2. Estimates of distribution of wildlife value orientation types in Hawaiì before and after education weighting scheme was applied. 233

xxii

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE

II.A.1. Conceptual model for wildlife value orientations. 5

II.B.1. Four types of people identified on the basis of their wildlife value orientations. 7

II.B.2. Distribution of wildlife value orientation types in Hawaiì. 9

II.B.3. Percent scoring “high” on mutualism value orientation scale compared to utilitarian value orientation scale by gender. 10

II.B.4. Percent scoring “high” on mutualism value orientation scale compared to utilitarian value orientation scale by hunting and fishing participation. 10

II.B.5. Percent scoring “high” on attraction basic wildlife belief dimension compared to concern for safety basic wildlife belief dimension by wildlife value orientation type. 11

II.B.6. Percent scoring “high” on attraction basic wildlife belief dimension compared to concern for safety basic wildlife belief dimension by gender. 12

II.B.7. Percent scoring “high” on attraction basic wildlife belief dimension compared to concern for safety basic wildlife belief dimension by hunting and fishing participation.

12

III.A.1. Percent of respondents indicating each approach as their perceived current approach. 14

III.A.2. Percent of respondents indicating each approach as their desired approach. 15

III.B.1. Percent of respondents agreeing with the public involvement statements. 18

III.C.1. Percent of respondents expressing trust in different forms of government. 19

III.D.1. Percent of respondents finding management actions acceptable when bears are getting into trash and pet food containers (situation 1) and when human deaths from bear attacks have occurred (situation 2).

21

III.D.2. Percent of respondents finding management actions acceptable when deer are entering people’s yards and eating shrubs and garden plants (situation 1) and when deer are carrying a disease that is transmissible to some domestic animals and livestock (situation 2).

22

IV.B.1. Average importance of species factors for Hawaiì and the contiguous states of the western region. 30

IV.B.2. Odds ratios of species status levels for Hawaiì and the contiguous states of the western region. 31

IV.B.3. Odds ratios of species origin levels for Hawaiì and the contiguous states of the western region. 32

xxiii

IV.B.4. Odds ratios of species use levels for Hawai`i and the contiguous states of the western region. 33

IV.C.1. Hawai`i’s species of concern calculator. 35

V.A.1. Potential for conflict indices for general attitudes about the importance of protecting endangered species. 37

V.A.2. Potential for conflict indices for acceptability of management techniques to protect endangered species. 38

V.B.1. Potential for conflict indices for acceptability of management techniques to prevent invasive species statements1. 40

V.B.2. Potential for conflict indices for the attitudes toward invasive species funding and education. 41

V.C.1. Potential for conflict indices for beliefs about killing non-native species. 43

V.C.2. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward non-native predator management techniques. 44

V.D.1. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward nature preserve closure and establishment for various purposes. 46

V.D.2. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward nature preserve management. 47

V.E.1. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward new funding sources. 49

VI.A.1. Percent of wildlife value orientation type indicating each approach as their perceived current approach. 51

VI.A.2. Percent of wildlife value orientation type indicating each approach as their desired approach. 52

VI.A.3. Percent of wildlife value orientation type selecting the same approach for perceived current approach and desired approach. 52

VI.A.4. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

53

VI.A.5. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision makers in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

54

VI.A.6. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

55

VI.A.7. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole” by wildlife value orientation type.

56

xxiv

VI.A.8. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

57

VI.A.9. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input” by wildlife value orientation type.

58

VI.A.10. Percent of wildlife value orientation type expressing trust in different forms of government. 59

VI.A.11. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding management actions acceptable when bears are getting into trash and pet food containers (situation 1). 60

VI.A.12. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding management actions acceptable when human deaths from bear attacks have occurred (situation 2). 60

VI.A.13. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding management actions acceptable when deer are entering people’s yards and eating shrubs and garden plants (situation 1).

61

VI.A.14. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding management actions acceptable when deer are carrying a disease that is transmissible to some domestic animals and livestock (situation 2).

61

VI.A.15. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. 62

VI.A.16. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

63

VI.A.17. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

64

VI.A.18. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. 65

VI.A.19. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the endangered species management technique “Increase fencing and removal of game animals to keep them out of certain areas” by wildlife value orientation type.

66

VI.A.20. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the endangered species management technique “Increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas” by wildlife value orientation type.

67

VI.A.21. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the endangered species management technique “Use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas” by wildlife value orientation type.

68

VI.A.22. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the endangered species management technique “Close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities” by wildlife value orientation type.

69

xxv

VI.A.23. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the endangered species management technique “Limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

70

VI.A.24. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Inspect all baggage before entering Hawaiì even if it added 15 minutes to travel time” by wildlife value orientation type.

71

VI.A.25. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo” by wildlife value orientation type.

72

VI.A.26. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist” by wildlife value orientation type.

73

VI.A.27. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Kill escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops” by wildlife value orientation type.

74

VI.A.28. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawaiì” by wildlife value orientation type.

75

VI.A.29. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them” by wildlife value orientation type.

76

VI.A.30. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them from the state” by wildlife value orientation type.

77

VI.A.31. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry” by wildlife value orientation type.

78

VI.A.32. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands” by wildlife value orientation type.

79

VI.A.33. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. 80

VI.A.34. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal” by wildlife value orientation type. 81

VI.A.35. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist” by wildlife value orientation type. 82

xxvi

VI.A.36. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is only acceptable when necessary for protection of endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

83

VI.A.37. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources” by wildlife value orientation type. 84

VI.A.38. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the non-native predator management technique “Do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations” by wildlife value orientation type.

85

VI.A.39. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the non-native predator management technique “Offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type.

86

VI.A.40. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the non-native predator management technique “Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type.

87

VI.A.41. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the non-native predator management technique “Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals” by wildlife value orientation type.

88

VI.A.42. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the non-native predator management technique “Disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type.

89

VI.A.43. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the nature preserve management technique “Close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life” by wildlife value orientation type.

90

VI.A.44. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the nature preserve management technique “Close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed” by wildlife value orientation type.

91

VI.A.45. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the nature preserve management technique “Establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted” by wildlife value orientation type.

92

VI.A.46. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life” by wildlife value orientation type.

93

VI.A.47. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes” by wildlife value orientation type.

94

VI.A.48. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats” by wildlife value orientation type.

95

xxvii

VI.A.49. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better” by wildlife value orientation type.

96

VI.A.50. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals/tours, whale watching and hiking tours” by wildlife value orientation type.

97

VI.A.51. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type. 98

VI.A.52. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

99

VI.A.53. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

100

VI.A.54. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Establish a license fee for recreational fishing” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type. 101

VI.A.55. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

102

VI.A.56. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Establish a special wildlife license plate” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type. 103

VI.A.57. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type. 104

VI.A.58. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

105

VI.A.59. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding.” 106

VI.B.1. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers indicating each approach as that which “best resembles how things are now in your state”. 108

VI.B.2. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers indicating each approach as that which “best represents your opinion of how things should be in your state”. 109

VI.B.3. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers selecting the same approach for perceived current approach and desired approach. 109

VI.B.4. Potential for conflict indices for public involvement statements1 by participation in hunting and fishing. 110

VI.B.5. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers expressing trust for different forms of government. 111

xxviii

VI.B.6. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding management actions acceptable when bears are getting into trash and pet food containers (situation 1).

112

VI.B.7. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding management actions acceptable when human deaths from bear attacks have occurred (situation 2). 112

VI.B.8. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding management actions acceptable when deer are entering people’s yards and eating shrubs and garden plants (situation 1).

113

VI.B.9. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding management actions acceptable when deer are carrying a disease that is transmissible to some domestic animals and livestock (situation 2).

113

VI.B.10. Potential for conflict indices for general attitudes about the importance of protecting endangered species by participation in hunting and fishing. 114

VI.B.11. Potential for conflict indices for acceptability of management techniques to protect endangered species by participation in hunting and fishing. 115

VI.B.12. Potential for conflict indices for acceptability of management techniques to prevent invasive species statements by participation in hunting and fishing. 116

VI.B.13. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward invasive species funding and education by participation in hunting and fishing. 117

VI.B.14. Potential for conflict indices for beliefs about killing non-native species by participation in hunting and fishing. 118

VI.B.15. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward non-native predator management techniques by participation in hunting and fishing. 119

VI.B.16. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward nature preserve closure and establishment for various purposes by participation in hunting and fishing. 120

VI.B.17. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward nature preserve management by participation in hunting and fishing. 121

VI.B.18. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward new funding sources by participation in hunting and fishing. 122

B-1. Percent of respondents agreeing with endangered species management statements 220

B-2. Percent of respondents accepting management techniques to protect and restore endangered species. 221

B-3. Percent of respondents accepting management techniques to prevent the spread of invasive species and repair damage. 222

B-4. Percent of respondents agreeing with invasive species funding and education statements. 223

B-5. Percent of respondents agreeing with statements about killing non-native species. 224

B-6. Percent of respondents accepting non-native predator management techniques. 225

xxix

B-7. Percent of respondents accepting nature preserve closure and establishment for various purposes. 226

B-8. Percent of respondents agreeing with nature preserve management. 227

B-9. Percent of respondents accepting new funding sources. 228

xxx

SECTION I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

This report is one of a series derived from a research program entitled Wildlife Values in the West. The research project was a collaboration of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Human Dimensions Committee with Colorado State University and 19 WAFWA-member state fish and wildlife agencies. The overall purpose of the study was to take the first step in acquiring scientific information to address critical questions regarding changes in public thought related to wildlife management. Wildlife Values in the West is a unique research program due to its regional and state-specific focus. The participation of 19 western states allowed for comparisons among states’ publics regarding their values and attitudes toward wildlife management issues of importance to the region. These comparisons at the regional level can be found in the regional report (Teel, Dayer, Manfredo, & Bright, 2005). Data were collected in such a way as to allow for states to delve more deeply into their public’s responses to the regional issues. Additionally, states were able to examine public responses to pressing state-specific issues. The focus of this report is to provide results specific to the Hawaiì public’s values and attitudes toward regional and state-specific issues assessed through the research program. A. OBJECTIVES This report offers findings from Wildlife Values in the West for Hawaiì in line with the following objectives:

1. To provide information about the distribution of wildlife value orientations and basic beliefs about wildlife and wildlife management among the Hawaiì public

2. To assess the Hawaiì public’s attitudes toward:

Funding and programming approaches for the agency Involving the public in wildlife management decisions Trust in government Population-level techniques for managing human-wildlife conflict Managing biodiversity and species of concern Managing endangered species Managing invasive species Predator control techniques for managing non-native species Managing nature preserves Funding conservation programs

3. To determine differences in the Hawaiì public’s attitudes on the above topics by:

Wildlife value orientation type Participation in hunting and fishing Place of residence (urban vs. rural; Honolulu county vs. other counties)

1

B. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT The body of this report presents results in the order of the objectives listed above. Supporting tables for the results presented in figures throughout the report can be found in Appendix A. Project methods and information regarding representativeness of the sample are reported in Appendix B. C. GUIDE FOR READING THE RESULTS Margin of Error When reporting results for the entire sample of Hawai`i residents (n = 634) assuming maximum possible variance on a dichotomous (i.e., two category) variable, the margin of error is + 3.9% at the 95% confidence interval and + 3.3% at the 90% confidence interval. When we report information obtained from analyses of specific groups within the Hawai`i sample, the margin of error increases (Table I.C.1). The margin of error estimates take into account unweighted samples sizes, the population size for the state, and estimated population sizes for the groups based on the proportions that the groups represent in the actual population, or, if this information was not available (e.g., for value orientation types), in the weighted sample. Table I.C.1. Margin of error for subgroups at the 90% confidence level. Group Margin of Error Value orientation types Utilitarian + 6.3 % Pluralist + 6.3 % Mutualist + 5.6 % Distanced + 9.5 % Recreation Participation Hunters/anglers + 6.0 % Non-hunters/anglers + 3.9 % Place of residence Urban + 4.8 % Rural + 4.9 % Honolulu county + 3.8 % Other counties combined + 6.5 % Race/ethnicity Native Hawaiians + 10.0 % Others combined + 3.3 %

2

Conflict Indices For some items, findings are presented using Potential for Conflict Indices (PCI; Manfredo, Vaske, & Teel, 2003). The conflict indices are displayed graphically as bubbles. The bubbles depict the extent to which conflict exists within a group of respondents (e.g., the public or a value orientation type) regarding their attitudes or their acceptance of a management strategy. These bubbles are centered on the mean response for the group for the survey item, which is plotted on the y-axis. The size of the bubble represents the PCI, or the amount of variation (dispersion) in responses. A larger bubble indicates more potential for conflict, or less consensus, among members of the group. A smaller bubble indicates less potential for conflict, or more consensus. PCI values range from 0 (no potential for conflict) to 1 (greatest potential for conflict when 50% of respondents strongly oppose and 50% of respondents strongly support an action or issue). The formula to compute the PCI (as reported in Manfredo et al., 2003) is below:

PCI =

⎥⎥⎥⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢⎢⎢⎢

⎣

⎡

−−∑∑==

Xt

X

Xt

X1

u

u

a n

1i

n

1ia

ZXt*

where: PCI = Potential for Conflict Index Xa = an individual’s “acceptable” (or “agreement”) score (e.g.., 5, 6, or 7 on a 1-7 scale, recoded for calculations as 1, 2, 3)

an = all individuals with “acceptable” (or “agreement”) scores Xu = an individual’s “unacceptable” (or “disagreement”) score (e.g., 1, 2, or 3 on a 1-7 scale, recoded for calculations as -1, -2, -3)

un = all individuals with “unacceptable” (or “disagreement”) scores

Xt = ∑=

an

1iaX + ∑

=

u

u

n

1iX

Z = the maximum possible sum of all scores = n*extreme score (e.g., Z = 3n), where n = total number of subjects

3

SECTION II. WILDLIFE VALUE ORIENTATIONS The concept of wildlife value orientations has emerged as a way of capturing the diversity of values that people hold toward wildlife. Because wildlife value orientations provide a foundation for more specific cognitions like attitudes and behaviors, identification of wildlife value orientations allows us to anticipate how people will react to a host of wildlife-related topics. In addition, an examination of how wildlife value orientations are changing at a societal level provides direction in planning for the future of wildlife management. Three of the primary objectives guiding the regional study Wildlife Values in the West were:

1. To describe the current array of public values toward wildlife and identify their distribution across states.

2. To segment publics on the basis of their values toward wildlife and understand their sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics.

3. To begin to understand how and why wildlife values are changing and determine the possible implications of value shift for wildlife management.

Findings related to these objectives are reported by Teel et al. (2005). Further, the regional report provides a thorough description of the history and utility of understanding wildlife values, the development of the concept of wildlife value orientations, and more information about Hawaiì’s place in the regional distribution of wildlife value orientations. This state report addresses these objectives only briefly—as they specifically relate to Hawaiì—and gives an overview of wildlife value orientations and segmentation of the public based upon the concept. Section VI utilizes this segmentation scheme—wildlife value orientation types—to better explain Hawaiì residents’ wildlife-related attitudes. A. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND: A THEORY ON WILDLIFE VALUE ORIENTATIONS1

Wildlife value orientations are a component of an individual’s hierarchical belief structure. They are an expression of one’s values and are revealed through the pattern and direction of basic beliefs held by an individual (Fulton, Manfredo, & Lipscomb, 1996). Value orientations provide the foundation for an individual's attitudes and norms, which in turn guide their behavior. Prior research has shown that wildlife value orientations are effective in predicting participation in wildlife-related recreation (Fulton et al., 1996) as well as support for wildlife management actions (Bright, Manfredo, & Fulton, 2000; Manfredo, Zinn, Sikorowski, & Jones, 1998; Manfredo, Pierce, Fulton, Pate, & Gill, 1999; Manfredo & Fulton, 1997; Manfredo & Zinn, 1996; Whittaker, 2000; Zinn, Manfredo, Vaske, & Wittman, 1998). Wildlife value orientations can be viewed as expressions of fundamental values. A classic definition states that values are enduring beliefs about desired end states and modes of conduct (Rokeach, 1973). They are “goals for living” that define how we want the world to be (i.e., a “worldview”) and principles that guide our behavior. In extending this idea to how people relate to wildlife, we have identified two “classes” or categories of thought (Figure II.A.1). 1 Text and figures for this section have been extracted from Teel et al. (2005).

4

Worldview captures the notion of “desired end states” in the values definition – an ideal view of what one would want the world to be regarding wildlife. Principles for wildlife treatment represent the idea of “desired modes of conduct” – guiding principles for how an individual perceives we should interact with and treat wildlife. Figure II.A.1. Conceptual model for wildlife value orientations.

Wildlife Value Orientations

Principles for Wildlife Treatment

World View“Ideal World”

00

As described by Fulton et al. (1996), wildlife value orientations are composed of “dimensions”, or sets, of basic beliefs about wildlife and wildlife management. They are revealed through the pattern of direction and intensity among these beliefs. Our recent work has revealed two main orientations toward wildlife that can be classified along what is known as the “mutualism-utilitarian” value orientation dimension. The latter can be viewed as a broader category of thought about wildlife that is made up of more specific belief sets. Below is a detailed description of the components of this broad dimension. 1. Utilitarian Wildlife Value Orientation

The utilitarian wildlife value orientation is one involving a view that wildlife should be used and managed for human benefit. It is linked to the “use” orientation previously identified by Fulton et al. (1996) and is believed to be the orientation that society is moving away from (Manfredo & Zinn, 1996).

Ideal World Principles for Wildlife Treatment

o Wildlife exists for human use and enjoyment.

o Manage wildlife so that humans benefit.

o There is an abundance of wildlife for hunting and fishing.

o Prioritize the needs of humans over wildlife.

5

Basic Belief Dimensions

A. Utilitarian Belief Dimension B. Hunting Belief Dimension

Philosophy regarding utilization of wildlife for human benefit.

Philosophy regarding hunting as a humane and positive activity.

2. Mutualism Wildlife Value Orientation

This orientation is a refinement of the protection orientation identified by Fulton et al. (1996). It is associated with a desire for humans and wildlife to be able to co-exist or live in harmony. It is linked to a perception that humans and animals depend upon each other and that they benefit one another in their relationship – thus the term mutualism. This orientation is believed to be one that society is moving more toward in terms of people’s perceptions of wildlife and how wildlife should be treated.

Ideal World Principles for Wildlife Treatment

o Humans and wildlife are able to live side by side without fear.

o Assign animals rights like humans.

o All living things are seen as part of one big family.

o Take care of wildlife.

o Emotional bonding and companionship with animals is part of human experience.

o Prevent cruelty to animals.

o There is no animal suffering.

Basic Belief Dimensions

A. Mutualism Belief Dimension B. Caring Belief Dimension

Philosophy regarding co-existence of humans and wildlife as if they were family.

Philosophy regarding a desire to care for animals and prevent them from suffering.

Exploration of Other Dimensions of Thought about Wildlife To contribute to furthering our understanding of the diversity of orientations that exist among the public, two additional dimensions of thought about wildlife were identified and explored in this study: 1. Attraction Belief Dimension

This set of beliefs is associated with an interest in and desire to know more about wildlife. It is grounded in the feeling that wildlife enhances human life experiences. This belief dimension is a refinement of the wildlife appreciation orientation identified by Fulton et al. (1996).

6

2. Concern for Safety Belief Dimension

This set of beliefs centers around concerns related to interacting with wildlife due to possibility of such things as harm (e.g., due to attacks by wildlife) or disease contraction. Individuals scoring high on this dimension are worried about encountering wildlife while in the outdoors.

Information regarding the distribution of wildlife value orientations and belief dimensions in Hawai`i is provided below. B. SEGMENTATION OF PUBLICS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR WILDLIFE VALUE ORIENTATIONS2

A useful way of summarizing information about wildlife value orientations is to identify different “types” of people on the basis of their orientations (Bright et al., 2000). Characterizing segments of the public in this manner allows for a better understanding of the diversity of publics that exists as well as anticipation of how different groups of people will respond to proposed management strategies and programs. Four unique value orientation types were identified in the current study using the utilitarian and mutualism value orientation scales (see Teel et al., 2005). Respondents were assigned a score on the two wildlife value orientation scales (utilitarian and mutualism) and then compared on both orientations simultaneously through a crosstabulation procedure. A visual display of how each value orientation type was identified in this context is shown in Figure II.B.1. Figure II.B.1. Four types of people identified on the basis of their wildlife value orientations.

Pluralist

UTILITARIAN

MU

TUA

LISM

Low High

Hig

hLo

w

Mutualist

Utilitar

ian

Distan

ced

2 Text and figures describing the wildlife value orientation types have been extracted from Teel et al. (2005).

7

Below is a more detailed description of each value orientation type, including how people were classified on the basis of scoring on the two wildlife value orientations. 1. Utilitarian Wildlife Value Orientation Type

Utilitarians were classified as those who scored greater than 4.50 (“high”) on the utilitarian value orientation scale and less than or equal to 4.50 (“low”) on the mutualism value orientation scale. These individuals possess beliefs about wildlife that society is purportedly moving away from. Specifically, they believe that wildlife should be used and managed for human benefit.

2. Mutualist Wildlife Value Orientation Type

Mutualists were classified as those who scored greater than 4.50 (“high”) on the mutualism value orientation scale and less than or equal to 4.50 (“low”) on the utilitarian value orientation scale. These individuals are believed to represent a less traditional view of the wildlife resource, one in which humans and wildlife are meant to co-exist or live in harmony.

3. Pluralist Wildlife Value Orientation Type

Pluralists hold both a mutualism and a utilitarian value orientation toward wildlife (i.e., they score “high” on both scales). This may appear confusing but can be explained by how these orientations likely manifest themselves in day-to-day situations. The name for this group was taken from Tetlock’s (1986) Value Pluralism Model which describes how people can endorse values that have conflicting evaluative implications for specific issues. Drawing upon this model, the influence of the two value orientations is believed to be situationally- contingent. In other words, which of the orientations plays a role is dependent upon the given situation. As an illustration, consider a woman whose husband is a hunter. She finds hunting to be an acceptable practice – it supplies food for her family, and she supports others’ participation in the sport. At the same time, however, she can’t stand the thought of killing an animal and therefore will not hunt. Her utilitarian orientation manifests itself in the first situation while her mutualism orientation prevails in the other. The Pluralists as a group are believed to be an indication of our society in transition given that they hold both a utilitarian orientation toward wildlife that society is purportedly moving away from, as well as a mutualism orientation that we may be moving toward.

4. Distanced Wildlife Value Orientation Type

The Distanced individuals appear to be just that – distanced from the issue of wildlife. They do not hold either a mutualism or a utilitarian orientation toward wildlife (i.e., they score “low” on both scales). This could mean that they are less interested in wildlife-related issues and that wildlife-related issues are therefore less salient to them. It may also mean that, for whatever reason, their values may not be oriented very strongly toward wildlife.

8

Figure II.B.2 displays the distribution of each wildlife value orientation type in Hawaiì. A majority of Hawaiì residents are Mutualists (40.6%), while 25.4% are Utilitarians, 22.1% are Pluralists, and 11.8% are Distanced. Figure II.B.2. Distribution of wildlife value orientation types in Hawaiì.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Perc

ent V

alue

Typ

e

Utilitarian Pluralist Mutualist Distanced

Teel et al. (2005) report that across all 19 states Utilitarians and Pluralists possess certain similar sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, which differ from those of Mutualists and Distanced individuals. Utilitarians and Pluralists are more likely than the other two groups of people to be male and also tend to be slightly older on average. Mutualists and Distanced individuals are less likely to indicate past and current involvement in hunting and are also less likely than the other two groups to express interest in participating in this activity in the future. These trends are also noted in Hawaiì. Males are far more likely than females to score high on the utilitarian value orientation scale, while females are far more likely than males to score high on the mutualism value orientation scale (Figure II.B.3; Table A-1). Additionally, hunters/anglers are far more likely than non-hunters/anglers to score high on the utilitarian value orientation scale. In contrast to the general trend in the west, hunters/anglers in Hawaiì are equally as likely as non-hunters/anglers to score high on the mutualism value orientation scale (Figure II.B.4; Table A-1).

9

Figure II.B.3. Percent scoring “high” 1 on mutualism value orientation scale compared to utilitarian value orientation scale by gender.

50

55

60

65

70

75

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70% Scoring High on Utilitarian Value

Orientation Scale

% S

corin

g H

igh

on M

utua

lism

Va

lue

Orie

ntat

ion

Scal

e

MalesFemales

1“High” defined by score of > 4.5 on mean composite value orientation scale.

Figure II.B.4. Percent scoring “high” 1 on mutualism value orientation scale compared to utilitarian value orientation scale by hunting and fishing participation.

50

55

60

65

70

75

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70% Scoring High on Utilitarian

Value Orientation Scale

% S

corin

g H

igh

on M

utua

lism

Va

lue

Orie

ntat

ion

Scal

e

Hunters/anglers

Non-Hunters/anglers

1“High” defined by score of > 4.5 on mean composite value orientation scale.

10

Teel et al. (2005) also note a small difference in how the value orientation types score on the attraction and concern for safety belief dimensions, which is similarly found in analyses of only Hawaiì respondents (Figure II.B.5; Table A-2). Distanced individuals are less likely than other value orientation types to score high on the attraction dimension. This suggests that Distanced individuals are less interested in wildlife and wildlife-related issues. Mutualists are somewhat less likely than the other value orientation types to score high on the concern for safety dimension. An exploration of the characteristics of those scoring high on the attraction and concern for safety belief dimensions in Hawaiì highlights other sociodemographic and lifestyle differences by basic wildlife belief dimensions. In general, only a small proportion of the Hawaiì public scored high on the concern for safety dimension, while over 70% scored high on the attraction dimension. There was no difference on these dimensions by gender (Figure II.B.6; Table A-2). However, there was a difference by hunting and fishing participation. Hunters/anglers were less likely than non-hunters/anglers to score high on the concern for safety dimension and more likely than non-hunters/anglers to score high on the attraction dimension (Figure II.B.7; Table A-2).

Figure II.B.5. Percent scoring “high” 1 on attraction basic wildlife belief dimension compared to concern for safety basic wildlife belief dimension by wildlife value orientation type.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

55 60 65 70 75 80 85% Scoring High on Attraction Belief

Dimension

% S

corin

g H

igh

on C

once

rn fo

r Sa

fety

Bel

ief D

imen

sion

UtilitarianPluralistMutualistDistanced

1“High” defined by score of > 4.5 on mean composite belief dimension scale.

11

Figure II.B.6. Percent scoring “high” 1 on attraction basic wildlife belief dimension compared to concern for safety basic wildlife belief dimension by gender.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

65 70 75 80% Scoring High on Attraction Belief

Dimension

% S

corin

g H

igh

on C

once

rn fo

r Sa

fety

Bel

ief D

imen

sion

MalesFemales

1“High” defined by score of > 4.5 on mean composite belief dimension scale.

Figure II.B.7. Percent scoring “high” 1 on attraction basic wildlife belief dimension compared to concern for safety basic wildlife belief dimension by hunting and fishing participation.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100% Scoring High on Attraction Belief

Dimension

% S

corin

g H

igh

on C

once

rn fo

r Sa

fety

Bel

ief D

imen

sion

Hunters/anglers

Non-Hunters/anglers

“High” defined by score of > 4.5 on mean composite belief dimension scale.

12

SECTION III. PHILOSOPHY FOR SERVING AND INVOLVING THE PUBLIC IN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND MANAGING HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT3

Questions presented in this section address regional issues related to the wildlife management. They examine the public’s perceptions of the agency’s philosophy for serving and involving the public in wildlife management. Three components of the topic are covered: 1) funding and programming approach, 2) public involvement philosophy, and 3) trust in government. An additional set of questions examines the public’s acceptability of population-level wildlife management techniques for dealing with situations of human-wildlife conflict. The survey items and results for these issues are presented in order below. Supporting tables for the items are located in Appendix A (Tables A-3 to A-7). Results placing Hawai`i in the context of the western region are reported by Teel et al. (2005).

A. FUNDING AND PROGRAMMING APPROACH This issue involves an examination of philosophical orientations toward paying for wildlife management. Specifically, it explores approaches for who pays for wildlife management as compared to who “benefits” through programs provided by the agency. Respondents were presented with four hypothetical approaches. The four approaches included all combinations of two options for funding and two options for recipients of programming benefits. The options for funding were “almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars” or “substantially funded by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes”. The options for recipients of programming benefits were hunters/anglers primarily or all members of the public. Following the approaches, respondents were asked to select 1) their perceived current approach in their state and 2) their desired approach for their state.

3 Text describing regional issues has been extracted from Teel et al. (2005).

13

Perceived current approach results. As shown in Figure III.A.1, when considering “how things are now”, 53% of the public selected the approach that meets the needs of all members of the public and is substantially funded by hunting and fishing licenses and public taxes (Approach 4). The next most frequently selected response was one that meets the needs of hunters/anglers and is substantially funded by hunting and fishing licenses and public taxes (23%; Approach 2). The two approaches selected by smaller proportions of people included the funding option of almost entirely by hunting and fishing licenses. They were Approach 3 with the benefits option of meets the needs of all members of the public (14%), and Approach 1 with the benefits option of meets the needs of hunters/anglers (9%). Figure III.A.1. Percent of respondents indicating each approach1 as their perceived current approach.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Perc

ent P

erce

ived

App

roac

h

Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 41Approach 1- Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 2 - Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Approach 3 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 4 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Desired approach results. When considering “how things should be”, approximately two thirds of the public selected the approach that meets the needs of all members of the public and is substantially funded by hunting and fishing licenses and public taxes (Approach 4; Figure III.A.2). The second most frequently selected response was the approach that meets the needs of all members of the public and is funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing licenses (18%; Approach 3). These two approaches both included the recipients for programming benefits option of all members of the public. The two approaches least desired included the benefits option of meets the needs of hunters/anglers. They were Approach 1 with the funding option of almost entirely by hunting and fishing licenses (10%), and Approach 2 with the funding option of hunting and fishing licenses and public taxes (7%).

14

Figure III.A.2. Percent of respondents indicating each approach1 as their desired approach.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%Pe

rcen

t Des

ired

App

roac

h

Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4 1Approach 1- Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 2 - Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Approach 3 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 4 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Comparison of results. A comparison of Figures III.A.1 and III.A.2 highlights that there was greater consensus within the state on the desired approach than the perceived current approach. Evaluation of Table III.A.1 reveals how the increased consensus on the desired approach was attained. This table displays a cross-tabulation of the percent of respondents who selected each approach as the perceived current approach as compared to their selection for their desired approach. For example, 40.1% of the respondents selected Approach 4 as their perceived current approach and also their desired approach. In other words, approximately two-thirds of those with this desired approach (i.e., 40.1% of the 65.1% total selecting it) already perceived it to be the approach. The other one third who desired Approach 4 had selected Approaches 1-3 as their perceived approach. The table also shows how much consistency individuals had in selection of the perceived current approach and the desired approach. The cells for the same approach for perceived current approach and desired approach (along the diagonal—shaded in yellow) sum to the percent of respondents who showed consistency with their perceived current and desired funding approaches. More specifically, for Approach 1, 3.1% of all of the respondents selected it for their perceived current approach and desired approach, 4.0% for Approach 2, 5.2% for Approach 3, and 40.1% for Approach 4. Thus, 52.4% of the respondents in Hawai`i selected the same approach for perceived current and desired approaches.

15

Table III.A.1. Funding approach cross-tabulation of perceived current approach by desired approach.

Desired approach

Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4 Total

(perceived)

Approach 1 3.1 0.5 1.2 4.6 9.5 Approach 2 1.7 4.0 4.6 12.6 22.9 Approach 3 0.9 0.5 5.2 7.7 14.3

Perceived current

approach Approach 4 3.8 2.4 7.1 40.1 53.4

Total (desired) 9.5 7.4 18.1 65.1 100.0 1Approach 1- Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 2 - Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Approach 3 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 4 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes.

Additional analyses were conducted to explore sociodemographic, lifestyle, and cognitive (i.e., values or beliefs) characteristics of those who selected the same approach for perceived current approach and desired approach. Correlations (phi and point biserial—depending on the characteristics of the variables) were conducted with participation in hunting, fishing, and viewing in the past twelve months; gender, age, number of children, education, and income; concern for safety belief dimension, attraction belief dimension, utilitarian wildlife value orientation, and mutualism wildlife value orientation (Table A-3). The only statistically significant correlations were with household income (rpb = .10; p = .03), highest education level attained (rpb = .15; p < .001), and attraction belief dimension (rpb = .15; p < .001). Those with higher income, higher education, or a higher score on the attraction belief dimension were more likely to have matching perceived current and desired approaches, although the effect was “small” (Cohen, 1988).

16

B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PHILOSOPHY This issue measures the public’s involvement in fish and wildlife decision-making at the state level. It covers the extent to which people feel their opinions, interests, and input are heard and adequately considered in decisions. It also determines whether or not people have an interest in providing input and if they feel that input will make a difference. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each of the six statements listed below.

Summary of results. Figure III.B.1 displays the percent of respondents who agreed (i.e., those who selected “slightly agree”, “moderately agree”, or “strongly agree”), selected “neither”, or disagreed (i.e., those who selected “slightly disagree”, “moderately disagree”, or “strongly disagree”) with each statement. It is important to note that “neither” had a high percent of response on some items (see Table A-4). For example, for statement 1, “neither” was selected by 42.8% of the respondents. Approximately one quarter of respondents felt their opinions are heard, while one third felt their interests are taken into account by fish and wildlife decision-makers. More respondents (approximately 40%) felt that if they provide input, it makes a difference and that the agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public. Less than 30% had no interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions, and about half of the respondents indicated they trust the agency to make good decisions without their input.

17

Figure III.B.1. Percent of respondents agreeing with the public involvement statements.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AgreeNeitherDisagree

Do you agree or disagree…

My opinions are heard by decision- makers

My interests are adequately taken into account by decision- makers

If I provide input, it will make a difference

My state agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public

I don’t have an interest in providing input to decisions

I trust my agency to make good decisions without my input

C. TRUST IN GOVERNMENT This issue explores the public’s level of trust in three forms of government: federal, state, and the state fish and wildlife agency. It complements the public involvement philosophy statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input” by broadly asking about trust in the agency, and it puts the responses in the context of other forms of government. Respondents were asked to respond to the statements listed below.

18

Summary of results. Figure III.C.1 displays the percent of respondents who trust the given government body to do what is right. The percent includes those who selected “most of the time” or “almost always.” The federal and state government both were trusted by approximately 45% of the respondents. With over 60% of the respondents expressing trust, Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) was the most trusted form of government. Figure III.C.1. Percent of respondents expressing trust in different forms of government.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Perc

ent T

rust

ing

Gov

ernm

ent "

Mos

t of t

he

Tim

e" o

r "A

lmos

t Alw

ays"

Federal Government State Government Hawai`i DLNR

Additional analyses were conducted to explore sociodemographic, lifestyle, and cognitive (i.e., values or beliefs) characteristics of those who were more trusting of DLNR. Correlations (point biserial and Pearson’s—depending on the characteristics of the variables involved in each correlation) were conducted with participation in the past twelve months in hunting, fishing, and viewing; gender, age, number of children, education, and income; concern for safety belief dimension, attraction belief dimension, utilitarian wildlife value orientation, and mutualism wildlife value orientation (Table A-3). Trust in the agency was statistically significantly correlated with education level (r = -.11; p = .01), income (r = -.12; p < .001), concern for safety belief dimension (r = .09; p = .03), and utilitarian wildlife value orientation (r = .11; p = .01). These relationships show that those with a lower education level, a lower income level, a higher score on the concern for safety belief dimension, or a higher score on the utilitarian wildlife value orientation scale are likely to be more trusting of DLNR. The effect size for all of these correlations is considered “small” (Cohen, 1988).

19

D. POPULATION-LEVEL TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGING HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT This regional issue examines the public’s perceptions of population-level techniques to address human-wildlife conflict. The issue was organized into two conflict situations for black bears and two conflict situations for deer. The severity increased from nuisance (first situation) to safety threat (second situation) for both species. Following the description of the situations, respondents were asked to select whether specific population-level management actions were acceptable in each of the two situations. The actions for the black bear and the deer were the same with the addition of contraception management actions for deer. The survey items are shown below.

20

Bear management action results. Generally, the public found it unacceptable to do nothing to control bear populations and provide more recreational hunts to control bear populations and acceptable to conduct controlled hunts using trained agency staff (Figure III.D.1). When a black bear is a threat to human safety doing nothing was about half as acceptable as when the bear is simply a nuisance. Both of the lethal management actions were slightly more acceptable in the threat situation, with the greatest increase in support for conducting controlled hunts using trained agency staff. Figure III.D.1. Percent of respondents finding management actions acceptable when bears are getting into trash and pet food containers (situation 1) and when human deaths from bear attacks have occurred (situation 2).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ACTION 1 - do nothing tocontrol bear populations

ACTION 2 - provide morerecreational opportunities

to hunt bears

ACTION 3 - conductcontrolled hunts using

trained agency staff

Perc

ent A

ccep

tabl

e

Situation 1Situation 2

Deer management action results. Hunts (recreational and using trained agency staff) and temporary contraception were generally acceptable to the public (Figure III.D.2). Doing nothing and permanent contraception were generally unacceptable. These trends existed across both situations. However, some differences in the situations did exist. As compared to the nuisance situation (situation 1), a much smaller percent of the public found it acceptable to do nothing when deer are carrying a transmissible disease (situation 2). In the situation of disease as compared to the nuisance situation, more people found it acceptable to conduct hunts and distribute contraceptives.

21

Figure III.D.2. Percent of respondents finding management actions acceptable when deer are entering people’s yards and eating shrubs and garden plants (situation 1) and when deer are carrying a disease that is transmissible to some domestic animals and livestock (situation 2).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ACTION 1 - do nothing tocontrol deerpopulations

ACTION 2 -provide morerecreational

opportunitiesto hunt deer

ACTION 3 -conduct

controlledhunts using

trained agencystaff

ACTION 4 -distribute

pelletscontainingpermanent

contraceptives


pelletscontainingtemporary

contraceptives

Perc

ent A

ccep

tabl

e

Situation 1Situation 2

22

SECTION IV. MANAGING FOR BIODIVERSITY AND SPECIES OF CONCERN4

This section provides information useful to the development of state Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (CWCS). Data from the Wildlife Values in the West project can contribute in a number of ways to states’ CWCS processes (Teel, Manfredo, Bright, & Dayer, 2004). The information collected from the “Biodiversity” portion of the survey was designed specifically to identify public priorities of conservation need and perceptions of biodiversity.

Survey items in this section were developed to address basic questions relevant to CWCS: How do people prioritize biodiversity relative to other guiding management philosophies? Do people think that the agencies should manage primarily for game species to provide hunting and fishing opportunities, or should the focus be more on sustaining a broad array of species? Is managing for native species preferred by people, or is it acceptable to allow non-native species to thrive in an area? Is restoration of native species acceptable even if it means that non-native species commonly hunted or fished may suffer? Through discussions of these questions, state agency personnel and researchers from Colorado State University identified “categories of difficult choices” related to the topic of managing for biodiversity and species of concern. These categories reflect the types of choices that managers are often faced with when deciding what species should receive the greatest management attention. Survey questions were developed to address the following categories of “difficult choices”:

1. Species status (common, declining, and extirpated) 2. Species origin (native and non-native) 3. Species use (game and nongame)

A. METHODS The Survey Questions. The biodiversity and species of concern section presented respondents with a series of eight hypothetical choices between species for prioritization for conservation funding. These choices included two “example species” with given characteristics. Each characteristic was represented by a statement describing a particular level (e.g., native or non-native) of each of the three species factors (i.e., status, origin, use). Based on the number of species factors and their levels, the orthogonal design function in SPSS® 13.0 (SPSS, Inc., 2004) determined both the appropriate number (8) and nature of hypothetical scenarios necessary to effectively examine the effects of each species factor and factor level on species choice. Six versions of the eight scenarios were developed—one version for each of four subregions of the contiguous western states and a unique version for Hawai`i and for Alaska. Each version included example species appropriate for the state or subregion. The version of the survey sent to respondents in Hawai`i is shown on the following pages. Table IV.A.1 summarizes the example species given for each characteristic.

4 Text describing the issue, portions of the methods (Section IV.A), and the entire application of the model section (IV.C) have been extracted from Teel et al. (2005).

23

Table IV.A.1. Summary of example species for Hawaiì’s survey. Species Origin Species Status Species Use

Native Non-native Common Declining Extirpated Game Non-game

Yellow Tang Taàpe (Blue-lined Snapper)

Taàpe (Blue-lined Snapper) Yellow Tang Wild Turkey Yellow Tang Taàpe (Blue-

lined Snapper)

Kolea (Pacific Golden Plover) Wild Turkey Kolea (Pacific

Golden Plover) Eurasian Skylark Iìwi (Hawaiian Honeycreeper) Wild Turkey Kolea (Pacific

Golden Plover)

Iìwi (Hawaiian Honeycreeper)

Ring-necked Pheasant


Ulua (Giant Trevally)

Lavender Waxbill


Iìwi (Hawaiian Honeycreeper)

Weke (Goatfish) Eurasian Skylark Weke (Goatfish) Yellow-fronted Canary Oòpu (Goby) Weke (Goatfish) Eurasian Skylark

Ulua (Giant Trevally)

Lavender Waxbill

Pueo (Short-eared Owl) Mouflon Sheep - Ulua (Giant

Trevally) Lavender Waxbill

Oòpu (Goby) Yellow-fronted Canary Black Frankolin Koloa (Hawaiian

Duck) - Oòpu (Goby) Yellow-fronted Canary

Pueo (Short-eared Owl) Mouflon Sheep - - - Mouflon Sheep Pueo (Short-

eared Owl)

Koloa (Hawaiian Duck) Black Frankolin - - - Black Frankolin Koloa (Hawaiian

Duck)

Justification of the Method. A common approach to analyzing responses to the eight scenarios is to present the percent of respondents that supported each species (Table IV.A.2). While this provides basic information about preferences of one wildlife species over another, it does not assess the relative impacts of each of the characteristics of those species. If respondents preferred that conservation funding be allocated to an owl species over a deer species, how much of this preference is due to the status of the species (common, declining, or extirpated), its origin (native or non-native), or its use (game or nongame)? To answer this, a more complex statistical analysis was necessary. Table IV.A.2. Percent of respondents that supported each species in the eight scenarios.

Scenario Species A Selected A (%) Species B Selected B (%)

Scenario 1 Taàpe (Blue-lined Snapper) 11.2 Yellow Tang 88.8

Scenario 2 Wild Turkey 41.4 Kolea (Pacific Golden Plover) 58.6

Scenario 3 Iìwi (Hawaiian Honeycreeper) 83.7 Ring-necked Pheasant 16.3

Scenario 4 Weke (Goatfish) 61.1 Eurasian Skylark 38.9

Scenario 5 Ulua (Giant Trevally) 93.1 Lavender Waxbill 6.9

Scenario 6 Yellow-fronted Canary 19.9 Oòpu (Goby) 80.1

Scenario 7 Pueo (Short-eared Owl) 56.4 Mouflon Sheep 43.6

Scenario 8 Black Frankolin 6.2 Koloa (Hawaiian Duck) 93.8

27

The eight “paired comparisons” (i.e., scenarios) were analyzed using stated choice modeling following procedures described in Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application (Louviere, Hensher, & Swait, 2003). Stated choice modeling allowed us to (a) combine the responses, or choices, generated for each comparison and (b) obtain estimates of the relative effects of each species factor and species factor level on species choice. This type of approach can provide more information about factors that influence choices than the descriptive approach described above. For example, while the public may prefer that managers allocate conservation funding to the management of the Ulua (a native species) over the Lavendar Waxbill (a non-native species), this preference may be due primarily to the fact that the Ulua is a game animal and the Lavendar Waxbill is not – not whether it is a native or non-native species. Stated choice modeling allows us to determine this. Research Goals. Our approach to analyzing the biodiversity scenarios was designed to understand how the three species factors (status, origin, and use) and the levels of each of those factors influence support for a particular wildlife species for conservation funding. There were two primary goals and corresponding research questions (RQ) for this analysis: Goal 1. To understand what factors influence public preferences for committing agency resources to the maintenance or enhancement of a wildlife species. RQ1. Which species factor is most important in influencing public preferences for funding the conservation of a species: status, origin, or use? Goal 2. To understand what specific characteristics of wildlife species (i.e., factor levels) drive what species the public feels should be emphasized in wildlife conservation decisions. RQ2. What is the likelihood that an individual would prefer, for conservation funding, a “common” species versus a “declining” species versus an “extirpated” species? [species status] RQ3. What is the likelihood that an individual would prefer, for conservation funding, a “native” species versus a “non-native” species? [species origin] RQ4. What is the likelihood that an individual would prefer, for conservation funding, a “game” species versus a “nongame” species? [species use] These research questions are analyzed for Hawai`i and are compared to the contiguous states of the western region. For analyses within the western region by wildlife value orientation type and participation, see the regional report (Teel et al., 2005). Statistical Analysis. Research questions were analyzed using logistic regression within the stated choice model. The choice between two wildlife species across the eight hypothetical scenarios was a dichotomous dependent variable. The independent variables were the factor levels that apply to each species. The analysis determined what the relative effects of each species factor level were on species choice. The following statistics were generated by this analysis:

28

Estimated coefficient (utility score) – This statistic measures strength of association between a species factor level (the independent variable) and species choice (the dependent variable). This statistic is used to compute average importance of a species factor and the odds ratio for specific factor characteristics or levels. Average importance – This statistic estimates the relative importance of the overall species factor in influencing public preference of a species for conservation funding. The sum of the average importance of each species factor in an analysis totals 100. This statistic was used to answer RQ1. Odds ratio – This statistic estimates the likelihood that a wildlife species with a specific factor level would be selected over a species with another factor level, controlling for the effects of other species factors. Stated choice modeling identifies one factor level within a species factor as a “reference” level and the other level(s) as “nonreference”. The odds ratio compares the likelihood that a wildlife species with a nonreference characteristic would be supported over one with the reference characteristic, controlling for the presence of the other species factors within the scenarios. Table IV.A.2 shows the reference and nonreference factor levels for each species factor. As an example, for species status, logistic regression created an odds ratio comparing a “declining” species with a “common” species and an “extirpated” species with a “common” species, controlling for the effects of species origin and species use. An odds ratio of 1.35 for a “declining” species means that it is 1.35 times more likely to be supported for conservation funding than a “common” species controlling for the fact that species also differ on origin and use. The odds ratio was used to answer RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4. Table IV.A.3. Reference and nonreference species factor levels. Species factor Reference level Nonreference level(s) Species status Common Declining; Extirpated Species origin Non-native Native Species use Nongame (Not hunted or fished) Game (Hunted or fished)

29

B. RESULTS A full display table of the results for Hawaiì is found in Table A-8 in the Appendix. This table includes the utility scores and p-value associated with the level of each factor. RQ1. Which species factor is most important in influencing public preferences for funding the conservation of a species: species status, species origin, or species use? Figure IV.B.1 compares the average importance of species factors in conservation funding for Hawaiì and the contiguous states of the western region. In Hawaiì, species origin was the most important factor (AI = 50.4) followed by species status (AI = 41.7) and species use (AI = 7.9). As compared to the western region, Hawaiì placed much more importance on species origin, a similar level of importance on species status, and much less importance on species use. While species status was most important in the western region, species origin was clearly the most important in Hawaiì. Figure IV.B.1. Average importance of species factors for Hawaiì and the contiguous states of the western region.

39.2 41.7

35.8

50.4

25.0

7.9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Western Region Hawaiì

Ave

rage

Impo

rtanc

e

Species Status Species Origin Species Use

30

RQ2. What is the likelihood that an individual would prefer, for conservation funding, a “common” species versus a “declining” species versus an “extirpated” species? [species status] Figure IV.B.2 compares Hawaiì and the western region on the species status odds ratios. Controlling for (holding constant) species origin and use, conservation funding support for “declining” species was more likely than for “common” species in Hawaiì. The odds of preferring a declining species over a common species was 1.65. “Extirpated” species were only slightly more likely to be supported than “common” species. The odds of preferring an “extirpated” species over a “common” species was 1.08. The results in Hawaiì were very similar to those found in the western region. Figure IV.B.2. Odds ratios of species status levels for Hawaiì and the contiguous states of the western region.

1.63 1.65

1.10 1.08

0.00

0.75

1.50

2.25


Odd

s R

atio

Declining over common Extirpated over common

31

RQ3. What is the likelihood that an individual would prefer, for conservation funding, a “native” species versus a “non-native” species? [species origin] Controlling for species status and use, “native” species were far more likely to be supported for conservation funding than were “non-native” species in Hawaiì (Figure IV.B.3.). The odds of preferring a “native” over a “non-native” was 2.02. Hawaiì’s preference for “native” over “non-native” was more pronounced than in the western region. Figure IV.B.3. Odds ratios of species origin levels for Hawaiì and the contiguous states of the western region.

1.70

2.02

0.00

0.75

1.50

2.25


Odd

s R

atio

Native over nonnative

32

RQ4. What is the likelihood that an individual would prefer, for conservation funding, a “game” (i.e., hunted or fished) species versus a “nongame” species? [species use] Controlling species status and origin, “game” (fished or hunted) species were slightly more likely to be supported for conservation funding than were “nongame” species in Hawaiì (Figure IV.B.4). The odds of preferring a “game” species over a “nongame” species was 1.12. Although the western region also preferred “game” over “nongame”, the odds ratio in Hawaiì was less. Figure IV.B.4. Odds ratios of species use levels for Hawaiì and the contiguous states of the western region.

1.45

1.12

0.00

0.75

1.50

2.25


Odd

s R

atio

Game over nongame Conclusions. The relative importance of the species factors (origin, use, and status) in Hawaiì differed from the contiguous western states. Species origin (followed by species use and species status) was clearly most important in influencing public preferences for funding the conservation of a species in Hawaiì. There were limited differences between Hawaiì and the western region on the prioritization of one factor level as opposed to another factor level. In both, people were likely to prioritize native species over non-native species; declining species over common species and extirpated species over common species; and game (fished or hunted) species over nongame species. In Hawaiì there was somewhat more emphasis on native species and less emphasis on game species. When considering these findings, it is important to keep in mind that analyses across all of the contiguous western states with different subregional versions of this item (that varied on “example species”) suggested that support for conservation funding is likely also a result of additional variables. These factors include wildlife value orientation type, participation in hunting and/or fishing, and unmeasured characteristics of species (e.g., whether human-wildlife conflict with the species is prevalent in a state; Teel et al., 2005).

33

C. AN APPLICATION OF THE MODEL We adapted a technology from research in consumer marketing and parks and protected area management that represents a practical application of the approach to predicting support for conservation funding for wildlife species described in this study. This technology takes the form of a calculator that estimates the proportion of Hawai`i’s population that would support funding for a particular species given specific characteristics based on species status, species origin, and species use. The mathematical formulas within the calculator are based on the estimated coefficients (utility scores) derived from logistic regression analyses described above. As a result, the information provided by the calculator takes into account the odds that the public would support a species at one factor level (e.g., declining) over another (e.g., common) as well as the average importance of all the species factors (i.e., species status versus species origin versus species use). The calculator presents two wildlife species for which the user is provided instructions to input three characteristics. An estimate of the percentage of the public that would support each species is then given based on those characteristics. Changing the characteristics within a specific species comparison will change the estimated percentages. As an example, consider a situation where a wildlife manager is considering allocation of funds between the management of two wildlife species. One question he or she may have is “which species would the public prefer?” Species 1 is a declining wildlife species that is not native to the region and is a game species. Species 2 is also a declining species but is native to the area and is not a game species. The wildlife manager would input those characteristics into the calculator, which would then provide an estimate of public support for each species given a choice between the two. Example A in Figure IV.C.1 provides the results for this comparison. In this situation, species 1 would be supported for conservation funding by 23% of the public, while species 2 would be supported by 76%. Now consider Example B where species 1 is a common species that is native to the state and is a game species. On the other hand, species 2 is a declining species, not native to the state, and is also a game species. In this scenario, 58% of the public would support conservation funding for species 1 while 42% would support conservation funding for species 2.

34

Figure IV.C.1. Hawai`i’s species of concern calculator.

Calculator – Example A Input Level of Species Attribute Species Factor Species 1 Species 2 Species Status Level 1 This species is COMMON in the area and numbers are stable. Level 2 Numbers are LOW; you don't see this species very often anymore.

2 2

Level 3 This species is NO LONGER PRESENT in the area. Species Origin Level 1 This species DOES NOT OCCUR NATURALLY in the area. Level 2 This species NATURALLY OCCURS in the area. 1 2 Species Use Level 1 This species is NOT HUNTED OR FISHED. Level 2 This species IS HUNTED OR FISHED. 2 1

Percent of Public Support for Conservation Program 23.40 76.60

Calculator – Example B Input Level of Species Attribute Species Factor Species 1 Species 2 Species Status Level 1 This species is COMMON in the area and numbers are stable. Level 2 Numbers are LOW; you don't see this species very often anymore.

1 2

Level 3 This species is NO LONGER PRESENT in the area. Species Origin Level 1 This species DOES NOT OCCUR NATURALLY in the area. Level 2 This species NATURALLY OCCURS in the area. 2 1 Species Use Level 1 This species is NOT HUNTED OR FISHED. Level 2 This species IS HUNTED OR FISHED. 2 2

Percent of Public Support for Conserv tion Program a 58.15 41.85

35

SECTION V. MANAGING HAWAIIAN ECOSYSTEMS This section examines the public’s perceptions of issues related to managing Hawaiian ecosystems. It covers:

1. Managing endangered species; 2. Managing invasive species; 3. Managing non-native predators; 4. Managing nature preserves; 5. Funding conservation programs.

Results in this section are displayed using potential for conflict indices (PCI) graphs. For information on PCI graphs, see Section I.C. Tables A-9 to A-26 display the distribution of responses, mean, and PCI values for each statement. Additionally, Appendix B displays responses to these items in an alternative manner using bar charts. A. MANAGING ENDANGERED SPECIES This issue explores people’s beliefs regarding the importance of protecting endangered species and the acceptability of specific techniques to manage for endangered species. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each of four statements and how acceptable they find each of five management actions as shown below.

36

Beliefs regarding protection of endangered species. Overall, the public was in favor of protection of endangered species (Figure V.A.1). There was very high consensus and a high mean level of agreement that it’s important to prevent the extinction of endangered species. The public was also in agreement with prioritizing protection of endangered species over game animals and hunting or fishing opportunities. There was agreement that it’s important to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species, while there was disagreement relative to the importance of providing hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities over protecting endangered species. In general, the public also disagreed with the statement that economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species; however, there was less consensus regarding this statement than the others. Figure V.A.1. Potential for conflict indices for general attitudes about the importance of protecting endangered species1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement

Do you disagree or agree that…

It’s important to prevent the

extinction of endangered

species.

It’s more important to

provide hunting/fishing

than protect endangered

species.

It’s important to eliminate game animals from endangered

species areas.

Economic concerns are more important

than protecting endangered species.

1Shortened versions of the statements are provided along the x-axis of the graph. The complete statements are below:

1. “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species.” 2. “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species.” 3. “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species.” 4. “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species.”

37

Attitudes toward techniques for managing for endangered species. The public found all five techniques for managing for endangered species acceptable (Figure V.A.2.). More specifically, the public felt that limiting development in areas to preserve habitat was most acceptable with a high level of consensus. Closing turtle nesting areas to recreation activities and increasing fencing and removal of game animals were also moderately acceptable on average. Hunting (by the public and by professional aerial gunning) was only slightly acceptable. There were relatively high levels of conflict within the public regarding the hunting options. Figure V.A.2. Potential for conflict indices for acceptability of management techniques to protect and restore endangered species1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty

Is it unacceptable or acceptable to…

Increase fencing and removal of

game animals.

Increase public hunting to

remove game animals.

Use professionals to

hunt game animals by helicopter.

Close important turtle nesting

sites to recreation activities.

Limit development in

areas to preserve habitat.


1. “Increase fencing and removal of game animals (example: deer, pigs, and sheep) to keep them out of certain areas.” 2. “Increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas.” 3. “Use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas.” 4. “Close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities.” 5. “Limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species.”

38

B. MANAGING INVASIVE SPECIES This issue examines the public’s support for invasive species management. Respondents were asked how acceptable they found seven specific techniques to prevent, control, and remove invasive species. Then they were asked whether they agreed generally that more funding or more education was necessary. The survey items are shown below.

Attitudes toward techniques for managing invasive species. The public found all seven techniques to be acceptable (Figure V.B.1). Inspecting ships and ship cargo entering Hawai`i and developing regulations that would prohibit selling plants were most highly acceptable to the public with little variation in response. Increasing funding for removal of invasive species and establishing stricter regulations for cargo also had considerable support and limited variation in response. Developing a buyback program for aquarium pets, killing escaped or released animals in forest areas, and inspecting all baggage before entering Hawai`i were slightly to moderately acceptable to the public, yet compared to other items, had more variation (potential for conflict).

39

Figure V.B.1. Potential for conflict indices for acceptability of management techniques to prevent the spread of invasive species and repair damage 1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty

It is unacceptable or acceptable to…

Inspect all baggage before

entering Hawaiì.

Establish stricter regula-

tions for cargo.

Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì.

Kill escaped or released

animals in forest areas.

Develop regulations that would

prohibit selling plants.

Develop a buyback program

for aquarium

pets.

Increase funding for removal of

invasive species.


1. “Inspect all baggage before entering Hawaiì even if it added 15 minutes to travel time.” 2. “Establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo.” 3. “Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist.” 4. “Kill escaped or released animals in forest areas (examples: parrots, snakes, Coqui frogs) that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops.” 5. “Develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawaiì.” 6. “Develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them.” 7. “Increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them from the State.”

40

Attitudes toward invasive species funding and education. The public agreed strongly with the importance of increasing public education to prevent the spread of pests and with the need for more funding for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry (Figure V.B.2). Consensus was high on both, though a bit higher on education, indicating low potential for conflict.

Figure V.B.2. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward invasive species funding and education1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement

Do you agree or disagree that…

More funding is necessary for inspection

and quarantine programs at ports of

entry.

Increased public education is important

to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands.

41

C. MANAGING NON-NATIVE PREDATORS This issue explores how the public feels about non-native predators and their management. First, respondents were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with five statements covering beliefs about killing non-native species in general and specifically non-native predators. Next, respondents were asked how acceptable they found five specific techniques for managing non-native predators. The survey items are shown below.

Beliefs regarding killing non-native species. Overall, the public supported efforts to kill non-native species (Figure V.C.1). The public found it acceptable to kill non-native species to protect endangered species and to protect native animals. Specifically, killing rats and mongoose in most areas where native species exist was moderately acceptable on average, while using public resources to do so was relatively less acceptable with more variation in response. The public was neutral, with a great deal of variation, as to whether it is only acceptable to kill rats and mongoose when necessary for protection of endangered species.

42

Figure V.C.1. Potential for conflict indices for beliefs about killing non-native species1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


It is ok to kill a non-native

animal to protect

endangered species.


animal to protect a

native animal.

Killing rats and

mongoose is acceptable in

most areas where native species exist.

Killing rats and

mongoose is acceptable only when

necessary for protection of endangered

species.

Killing rats and

mongoose is an

acceptable use of public

resources.

43

Attitudes toward techniques for control of non-native predators. The public found it unacceptable to do nothing to control rats and mongoose (Figure V.C.2). While the public accepted the techniques of offering incentives to individuals to control rats and mongoose and using poison bait, the average level of acceptability for these techniques was only slightly acceptable. The most acceptable action on average was using poison bait only when it can be proven to not impact other animals. Public acceptability hovered around neutral for dispersing poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas. There was considerably less consensus (high potential for conflict) in the public on the latter technique as compared to the alternatives. Figure V.C.2. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward non-native predator management techniques1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


Do nothing to control

rat and mongoose

populations.

Offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats

and mongoose.

Use poison bait to

control rats and

mongoose.

Use poison bait only

when it can be proven

not to impact other

animals.

Disperse poison bait using a helicopter in

remote areas to control rats and

mongoose.

44

D. MANAGING NATURE PRESERVES This issue explores public attitudes toward nature preserve management. First, respondents were asked whether they found it acceptable or unacceptable to close or establish nature preserves for various purposes. Next, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with five statements regarding the management of nature preserves. The survey items are shown below.

Attitudes toward nature preserve establishment and closure. Overall, statements regarding nature preserve establishment and closure were supported. The public was strongly in support of closing some areas to hunting and fishing to protect wildlife and aquatic life, while there was slightly less support for closing some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed (Figure V.D.1). While it was also acceptable to the public to establish areas primarily for animals that can be hunted, there was comparatively less support and less consensus within the public.

45

Figure V.D.1. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward nature preserve closure and establishment for various purposes1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


Close some areas to

hunting and fishing.

Close some nature

preserves to humans.

Establish areas that are managed for

hunting.


1. “Close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life.” 2. “Close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed.” 3. “Establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted.”

Attitudes toward nature preserve management. The public expressed a high level of agreement with the notion that nature preserves should be set aside on each island (Figure V.D.2). The public also agreed with the notion that the public should be provided opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them more and that nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes. However, there was a lower mean level of agreement and less consensus regarding the latter. The public did not agree with the idea that nature preserves should be open to commercial tourism activities. There was a fair amount of variation in response to this statement.

46

Figure V.D.2. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward nature preserve management1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


Nature preserves

should be set aside on each

island.

Nature preserves should be open to Native

Hawaiians.

Recreational activities can have adverse

effects on wildlife.

The public should be provided

opportunities to visit

preserves.

Nature preserves should be open to

commercial activities.


1. “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life.” 2. “Nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes.” 3. “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats.” 4. “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better.” 5. “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals/tours, whale watching, and hiking tours.”

47

E. FUNDING CONSERVATION PROGRAMS The issue examines public support for various new sources for funding wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawai`i. Respondents were asked to indicate how acceptable they found the implementation of eight new sources of funding.

Attitudes toward funding sources. In general, the public supported the proposed new funding sources (Figure V.E.1). The public found it unacceptable to NOT attempt any new funding sources. The most acceptable sources were setting aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife businesses, establishing a special wildlife license plate, and charging tour companies a fee for the use of the resource. Slightly less acceptable sources were increasing the hotel room tax by $0.50/day, establishing a fishing license fee, setting aside a greater share of overall tax revenue, and adding a $1 fee to water bills for watershed/stream management. There was less consensus among the public on the acceptability of these sources. Establishing an outdoor recreation permit and fee was neither acceptable nor unacceptable to the public on average. There was a substantial amount of variation in the public’s acceptability of the latter source of funding.

48

Figure V.E.1. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward new funding sources1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


Increase hotel

room tax.

Set aside sales tax.

Add a $1 fee

to water bills.

Establish a fishing license

fee.

Establish a

recreation permit

and fee.

Establish a special license plate.

Set aside more taxes.

Charge tour

comp-anies a

fee.

NOT attempt any new sources.


1. “Increase hotel room tax by $0.50/day.” 2. “Set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business.” 3. “Add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management.” 4. “Establish a license fee for recreational fishing.” 5. “Establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving.” 6. “Establish a special wildlife license plate.” 7. “Set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues.” 8. “Charge tour companies (examples: fishing, diving, hiking) a fee for use of public resources.” 9. “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding.”

49

SECTION VI. USE OF PUBLIC CHARACTERISTICS TO EXPLAIN RESPONSES TO ATTITUDE ITEMS

Through the use of analysis by characteristics of the public, this section provides an increased understanding of the public’s responses to attitude items regarding the philosophy for serving and involving the public in wildlife management, population-level techniques for addressing human-wildlife conflict, and management of Hawaiian ecosystems. First, responses to all items by wildlife value orientation type are presented. Next, responses to all items by hunter/angler and non-hunter/angler categorization are shown. Then results from analysis of items by place of residence schemes are discussed. Finally, results from exploratory analyses of differences between Native Hawaiians and other residents are given.

A. RESPONSES TO ATTITUDE ITEMS BY WILDLIFE VALUE ORIENTATION TYPE

Responses to survey items pertaining to each issue identified above by each wildlife value orientation type are shown below. A majority of Hawai`i residents are Mutualists (40.6%), while 25.4% are Utilitarians, 22.1% are Pluralists, and 11.8% are Distanced. More information on wildlife value orientation types is provided in Section II, and descriptions of the items and their measurement are found in Sections III and V. Tables with the exact percent of each wildlife value orientation type selecting each response are found in the Appendix (Tables A-27 to A-138). Philosophy for Serving and Involving the Public in Wildlife Management and Managing Human-Wildlife Conflict Funding and programming approach. As shown in Figure VI.A.1, for all wildlife value orientation types, the modal response for perceived current approach was meets the needs of all members of the public and is substantially funded by hunting and fishing licenses and public taxes (Approach 4). As shown in Figure VI.A.2, the most desired approach for all value orientation types was meets the needs of all members of the public and is substantially funded by hunting and fishing licenses and public taxes (Approach 4). The proportion of each value orientation type selecting this approach varied somewhat. For example, the approach was supported by approximately 55% of Utilitarians and more than 70% of Mutualists. The second most desired approach for all value orientation types was meets the needs of all members of the public and is primarily funded by hunting and fishing licenses (Approach 3). More than 45% of each value orientation type selected the same approach for perceived current approach and desired approach (Figure VI.A.3). Distanced individuals had the most consistency in approaches (62%).

50

Figure VI.A.1. Percent of wildlife value orientation type indicating each approach as their perceived current approach.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perc

ent P

erce

ived

App

roac

h

Approach 1Approach 2Approach 3Approach 4

1Approach 1- Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 2 - Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Approach 3 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 4 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes.

51

Figure VI.A.2. Percent of wildlife value orientation type indicating each approach as their desired approach.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Perc

ent D

esire

d A

ppro

ach


1Approach 1- Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 2 - Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Approach 3 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 4 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Figure VI.A.3. Percent of wildlife value orientation type selecting the same approach for perceived current approach and desired approach.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Perc

ent S

elec

ting

Sam

e A

ppro

ach


52

Public involvement philosophy. Figures VI.A.4 to VI.A.9 display PCI graphs for each of the public involvement philosophy items, showing a PCI bubble for each of the value orientation types and the entire public. Generally, the average for each value orientation type for each item was near neutral. For the first three items that cover whether respondents feel their opinions are heard; their interests are taken into account by fish and wildlife decision-makers; and if they provide input, it makes a difference, Pluralists tended to express slightly higher levels of agreement with these statements. The means for the Pluralists were on the agree side of the neutral line, while the other value orientation types tended to express slight disagreement on average with these statements. In contrast, for the item regarding whether respondents feel the agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole, Pluralists, Mutualists, and Distanced all disagreed. Mutualists disagreed more than the other value orientation types and the entire public with the statement I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions, while only Utilitarians had a mean level of agreement near the neutral point with much less consensus. For the statement capturing the extent to which the respondents trust the agency to make good decisions without their input; all value orientation types had a mean near the neutral point. Pluralists agreed with the statement slightly more, and Mutualists agreed with it slightly less. Figure VI.A.4. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement

Public Utilitarians Pluralists Mutualists Distanced

53

Figure VI.A.5. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


54

Figure VI.A.6. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


55

Figure VI.A.7. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


56

Figure VI.A.8. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


57

Figure VI.A.9. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


58

Trust in government. Each value orientation type trusted DLNR the most of the three forms of government. Regarding the federal and state governments, Utilitarians and Pluralists were more trusting than were Distanced and Mutualists (Figure VI.A.10). Regarding DLNR, Pluralists were the most trusting of the types, followed by Distanced. Mutualists were the value orientation type that was the least trusting in each form of government. Figure VI.A.10. Percent of wildlife value orientation type expressing trust in different forms of government.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Perc

ent T

rust

ing

Gov

ernm

ent "

Mos

t of

the

Tim

e" o

r "A

lmos

t Alw

ays"

Federal Government State Government

Hawai`i Departmentof Land and Natural

Resources


Bear-human conflict management actions. There were two noticeable trends in value orientation types across black bear situations (Figure VI.A.11; Figure VI.A.12). First, Mutualists were more in support of doing nothing to control bears, and least in support of the lethal management actions, followed closely by Distanced individuals. Second, there was the most differentiation in value orientation types on the acceptability of providing more recreational hunting opportunities. Deer-human conflict management actions. Across both situations, Mutualists and Distanced were least accepting of the actions to reduce deer numbers, while Utilitarians and Pluralists were the most accepting (Figures VI.A.13; Figure VI.A.14). Again, there was the most differentiation in value orientation types on the acceptability of providing more recreational hunting opportunities.

59

Figure VI.A.11. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding management actions acceptable when bears are getting into trash and pet food containers (situation 1).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



to hunt bears



Perc

ent A

ccep

tabl

e


Figure VI.A.12. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding management actions acceptable when human deaths from bear attacks have occurred (situation 2).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



to hunt bears



Perc

ent A

ccep

tabl

e


60

Figure VI.A.13. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding management actions acceptable when deer are entering people’s yards and eating shrubs and garden plants (situation 1).

0%

10%20%

30%40%

50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%



opportunities tohunt deer

ACTION 3 -conduct


trained agencystaff



contraceptives



contraceptives

Perc

ent A

ccep

tabl

e


Figure VI.A.14. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding management actions acceptable when deer are carrying a disease that is transmissible to some domestic animals and livestock (situation 2).

0%

10%20%

30%40%

50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%




ACTION 3 -conduct


trained agencystaff



contraceptives



contraceptives

Perc

ent A

ccep

tabl

e


61

Managing Hawaiian Ecosystems Managing endangered species. For the statements regarding attitudes toward endangered species, Mutualists were notably more in support of protecting endangered species than the other value orientation types (Figures VI.A.15 to VI.A.18). All of the value orientation types agreed on average with the management actions for protecting endangered species (Figures VI.A.19 to VI.A.23). On two of the actions there was considerable difference among the types. Of the types, Utilitarians were the most (and Mutualists were the least) in support of public hunting to remove game animals, and Mutualists were the most (and Utilitarians were the least) in support of limiting development. Figure VI.A.15. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


62

Figure VI.A.16. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


63

Figure VI.A.17. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


64

Figure VI.A.18. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


65

Figure VI.A.19. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the endangered species management technique “Increase fencing and removal of game animals to keep them out of certain areas” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


66

Figure VI.A.20. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the endangered species management technique “Increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


67

Figure VI.A.21. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the endangered species management technique “Use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


68

Figure VI.A.22. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the endangered species management technique “Close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


69

Figure VI.A.23. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the endangered species management technique “Limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


70

Managing invasive species. On average, all of the value orientation types found all of the methods for managing invasive species to be acceptable (Figures VI.A.24 to VI.A.31). Mutualists and Pluralists tended to be the value orientation types most in support of techniques to control invasive species. The exception was the technique of killing escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops. Of the value orientation types, Utilitarians were most in support of this technique, and Mutualists were least in support. Figure VI.A.24. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Inspect all baggage before entering Hawai`i even if it added 15 minutes to travel time” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


71

Figure VI.A.25. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


72

Figure VI.A.26. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawai`i and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty

Public Utilitarians Pluralists Mutualists Distanced 1It was not possible to graph the PCI for Pluralists and Mutualists given that PCI = 0. All respondents from each of these groups agreed (mean for Pluralists = 6.52; mean for Mutualists = 6.71).

73

Figure VI.A.27. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Kill escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


74

Figure VI.A.28. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawai`i” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


75

Figure VI.A.29. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


76

Figure VI.A.30. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the invasive species management technique “Increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them from the state” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


77

Figure VI.A.31. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


78

Figure VI.A.32. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement

Public Utilitarians Pluralists Mutualists Distanced 1It was not possible to graph the PCI for Distanced, given that PCI = 0. All respondents from the Distanced group agreed with a mean of 6.04.

79

Managing non-native predators. All of the value orientation types agreed with the need for controlling non-native predators (i.e., rats and mongooses; Figures VI.A.33 to VI.A.37). Utilitarians tended to be most in support of the lethal techniques, while Mutualists tended to be least in support with less consensus within their group (Figures VI.A.38 to VI.A.42). The exception to the trend was that all value orientation types hovered around the neutral line for the statement killing non-natives is only acceptable to protect endangered species. Of the value orientation types, Mutualists were most in support of this contingency, and Utilitarians were the least. Figure VI.A.33. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


80

Figure VI.A.34. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


81

Figure VI.A.35. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


82

Figure VI.A.36. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is only acceptable when necessary for protection of endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


83

Figure VI.A.37. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


84

Figure VI.A.38. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the non-native predator management technique “Do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


85

Figure VI.A.39. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the non-native predator management technique “Offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


86

Figure VI.A.40. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the non-native predator management technique “Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


87

Figure VI.A.41. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the non-native predator management technique “Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


88

Figure VI.A.42. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the non-native predator management technique “Disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


89

Managing nature preserves. Regarding nature preserve management, three primary trends were noted across the items (Figures V.A.43 to V.A.50). First, of the value orientation types, Mutualists, followed by Pluralists and Distanced, tended to be most supportive of setting aside nature preserves and restricting various human uses in the preserves. Second, two items stood out as those for which Pluralists were more highly in support than the other value orientation types—opening preserves for Native Hawaiian cultural and religious purposes, and, (along with Utilitarians) establishing areas primarily for hunted animals. Third, the value orientation types were most similar in their slightly positive, on average, evaluation of the importance of providing the public with opportunities to visit preserves so they appreciate them more. Figure VI.A.43. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the nature preserve management technique “Close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


90

Figure VI.A.44. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the nature preserve management technique “Close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


91

Figure VI.A.45. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of the nature preserve management technique “Establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


92

Figure VI.A.46. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


93

Figure VI.A.47. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


94

Figure VI.A.48. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


95

Figure VI.A.49. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


96

Figure VI.A.50. Potential for conflict indices for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals/tours, whale watching and hiking tours” by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


97

Funding conservation programs. All of the value orientation types supported the new sources for conservation funding except establishing an outdoor recreation permit and fee (Figure VI.A.51 to 59). Overall, Mutualists were the type most in support of each source. Figure VI.A.51. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


98

Figure VI.A.52. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


99

Figure VI.A.53. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


100

Figure VI.A.54. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Establish a license fee for recreational fishing” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


101

Figure VI.A.55. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


102

Figure VI.A.56. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Establish a special wildlife license plate” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


103

Figure VI.A.57. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


104

Figure VI.A.58. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “Charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources” as a source for new funds by wildlife value orientation type.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


105

Figure VI.A.59. Potential for conflict indices for the acceptability of “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding.”

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


106

B. USE OF PARTICIPATION INFORMATION TO EXPLAIN RESPONSES TO ATTITUDE ITEMS

Responses to survey items by participation in hunting and fishing are shown below. Hunters/anglers are defined as those who reported that they had participated in hunting, fishing, or both recreational activities in the past 12 months. Non-hunters/anglers are defined as those who did not report participation in hunting or fishing in the past 12 months. Descriptions of the items reported in this section and their measurement are found in Sections III and V. Sixteen percent of Hawaiians are hunters/anglers, and 84% are non-hunters/anglers. Of the hunters/anglers group, 75% only fished, 6% only hunted, and 19% both fished and hunted. While some differences may exist between hunters and anglers, they were analyzed as a group due to sample size constraints. Tables with the exact percent of each group selecting each response are found in the Appendix (Tables A-139 to A-250). Philosophy for Serving and Involving the Public in Wildlife Management Funding and programming approach. Hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers differed little from each other on the distribution of responses to perceived current approach (Figure VI.B.1) and desired approach (Figure VI.B.2). The most frequent selection for perceived current approach and desired approach was meets the needs of all members of the public and is funded by hunting and fishing licenses and public taxes (Approach 4). For the perceived current approach, slightly more hunters/anglers than non-hunters/anglers selected the approach that meets the needs of hunters and anglers and is funded primarily by hunting and fishing licenses (Approach 1). For the desired approach, slightly more hunters/anglers than non-hunters/anglers selected the approach that meets the needs of hunters/anglers and is funded by hunting and fishing licenses and public taxes (Approach 2). Similarly, placing the costs on others and giving the benefits to themselves, slightly more non-hunters/anglers than hunters/anglers selected the approach that meets the needs of all members of the public and is funded primarily by hunting and fishing licenses (Approach 3). As shown in Figure VI.B.3 more than 50% of both groups selected the same approach as their perceived current and desired approaches. There was little difference between the groups on this comparison.

107

Figure VI.B.1. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers indicating each approach as that which “best resembles how things are now in your state”.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hunters/Anglers Non-Hunters/Anglers

Perc

ent P

erce

ived

App

roac

h


Approach 1- Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 2 - Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Approach 3 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 4 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes.

108

Figure VI.B.2. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers indicating each approach as that which “best represents your opinion of how things should be in your state”.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hunters/Anglers Non-Hunters/Anglers

Perc

ent D

esire

d A

ppro

ach


Approach 1- Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 2 - Programs meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Approach 3 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing license dollars. Approach 4 - Programs meet the needs of all members of the public. Funded substantially by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. Figure VI.B.3. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers selecting the same approach for perceived current approach and desired approach.

50%

51%

52%

53%

54%

55%

Perc

ent S

elec

ting

Sam

e A

ppro

ach

Hunters/anglers Non-Hunters/anglers

109

Public involvement philosophy. Hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers were similar to each other on the mean level of agreement for most of the public involvement statements (Figure VI.B.4). Both groups had means at approximately neutral for most statements. The exception was for the statement I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state. Compared to the other statements and to non-hunters/anglers, hunters/anglers more strongly disagreed with this statement. The amount of variation around the means for each of the statements was slightly greater for hunters/anglers than non-hunters/anglers, except for the statement I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state. Hunters/anglers had more consensus on this statement. Figure VI.B.4. Potential for conflict indices for public involvement statements1 by participation in hunting and fishing.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement

Do you agree or disagree that… My opinions

are heard My

interests are

adequately taken into account

If I provide input, it will

make a difference

My agency makes a good

effort to obtain input

I don’t have an interest in

providing input

I trust agency to

make good decisions

without my input


1Shortened versions of the statements are provided along the x-axis of the graph. The complete statements are below: 1. “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state”. 2. “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision makers in my state”. 3. “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state”. 4. “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole”. 5. “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state”. 6. “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input”.

110

Trust in government. Both hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers expressed the most trust in DLNR of the three forms of government (Figure VI.B.5). For trust in DLNR and the state government, the groups differed little from each other in the amount of trust they expressed. The two groups differed from each other the most in their trust in the federal government, with hunters/anglers expressing less trust. Figure VI.B.5. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers expressing trust for different forms of government.

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Perc

ent T

rust

ing

Gov

ernm

ent "

Mos

t of

the

Tim

e" o

r "A

lmos

t Alw

ays"

FederalGovernment

State Government

Hawai`iDepartment of

Land and NaturalResources

Hunters/AnglersNon-Hunters/Anglers

Bear-human conflict management action. As shown in Figures VI.B.6 and VI.B.7, the same pattern of similarity and differences in responses between hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers existed for both conflict situations. A similar percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers found it acceptable to do nothing and to conduct controlled hunts using trained agency staff. However, more hunters/anglers than non-hunters/anglers (approximately 15%) found it acceptable to provide more recreational opportunities to hunt bears.

111

Figure VI.B.6. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding management actions acceptable when bears are getting into trash and pet food containers (situation 1).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ACTION 1 - donothing to controlbear populations

ACTION 2 - providemore recreational

opportunities to huntbears

ACTION 3 - conductcontrolled hunts

using trained agencystaff

Perc

ent A

ccep

tabl

e


Figure VI.B.7. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding management actions acceptable when human deaths from bear attacks have occurred (situation 2).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ACTION 1 - donothing to controlbear populations

ACTION 2 - providemore recreational

opportunities to huntbears

ACTION 3 - conductcontrolled hunts

using trained agencystaff

Perc

ent A

ccep

tabl

e


Deer-human conflict management action. As in the bear situations, the most notable difference between the groups was hunters/anglers were more accepting of providing more recreational hunting opportunities in both situations (Figures VI.B.8 and VI.B.9). They were also less accepting of temporary contraception than non-hunters/anglers.

112

Figure VI.B.8. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding management actions acceptable when deer are entering people’s yards and eating shrubs and garden plants (situation 1).

0%

10%20%

30%40%

50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%




ACTION 3 -conduct

controlled huntsusing trainedagency staff



contraceptives



contraceptives

Perc

ent A

ccep

tabl

e

Hunters/Anglers

Non-Hunters/Anglers

Figure VI.B.9. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding management actions acceptable when deer are carrying a disease that is transmissible to some domestic animals and livestock (situation 2).

0%

10%20%

30%40%

50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%




ACTION 3 -conduct

controlled huntsusing trainedagency staff



contraceptives



contraceptives

Perc

ent A

ccep

tabl

e

Hunters/Anglers

Non-Hunters/Anglers

113

Managing Hawaiian Ecosystems Managing endangered species. Hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers differed little in their general attitudes about the importance of protecting endangered species (Figure VI.B.10) and in their acceptance of management techniques for protecting endangered species (Figure VI.B.11). The only marked difference was hunters/anglers were more accepting of increasing public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas than were non-hunters/anglers. Figure VI.B.10. Potential for conflict indices for general attitudes about the importance of protecting endangered species1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement




species.




species.


species areas.

Economic concerns are more

important than protecting

endangered species.

Hunters/anglers Non-Hunters/anglers 1Shortened versions of the statements are provided along the x-axis of the graph. The complete statements are below:

1. “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species.” 2. “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species.” 3. “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species.” 4. “Economic concerns are more important that protecting endangered species.”

114

Figure VI.B.11. Potential for conflict indices for acceptability of management techniques to protect endangered species1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty



game animals

Increase public

hunting to remove game

animals

Use professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter

Close important

turtle nesting sites to

recreation activities

Limit development in

areas to preserve habitat


1. “Increase fencing and removal of game animals (example: deer, pigs, and sheep) to keep them out of certain areas.” 2. “Increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas.” 3. “Use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas.” 4. “Close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities.”

5. “Limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species.”

115

Managing invasive species. There was little difference between hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers in their acceptability of management techniques to prevent and remove invasive species (Figure VI.B.12) and in their attitudes toward funding and education to aid invasive species management (Figure VI.B.13). Hunters/anglers were very slightly more accepting of killing escaped invasive species and increasing funding and public education than were non-hunters/anglers. Figure VI.B.12. Potential for conflict indices for acceptability of management techniques to managing invasive species1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty



entering Hawaiì

Establish stricter regula-

tions for cargo

Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì

Kill escaped or released

animals in forest areas

Develop regulations that would

prohibit selling plants

Develop a buyback program

for aquarium

pets

Increase funding for removal of

invasive species



Note: It was not possible to graph the PCI for hunters/anglers for “Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì”, given that PCI = 0. All respondents from the group agreed with a mean of 6.61.

116

Figure VI.B.13. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward invasive species funding and education1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry.

Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of

pests between the Hawaiian islands.


117

Managing non-native predators. There were limited differences between hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers in their beliefs about killing non-native species (Figure VI.B.14). Hunters/anglers tended to be slightly more in agreement with the idea that it is ok to kill non-native species to protect endangered species and to protect a native animal. Again, hunters/anglers differed little on the acceptability of predator control techniques (Figure VI.B.15). Hunters/anglers were very slightly less accepting of doing nothing and very slightly more accepting of using poison bait only when it can be proven to not impact other animals. Figure VI.B.14. Potential for conflict indices for managing non-native species.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect

endangered species

It is ok to kill a non-native animal to

protect a native animal

Killing rats and

mongoose is acceptable in

most areas where native species exist

Killing rats and mongoose is

acceptable only when necessary for protection of

endangered species

Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use

of public resources


118

Figure VI.B.15. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward non-native predator management techniques.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


Do nothing to control rat and

mongoose populations

Offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose

Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose

Use poison bait only when it

can be proven not to impact other animals

Disperse poison bait using a helicopter in

remote areas to control rats and

mongoose


119

Managing nature preserves. Hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers differed slightly in their attitudes toward nature preserve closure and establishment (Figure VI.B.16). Hunters/anglers were less accepting of closing areas to hunting and fishing and, more generally, closing areas to humans so wildlife can exist undisturbed. Further, hunters/anglers were more accepting of establishing areas that are managed for animals that can be hunted. The two groups did not differ on their attitudes toward the management of nature preserves (Figure VI.B.17). Figure VI.B.16. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward nature preserve closure and establishment for various purposes1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


Close some areas to hunting and fishing

Close some nature preserves to humans


hunting



120

Figure VI.B.17. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward nature preserve management1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agreement


Nature preserves

should be set aside on each

island

Nature preserves should

be open to Native

Hawaiians


effects on wildlife


opportunities to visit preserves


commercial activities



121

Funding conservation programs. There were limited differences between hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers regarding their acceptability of new funding sources (Figure VI.B.18). The most notable differences were that non-hunters/anglers were more accepting of establishing a license fee for recreational fishing and establishing an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving than were hunters/anglers. Figure VI.B.18. Potential for conflict indices for attitudes toward new funding sources1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Highly Acceptable

Acceptabil i ty


Increase hotel room tax

Set aside sales tax

Add a $1 fee

to water bills

Estab-lish a

fishing license

fee

Establish a recreation permit and

fee

Estab-lish

special license plate

Set aside more taxes

Charge tour

comp-anies a

fee

NOT attempt any new sources



122

C. EXPLORATION OF DIFFERENCES BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE (URBAN VS. RURAL; HONOLULU COUNTY VS. OTHER COUNTIES) Analyses were also conducted to determine whether responses to regional and state-specific items varied by urban vs. rural residence or by county of residence. Urban or rural residence was defined by respondents’ self-reported size of their current place of residence (see item below). Those who selected any of the city categories of 50,000 people or more were considered urban residents, while all others were considered rural residents. With this categorization scheme, 51% of the sample was urban, and 49% was rural. County of residence was determined by the zipcodes for mailing addresses of respondents. Honolulu county (37%) was compared to all other counties (84%).

Results showed some statistically significant differences between the responses of urban vs. rural residents and Honolulu county vs. other counties. However, even the statistically significant differences were of small magnitude. The effect size measure, eta, was less than or equal to .1 for nearly all items for both comparison schemes. D. INDICATIONS OF NATIVE HAWAIIAN ATTITUDINAL DIFFERENCES Exploratory analyses were run to compare responses of Native Hawaiians to those of other residents. While some differences were noted on items, especially those related to protection of native species, use of nature preserves by native Hawaiians, establishing areas for hunting, and preventing invasive species, these findings must be interpreted with caution due to the small sample of Native Hawaiians obtained in this study. The sampling method and the items in this study were not designed for the purpose of understanding differences between Native Hawaiians and other Hawai`i residents. However, these results do suggest the utility of designing a future study with the objective of comparing Native Hawaiians and other Hawai`i residents.

123

REFERENCES

Bright, A. D., Manfredo, M. J., & Fulton, D. C. (2000). Segmenting the public: An application of value orientations to wildlife planning in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1), 218-226. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd Edition. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(2), 24- 47. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2003). Stated choice methods: Analysis and

application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Manfredo, M. J., & Fulton, D. (1997). A comparison of wildlife values in Belize and Colorado. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2(2), 62-63. Manfredo, M. J., Pierce, C. L., Fulton, D., Pate, J., & Gill, B. R. (1999). Public acceptance of wildlife trapping in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(2), 499- 508. Manfredo, M. J., & Zinn, H. C. (1996). Population change and its implications for wildlife management in the new west: A case study of Colorado. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(3), 62-74. Manfredo, M. J., Zinn, H. C., Sikorowski, L., & Jones, J. (1998). Public acceptance of mountain lion management: A case study of Denver, Colorado, and nearby foothills areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(4), 964-970. Manfredo, M.J., Vaske, J.J., & Teel, T.L. (2003). The potential for conflict index: A graphic

approach to practical significance of human dimensions research. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 219-228.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press. SPSS, Inc. (2004). SPSS Base 13.0 for Windows User's Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.

124

Teel, T. L., Dayer, A.A., Manfredo, M. J, & Bright, A. D. (2005). Regional results from the research project entitled “Wildlife Values in the West”. (Project Rep. No. 58). Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit.

Teel, T. L., Manfredo, M. J., Bright, A. D., & Dayer, A. A. (2004, January 30). Contribution of

human dimensions information to the development of state Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies. Powerpoint presentation distributed to member states in the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit.

Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 50, 819-827.

Whittaker, D. (2000). Evaluating urban wildlife management actions: An exploration of antecedent cognitive variables. Dissertation. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. Zinn, H. C., Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J., & Wittmann, K. (1998). Using normative

beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society & Natural Resources, 11, 649-662.

125

APPENDIX A. SUPPORTING TABLES Table A-1. Percent scoring “high” 1 on mutualism wildlife value orientation scale compared to utilitarian wildlife value orientation scale by respondent characteristics.

Respondent characteristics High on mutualism

wildlife value orientation scale

High on utilitarian wildlife value orientation

scale Males 54.9 58.4 Females 71.4 36.0

Hunters/anglers 62.2 61.2 Non-hunters/anglers 63.1 44.3 1“High” defined by score of > 4.5 on mean composite wildlife value orientation scale. Table A-2. Percent scoring “high” 1 on attraction basic wildlife belief dimension compared to concern for safety basic wildlife belief dimension by respondent characteristics.

Respondent characteristics High on attraction belief dimension

High on concern for safety belief dimension

Utilitarian 64.6 26.4 Pluralist 74.1 21.3 Mutualist 81.9 12.6 Distanced 58.1 20.3

Males 72.4 19.6 Females 73.4 18.9

Hunters/anglers 93.8 9.4 Non-hunters/anglers 69.1 20.7 1“High” defined by score of > 4.5 on mean composite belief dimension scale.

126

Table A-3. Correlation1 of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and cognitive characteristics with selecting same approach and trust for DLNR.

Selecting same approach Trust Agency

Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

Fished in past 12 months .01 .82 -.02 .69

Hunted in past 12 months -.02 .72 -.05 .20

Wildlife viewed in past 12 months -.01 .82 -.03 .45

Gender -.00 .96 .04 .38

Age .06 .13 .04 .35

Number of children .01 .79 .00 .92

Education .15 <.00 -.11 .01

Income .10 .03 -.12 <.00

Fear basic belief dimension -.07 .10 .09 .03

Attraction basic belief dimension .15 <.00 .07 .08

Mutualism wildlife value orientation .00 .95 .07 .09

Utilitarian wildlife value orientation -.04 .41 .11 .01

1. For two dichotomous variables, phi correlation was used. For one dichotomous variable and one continuous variable, point biserial correlation was used. For two continuous variables, Pearson’s correlation was used.

127

Table A-4. Percent of respondents agreeing with the public involvement statements.

Involvement statement1 Strongly Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Slightly Disagree Neither Slightly

Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly Agree

My opinions are heard 11.7 9.3 7.6 42.8 16.6 9.6 2.4

My interests are adequately taken into account 9.4 9.6 9.4 37.3 22.3 9.1 2.8

If I provide input, it will make a difference 9.9 11.2 16.0 21.5 26.2 10.9 4.2

My agency makes a good effort to obtain input 8.5 9.8 19.1 20.8 23.5 13.4 5.0

I don’t have an interest in providing input 18.0 12.8 20.7 20.2 14.8 8.5 5.0

I trust agency to make good decisions without my input 10.4 10.3 12.9 18.6 21.7 16.2 10.0 1Shortened versions of the statements are provided in each row of the table. The complete statements are below: 1. “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.” 2. “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision makers in my state.” 3. “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state.” 4. “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole.” 5. “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state.” 6. “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input.”

128

129

Table A-5. Percent of respondents that trust their government to do what is right.

Type Almost never

Only some of the time

Most of the time

Almost always

Federal government 9.6 43.8 40.6 5.9 State government 6.5 50.2 39.1 4.2 Hawai`i Dept. of Land and Natural Resources 4.2 34.3 52.2 9.3 Table A-6. Percent of respondents agreeing with actions to address bear situations.

Bear situation1 Do nothing Provide more hunting Conduct controlled hunts

Getting into trash and pet food containers 18.0 32.0 72.2

Human deaths from bear attacks occurred 9.4 42.7 88.7 1Shortened versions of the statements are provided in each row of the table. The complete statements are below:

1. Bears wandering into areas where humans live in search of food. Bears are getting into trash and pet food containers. 2. Bears are wandering into areas where humans live in search of food. Human deaths from bear attacks have occurred.

Table A-7. Percent of respondents agreeing with actions to address deer situations.

Deer situation1 Do nothing

Provide more

hunting

Conduct controlled

hunts

Permanent contraceptives

Short-term contraceptives

Eating shrubs and garden plants

27.5 56.8 75.0 20.2 70.0

Carrying transmissible disease

11.3 62.5 86.9 33.4 78.9

1Shortened versions of the statements are provided in each row of the table. The complete statements are below: 1. Deer numbers are increasing. There are complaints about deer entering people’s yards and eating shrubs and garden plants. 2. Deer numbers are increasing. Authorities are concerned because deer are carrying a disease that is transmissible to some domestic animals and livestock

130

Table A-8. Biodiversity stated choice results for Hawai`i.

Attribute (variable) Tier of Importance2

Average Importance3

Coefficient

(Utility Score)1,4

p-value Odds Ratio5

Status 2 41.7

Common -.58 - -

Declining/Endangered .50 < .001 1.65

Extirpated .08 .025 1.08

Origin 1 50.4

Native .70 < .001 2.02

Non-Native -.70 - -

Use 3 7.9

Game .11 < .001 1.12

Non-Game -.11 - -

Proportion of choices correctly predicted 77.0

1 Estimated coefficients represent the utility associated with the corresponding level of the attribute. They are represented by the unstandardized regression coefficients calculated in a logistic regression in which respondent choice (species A = 1, or species B = 0) is the dependent variable, and the independent variables are the vector of differences between each attribute of the adjacent paired comparison. The absolute magnitude of the coefficients reflects the relative importance of the corresponding level of the attribute to respondents’ choices. A large positive score indicates that the level substantially increases respondents’ utility (i.e., preference) associated with the choice. A large negative coefficient indicates that the level substantially detracts from the overall utility of respondents. 2Tier of importance determined by the magnitude of the range in coefficients across levels of the attribute (e.g., -.70 to .70 for origin). 3 Averaged importance is computed by dividing the range for each attribute by the total ranges of the 3 attributes (e.g., 1.16 / (1.16 + 1.40 + .22) for status. The averaged importance for the 3 attributes will total 100. 4To prevent the model from being underestimated, each attribute was represented by a number of variables equal to one less than the number of levels for the attribute (utilizing a procedure known as effects coding, similar to dummy coding for categorical variables). Coefficients for the excluded level of the attribute were not estimated by the statistical model. They were calculated as the negative sum of the coefficients on the other levels of the corresponding attribute. 5Odds ratio, defining the factor by which the odds of selecting the species (A = 1) increases with a one-unit increase in the attribute level. An odds ratio score less than one indicates a negative relationship (odds decrease), while a score greater than one indicates a positive relationship (odds increase).

131

Table A-9. Percent of respondents agreeing with beliefs regarding endangered species statements.

Statement Strongly Disagree

Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species.

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.9 9.6 16.7 71.4

It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species.

52.3 15.9 13.3 7.1 5.8 3.3 2.1

It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species.

2.7 2.7 8.7 7.0 20.2 28.3 30.2

Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species.

25.4 22.5 19.5 9.9 13.5 6.3 3.0

132

Table A-10. PCI means and values for beliefs regarding endangered species statements.

Statement Mean PCI value

It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species. 6.55 0.02


2.17 0.13


5.45 0.15


2.95 0.23

133

Table A-11. Percent of respondents finding management techniques to protect and restore endangered species acceptable.

Statement Highly Unacceptable

Moderately Unacceptable

Slightly Unacceptable Neither Slightly

Acceptable Moderately Acceptable

Highly Acceptable

Increase fencing and removal of game animals in certain areas.

2.6 2.8 4.5 4.5 21.2 31.3 33.1

Increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas.

6.3 8.2 9.5 7.8 27.6 24.5 16.0

Use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas.

7.0 8.8 11.2 8.7 22.1 22.1 20.1

Close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities.

4.3 1.6 4.1 3.6 12.9 24.8 48.7

Limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species.

0.9 1.6 2.9 2.6 15.6 25.3 51.1

134

Table A-12. PCI means and values for the acceptability of techniques to protect and restore endangered species.


Increase fencing and removal of game animals in certain areas. 5.65 0.12

Increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas. 4.80 0.30

Use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas.

4.77 0.33

Close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities.

5.88 0.13

Limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species.

6.11 0.06

135

Table A-13. Percent of respondents finding techniques acceptable to prevent the spread of invasive species and repair damage. Technique1 Highly

Unacceptable Moderately

Unacceptable Slightly

Unacceptable Neither Slightly Acceptable

Moderately Acceptable

Highly Acceptable

Inspect all baggage before entering Hawaiì. 1.8 7.4 6.3 4.1 21.6 24.4 34.4

Establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo. 0.5 1.0 2.9 5.1 18.2 29.6 42.7

Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì. 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.9 8.5 23.0 67.2

Kill escaped/released animals in forest areas that compete with wildlife and destroy crops.

4.0 2.7 5.7 5.1 12.1 22.3 48.0

Develop regulations that prohibit selling plants that could become weeds.

0.2 0.6 0.5 2.7 10.7 24.5 60.7

Develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets. 1.5 2.6 3.3 5.8 18.5 26.3 42.1

Increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread.

0.2 1.2 1.9 4.0 16.9 24.5 51.3

1Shortened versions of the statements are provided in each row of the table. The complete statements are below: 1. “Inspect all baggage before entering Hawaiì even if it added 15 minutes to travel time.” 2. “Establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo.” 3. “Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist.” 4. “Kill escaped or released animals in forest areas (examples: parrots, snakes, Coqui frogs) that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops.” 5. “Develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawaiì.” 6. “Develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them.”

136

Table A-14. PCI means and values for the acceptability of techniques to prevent the spread of invasive species and repair damage.

Technique1 Mean PCI value

Inspect all baggage before entering Hawaiì. 5.47 0.18

Establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo. 5.99 0.04

Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì. 6.56 0.00

Kill escaped/released animals in forest areas that compete with wildlife and destroy crops.

5.78 0.15

Develop regulations that prohibit selling plants that could become weeds.

6.39 0.02

Develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets. 5.84 0.09

Increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread.

6.15 0.03

1Shortened versions of the statements are provided in each row of the table. The complete statements are below: 1. “Inspect all baggage before entering Hawaiì even if it added 15 minutes to travel time.” 2. “Establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo.” 3. “Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist.” 4. “Kill escaped or released animals in forest areas (examples: parrots, snakes, Coqui frogs) that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops.” 5. “Develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawaiì.” 6. “Develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them.”

Table A-15. Percent of respondents agreeing with the invasive species funding and education statements.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry.

0.6 1.4 4.8 10.0 20.0 26.0 37.1

Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian Islands.

0.0 0.5 0.6 3.4 15.3 22.0 58.2

Table A-16. PCI means and values for the invasive species funding and education statements.



5.74 0.06

Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian Islands.

6.32 0.01

137

138

Table A-17. Percent of respondents agreeing with beliefs about killing non-native species.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species. 1.8 2.7 5.1 6.8 23.5 25.3 34.8

It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal. 2.1 3.3 6.3 7.2 26.4 25.1 29.6

Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist.

1.1 1.4 4.3 5.0 12.5 31.7 44.0

Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable only when necessary for protection of endangered species.

16.8 13.1 17.0 7.5 13.3 15.8 16.6

Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources. 4.8 4.2 4.6 11.0 24.2 23.6 27.5

139

Table A-18. PCI means and values for beliefs about killing non-native species.


It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species. 5.63 0.11

It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal. 5.46 0.13


5.97 0.07


4.01 0.62

Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources. 5.27 0.18

Table A-19. Percent of respondents finding acceptable techniques to manage non-native predators. Technique Highly





Highly Acceptable

Do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations. 61.4 21.0 9.5 4.1 1.4 0.4 2.2

Offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose.

5.9 4.5 5.8 10.0 30.0 23.7 20.2

Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose. 6.8 6.3 10.0 10.1 27.1 21.0 18.7

Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals.

4.5 3.0 3.8 5.2 18.5 27.7 37.3

Disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose.

16.0 10.0 14.6 13.3 16.4 16.4 13.3

140

141

Table A-20. PCI means and values for the acceptability of techniques to manage non-native predators.

Technique Mean PCI value

Do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations. 1.73 0.06

Offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose.

5.05 0.22

Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose. 4.82 0.29

Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals.

5.62 0.16

Disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose.

4.07 0.55

Table A-21. Percent of respondents finding it acceptable to close and establish nature preserves. Technique Highly





Highly Acceptable

Close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life.

0.9 1.7 1.8 2.1 13.8 24.9 54.8

Close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed.

1.0 2.4 6.1 3.2 21.0 28.8 37.6

Establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted.

7.9 5.0 4.2 10.5 29.7 22.5 20.1

142

Table A-22. PCI means and values for the acceptability of closure and establishment of nature preserves.

Technique Mean PCI value

Close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life.

6.2 0.05

Close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed.

5.77 0.09

Establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted.

4.97 0.25

143

Table A-23. Percent of respondents agreeing with the nature preserve management statements.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life.

0.4 1.1 1.2 3.8 15.3 28.4 49.9

Nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes.

9.2 5.9 8.2 13.6 22.0 19.7 21.3

Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats.

2.1 4.8 6.4 8.3 30.1 24.0 24.3

It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better.

1.2 2.8 4.0 8.3 32.4 27.4 23.9

Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals / tours, whale watching, and hiking tours.

26.1 19.1 18.2 7.5 17.7 8.7 2.7

144

Table A-24. PCI means and values for the nature preserve management statements.


Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life.

6.17 0.03


4.78 0.32

Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their

5.29 0.15


5.45 0.09


3.09 0.29

145

Table A-25. Percent of respondents finding sources of funding acceptable.

Source Highly Unacceptable




Highly Acceptable

Increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day. 8.9 4.9 6.8 9.1 20.5 17.6 32.1

Set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business.

3.4 1.8 4.9 8.9 18.7 26.3 36.0

Add $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management.

13.4 8.8 9.3 8.4 18.2 19.5 22.3

Establish a license fee for recreational fishing. 8.8 6.0 7.1 6.0 16.7 15.8 39.6

Establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for certain activities.

22.7 12.0 11.7 8.1 17.9 12.1 15.6

Establish a special wildlife license plate. 3.1 2.0 2.3 17.3 13.2 21.4 40.7

Set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues. 5.2 5.9 9.9 14.8 26.6 17.8 19.6

Charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources. 3.1 2.4 4.3 6.5 20.9 24.2 38.5

Do NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding.

43.9 16.9 14.0 15.5 4.4 2.3 2.9

Table A-26. PCI means and values for the acceptability of sources of funding.

Source Mean PCI value

Increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day. 5.09 0.29

Set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business. 5.61 0.13

Add $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management. 4.57 0.45

Establish a license fee for recreational fishing. 5.22 0.30

Establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for certain activities. 3.85 0.59

Establish a special wildlife license plate. 5.62 0.10

Set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues. 4.84 0.25

Charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources. 5.67 0.12

Do NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding. 2.38 0.12

146

147

Table A-27. Percent of wildlife value orientation type indicating each approach as their perceived current approach for the state. Value type Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4

Utilitarian 9.6 25.3 8.2 56.8 Pluralist 13.2 16.3 17.1 53.5 Mutualist 8.3 25.3 14.1 52.3 Distanced 4.7 20.3 23.4 51.6 Table A-28. Percent of wildlife value orientation type indicating each approach as their desired approach for the state. Value type Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4

Utilitarian 14.5 14.5 15.8 55.3 Pluralist 9.2 6.9 16.9 66.9 Mutualist 6.1 4.5 16.7 72.7 Distanced 8.3 2.8 26.4 62.5 Table A-29. Percent of wildlife value orientation type selecting same approaches for perceived current approach and desired approach in the state. Value type Selecting Same Approaches

Utilitarian 54.8 Pluralist 49.2 Mutualist 50.2 Distanced 61.9

Table A-30. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.”

Value type Strongly Disagree

Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 10.2 11.5 10.2 45.9 14.0 6.4 1.9 Pluralist 9.8 6.8 6.0 43.6 15.8 12.0 6.0 Mutualist 13.5 11.1 7.1 35.7 19.4 11.5 1.6 Distanced 12.7 2.8 7.0 60.6 12.7 4.2 0.0 Table A-31. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 6.4 10.8 11.5 38.9 21.0 8.9 2.5 Pluralist 8.4 6.1 9.2 35.1 21.4 13.7 6.1 Mutualist 12.3 11.9 7.9 34.1 25.0 7.1 1.6 Distanced 6.8 5.5 11.0 50.7 16.4 8.2 1.4 Table A-32. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 8.3 13.4 22.9 19.7 21.7 11.5 2.5 Pluralist 9.0 9.0 7.5 29.9 23.1 12.7 9.0 Mutualist 11.2 12.4 15.5 13.9 31.5 11.6 4.0 Distanced 11.1 6.9 18.1 34.7 23.6 4.2 1.4

148

149

Table A-33. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 8.9 8.9 19.1 22.9 28.7 7.6 3.8 Pluralist 4.5 11.4 14.4 15.2 27.3 18.2 9.1 Mutualist 10.3 9.5 18.7 21.4 21.0 14.3 4.8 Distanced 8.5 9.9 31.0 23.9 12.7 12.7 1.4 Table A-34. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 12.7 8.9 19.7 18.5 16.6 14.0 9.6 Pluralist 15.7 11.9 20.9 28.4 11.9 6.7 4.5 Mutualist 23.3 15.8 22.1 15.8 13.0 6.3 3.6 Distanced 15.1 12.3 15.1 24.7 21.9 8.2 2.7 Table A-35. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly


Table A-36. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

Value type Mean PCI value

Public 3.82 0.29 Utilitarian 3.69 0.22 Pluralist 4.10 0.33 Mutualist 3.77 0.31 Distanced 3.70 0.14 Table A-37. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision makers in my state” by wildlife value orientation type.

Value type Mean PCI value

Public 3.92 0.32 Utilitarian 3.94 0.31 Pluralist 4.20 0.31 Mutualist 3.75 0.29 Distanced 3.93 0.25 Table A-38. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 3.93 0.41 Utilitarian 3.77 0.35 Pluralist 4.24 0.35 Mutualist 3.92 0.44 Distanced 3.70 0.24

150

Table A-39. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 4.01 0.43 Utilitarian 3.97 0.37 Pluralist 3.47 0.34 Mutualist 3.11 0.43 Distanced 3.58 0.28 Table A-40. PCI means and values for the statement “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 3.46 0.31 Utilitarian 3.97 0.49 Pluralist 3.47 0.26 Mutualist 3.11 0.24 Distanced 3.58 0.31 Table A-41. PCI means and values for the statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


151

Table A-42. Percent of wildlife value orientation type that trusts their federal government to do what is right for the country.

Value type Almost never Only some of the time

Most of the time Almost always

Utilitarian 3.2 40.9 52.6 3.2 Pluralist 5.1 42.3 45.3 7.3 Mutualist 17.3 44.5 31.5 6.7 Distanced 5.3 50.7 38.7 5.3 Table A-43. Percent of wildlife value orientation type that trusts their state government to do what is right for the Hawai`i.



Utilitarian 9.0 46.5 42.6 1.9 Pluralist 2.2 45.3 47.5 5.0 Mutualist 8.3 53.6 32.9 5.2 Distanced 2.7 56.8 35.1 5.4 Table A-44. Percent of wildlife value orientation type that trusts the Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources to do what is right for fish and wildlife management.



Utilitarian 7.1 33.3 54.5 5.1 Pluralist 1.5 28.1 55.6 14.8 Mutualist 5.2 37.5 46.6 10.8 Distanced 0.0 36.2 60.9 2.9 ` Table A-45. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with actions to address bear situation 11.

Value type Do nothing Provide more hunting Conduct controlled hunts

Utilitarian 6.7 60.8 90.5 Pluralist 14.0 37.3 80.1 Mutualist 29.1 15.1 59.6 Distanced 9.5 23.0 64.9 1Bears wandering into areas where humans live in search of food. Bears are getting into trash and pet food containers.

152

153

Table A-46. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with techniques to address bear situation 21.

Value type Do nothing Provide more hunting Conduct controlled hunts

Utilitarian 4.7 72.9 96.6 Pluralist 5.3 46.2 93.8 Mutualist 14.7 26.7 82.9 Distanced 8.2 31.5 83.8 1Bears are wandering into areas where humans live in search of food. Human deaths from bear attacks have occurred. Table A-47. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with actions to address deer situation 11.

Value type Do nothing Provide

more hunting

Conduct controlled

hunts



Utilitarian 14.8 84.3 85.0 27.9 68.8 Pluralist 23.5 79.3 88.1 27.6 72.2 Mutualist 39.9 33.1 63.7 13.1 68.9 Distanced 19.2 39.7 67.6 14.9 71.6 1Deer numbers are increasing. There are complaints about deer entering people’s yards and eating shrubs and garden plants. Table A-48. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with actions to address deer situation 21.

Value type Do nothing Provide

more hunting

Conduct controlled

hunts



Utilitarian 7.8 88.7 91.3 39.7 76.7 Pluralist 14.3 74.4 89.4 43.3 79.7 Mutualist 12.2 42.7 82.3 27.0 80.6 Distanced 11.0 54.9 89.0 24.7 75.7 1Deer numbers are increasing. Authorities are concerned because deer are carrying a disease that is transmissible to some domestic animals and livestock.

Table A-49. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 1.3 0.6 1.3 2.5 18.5 25.5 50.3 Pluralist 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 5.8 17.3 76.3 Mutualist 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 5.4 6.6 87.2 Distanced 0.0 2.6 1.3 1.3 13.2 31.6 50.0 Table A-50. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 29.3 19.7 19.7 11.5 8.3 6.4 5.1 Pluralist 48.9 15.1 12.9 8.6 5.8 6.5 2.2 Mutualist 70.8 10.9 8.9 2.7 5.1 0.8 0.8 Distanced 42.7 26.7 16.0 9.3 4.0 1.3 0.0 Table A-51. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly


154

155

Table A-52. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 5.8 26.3 16.7 12.8 22.4 10.9 5.1 Pluralist 26.6 18.0 17.3 10.1 13.7 10.1 4.3 Mutualist 38.7 23.0 21.5 7.0 5.5 3.1 1.2 Distanced 17.6 20.3 21.6 13.5 23.0 1.4 2.7 Table A-53. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


156

Table A-54. PCI means and values for the statement “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 2.17 0.13 Utilitarian 2.88 0.24 Pluralist 2.36 0.17 Mutualist 1.66 0.06 Distanced 2.08 0.04 Table A-55. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.45 0.15 Utilitarian 5.25 0.19 Pluralist 5.57 0.11 Mutualist 5.60 0.15 Distanced 5.14 0.17 Table A-56. PCI means and values for the statement “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


Table A-57. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…increase fencing and removal of game animals to keep them out of certain areas.”

Value type Highly Unacceptable




Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 2.6 2.6 5.8 6.5 20.8 27.9 33.8 Pluralist 2.9 1.5 4.4 4.4 21.9 35.0 29.9 Mutualist 2.7 3.9 2.4 1.6 23.1 30.2 36.1 Distanced 0.0 1.3 9.2 10.5 14.5 36.8 27.6 Table A-58. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas.”





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 0.6 0.6 2.6 10.4 26.6 35.1 24.0 Pluralist 6.4 5.0 5.7 3.5 25.5 29.1 24.8 Mutualist 9.8 13.3 13.7 9.0 28.5 17.6 8.2 Distanced 6.6 13.2 17.1 6.6 28.9 18.4 9.2 Table A-59. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas.”





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 3.9 5.2 12.3 10.4 23.4 27.9 16.9 Pluralist 6.4 11.4 4.3 9.3 19.3 22.9 26.4 Mutualist 11.0 8.2 13.7 6.3 25.1 16.9 18.8 Distanced 1.4 12.2 12.2 13.5 14.9 27.0 18.9

157

158

Table A-60. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities.”





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 2.6 1.9 7.1 6.5 16.1 29.7 36.1 Pluralist 3.5 2.1 3.5 4.3 13.5 29.1 44.0 Mutualist 7.0 2.0 1.2 1.2 9.8 18.8 60.2 Distanced 0.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 16.0 28.0 44.0 Table A-61. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species.”





Highly Acceptable


Table A-62. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…increase fencing and removal of game animals to keep them out of certain areas” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.65 0.12 Utilitarian 5.59 0.13 Pluralist 5.62 0.10 Mutualist 5.73 0.12 Distanced 5.59 0.08 Table A-63. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 4.80 0.30 Utilitarian 5.61 0.04 Pluralist 5.25 0.23 Mutualist 4.19 0.46 Distanced 4.33 0.42 Table A-64. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


159

160

Table A-65. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.88 0.13 Utilitarian 5.65 0.12 Pluralist 5.87 0.12 Mutualist 6.02 0.17 Distanced 5.95 0.05 Table A-66. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


Table A-67. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…inspect all baggage before entering Hawai`i even if it added 15 minutes to travel time” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 3.9 11.6 5.8 3.2 23.2 23.9 28.4 Pluralist 2.9 7.2 6.5 5.1 15.9 17.4 44.9 Mutualist 0.4 4.7 5.8 3.5 21.4 27.2 37.0 Distanced 1.3 9.2 7.9 5.3 27.6 27.6 21.1 Table A-68. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 1.3 0.6 1.9 6.5 20.0 36.1 33.5 Pluralist 0.7 2.9 3.6 5.8 12.2 27.3 47.5 Mutualist 0.0 0.0 2.7 4.3 18.0 25.8 49.2 Distanced 0.0 2.6 3.9 3.9 23.7 34.2 31.6 Table A-69. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawai`i and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.





Highly Acceptable


161

Table A-70. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…kill escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 1.3 0.6 0.0 3.2 14.7 21.2 59.0 Pluralist 2.2 3.6 1.4 5.0 10.1 18.7 59.0 Mutualist 7.4 3.1 11.7 5.1 11.7 24.1 37.0 Distanced 1.4 4.1 4.1 9.5 12.2 24.3 44.6 Table A-71. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “... develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawai`i” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 0.0 0.6 1.3 2.6 8.3 26.9 60.3 Pluralist 0.7 0.7 0.0 2.2 5.8 25.2 65.5 Mutualist 0.4 0.8 0.0 1.2 12.5 22.6 62.6 Distanced 0.0 0.0 1.3 9.2 18.4 26.3 44.7 Table A-72. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “… develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.





Highly Acceptable


162

163

Table A-73. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “… increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them from the State” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 0.0 3.2 0.6 5.2 18.7 28.4 43.9 Pluralist 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.1 13.5 27.0 56.7 Mutualist 0.4 0.8 3.9 2.7 16.8 18.8 56.6 Distanced 0.0 0.0 1.3 9.2 19.7 31.6 38.2 Table A-74. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…inspect all baggage before entering Hawai`i even if it added 15 minutes to travel time” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


Table A-75. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.99 0.04 Utilitarian 5.86 0.05 Pluralist 5.97 0.08 Mutualist 6.14 0.02 Distanced 5.79 0.06 Table A-76. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawai`i and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 6.56 0.00 Utilitarian 6.38 0.01 Pluralist 6.52 0.00 Mutualist 6.71 0.00 Distanced 6.44 0.01 Table A-77. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…kill escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


164

165

Table A-78. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “... develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawai`i” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 6.39 0.02 Utilitarian 6.40 0.02 Pluralist 6.50 0.02 Mutualist 6.43 0.02 Distanced 6.04 0.01 Table A-79. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “… develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.84 0.09 Utilitarian 5.54 0.12 Pluralist 5.91 0.10 Mutualist 6.08 0.07 Distanced 5.54 0.08 Table A-80. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “… increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them from the State” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


166

Table A-81. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 1.9 1.3 11.6 14.8 17.4 27.1 25.8 Pluralist 0.7 0.0 2.2 8.7 17.4 25.4 45.7 Mutualist 0.0 1.6 2.7 7.8 20.8 24.7 42.4 Distanced 0.0 2.6 1.3 10.5 27.6 30.3 27.6 Table A-82. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly


167

Table A-83. PCI means and values for the statement “More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.74 0.06 Utilitarian 5.31 0.13 Pluralist 5.99 0.03 Mutualist 5.91 0.04 Distanced 5.65 0.04 Table A-84. PCI means and values for the statement “Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


Table A-85. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 18.5 34.4 41.1 Pluralist 2.2 1.5 4.4 8.0 19.0 25.5 39.4 Mutualist 3.1 5.5 7.0 6.3 28.5 19.1 30.5 Distanced 0.0 0.0 6.6 11.8 25.0 27.6 28.9 Table A-86. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 0.0 0.0 2.0 7.3 18.5 37.1 35.1 Pluralist 2.2 3.6 3.6 10.1 23.9 26.1 30.4 Mutualist 3.5 5.9 10.2 4.7 31.5 17.3 26.8 Distanced 0.0 0.0 6.7 10.7 30.7 25.3 26.7 Table A-87. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly


168

169

Table A-88. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable only when necessary for protection of endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 24.7 21.3 13.3 10.0 8.7 13.3 8.7 Pluralist 20.4 15.3 12.4 5.1 7.3 14.6 24.8 Mutualist 10.2 7.1 20.8 7.8 16.5 20.4 17.3 Distanced 17.3 13.3 18.7 5.3 22.7 8.0 14.7 Table A-89. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly


170

Table A-90. PCI means and values for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.63 0.11 Utilitarian 6.06 0.01 Pluralist 5.75 0.09 Mutualist 5.29 0.18 Distanced 5.63 0.04 Table A-91. PCI means and values for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.46 0.13 Utilitarian 5.94 0.01 Pluralist 5.49 0.12 Mutualist 5.12 0.22 Distanced 5.58 0.04 Table A-92. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.97 0.07 Utilitarian 6.30 0.02 Pluralist 6.16 0.02 Mutualist 5.69 0.13 Distanced 5.94 0.04 Table A-93. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable only when necessary for protection of endangered species” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


Table A-94. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.27 0.18 Utilitarian 5.59 0.11 Pluralist 5.43 0.15 Mutualist 5.05 0.23 Distanced 5.08 0.23 Table A-95. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations.”





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 67.8 20.4 5.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 Pluralist 67.4 18.8 5.8 1.4 3.6 0.0 2.9 Mutualist 55.3 23.1 13.7 4.3 0.8 0.8 2.0 Distanced 59.2 19.7 9.2 5.3 2.6 0.0 3.9 Table A-96. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “… offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose.”





Highly Acceptable


171

172

Table A-97. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose.”





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 5.9 2.0 5.9 7.2 26.1 26.1 26.8 Pluralist 2.2 6.7 7.4 8.1 26.7 23.7 25.2 Mutualist 11.3 8.2 11.7 9.4 29.3 16.8 13.3 Distanced 2.6 6.6 17.1 22.4 21.1 21.1 9.2 Table A-98. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals.”





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 7.9 2.6 2.0 11.8 13.2 28.9 33.6 Pluralist 1.4 2.2 5.8 2.9 17.4 28.3 42.0 Mutualist 4.7 4.3 2.7 1.2 22.2 27.2 37.7 Distanced 2.6 1.3 9.2 9.2 19.7 23.7 34.2 Table A-99. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose.”





Highly Acceptable


Table A-100. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 1.73 0.06 Utilitarian 1.57 0.03 Pluralist 1.66 0.08 Mutualist 1.83 0.05 Distanced 1.86 0.10 Table A-101. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “… offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.05 0.22 Utilitarian 5.27 0.16 Pluralist 5.00 0.251 Mutualist 5.02 0.24 Distanced 4.82 0.19 Table A-102. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


173

174

Table A-103. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.62 0.16 Utilitarian 5.42 0.21 Pluralist 5.86 0.10 Mutualist 5.65 0.17 Distanced 5.52 0.13 Table A-104. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


175

Table A-105. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life.”





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 1.3 5.2 3.2 2.6 16.9 31.2 39.6 Pluralist 0.7 0.7 1.4 5.0 15.0 24.3 52.9 Mutualist 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.4 9.4 19.1 68.8 Distanced 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.6 19.7 34.2 42.1 Table A-106. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed.”





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 1.3 3.2 14.1 5.1 21.2 31.4 23.7 Pluralist 1.4 4.3 4.3 5.7 21.4 26.4 36.4 Mutualist 1.2 0.4 3.1 0.8 17.6 27.7 49.2 Distanced 0.0 4.0 2.7 2.7 30.7 32.0 28.0 Table A-107. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted.”





Highly Acceptable


176

Table A-108. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 6.20 0.05 Utilitarian 5.79 0.12 Pluralist 6.18 0.03 Mutualist 6.48 0.03 Distanced 6.11 0.02 Table A-109. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.77 0.09 Utilitarian 5.30 0.16 Pluralist 5.68 0.11 Mutualist 6.13 0.05 Distanced 5.68 0.07 Table A-110. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


Table A-111. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 0.6 1.9 1.9 7.1 28.6 27.3 32.5 Pluralist 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.3 9.4 34.8 50.7 Mutualist 0.0 0.4 2.0 0.4 8.6 26.2 62.5 Distanced 0.0 2.7 0.0 8.1 21.6 27.0 40.5 Table A-112. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 11.7 11.7 7.8 15.6 24.7 18.8 9.7 Pluralist 5.1 3.6 6.6 8.8 19.7 24.8 31.4 Mutualist 11.0 4.3 10.6 10.6 19.6 17.6 26.3 Distanced 6.6 3.9 3.9 28.9 28.9 18.4 9.2 Table A-113. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly


177

178

Table A-114. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly

Agree Utilitarian 1.3 1.3 3.2 5.8 43.9 27.1 17.4 Pluralist 0.7 1.4 2.2 5.8 28.8 29.5 31.7 Mutualist 2.0 3.9 5.5 5.9 31.1 25.6 26.0 Distanced 0.0 4.1 2.7 28.4 20.3 29.7 14.9 Table A-115. Percent of wildlife value orientation type agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals / tours, whale watching, and hiking tours.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately

Agree Strongly


Table A-116. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 6.17 0.03 Utilitarian 5.71 0.05 Pluralist 6.29 0.01 Mutualist 6.47 0.02 Distanced 5.90 0.04 Table A-117. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 4.78 0.32 Utilitarian 4.25 0.44 Pluralist 5.34 0.19 Mutualist 4.83 0.35 Distanced 4.63 0.21 Table A-118. PCI means and values for the statement “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


179

180

Table A-119. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.45 0.09 Utilitarian 5.41 0.06 Pluralist 5.77 0.05 Mutualist 5.41 0.13 Distanced 5.13 0.07 Table A-120. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals / tours, whale watching, and hiking tours” by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


Table A-121. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 14.1 6.4 10.9 5.8 24.4 19.9 18.6 Pluralist 11.4 5.0 3.6 9.3 20.0 20.0 30.7 Mutualist 3.9 3.5 6.3 9.8 18.0 14.5 43.9 Distanced 10.7 6.7 6.7 13.3 21.3 18.7 22.7 Table A-122. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 6.5 2.6 5.8 7.1 20.8 26.6 30.5 Pluralist 3.6 1.4 5.8 9.4 16.7 29.0 34.1 Mutualist 2.0 1.6 4.3 8.2 18.8 20.8 44.3 Distanced 2.7 1.4 1.4 13.5 18.9 39.2 23.0 Table A-123. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.





Highly Acceptable


181

Table A-124. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…establish a license fee for recreational fishing” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 11.0 5.8 11.0 5.2 15.5 16.8 34.8 Pluralist 12.1 5.7 8.6 5.0 15.7 17.1 35.7 Mutualist 6.3 5.9 4.7 7.0 17.2 14.1 44.9 Distanced 5.3 6.7 5.3 6.7 20.0 17.3 38.7 Table A-125. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 28.2 12.8 14.1 9.6 14.1 8.3 12.8 Pluralist 18.6 15.7 7.1 10.7 17.1 15.7 15.0 Mutualist 19.2 11.4 13.3 5.1 18.8 13.3 18.8 Distanced 29.7 5.4 9.5 10.8 24.3 9.5 10.8 Table A-126. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…establish a special wildlife license plate” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.





Highly Acceptable


182

183

Table A-127. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 10.4 3.9 14.9 17.5 24.7 16.9 11.7 Pluralist 6.5 8.7 8.0 15.9 26.8 16.7 17.4 Mutualist 1.2 5.5 9.1 11.9 26.1 20.2 26.1 Distanced 6.7 5.3 6.7 17.3 32.0 14.7 17.3 Table A-128. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “…charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.





Highly Acceptable

Utilitarian 5.8 1.3 10.3 5.1 23.7 22.4 31.4 Pluralist 2.9 2.9 2.9 9.3 20.7 21.4 40.0 Mutualist 2.7 3.1 2.3 6.2 16.0 26.5 43.2 Distanced 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.9 31.6 26.3 35.5 Table A-129. Percent of wildlife value orientation type finding it acceptable to “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.





Highly Acceptable


Table A-130. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.09 0.29 Utilitarian 4.55 0.44 Pluralist 5.06 0.32 Mutualist 5.54 0.17 Distanced 4.73 0.35 Table A-131. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.61 0.13 Utilitarian 5.36 0.20 Pluralist 5.59 0.13 Mutualist 5.79 0.09 Distanced 5.52 0.08 Table A-132. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


184

Table A-133. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…establish a license fee for recreational fishing” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.22 0.30 Utilitarian 4.96 0.37 Pluralist 5.02 0.38 Mutualist 5.44 0.23 Distanced 5.38 0.23 Table A-134. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 3.85 0.59 Utilitarian 3.45 0.46 Pluralist 3.99 0.62 Mutualist 4.08 0.62 Distanced 3.66 0.50 Table A-135. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…establish a special wildlife license plate” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


185

Table A-136. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 4.84 0.25 Utilitarian 4.42 0.36 Pluralist 4.69 0.30 Mutualist 5.21 0.16 Distanced 4.73 0.25 Table A-137. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “…charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value

Public 5.67 0.12 Utilitarian 5.32 0.20 Pluralist 5.68 0.11 Mutualist 5.82 0.11 Distanced 5.85 0.03 Table A-138. PCI means and values for the acceptability of the DLNR to “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì by wildlife value orientation type. Value type Mean PCI value


186

187

Table A-139. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers indicating each approach as the perceived current approach in the state. Participation Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4

Hunters/anglers 14.1 21.7 12.0 52.2 Non-hunters/anglers 8.3 23.2 14.7 53.7

Table A-140. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers indicating each approach as the desired approach in the state. Participation Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4

Hunters/anglers 10.4 12.5 12.5 64.6 Non-hunters/anglers 8.9 6.3 18.8 66.1

Table A-141. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers selecting same approaches for perceived current approach and desired approach in the state. Participation Selecting Same Approaches

Hunters/anglers 53 Non-hunters/anglers 52

Table A-142. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.”

Participation Strongly Disagree

Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 13.5 11.5 8.3 24.0 31.3 9.4 2.1

Non-Hunters/anglers 11.6 9.0 7.5 46.7 13.5 9.4 2.4

Table A-143. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 12.6 7.4 12.6 22.1 30.5 11.6 3.2


Table A-144. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 12.4 11.3 17.5 11.3 26.8 14.4 6.2


188

189

Table A-145. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 11.3 10.3 22.7 11.3 22.7 16.5 5.2


Table A-146. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 29.5 24.2 20.0 10.5 10.5 3.2 2.1


Table A-147. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 20.0 15.8 16.8 13.7 15.8 11.6 6.3


Table A-148. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state” by participation in hunting and fishing.

Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 3.85 0.38 Non-hunters/anglers 3.79 0.26 Table A-149. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision makers in my state” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 3.95 0.42 Non-hunters/anglers 3.90 0.31 Table A-150. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 3.98 0.49 Non-hunters/anglers 3.90 0.38 Table A-151. PCI means and values for the statement “I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 3.94 0.47 Non-hunters/anglers 4.01 0.42 Table A-152. PCI means and values for the statement “I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state” ” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 2.66 0.15 Non-hunters/anglers 3.62 0.34

190

Table A-153. PCI means and values for the statement “I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 3.51 0.39 Non-hunters/anglers 4.30 0.38 Table A-154. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers that trusts their federal government to do what is right for the country.

Participation Almost never


Most of the time

Almost always

Hunters/anglers 13.5 45.8 38.5 2.1

Non-Hunters/anglers 9.3 43.6 40.7 6.4

Table A-155. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers that trusts their state government to do what is right for Hawai`i.



Most of the time

Almost always



Table A-156. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers that trusts the Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources to do what is right for fish and wildlife management.



Most of the time

Almost always



191

192

Table A-157. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with actions to address bear situation 11.

Participation Do nothing Provide more hunting Conduct controlled hunts

Hunters/anglers 12.8 42.6 75.5 Non-hunters/anglers 18.9 30.1 71.4 1Bears wandering into areas where humans live in search of food. Bears are getting into trash and pet food containers. Table A-158. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with actions to address bear situation 21.

Participation Do nothing Provide more hunting Conduct controlled hunts

Hunters/anglers 11.5 53.7 85.4 Non-hunters/anglers 8.7 40.6 89.4 1Bears are wandering into areas where humans live in search of food. Human deaths from bear attacks have occurred. Table A-159. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with actions to address deer situation 11.

Participation Do nothing

Provide more

hunting

Conduct controlled

hunts

Permanent contra-ceptives

Short-term contraceptives

Hunters/anglers 27.7 72.3 73.1 19.1 60.6 Non-hunters/anglers 27.5 53.7 75.1 20.7 72.0 1Deer numbers are increasing. There are complaints about deer entering people’s yards and eating shrubs and garden plants. Table A-160. Percent hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with actions to address deer situation 21.

Participation Do nothing

Provide more

hunting

Conduct controlled

hunts

Permanent contra-ceptives

Short-term contraceptives

Hunters/anglers 13.7 77.7 86.0 29.8 68.1 Non-hunters/anglers 10.8 59.3 87.1 34.4 81.1 1Deer numbers are increasing. Authorities are concerned because deer are carrying a disease that is transmissible to some domestic animals and livestock.

Table A-161. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.2 17.5 72.2


Table A-162. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 41.4 19.2 18.2 7.1 6.1 5.1 3.0


Table A-163. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 3.1 1.0 7.2 5.2 20.6 30.9 32.0


193

Table A-164. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 28.1 28.1 14.6 7.3 15.6 3.1 3.1


Table A-165. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 6.48 0.06 Non-Hunters/anglers 6.56 0.01 Table A-166. PCI means and values for the statement “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 2.43 0.17 Non-Hunters/anglers 2.12 0.12 Table A-167. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.59 0.12 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.44 0.15

194

Table A-168. PCI means and values for the statement “Economic concerns are more important than protecting endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 2.78 0.21 Non-Hunters/anglers 2.97 0.24 Table A-169. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…increase fencing and removal of game animals to keep them out of certain areas.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 5.2 2.1 3.1 3.1 21.9 34.4 30.2


Table A-170. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 3.1 3.1 8.2 2.0 24.5 33.7 25.5


195

196

Table A-171. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 13.3 10.2 6.1 4.1 22.4 23.5 20.4


Table A-172. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 3.1 3.1 7.2 4.1 13.4 21.6 47.4


Table A-173. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 1.0 2.0 3.1 2.0 12.2 26.5 53.1


197

Table A-174. PCI means and values for the statement “Increase fencing and removal of game animals to keep them out of certain areas” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 5.63 0.15 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.66 0.11 Table A-175. PCI means and values for the statement “Increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 5.46 0.16 Non-Hunters/anglers 4.66 0.33 Table A-176. PCI means and values for the statement “Use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 4.64 0.44 Non-Hunters/anglers 4.80 0.31 Table A-177. PCI means and values for the statement “Close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 5.75 0.15 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.91 0.13 Table A-178. PCI means and values for the statement “Limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.



Table A-179. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters finding it acceptable to “…inspect all baggage before entering Hawai`i even if it added 15 minutes to travel time” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 4.0 3.0 9.1 4.0 20.2 22.2 37.4


Table A-180. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 1.0 1.0 5.1 3.1 14.3 34.7 40.8


Table A-181. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawai`i and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 6.1 24.5 68.4


198

Table A-182. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…kill escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 1.0 2.0 4.1 5.1 13.3 17.3 57.1


Table A-183. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “... develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawai`i” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.1 9.3 21.6 64.9


Table A-184. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “… develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 3.1 3.1 3.1 5.1 19.4 27.6 38.8


199

200

Table A-185. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “… increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them from the State” to prevent the arrival and spread of invasive species.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.1 16.3 19.4 60.2


Table A-186. PCI means and values for the statement “Inspect all baggage before entering Hawaiì even if it added 15 minutes to travel time” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.50 0.18 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.48 0.17 Table A-187. PCI means and values for the statement “Establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 5.93 0.07 Non-Hunters/anglers 6.01 0.03 Table A-188. PCI means and values for the statement “Inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawaiì and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 6.61 0.00 Non-Hunters/anglers 6.55 0.00 Table A-189. PCI means and values for the statement “Kill escaped or released animals in forest areas that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 6.08 0.07 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.71 0.17 Table A-190. PCI means and values for the statement “Develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawaiì” by participation in hunting and fishing.



201

202

Table A-191. PCI means and values for the statement “Develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 5.71 0.12 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.87 0.08 Table A-192. PCI means and values for the statement “Increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them form the State” by participation in hunting and fishing.



Table A-193. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 1.0 0.0 4.1 7.1 16.3 27.6 43.9


Table A-194. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 10.1 21.2 65.7


Table A-195. PCI means and values for the statement “More funding is necessary for inspection and quarantine programs at ports of entry” by participation in hunting and fishing.



203

Table A-196. PCI means and values for the statement “Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 6.50 0.01 Non-Hunters/anglers 6.29 0.01 Table A-197. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 0.0 2.1 3.1 3.1 18.6 26.8 46.4


Table A-198. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 1.0 2.0 6.1 6.1 14.3 30.6 39.8


204

205

Table A-199. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 3.1 1.0 6.2 2.1 11.3 21.6 54.6


Table A-200. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable only when necessary for protection of endangered species.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 23.7 12.4 12.4 5.2 11.3 16.5 18.6


Table A-201. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 4.0 5.1 4.0 9.1 20.2 27.3 30.3


206

Table A-202. PCI means and values for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animals to protect endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 6.00 0.05 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.56 0.11 Table A-203. PCI means and values for the statement “It is ok to kill a non-native animals to protect a native animal” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.80 0.09 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.40 0.13 Table A-204. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable in most areas where native species exist” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 6.02 0.12 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.97 0.06 Table A-205. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is acceptable only when necessary for protection of endangered species” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 3.91 0.67 Non-Hunters/anglers 4.03 0.60 Table A-206. PCI means and values for the statement “Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value


Table A-207. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 70.4 18.4 9.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0


Table A-208. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “… offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 5.2 4.1 3.1 8.2 34.0 26.8 18.6


Table A-209. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 4.1 6.2 12.4 5.2 29.9 21.6 20.6


207

208

Table A-210. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 2.1 3.1 2.1 2.1 18.6 21.6 50.5


Table A-211. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 16.3 17.3 12.2 7.1 17.3 12.2 17.3


Table A-212. PCI means and values for the statement “Do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations” by participation in hunting and fishing.



209

Table A-213. PCI means and values for the statement “Offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.18 0.18 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.03 0.22 Table A-214. PCI means and values for the statement “Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.01 0.25 Non-Hunters/anglers 4.78 0.30 Table A-215. PCI means and values for the statement “Use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 5.97 0.10 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.56 0.17 Table A-216. PCI means and values for the statement “Disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value


210

Table A-217. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 2.0 1.0 5.1 4.1 13.3 22.4 52.0


Table A-218. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 3.1 8.2 8.2 5.2 19.6 22.7 33.0


Table A-219. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 4.0 3.0 2.0 7.1 30.3 24.2 29.3


211

Table A-220. PCI means and values for the statement “Close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 5.97 0.09 Non-Hunters/anglers 6.25 0.04 Table A-221. PCI means and values for the statement “Close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 5.30 0.23 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.87 0.07 Table A-222. PCI means and values for the statement “Establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted” by participation in hunting and fishing.



Table A-223. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.1 14.4 26.8 52.6


Table A-224. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be open to Native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 9.3 5.2 12.4 7.2 18.6 23.7 23.7


Table A-225. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 5.2 6.2 4.1 6.2 33.0 25.8 19.6


212

213

Table A-226. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 4.1 1.0 4.1 8.2 27.6 23.5 31.6


Table A-227. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers agreeing with the statement “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals / tours, whale watching, and hiking tours.”


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 25.3 24.2 17.2 7.1 15.2 7.1 4.0


214

Table A-228. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 6.19 0.04 Non-Hunters/anglers 6.18 0.03 Table A-229. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to native Hawaiians for cultural and religious purposes” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 4.88 0.34 Non-Hunters/anglers 4.76 0.32 Table A-230. PCI means and values for the statement “Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling, and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.15 0.21 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.32 0.14 Table A-231. PCI means and values for the statement “It is important that the public be provided more opportunities to visit nature preserves in order to appreciate them better” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.53 0.12 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.44 0.08 Table A-232. PCI means and values for the statement “Nature preserves should be open to commercial activities such as kayak rentals/tours, whale watching, and hiking tours” by participation in hunting and fishing.



Table A-233. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 8.2 4.1 3.1 7.2 18.6 18.6 40.2


Table A-234. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 5.1 1.0 2.0 5.1 20.4 29.6 36.7


Table A-235. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 10.3 10.3 6.2 8.2 16.5 21.6 26.8


215

Table A-236. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…establish a license fee for recreational fishing” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 16.2 8.1 6.1 6.1 24.2 16.2 23.2


Table A-237. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 29.0 16.0 12.0 10.0 15.0 7.0 11.0


Table A-238. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…establish a special wildlife license plate” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 5.1 4.1 3.1 14.3 15.3 15.3 42.9


216

217

Table A-239. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 4.2 5.3 3.2 15.8 31.6 17.9 22.1


Table A-240. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “…charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 2.1 3.1 5.2 4.1 19.6 24.7 41.2


Table A-241. Percent of hunters/anglers and non-hunters/anglers finding it acceptable to “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding” to fund wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawaiì.


Moderately Disagree


Agree Moderately


Hunters/anglers 50.5 23.7 8.2 12.4 3.1 1.0 1.0


Table A-242. PCI means and values for the statement “Increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.38 0.24 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.04 0.30 Table A-243. PCI means and values for the statement “Set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.69 0.13 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.58 0.13 Table A-244. PCI means and values for the statement “Add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 4.84 0.38 Non-Hunters/anglers 4.52 0.46 Table A-245. PCI means and values for the statement “Establish a license fee for recreational fishing” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value

Hunters/anglers 4.56 0.47 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.36 0.26 Table A-246. PCI means and values for the statement “Establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value


218

Table A-247. PCI means and values for the statement “Establish a special wildlife license plate” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.51 0.18 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.64 0.10 Table A-248. PCI means and values for the statement “Set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.08 0.18 Non-Hunters/anglers 4.78 0.27 Table A-249. PCI means and values for the statement “Charge tour companies a fee for use of public resources” by participation in hunting and fishing.


Hunters/anglers 5.75 0.12 Non-Hunters/anglers 5.65 0.12 Table A-250. PCI means and values for the statement “NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding” by participation in hunting and fishing. Participation Mean PCI value


219

APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL FIGURES

Figure B-1. Percent of respondents agreeing with endangered species management statements1.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





species.




species.


species areas.

Economic concerns are

more important than protecting

endangered species.


1. “It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species.” 2. “It is more important to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for local communities than to protect endangered species.” 3. “It is important to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate game animals from areas where they threaten endangered species.” 4. “Economic concerns are more important that protecting endangered species.”

220

Figure B-2. Percent of respondents accepting management techniques to protect and restore endangered species.1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AcceptableNeitherUnacceptable



game animals.

Increase public

hunting to remove game

animals.

Use professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter.

Close important

turtle nesting sites

to recreation activities.

Limit develop-ment in areas to preserve habitat.


1. “Increase fencing and removal of game animals (example: deer, pigs, and sheep) to keep them out of certain areas.” 2. “Increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas.” 3. “Use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas.” 4. “Close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities.” 5. “Limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species.”

221

Figure B-3. Percent of respondents accepting management techniques to prevent the spread of invasive species and repair damage. 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




entering Hawai`i.

Establish stricter

regulations for

cargo.

Inspect ships

and ship cargo

entering Hawai`i.

Kill escaped

or released animals in forest

areas.

Develop regula-

tions that would

prohibit selling plants.

Develop a

buyback program

for aquarium

pets.

Increase funding

for removal

of invasive species.



222

Figure B-4. Percent of respondents agreeing with invasive species funding and education statements.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Do you agree or disagree

that…


Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian

islands.

223

Figure B-5. Percent of respondents agreeing with statements about killing non-native species1.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




animal to protect

endangered species.

It is ok to kill a non-

native animal to protect a

native animal.

Killing rats and

mongoose is

acceptable in most

areas where native species exist.

Killing rats and

mongoose is acceptable only when necessary

for protection of endangered

species.

Killing rats and

mongoose is an

acceptable use of public

resources.

224

Figure B-6. Percent of respondents accepting non-native predator management techniques1.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Do nothing to control

rat and mongoose

populations.

Offer incentives

or pay people and businesses to control rats and

mongoose.

Use poison bait to

control rats and

mongoose.

Use poison bait only

when it can be proven

not to impact other

animals.

Disperse poison bait

using a helicopter in remote areas to

control rats and

mongoose.

225

Figure B-7. Percent of respondents accepting nature preserve closure and establishment for various purposes1.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


It is

unacceptable or acceptable

to…

Close some areas to hunting and fishing.

Close some nature preserves to humans.


hunting.



226

Figure B-8. Percent of respondents agreeing with nature preserve management1.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Nature preserves should be

set aside on each island.

Nature preserves should be open to Native

Hawaiians.


effects on wildlife.


opportunities to visit

preserves.


commercial activities.



227

Figure B-9. Percent of respondents accepting new funding sources1.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Is it un-acceptable or acceptable to…

In-crease hotel room tax.

Set aside sales tax.

Add a $1 fee

to water bills.

Estab-lish a

fishing license

fee.

Estab-lish a recrea-tion

permit and fee.

Estab-lish a special license plate.

Set aside more taxes.

Charge tour

comp-anies a

fee.

NOT attempt any new sources.



228

APPENDIX C. METHODS1

A full reporting of the project background and methods for Wildlife Values in the West is reported in the regional report (Teel, Dayer, Manfredo, & Bright, 2005). Methods specifically relevant to Hawaiì are presented below. The Survey Data reported here were collected via mail-back surveys administered by Colorado State University in the Fall of 2004. This final survey administration followed a pretest of the survey instrument and methodology in Summer of 2004 (see Teel et al., 2005). The survey instrument for this project was divided into two parts: 1) a regional section and 2) a state-specific section. The focus of this report is on providing results specific to Hawaiì from both sections of the survey. Findings related to the responses of all states’ samples to the regional section are found in the regional report (Teel et al., 2005). Regional Section The purpose of the regional section of the survey, which was the same across all states, was to measure public values and wildlife value orientations, sociodemographic characteristics, and participation in wildlife-related recreation activities among residents of each state. The regional section also contained questions addressing public reactions to key “regional” wildlife management issues deemed important across a majority of participating states. Criteria for issue selection were not geared toward development of a comprehensive list of regional issues, but rather, were based more on an intention to provide meaningful information in the context of broad study goals. Issues were selected largely on the basis of their ability to provide information about how changes in public values could affect responses to management issues and decisions. Thus, while not all issues were expected to have immediate and direct relevance to every state, they were intended to allow for generalizations to be made about how different publics might react to wildlife management strategies. Questions appearing in the regional section were developed by Colorado State University in cooperation with participating state agency representatives. State-Specific Section The state-specific section provided an opportunity to gather information about key, timely management issues affecting a particular state. The questions appearing in this part of the survey were developed by HawaiÌ DLNR, with input and suggestions from Colorado State University and other members of the project work group. Sampling A sample of 5001 people from Hawaiì was purchased from Survey Sampling, Inc. Information about response rates obtained from the pretest (see Teel et al., 2005) allowed a determination of 1 Portions of the text for this appendix have been extracted from Teel et al. (2005)."

229

this sampling size on the basis of approximately how many surveys would need to be mailed out to target for a minimum of 400 completed surveys per state. This number of surveys allows for population estimates within + or - 5% at the 95% confidence level. As was the case for the pretest, samples were stratified on the basis of age (3 age groups: 18-34, 35-54, 55+) to ensure adequate representation of population subgroups as compared to state census information. Based on pretest findings (see Teel et al., 2005) regarding the underrepresentation of younger age groups, the decision was made to oversample in the 18-34 age category by 5% (i.e., increase the sample of the 18-34 age category by 5% of the total sample) and to undersample in the 55+ group by this amount for each state. Information to identify representation of age groups was based on U.S. Census 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002) projections to the year 2003 that were formulated by Scan/US, Inc. and provided to Survey Sampling, Inc. Timing and Methods of Data Collection Data collection occurred via administration of a mail-back survey to a sample of residents in October-November 2004. All survey administration, including preparation of mailings (e.g., addressing and envelope stuffing), occurred from Colorado State University. A modified Dillman (2000) approach, consisting of multiple mailings (i.e., survey and cover letter followed by postcard reminder and then a 2nd copy of the survey and cover letter), was used to maximize response to the mail survey. Surveys and cover letters were designed to portray the project as a joint effort among WAFWA, participating state fish and wildlife agencies, and Colorado State University. To attempt to ensure relatively equal representation across gender, half of the first mailing cover letters sent to residents in each state requested participation by a female in the household, and half requested participation by a male in the household. An attempt was also made to encourage those who do not participate in wildlife-related recreation and/or who are not actively involved in wildlife-related issues to complete the survey. Specifically, we attached a yellow “post-it” note to the front of each survey containing the following message: “Even if you know little about wildlife, your opinions are needed.” This message was re-stated on the cover of the survey and prefaced with the statement, “this survey is for all citizens of your state.” Cover letters also emphasized the desire to involve non-participants by stating that even if a potential respondent did not hunt or fish, his or her input was still important to us. Surveys were returned to Colorado State University where data were then entered into Microsoft Excel files which were in turn converted for analysis and reporting into SPSS® 13.0 (SPSS, Inc., 2004) files. In total, 634 completed surveys were received from Hawai`i residents. The response rate for Hawai`i was 15%. Nonresponse Check via Telephone Survey A sample of residents in each state who did not respond to the mail survey was contacted by phone following data collection. This included 399 Hawai’i residents. Calls were made by PhoneBase Research, Inc. (a telephone interviewing firm in Fort Collins, Colorado) in

230

December, 2004 and January, 2005, with a break to account for holidays. The purpose of this effort was to obtain responses to a few key questions from the mail survey, including selected items designed to assess basic beliefs about wildlife, recent participation in wildlife-related recreation, and socio-demographic characteristics. The phone survey allowed for comparisons to determine if differences existed between respondents and nonrespondents to the mail survey on key variables of interest to the study. The phone survey also provided information useful to developing an in-depth understanding of nonrespondent characteristics and factors affecting nonresponse to the mail survey. In the context of certain comparisons between respondents and nonrespondents to the mail survey, differences in age and participation in wildlife-related recreation were noted and were addressed through weighting procedures described in the regional report (Teel et al., 2005). More detailed information regarding the phone survey (e.g., response rates), findings from respondent-nonrespondent comparisons, and overall representativeness of the data can also be found in the regional report. Representativeness of the Hawai`i Sample The sample used for this report was weighted for age and participation in wildlife-related recreation (see Teel et al., 2005). To indicate representativeness, the weighted sample was compared to the general population in Hawai`i. Age, participation, gender, race & Hispanic or Latino origin, income, and education estimates from the weighted study sample were compared with estimates from the US Census or the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Table C-1). The weighted sample was found to have limited differences with the general population on most characteristics, indicating high representativeness of the sample. The greatest disparity in distribution was in income and education. The weighted study sample under-represented those of lower income groups and lower education groups. We explored the possibility of using a weighting scheme that accounted for the income and education disparity found in our comparison of the weighted sample to the US Census. This was accomplished by 1) developing and applying weights that corrected for education and income as much as possible while keeping age and participation in wildlife-related recreation estimates as unaltered as possible, and 2) comparing estimates from this new weighting scheme (education, participation in wildlife-related recreation, and age) to the scheme used in the regional study (participation in wildlife-related recreation and age). Estimates on key variables showed very little difference (e.g., wildlife value orientations as shown in Table C-2). The weighting scheme was not changed to ensure consistency with the regional report and because the additional weighting scheme would have altered the representativeness of other characteristics.

231

Table C-1. A comparison of the distribution across sociodemographic categories of the Hawai`i sample from this study and the US Census or National Survey data. Sociodemographic Category Hawai`i Sample After

Weighting (%) Census or National Survey Data (%)

Age1 18-34 30 30 35-54 39 39 55+ 31 31

Participation in Fishing and Hunting2 Fish only 12 11 Hunt only 1 1 Fish and hunt 3 2 Non-participant 84 86

Gender1 Male 49 50 Female 51 50

Race & Hispanic or Latino Origin3 Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino4 4 7 White, not Hispanic 38 23 Black, not Hispanic5 2 2 Native American or Native Alaskan <1 <1 Asian 39 42 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 8 9

Other 1 1 Two or More Races 12 21

Income3 <10,000 5 8 10,000-29,999 10 21 30,000-49,999 21 22 50,000-149,999 58 44 150,000 + 6 5

Education3 Less than high school 1 15 High school diploma 20 29 At least some college 79 56

1Census information based on U.S. Census 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002) projections to the year 2003 that were formulated by Scan/US, Inc. and provided to Survey Sampling, Inc. 2 National Survey etimates obtained from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. Department of the Interior & U.S. Department of Commerce, 2001). 3Census information based on U.S. Census 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002) estimates. 4Those who are Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino (an ethnicity) may be of one or more of the listed races as well. 5For the census, percentages are for blacks of both Hispanic and non-Hispanic ethnicities.

232

Table C-2. Estimates of distribution of wildlife value orientation types in Hawai`i before and after education weighting scheme was applied. Wildlife value orientation type Percent of sample before

education weighting scheme Percent of sample after education weighting scheme

Utilitarian 25.4 24.7 Pluralist 22.2 25.4 Mutualist 40.5 38.6 Distanced 11.9 11.2 References Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd

Edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. SPSS, Inc. (2004). SPSS Base 13.0 for Windows User's Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Teel, T. L., Dayer, A.A., Manfredo, M. J, & Bright, A. D. (2005). Regional results from

the research project entitled “Wildlife Values in the West.” (Project Rep. No. 58). Project Report for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit.

233

APPENDIX D. MAIL SURVEY INSTRUMENT

234

Management of Fish and

Wildlife in the West

A study conducted cooperatively by:

This survey is for all citizens of your state! Even if you know little about wildlife,

your opinions are needed!

Fall 2004

235

PLEASE READ BEFORE COMPLETING THIS SURVEY: This survey is being sent to people residing in states throughout the West. Please note that, while some of the questions in this survey may not be relevant to your state specifically, we are still interested in your opinions because they are relevant to other states in the western region.

236

Section I.

We begin this survey by asking you about the goals for our country. Below are 3 groups of goals that people might prioritize differently. For each group, rank the 4 goals in order of importance to you. That is: 1 = the goal most important to YOU 3 = the 3rd most important goal 2 = the 2nd most important goal 4 = the least important goal

Group 1. Rank these 4 goals from most important (1) to least important (4). Please no ties (meaning, DO NOT GIVE ANY OF THESE ITEMS THE SAME RANK).

Group 1 Rank

• Maintain a high level of economic growth. _______

• See that people have more to say about how things are done at their jobs and in their communities. _______

• Make sure this country has strong defense forces. _______

• Try to make our cities and countryside more beautiful. _______ Group 2. Repeat now for this next set of goals (1=most important, 4=least important). Please no ties (meaning, DO NOT GIVE ANY OF THESE ITEMS THE SAME RANK).

Group 2 Rank

• Maintain order in the nation. _______

• Give people more to say in important government decisions. _______

• Fight rising prices. _______

• Protect freedom of speech. _______ Group 3. Repeat again for this final set of goals (1=most important, 4=least important). Please no ties (meaning, DO NOT GIVE ANY OF THESE ITEMS THE SAME RANK).

Group 3 Rank

• Maintain a stable economy. _______

• Progress toward a less impersonal and more humane society. _______

• Fight crime. _______

• Progress toward a society in which ideas count more than money. _______ Below are statements that represent a variety of ways people feel about fish and wildlife and the natural environment. Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each statement. Circle one number for each statement. Strongly

DisagreeModerately

DisagreeSlightly Disagree

Neither

Slightly Agree

Moderately Agree

Strongly Agree

1. Humans should manage fish and wildlife populations so that humans benefit.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2. We should strive for a world where humans and fish and wildlife can live side by side without fear.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3. We should strive for a world where there's an abundance of fish and wildlife for hunting and fishing.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4. The needs of humans should take priority over fish and wildlife protection.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5. I view all living things as part of one big family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Animals should have rights similar to the rights of humans.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7. Wildlife are like my family and I want to protect them.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8. People should never be allowed to use any fish or wildlife for any reason.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

237

Strongly Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Neither

Slightly Agree

Moderately Agree

Strongly Agree

9. It is acceptable for people to kill wildlife if they think it poses a threat to their life.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10. It is acceptable for people to kill wildlife if they think it poses a threat to their property.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

11. If I had to walk in the outdoors, I would be worried about encountering a wild animal.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

12. It is acceptable to use fish and wildlife in research even if it may harm or kill some animals.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13. Fish and wildlife are on earth primarily for people to use.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

14. If I were around wildlife in the outdoors I would be uncomfortable.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

15. Hunting is cruel and inhumane to the animals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. I have concerns about being around wildlife because they may carry a disease.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

17. I am not interested in knowing anything more about fish and wildlife.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18. It would be more rewarding to me to help animals rather than people.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

19. I have concerns about being around wildlife because they may hurt me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

20. I am really not that interested in fish and wildlife.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

21. Advances in technology will eventually provide a solution to our environmental problems.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

22. I care about animals as much as I do other people.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

23. People who want to hunt should be provided the opportunity to do so.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

24. I take great comfort in the relationships I have with animals.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

25. I value the sense of companionship I receive from animals.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

26. The natural environment should be protected for its own sake rather than simply to meet our needs.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

27. Hunting does not respect the lives of animals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28. I feel a strong emotional bond with animals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29. We should strive for a society that emphasizes environmental protection over economic growth.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

30. Science can provide answers to any problems that we encounter in nature.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

31. Protecting the natural environment should be this country’s top priority.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

32. We can find solutions to environmental problems through science and technology.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

238

Section II.

This section asks your opinion about key regional issues that are important in one or more western states. Some of these issues may not be present in your state specifically. However, your opinion is still important to us. For each set of questions, please follow the directions that are provided.

State fish and wildlife agencies hear from many different groups of people about their interests, making decisions and priorities difficult. Below is a series of hypothetical approaches that describe how priorities could be directed. Please read about each approach. Then tell us how you think things are now and how they should be in your state based on these approaches by answering the 2 questions that follow. APPROACH 1 State agencies develop programs that meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Fish and wildlife management is almost entirely funded by hunting and fishing license dollars. APPROACH 2 State agencies develop programs that meet the needs primarily of those who hunt and/or fish. Fish and wildlife management is substantially funded by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. APPROACH 3 State agencies develop programs that meet the needs of all members of the public regardless of their level of interest in wildlife. Fish and wildlife management is almost entirely funded by hunting and fishing license dollars. APPROACH 4 State agencies develop programs that meet the needs of all members of the public regardless of their level of interest in wildlife. Fish and wildlife management is substantially funded by both hunting and fishing license dollars and public taxes. 1. Of the above approaches, which approach do you think best resembles how things are now in your state? Check only one ( ).

Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4 2. Which approach best represents your opinion of how things should be in your state? Check only one ( ).

Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4 We would like to know how you feel about the extent to which your state fish and wildlife agency listens to and considers your opinions in fish and wildlife decision-making. Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with each of the following statements. Circle one number for each statement.

Strongly Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Neither

Slightly Agree

Moderately Agree

Strongly Agree

1. I feel that my opinions are heard by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I feel that my interests are adequately taken into account by fish and wildlife decision-makers in my state.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I feel that if I provide input, it will make a difference in fish and wildlife decisions in my state.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I feel that my state fish and wildlife agency makes a good effort to obtain input from the public as a whole.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I don’t have an interest in providing input to fish and wildlife decisions in my state.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I trust my state fish and wildlife agency to make good decisions without my input.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

239

Please respond to the following questions about the extent to which you trust certain forms of government. Circle one number for each statement. Overall, to what extent do you trust… Almost

NeverOnly Some of the Time

Most of the Time

Almost Always

1. …your federal government to do what is right for your country? 1 2 3 4

2. …your state government to do what is right for your state? 1 2 3 4

3. …your state fish and wildlife agency to do what is right for fish and wildlife management in your state?

1 2 3 4

Fish and wildlife agencies want to know how the public thinks the agencies should respond to human-wildlife conflict situations. Below are two IMAGINARY situations involving black bears. We would like to know how you feel about certain management actions that could be directed at bear populations to address these situations. Even though it may seem unlikely that these things could occur where you live, we are still interested in your opinions. (PLEASE TELL US HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE ACTIONS LISTED BELOW FOR EACH SITUATION)

ACTIONS:

SITUATION 1

Bears are wandering into areas where humans live in search of food. Bears

are getting into trash and pet food containers.

SITUATION 2

Bears are wandering into areas where humans live in search of food. Human

deaths from bear attacks have occurred.

Is it unacceptable or acceptable to…. Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable

1. ...do nothing to control bear populations?

2. …provide more recreational opportunities to hunt bears?

3. …conduct controlled hunts using trained agency staff?

Below are two IMAGINARY situations involving deer. We would like to know how you feel about certain management actions that could be directed at deer populations to address these situations. Even though it may seem unlikely that these things could occur where you live, we are still interested in your opinions.

(PLEASE TELL US HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE ACTIONS LISTED BELOW FOR EACH SITUATION)

ACTIONS:

SITUATION 1

Deer numbers are increasing. There are complaints about deer entering

people’s yards and eating shrubs and garden plants.

SITUATION 2

Deer numbers are increasing. Authorities are concerned because deer

are carrying a disease that is transmissible to some domestic

animals and livestock.

Is it unacceptable or acceptable to…. Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable

1. ...do nothing to control deer populations?

2. …provide more recreational opportunities to hunt deer?

3. …conduct controlled hunts using trained agency staff?

4. …distribute pellets containing contraceptives, causing deer to be unable to produce offspring permanently?

5. …distribute pellets containing contraceptives, causing deer to be unable to produce offspring for only a few breeding seasons?

240

A fish and wildlife agency manager of a particular area may have limited funds to spend on conservation programs for fish and wildlife. As a result, difficult choices must be made about what type of fish or wildlife deserves the greatest priority. This often involves evaluating different combinations of characteristics of the fish or wildlife. Below is a series of hypothetical comparisons that illustrate the kinds of choices that might be made for an area. For each comparison please select the choice with the characteristics you think the manager should spend funds on to maintain or enhance the fish or wildlife population. These are hypothetical comparisons. Even though some of these fish or wildlife may not be present where you live, we are still interested in your opinions. 1. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one .)

CHOICE A

This species does not naturally occur in the area. It was introduced by humans.

Common in the area, and numbers are stable.

Not a hunted/fished species.

Example: Ta‘ape (Blue-lined Snapper)

OR

CHOICE B

This species naturally occurs in the area.

Numbers are low, which means you don’t see this species very often anymore.

Hunted/fished species.

Example: Yellow Tang

2. Which should the manager spend funds on? (Check one .)

CHOICE A


Even though it did exist here at one time, it is no longer present in the area under consideration.


Example: Wild Turkey

Survey illustrations © Ram Papish

OR

CHOICE B




Example: Kolea (Pacific Golden Plover)

241


CHOICE A

This species naturally

Even though it did exist here at one time, it is no longer present

awaiian Honeycreeper)

occurs in the area.

in the area under consideration.


Example: I‘iwi (H

CHOICE B

This species does not area.

rs are stable.



naturally occur in the

It was introduced by humans.

Common in the area, and numbe

Example:

OR


CHOICE A




ke (Goatfish)

occurs in the area.

Example: We

CH B

This species does not n e area.

ou don’t see this species very

ed species.

urasian Skylark

OICE

aturally occur in thIt was introduced by humans.

Numbers are low, which means yoften anymore.

Not a hunted/fish

Example: E

OR


CHOICE A


Numbers are low, which means you don’t see this species very

ecies. Ulua (Giant Trevally)

occurs in the area.

often anymore.

Hunted/fished sp

Example:

CHOICE B

This species does not e area.

ne time, it is no longer present

vender Waxbill

naturally occur in th

It was introduced by humans.

Even though it did exist here at oin the area under consideration.


Example: La

OR

242


CHOICE A




Example: Yellow-fronted Canary

OR

CHOICE B


Even though it did exist here at one time, it is no longer present in the area under consideration.


Example: O‘opu (Goby)


CHOICE A




Example: Pueo (Short-eared Owl)

OR

CHOICE B




Example: Mouflon Sheep


CHOICE A




Example: Black Frankolin

OR

CHOICE B




Example: Koloa (Hawaiian Duck)

243

Section III.

Next, we would like your input on wildlife and aquatic resource management in Hawai‘i. The information you provide will help the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) understand how Hawai‘i residents feel about these issues and improve their ability to manage populations of wildlife and aquatic resources and their habitats in Hawai‘i. Please read the description for each situation below and respond to the statements that follow. Circle one number for each statement.

SITUATION 1. Hawai‘i is the endangered species capital of the U.S. Endangered species include aquatic life, wildlife and plants at risk of becoming extinct. More than a third of all wildlife and plants on the U.S. Endangered Species List are from Hawai‘i. Over half of the total endemic (naturally occurring in Hawai‘i and found nowhere else in the world) birds and more than twenty-five percent of endemic plants in Hawai‘i are threatened or endangered. DLNR is engaged in a number of programs to help protect and restore these plants and animals and their habitat. Programs often involve reducing numbers of animals that some members of the community hunt for food or sport (game animals), or fencing them out of certain areas because these animals harm endangered species and their habitats. Other actions could include limiting human use of public lands and recreation areas and limiting development in some areas. We would like to know your thoughts on some of these issues.

Do you disagree or agree that… Strongly Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Neither

Slightly Agree

Moderately Agree

Strongly Agree

It is important to take steps to prevent the extinction of endangered species.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


1

2

3

4

5

6

7


1

2

3

4

5

6

7


1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Highly Unacceptable


Slightly Unacceptable

Neither

Slightly Acceptable


Highly Acceptable

…increase fencing and removal of game animals (example: deer, pigs, and sheep) to keep them out of certain areas?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

…increase public hunting to remove game animals from certain areas?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

…use trained professionals to hunt game animals by helicopter to remove them from certain remote areas?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

…close important turtle nesting sites to fishing, boating, and tourism activities?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

…limit development in certain areas to preserve habitat for endangered species?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SITUATION 2. DLNR needs new sources of money to protect and restore the wildlife and aquatic resources in Hawai‘i. These funds will need to come from state, federal and private sources. To what extent would you find the following new sources for funding wildlife and aquatic resource conservation programs in Hawai‘i acceptable?

Is it unacceptable or acceptable to… Highly Unacceptable



Neither

Slightly Acceptable


Highly Acceptable

…increase the hotel room tax by $0.50/day? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…set aside the sales tax paid by fish and wildlife related business?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…add a $1 fee to resident water bills for watershed/stream management?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…establish a license fee for recreational fishing?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…establish an outdoor recreation permit and fee for activities such as hiking, camping, and diving?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

244




Neither

Slightly Acceptable


Highly Acceptable

…establish a special wildlife license plate? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…set aside a greater share of overall tax revenues?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…charge tour companies (examples: fishing, diving, hiking) a fee for use of public resources?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

… NOT attempt to establish any new sources of funding?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SITUATION 3. The number one challenge facing fish and wildlife management agencies in Hawai‘i is the threat of invasive plants and animals. Invasive species are those plants and animals not native (naturally occurring in Hawai‘i without humans introducing them intentionally or unintentionally) in an area and whose introduction is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. DLNR spends a major portion of its budget to prevent the spread of these invasive pests and repair the damage they cause. To what extent do you support the following actions to help prevent the arrival of new pests and control and remove those that have arrived in Hawai‘i?


Highly Unacceptable



Neither

Slightly Acceptable


Highly Acceptable

…inspect all baggage before entering Hawai‘i even if it added 15 minutes to travel time?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…establish stricter regulations for allowable incoming cargo?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…inspect ships and ship cargo entering Hawai‘i and traveling from areas where certain pests are known to exist?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…kill escaped or released animals in forest areas (examples: parrots, snakes, Coqui frogs) that compete with native wildlife and destroy agricultural crops?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

... develop regulations that would prohibit selling plants that have the potential to become weeds in natural areas of Hawai‘i?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

… develop a buyback program for unwanted aquarium pets so people will not release them?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

… increase funding for removal of invasive species that are just starting to spread and try to eliminate them from the State?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Moderately Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Neither

Slightly Agree

Moderately Agree

Strongly Agree


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Increased public education is important to prevent the spread of pests between the Hawaiian islands.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SITUATION 4. Nature preserves in Hawai‘i are often the best hope for the protection of wildlife and aquatic life because they protect the places where many plants and animals live. We are interested to know how you think nature preserves should be managed.




Neither

Slightly Acceptable


Highly Acceptable

…close some areas to hunting and fishing to protect certain wildlife and aquatic life?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

…close some nature preserves to humans so wildlife and aquatic life can exist undisturbed?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

…establish areas that are managed primarily for animals that can be hunted?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

245


Moderately Disagree

Slightly Disagree

Neither

Slightly Agree

Moderately Agree

Strongly Agree

Nature preserves should be set aside on each island to protect undeveloped areas for wildlife and aquatic life.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Even activities such as hiking, whale watching, snorkeling and bird watching can have adverse effects on wildlife and aquatic life and their habitats.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SITUATION 5. Non-native predators (particularly rats and mongoose) have been identified as one of the primary reasons for the decline of many endangered species in Hawai‘i. They feed on native (naturally occurring in Hawai‘i without humans introducing them intentionally or unintentionally) birds and their eggs, snails, insects and plants. Some people believe if we do not aggressively control these predators all efforts to protect and recover certain endangered species will be unsuccessful. Others believe that controlling predators is unnecessary or a waste of money. Currently traps and poison bait are regularly used to control rat and mongoose populations. These methods are not very effective in remote forests because crews need to hike in to check traps and add new bait. Other methods such as dispersal of pellet bait via helicopter are being used in other countries like New Zealand and are being evaluated for use here. We are interested in how you feel about efforts to control non-native predators in Hawai’i.

Do you disagree or agree that… Strongly

DisagreeModerately

DisagreeSlightly Disagree

Neither

Slightly Agree

Moderately Agree

Strongly Agree

It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect endangered species.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

It is ok to kill a non-native animal to protect a native animal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Killing rats and mongoose is an acceptable use of public resources.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7




Neither

Slightly Acceptable


Highly Acceptable

…do nothing to control rat and mongoose populations?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

… offer incentives or pay people and businesses to control rats and mongoose?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…use poison bait to control rats and mongoose only when it can be proven not to impact other animals?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

…disperse poison bait using a helicopter in remote areas to control rats and mongoose?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

246

Section IV. We would like to learn about your fish- and wildlife-related recreation activities. Please check your response ( ). 1. Have you ever participated in recreational (non-commercial) fishing? Yes No

2. Did you participate in recreational (non-commercial) fishing during the past 12 months (1 year)? Yes No

3. Have you ever participated in recreational (non-commercial) hunting? Yes No

4. Did you participate in recreational (non-commercial) hunting during the past 12 months (1 year)? Yes No

5. Have you ever taken any recreational trips for which fish or wildlife viewing was the primary purpose of the trip?

Yes No

6. Did you take any recreational trips in the past 12 months (1 year) for which fish or wildlife viewing was the primary purpose of the trip?

Yes No

Please respond to the following 3 questions about your interest in participating in fish- and wildlife-related recreation in the future. Circle one number for each statement. Not at all

InterestedSlightly

InterestedModerately Interested

Strongly Interested

1. How interested are you in taking recreational fishing trips in the future? 1 2 3 4

2. How interested are you in taking recreational hunting trips in the future? 1 2 3 4

3. How interested are you in taking recreational trips in the future for which fish or wildlife viewing is the primary purpose of the trip?

1 2 3 4

Now we would like to know more about your interest in taking specific trips to view wildlife.

How likely is it that you would consider taking one of the following trips in the future? Circle one number for each statement. Not at all

LikelySlightly Likely

Moderately Likely

Extremely Likely

1. …a trip to Africa to go on a safari to view wildlife? 1 2 3 4

2. …a trip to a remote area of Alaska to view wildlife? 1 2 3 4 The following demographic information will be used to help make general conclusions about the residents of this state. Your responses will remain completely confidential. 1. Are you…? Male Female

2. What is your age? (Write response.) ________ Years

3. How many people under 18 years of age are currently living in your household? (Write response.) ________ Person(s)

Less than high school diploma 4-year college degree

High school diploma or equivalent (for example, GED)

Advanced degree beyond 4-year college degree

4. What is the highest level of education that you have achieved? (Check only one

.) 2-year associates degree or trade school

247

Less than $10,000 $70,000 - $89,999

$10,000 - $29,999 $90,000 - $109,999

$30,000 - $49,999 $110,000 - $129,999

5. What is your approximate annual household income before taxes? (Check one

.)

$50,000 - $69,999 $130,000 - $149,999

$150,000 or more

6. About how long have you lived in Hawai’i? (Write response or check box

indicating less than one year.) _____ Years, OR

Less than one year.

Large city with 250,000 or more people Town with 10,000 to 24,999 people

City with 100,000 to 249,999 people Town with 5,000 to 9,999 people

City with 50,000 to 99,999 people Small town / village with less than 5,000 people

7. How would you describe your current residence or community? (Check one

.)

Small city with 25,000 to 49,999 people A farm or rural area

8. Would you consider your current residence a suburb of a

larger city or metropolitan area? (Check one .) Yes No

Large city with 250,000 or more people Town with 10,000 to 24,999 people

City with 100,000 to 249,999 people Town with 5,000 to 9,999 people

City with 50,000 to 99,999 people Small town / village with less than 5,000 people

9. How would you describe the community in which you were raised? (Check one .) If more than one area, check the place where you lived the longest.

Small city with 25,000 to 49,999 people A farm or rural area

10. Would you consider the community in which you were

raised a suburb of a larger city or metropolitan area? (Check one .)

Yes No

White, NOT of Hispanic origin Asian

Black or African American, NOT of Hispanic origin

Native Hawaiian

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino Other Pacific Islander

11. Are you…? (Check one or more categories to indicate what you consider yourself to be.)

Native American or Alaska Native Other (Please print on line below.)

_________________________________________________

12. While many people in America view themselves as “Americans”, we are interested in finding out more about how you would

define your ethnic background. What is the primary ethnic origin with which you identify yourself? (for example, Italian, Jamaican, Norwegian, Dominican, Korean, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on)

(Please write your ethnic origin.) __________________________________________________________________

13. Your state fish and wildlife agency is periodically interested in gathering input from the public on a variety of fish and wildlife

issues. Toward this end, we would like to know if you would be interested in providing input in the future by way of email. If so, and if you have an email address, please print your name and email on a separate sheet of paper and return it along with your completed survey. Based upon how you respond to a subset of questions on this survey, your state fish and wildlife agency may decide to contact you for input.

Thank you for participating in this study. Your input is very important!

Please return the completed survey as soon as possible in the

enclosed addressed and postage-paid envelope. 248

wildlife values in the west - sites @ wcnr · executive summary this report documents results of a...

Documents