A Survey of Tennessee State Park Rangers: Their Attitudes

A Survey of Tennessee State Park Rangers: Their Attitudes Toward and

Participation in Wildlife Related Activities

A Research Paper Presented for the Master of Science

in Agriculture and Natural Resources Degree

The University of Tennessee, Martin

Melissa F. Urick May 2013

------- -------

Author's Limited-use Agreement

In presenting this completed paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for anacademic degree, I represent that it is an original Work and therefore assert the rights ofan Author under Title 17 of the United States Code (copyright). I understand theUniversity maintains one or more copies ofthe Work in its institutional archive as thepermanent record of the Work's acceptance toward the degree, with the understandingthat the University will maintain archival copies of the Work in such forms as bestensures its permanent preservation and continued public accessibility.

Notwithstanding the retention of copyright and all other rights to this Work, I recognizethe University of Tennessee as the effective publisher ofthis paper and grant irrevocablyto the University the following limited use of the Work in perpetuity:

a) representing the University, UTM University Archives may duplicate and distributecopies of the Work on the following terms, without recovering royalty payments or otherconsiderations for the Author:

i) the archival copy will be publicly accessible upon deposit and acceptance of thedegree, and an electronic version of the Work will be posted for public accessibilityand distribution on an institutional repository as an archival document, which maybe downloaded by users without charge;

ii) the UTM University Archives may duplicate copies of the Work as requested forthe holdings of other academic libraries, so long as reproduction costs amount onlyto a sum required to recover actual duplication costs and shipping; however, thelimited uses granted here do not transfer to other institutions holding copies of thework;

b) in the event that the Author or their heirs cannot be located after a documented good-faith effort is made by a user,

i) the Author's lead graduate-committee professor shall have authority to grantpermission for extensive quotation from the Work during the term of copyright, butnot for publication of the Work;

ii) in the professor's absence, University Archives shall have authority to grantpermission for extensive quotation in its function as archival custodian forUniversity theses and papers, but not for publication or performance of the work;

iii) the University shall have authority to grant publication or performance permissionto the Work as it stands in the deposit copy, provided the use is determined to beprimarily scholarly or for demonstration, and non-commercial;

c) any duplication or use of the Work for financial gain ofa user, except as stated here, isprohibited and duplication may be refused.

Author: ~ -t ·-i/tA:r..KDate: 5~ I / L~

I' 7

- ----------- ----

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank several individuals who have helped me over the course of this

project and throughout this graduate program. All of my professors have been so helpful in

providing me with a well-rounded and applicable education; for this I am very grateful. A special

thank you to Dr. Barb Darroch, who has been an excellent mentor during my time in this

program and someone I would consider a friend. I would also like to thank her for working with

me on this project, providing me with statistical guidance. Another thank you is extended for Dr.

Philip Smartt, who has been an excellent help in developing this project and carrying it through

to completion. I am extremely grateful to my husband for giving me the understanding, support,

and encouragement throughout my time as a graduate student.

iii

ABSTRACT

State park rangers play a vital role in increasing public awareness and appreciation of

wildlife and wildlife management, through ranger led programs using a variety of interpretive

tools. Because park rangers are so involved in disseminating wildlife information, it is important

to gather information on their values and attitudes toward wildlife, as they can influence public

acknowledgement of wildlife values and management policy. This project was developed to help

shed light on the values and attitudes toward wildlife that are held by Tennessee State Park

Rangers and determine what attitude and value orientation is most common among these

individuals. In addition, the study also examined participation in wildlife-related recreation.

A 29-question survey was created to identify attitudes and values held by Tennessee State

Park Rangers related to the use of wildlife, including their participation in the use of wildlife.

Out of 209 potential respondents, 132 Tennessee State Park Rangers responded to the survey for

an overall response rate of 63%. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to determine if

attitudes toward wildlife or participation in wildlife-related recreation were related to gender,

education level, or location of childhood residence.

The majority of survey respondents hold very positive attitudes toward the acceptability

of legal hunting and fishing, wildlife watching, the baiting and calling of wildlife, and the use of

live wildlife or non-living wildlife items in interpretive programs. While differences among

demographic groups (rural vs. urban, gender, education) were observed with respect to wildlife

attitudes and wildlife-related recreation participation, there were only two demographic

characteristics in this study that showed significant relationships. Respondents’ gender was often

predictive of wildlife attitudes and wildlife-related recreation participation (P ≤ 0.10). More

females than males participate in non-consumptive wildlife-related recreation such as

iv

birdwatching and other wildlife watching. Fewer females than males hunt. A higher percentage

of females than males regarded fishing or hunting for meat as only sometimes acceptable. Also,

attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting were significantly (P < 0.0001) related to

rural vs. urban childhood residence. Respondents who grew up in a rural location were more

acceptable of trophy hunting than those that grew up in an urban location.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................................1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................2

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................3

VALUES AND ATTITUDES................................................................................................................3 TYPES OF WILDLIFE VALUE ORIENTATIONS ....................................................................................5

Utilitarian .................................................................................................................................6 Mutualist ...................................................................................................................................6 Pluralist ....................................................................................................................................6

NATIONAL WILDLIFE USE AND VALUE TRENDS ..............................................................................7 Fishing and Hunting .................................................................................................................7 Wildlife Watching ...................................................................................................................11

STATE PARK VISITATION TRENDS ...............................................................................................13 TENNESSEE ATTITUDES TOWARD WILDLIFE .................................................................................14 RURAL-URBAN INFLUENCES ON WILDLIFE ATTITUDES AND USE ...................................................14 GENDER AND EDUCATION LEVEL INFLUENCES ON WILDLIFE ATTITUDES AND USE .......................16

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................17

SURVEY PROCEDURES ..................................................................................................................17 STUDY POPULATION .....................................................................................................................17 DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................................17 DATA ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................18

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ...............................................................................................................19

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS ....................................................................................19 SURVEY RESULTS BASED ON RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...................................................................19

Objective 1 ..............................................................................................................................19 Objective 2 ..............................................................................................................................23 Objective 3 ..............................................................................................................................26 Objective 4 ..............................................................................................................................30

vi

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................47

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................50

LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................51

APPENDIX A: IRB LETTER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT MARTIN ....54

APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONS .......................................................................................55

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Total wildlife-related recreation from the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. .............................................................................................. 8

Table 2: Fastest-growing U.S. nature-based outdoor activities in 2000-2007 according to the 2005-2008 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment ................................................ 10

Table 3: Demographics of Tennessee State Park Rangers survey respondents ........................... 20

Table 4: Comparison of P-values from Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test analysis to determine relationships to wildlife attitudes and wildlife-related recreation participation among gender, childhood residence (rural vs. urban), and education attained by respondents. ........................... 29

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Respondents’ attitudes toward the always, sometimes, or never acceptability of legal hunting types. ................................................................................................................................ 21

Figure 2: Respondents’ attitudes toward the always, sometimes, or never acceptability of legal fishing types. ................................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 3: Respondents’ top choice in personal participation of wildlife-related recreation.... ..... 24

Figure 4: Respondents’ primary motivation for hunting, if they hunt, based on four different hunting motives... .......................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 5: Respondents’ primary motivation for fishing, if they fish, based on four different fishing motives... ........................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 6: Respondents’ use or non-use of live or non-living wildlife items in interpretive programs... .................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 7: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for meat... ............................................................... 27

Figure 8: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for meat. .................................................................. 28

Figure 9 : Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for sport…. ............................................................ 31

Figure 10: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting.. ................................................................... 31

Figure 11: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for sport. ................................................................. 32

ix

Figure 12: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy fishing. ..................................................................... 32

Figure 13: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their primary wildlife-related recreation use, consumptive or non-consumptive. ................................ 33

Figure 14: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their primary choice of participation in wildlife-related recreation . .................................................... 33

Figure 15: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their participation in hunting. ................................................................................................................ 34

Figure 16: Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their participation in fishing.... .............................................................................................................. 34

Figure 17: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for meat. ................................................................................................. 35

Figure 18: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for sport.. ................................................................................................ 35

Figure 19: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for meat. .................................................................................................. 36

Figure 20: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for sport. .................................................................................................. 36

Figure 21: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting.. ................................................................................................... 37

Figure 22: Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy fishing. ..................................................................................................... 37

x

Figure 23: Percent of male and female respondents and their primary choice of participation in wildlife-related recreation.... ................................................................................ 39

Figure 24: Percent of male and female respondents and their primary wildlife-related recreation use, consumptive or non-consumptive. ........................................................................ 39

Figure 25: Percent of male and female respondents and their participation in hunting.. ............. 40

Figure 26: Percent of male and female respondents and their participation in fishing.. ............... 40

Figure 27: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for meat... ............................................................................................... 41

Figure 28: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for meat.. ................................................................................................. 41

Figure 29: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for sport. .................................................................................................. 42

Figure 30: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for sport. ................................................................................................. 42

Figure 31: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy fishing. ..................................................................................................... 44

Figure 32: Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting ..................................................................................................... 44

Figure 33: Percent of respondents within each education level and their primary choice of participation in wildlife-related recreation. ................................................................................... 45

Figure 34: Percent of respondents within each education level and their primary wildlife-related recreation use, consumptive or non-consumptive. .............................................. 45

xi

Figure 35: Percent of respondents within each education level and their participation in hunting. ......................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 36: Percent of respondents within each education level and their participation in fishing.... ....................................................................................................................................... 46

xii

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Humans have always had a unique connection to wildlife. In the United States, people

have held different attitudes and values about wildlife throughout the years. There are people

who regard wildlife as a symbol of wilderness and captivation. Others see wildlife as important

environmental indicators and sources of scientific study. Wildlife are also valued by people as a

source of sustenance, and hold recreational value in the form of sport hunting and fishing. In a

growing trend, more people are enjoying wildlife viewing for photography or pleasure (Cordell

et al. 2008).

When dealing with the many values regarding wildlife that are present across the United

States, there are associated attitudes toward wildlife use that often form the basis for

participation in specific wildlife use activities (Manfredo et al. 2003). Therefore, an

understanding of wildlife values, or the human dimensional aspect of wildlife, can be important

in understanding participation in the use of wildlife. Within a particular region, there can be

strong opposing views and attitudes on the value of wildlife, and stakeholders may disagree on

what could be considered appropriate and effective wildlife use. In recent years, the number of

stakeholders with different positions on wildlife issues has been on the rise in many regions

(Manfredo et al. 2003, Teel et al. 2005). There have been several studies to determine what

wildlife attitudes and values exist, if these attitudes are shifting, and how present attitudes and

values influence views on wildlife education, management, and policy.

Significance of the Study

Wildlife and outdoor education are key components of many state park employees’

position descriptions. State park rangers play a vital role in increasing public awareness and

2

appreciation of wildlife and wildlife management, through ranger led programs using a variety of

interpretive tools. Wildlife management agencies are becoming increasingly aware of the

important role people and wildlife education have in wildlife management. Managers realize

that knowledge of public understanding of wildlife policy through education and outreach is

necessary to reach policy agreement and understanding among differing stakeholders (Siemer et

al. 1991). Because park rangers are so involved in disseminating wildlife information, it is

important to gather information on their values and attitudes toward wildlife, as they can

influence public acknowledgement of wildlife values and management policy. This project was

developed to help shed light on the values and attitudes toward wildlife that are held by

Tennessee State Park Rangers and determine what attitude and value orientation is most common

among these individuals.

Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this study was to identify attitudes toward wildlife use held by Tennessee

State Park Rangers, and to gain knowledge of their wildlife use participation. The following

objectives were identified:

1. To determine what attitudes and value orientations toward wildlife use are present

among Tennessee State Park Rangers;

2. To determine what wildlife use activities Tennessee State Park Rangers participate in;

3. To determine if rural vs. urban childhood residence among Tennessee State Park

Rangers is related to attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife use participation;

4. To determine if gender and education level among Tennessee State Park Rangers is

related to attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife use participation.

3

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Values and Attitudes

To more fully understand values and attitudes toward wildlife, one must explore how

values and attitudes are developed and can be altered. Values are a powerful and complex

influence on attitudes, human behavior, and motivation. A person’s values are influenced by

their immediate social foundations such as family and friends and to a lesser degree by more

external influences such as the media (Homer & Kahle 1988, Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002).

Values are considered to be the basis for differences in attitudes toward wildlife and for

predicting wildlife use participation (Fulton et al. 1996).

Values are considered a basic social cognition and are the foundation of attitude

development. According to Fulton et al. (1996, p. 25), values are defined as “fundamental,

enduring beliefs or mental constructs that are used to evaluate the desirability of specific modes

of conduct or the ends achieved through such conduct.” It is important to note that values are

generally established early in a person’s life, during childhood (Zinn et al. 2002). Research has

shown that values can be difficult and at times impossible to change as they are deeply ingrained

(Teel et al. 2005).

Attitudes are like values in that they are used as cues in one’s environment to allow for

adaptation to the environmental situation (Homer & Kahle 1988). Attitudes are defined as a

“summary evaluation of objects…ranging from positive to negative” (Petty et al. 1997, p. 611).

It has been theorized that knowledge and values influence one’s attitudes and, ultimately,

behavior choices. A study of natural food shopping behavior by Homer and Kahle (1988) found

that attitudes were the bridge between knowledge of nutrition, values toward natural food, and,

4

ultimately, natural food shopping behavior. However, when looking at this hierarchy through the

framework of pro-environment (wildlife included) behavior, this did not prove to be the case.

More often than not, environment-related knowledge and values did not lead to pro-environment

behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002). There was an attitude gap. Ajzen & Fishbein (1977, p.

912), state that “a person’s attitude has a consistently strong relation with his or her behavior

when it is directed at the same target and when it involves the same action.” Behavior is not

always directly related to attitudes; instead attitudes can lead to behavioral intent and eventual

action (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002, Petty et al. 1997).

Pro-environment value and attitude establishment are the result of a combination of

factors such as education, family environmental values, role-models, nature experiences as a

child, and the influence of nature or environmental organizations (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002).

Ultimately, it is the combination of environmental knowledge, values, attitudes, and emotions

that can create nature awareness and lead to participation in nature-related activities.

Looking at values and attitudes toward wildlife, one must understand the difficulty that

can arise when trying to bring about attitude changes. State park rangers that provide wildlife

interpretation programs may need to rely heavily on persuasion to educate the public on the

importance of wildlife and wildlife management policy, ultimately influencing attitude.

Persuasion has been shown to be an excellent method for attitude change in a recipient of the

intended message. Studies have determined that real attitude change is often the result of central

and/or peripheral routes to persuasion (Petty et al. 1997). The central route requires the

recipient of the intended message to be highly motivated to listen to the message and also able to

effectively process the message. The peripheral route is best for individuals who lack the

motivation to listen to the message and are not readily able to process the message effectively

5

(Petty et al. 1997). Research has shown that the source of the message and the message itself are

critical to persuasive attitude change. For instance, if the message is not given at the best time to

be received, and the source does not appear to be credible, the recipient will likely not be

influenced by the message and no attitude change will occur (Petty et al. 1997).

It is important to realize the complexity of values and attitudes and the intricacies of

effectively bringing about attitude change in an individual. People and the values and attitudes

they possess are not so easy to comprehend or change/modify. State park rangers responsible for

wildlife and outdoor education programs may exhibit differences in personal values and attitudes

toward wildlife when compared to the general public.

Types of Wildlife Value Orientations

Values can help clarify differences among members of society with regard to wildlife issues

and likelihood and type of wildlife use recreation. Determining and defining wildlife value

orientations has been an important role in determining wildlife related attitudes. According to

Fulton et al. (1996), wildlife value orientations were directly related to survey respondents’

attitudes toward hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching. Similarly, respondents’ attitudes toward

fishing, hunting and wildlife watching were predictive of their participation in these activities.

Attitudes toward hunting and fishing and the intention to participate in these activities explained

75% of the variation. Twenty-five percent of the variation toward wildlife watching was also

explained by attitudes. Two wildlife value orientations have been described in research: the

utilitarian-consumptive value orientation and the mutualism-appreciation value orientation

(Fulton et al. 1996, Manfredo et al. 2003, Teel et al. 2005). Three types of wildlife value

orientations have been recognized: utilitarian, mutualist, and pluralist.

6

Utilitarian

The utilitarian, or “use”, wildlife value orientation is the view that wildlife is present for

human use and therefore must be managed for human gain. This is a very traditional value that

is still found in many societies around the world. It is considered to be a consumptive value.

People who hold this value generally favor hunting and fishing and believe that wildlife is

important for human use (Manfredo et al. 2003, Teel et al. 2005, Zinn et al. 2002).

Mutualist

The mutualist wildlife value is the opposite of the utilitarian value. Mutualists hold the view

that wildlife and humans need each other and benefit one another. This is a non-consumptive

value. Many people who hold this view draw on an emotional aspect of wildlife and believe they

are here to take care of and protect wildlife (Manfredo et al. 2003, Teel et al. 2005). They may

be more interested in wildlife watching, photography, and feeding.

Pluralist

The pluralist wildlife value orientation is a combination of both the utilitarian and mutualist

values. Teel et al. (2005), explains how this value is based on given circumstances within an

individual’s life. They provide an example of a woman whose husband hunts and she is

accepting of it. However, she would never hunt herself because she could not harm an animal,

even to provide food for her family. In this example, it is evident that she holds both utilitarian

and mutualist values.

7

National Wildlife Use and Value Trends

There are two national surveys that focus on outdoor recreation and wildlife related activities

across the nation: the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) and the

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR). The NSRE

has been conducted periodically since 1960 to provide statistical information on outdoor

recreation and values in the United States (Interagency National Survey Consortium 2002). Prior

to 1994, the survey was called the Nationwide Recreation Survey (NRS). The latest completed

NSRE survey was in 2005-2008. The latest completed FHWAR survey was in 2011; it has been

conducted since 1955 to gather information on hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers.

According to the 2011 FHWAR survey, 90 million people participated in some form of wildlife-

related activity in the United States (Table 1). People who watch wildlife make up the majority

of wildlife-related recreation participants according to the survey (Table 1). Comparisons with

previous survey information can be used to track trends in general outdoor recreation and

wildlife-associated recreation.

Fishing and Hunting

Fishing and hunting are considered consumptive use wildlife values. At the national level,

the NRS (1982-1983) reported that hunting participation around the country had remained fairly

stable since the 1960’s at around 12% (U.S. Department of the Interior 1986). According to the

2000-2002 NSRE, the percentage of people who hunt was 11% and the percentage who fish was

33% (Interagency National Survey Consortium 2002). In the most recent survey, the percentage

of people participating in hunting and fishing was 34% (Cordell 2012).

8

* 9.4 million both fished and hunted. * * 19.3 million watched wildlife both around the home and away from home. (from U.S. Department of the Interior 2011)

Table 1. Total wildlife-related recreation from the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Recreation Type Number of Participants (million) Total Participants 90.1 Sportspersons Total Participants* 37.4 Anglers 33.1 Hunters 13.7 Wildlife-Watchers Total Participants* * 71.8 Around the Home 68.6 Away from Home 22.5

9

Big-game hunting was one of the top sixteen fastest-growing U.S. nature-based outdoor

activities in 2007, according to the 2005-2008 NRSE (Table 2). In general, survey respondents

who lived or grew up in rural areas were more likely to hunt and fish than their urban

counterparts (Interagency National Survey Consortium 2002). This was also confirmed in the

NSRE 2005-2008, showing a rural participation rate of 42.5% and an urban participation rate of

32.2% (Cordell 2012). Gender and education level are standard socio-demographic data

collected in the NRSE 2005-2008. Male participation rate in hunting and fishing was 46.1% and

the female participation rate was 22.8%. Participation rate in hunting and fishing was highest

among individuals who had graduated high school, had some college, or held a college degree

(Cordell 2012).

When looking at FHWAR statistics, in 2011, hunting and fishing participation was at

42%, with 37% participating in fishing and 15% participating in hunting activities. The national

participation rate for fishing was 14%, with the East South Central region (including the state of

Tennessee) at 17%. The national participation rate for hunting was 6%, with the East South

Central region at 11%. This region experienced a higher participation rate in both of these

activities when compared to the national average. Findings were similar to the NSRE 2005-2008,

which showed that the hunting and fishing participation rate increased with increasing rural

residence and decreased with urban residence. However, the majority of hunters and anglers

came from urban areas even though their participation rates in either activity were the lowest

(U.S. Department of the Interior 2011). The majority of hunters and anglers were male. Of those

who hunt, 89% were male; of those who fish 73% were male. The majority of hunters had either

graduated from high school, had some college, or a college degree; this finding was very similar

10

(from Cordell 2008)

Table 2. Fastest-growing U.S. nature-based outdoor activities in 2000-2007 according to the 2005-2008 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment.

Activity Total participants

(million), 2007

Percentage change in participants,

2000-2007 Viewing or photographing flowers and trees 118.4 25.8

Viewing or photographing natural scenery 145.5 14.1

Viewing or photographing other wildlife 114.8 21.3

Viewing or photographing birds 81.1 19.3

Visiting nature centers, etc. 127.4 5.0

Big-game hunting 20.2 12.8

Visiting wilderness 70.6 3.0

11

to the NSRE 2005-2008. Among anglers, all education levels had similar participation rates

(U.S. Department of the Interior 2011).

According to the FHWAR survey, between 1996 and 2006 there was a significant

decrease in the number of hunters and anglers; however, when comparing the years between

2006 and 2011, these numbers were up (Cordell et al. 2008). The total number of hunters went

up by 9% and anglers were up by 11%. The 9% increase in hunting puts 2011 participation equal

to that of 1991, which is considered the highest hunting rate for the past twenty years (U.S.

Department of the Interior 2011). According to the U.S. outdoor recreation participation

projections to 2060, based on the 2005-2008 NSRE, hunting participation is expected to increase

by 7 to 23% and fishing is expected to increase by 28 to 50% over the next fifty years (Cordell

2012).

Wildlife Watching

When looking at national trends in non-consumptive wildlife use values, it is apparent

that there has been an increase in this type of recreational pursuit. In the 1982-1983 NRS report,

49% of those surveyed participated in “non-consumptive wildlife-related recreation” such as

wildlife watching and photography. This percentage increased to 72% in the 2000-2002 NSRE

and 74% in the 2005-2008 NSRE. According to the 2006 FHWAR survey, the greatest

percentage (88%) of wildlife viewers enjoy watching birds (U.S. Department of the Interior

2006). The 2005-2008 NSRE found no significant difference between rural and urban

participation percentages for wildlife watching (Cordell 2012). This is evidence of a growing

trend in non-consumptive wildlife values in the United States. When comparing the wildlife

watching participation rate between males and females, the male participation rate was 73.5%

12

and the female participation rate was 74.8%. Participation rate in watching wildlife increased

with the level of education attained (Cordell 2012).

According to the 2011 FHWAR, participation in wildlife watching was 80% with around-

the-home (within 1 mile of home) participation at 76% and away-from-home participation (at

least 1 mile from home) at 25% of those surveyed. The same percentage (88%) of wildlife

watchers viewed birds in the 2011 survey and the 2006 survey. Of all wildlife watching

recreationists, 96% watched wildlife around the home, with 37% of those photographing

wildlife. Feeding wildlife in order to observe them was a common activity around the home with

95% feeding wild birds and 28% feeding other wildlife (U.S. Department of the Interior 2011).

More females (54%) than males participate in wildlife watching around the home. A similar

number of males (51%) and females (49%) watched wildlife away from home. Participation in

wildlife watching around the home and away from home increased with education level, with the

greatest percentage having completed 5 or more years of college (U.S. Department of Interior

2011). Similar to rural vs. urban participation in fishing and hunting, the largest number of

participants in both around and away from home wildlife watching was found in highly urban

areas, but the highest participation rate was located in rural areas.

From the 1996 to the 2006 FHWAR survey, the number of participants in wildlife

watching increased by 8.2% (Cordell et al. 2008). According to Table 2, viewing or

photographing wildlife or birds has been on the rise since 2000 and both are considered to be in

the top sixteen fastest-growing U.S. nature-based outdoor activities. Participation projections to

2060, based on the 2005-2008 NSRE, expect a 4-7% increase in birding and a 3% increase in

wildlife watching overall for the next fifty years (Cordell 2012).

13

These survey statistics offer evidence of national wildlife use and values from both ends

of the spectrum. If projections are met over the next fifty years, hunting and fishing utilitarian

use and wildlife watching mutualist use will increase. The number of participants and

participation rate for wildlife watching has been very high in recent years when compared to

hunting and fishing statistics. This may point to an increase in mutualist values as an indication

of what society in general is moving toward, with regard to wildlife use and management

(Clendenning et al. 2005, Manfredo et al. 2003, Zinn et al. 2002).

State Parks Visitation Trends

Visiting state and federal parks has been a popular pastime for Americans seeking public

natural areas for nature experiences including wildlife watching. Many state parks offer

interpretive programs geared toward natural themes, including wildlife, for park visitors. State

park visitation increased rapidly since the 1950’s, experiencing a peak in visitation in 2000

followed by decreasing numbers through 2006 (Cordell 2008, Cordell et al. 2008). Visitation

started to rise in 2007 and 2008 but then fell in 2009, corresponding with a strong U.S. recession

(Cordell 2012). According to the 2005-2008 NSRE, 67% of survey participants visited

interpretive sites (including state parks).

State parks are an excellent public area to watch wildlife, including birds. The 2006

FHWAR survey found that 80% of wildlife watchers traveled away from home to public areas to

watch birds and other wildlife (Cordell et al. 2008). In the 2011 FHWAR survey, there was a

17% participation rate in park visitation by all wildlife watchers. Over the next fifty years, it is

expected that visitation to interpretive sites will increase 5 to 9% and remain an important source

of wildlife watching (Cordell 2012).

14

Tennessee Attitudes Toward Wildlife

In 2005, Responsive Management conducted a public opinion survey of Tennessee

residents for the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies regarding wildlife use,

management, and regard for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). At the time of

this survey, respondents highly approved of legal hunting (85%) and legal fishing (91%) with

63% saying they had fished and 35% having hunted in the past 5 years (Responsive Management

2005). The top four outdoor recreation activities in order of preference were: feeding wildlife or

birds (58%), visiting a state or national park (55%), watching wildlife near home (43%), and

fishing (38%). A majority of respondents (47%) had traveled away from home to watch wildlife

in the past 12 months. When looking at wildlife values, hunting was ranked the lowest in

importance.

Knowledge of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency was limited; 71% knew very

little or nothing about this agency, yet 63% said they were satisfied with it. When respondents

ranked TWRA programs, hunting safety education, enforcement of fish and game laws, and

conserving fish and wildlife habitat were the top three programs. Providing educational programs

on the state’s fish and wildlife fell in the middle and providing opportunities for legal hunting

was ranked last (Responsive Management 2005).

Rural-Urban Influences on Wildlife Attitudes and Use

Regardless of whether people come from urban areas or have lived in rural locations their

entire lives, they all share the commonality of having social and cultural life experiences, though

the experiences may be very different. It is through the context of their social and cultural

experiences that people define the meaning and importance of wildlife and therefore, their value

15

and attitudes toward wildlife (Eisenhauer et al. 2000). It is no surprise that someone from urban

America will bring the potential for very different attitudes toward wildlife than a long-term rural

resident might have. An urbanite has been surrounded by a different culture.

Research into values and attitudes held by urban and long-term rural residents has

produced different results. It has been believed that urban dwellers have more environmental

knowledge, as they are generally more educated, and therefore are more likely to value wildlife

preservation than a long-term rural resident (Vaske et al. 2001). While this has been evident, it is

not always the case. More researchers are finding that there are differences in the priority of

values and attitudes and that these values are not always in conflict between the urban and rural

residents (Eisenhauer et al. 2000, Hunter & Brehm 2004, Jones et al. 2003, Walton & Bailey

2005, Yung et al. 2008).

Whittaker et al. (2006) surveyed Alaska residents to compare wildlife values held by

individuals who grew up in rural and urban areas. They found that respondents who grew up in

rural locations were more favorable toward hunting and held a stronger utilitarian attitude when

compared to respondents who grew up in urban locations. It was concluded that this may be due

to the fact that many rural Americans have a stronger connection to the land for the purpose of

harvesting wildlife for consumption and this is seen in their more traditional views toward

wildlife.

In a study by Hunter & Brehm (2004), long-term rural residents of Utah were interviewed

to gather information on their attitudes toward wildlife and biodiversity. They found that both

mutualist and utilitarian values were present in the majority of interviewees. For example, an

avid hunter stated, “I’ve grown up…hunting and fishing…so I believe that I do have

16

environmental values. I might not be the animal activist…but I believe we need the wildlife, we

need the environment” (Hunter & Brehm 2004 p. 21). In their conclusion, they explained that

rural residents may not have such distinct attitude differences toward wildlife when compared

with their urban counterparts. It is apparent that although there are differences in values and

attitudes between urban and long-term rural residents, there are also similarities.

Gender and Education Level Influences on Wildlife Attitudes and Use

There are some socio-demographic variables that have often been predictors of wildlife

values and use: gender and education level. These factors tend to influence an individual’s values

about wildlife and how they relate to wildlife use. When looking at gender differences, a

common theme emerges. Historically, men have possessed a stronger interest in outdoor

recreation and have comprised the majority of hunters and anglers. In general, studies have

shown that females have a greater tendency to hold sentiment toward wildlife and possess more

emotional attachment, protectionist attitudes, and less support for consumptive use of wildlife,

while men hold less emotional attachment and show greater support for consumptive and

dominating use of wildlife (Butler et al. 2001, Kellert 1996, Manfredo et al. 2003, Zinn et al.

2002). Therefore, females generally hold more mutualist values and attitudes and men hold more

utilitarian values and attitudes.

Kellert (1996) found education level to be the strongest predictor of wildlife attitudes and

values. Findings suggest that as education level increases, especially to the completion of college

or post graduate education, there is a stronger leaning toward mutualist attitudes and values and

lower utilitarian views (Kellert 1996, Manfredo et al. 2003, Zinn et al. 2002). It is evident that

these socio-demographic variables can greatly influence wildlife attitudes and values.

17

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Survey Procedures

A 29-question survey was created to address the objectives of this study (Appendix B).

Survey questions were developed to identify attitudes and values held by Tennessee State Park

Rangers related to the use of wildlife, including their participation in the use of wildlife, in order

to identify their use patterns toward wildlife. The survey contained both qualitative and

quantitative questions, with the last several questions containing socio-demographic information

including location of where they grew up (rural or urban), county in which they currently lived,

length of years they had resided in this county, highest level of education received, age, and

gender.

The initial page of the survey gave information on the survey objectives and design. It

stated that participation in the survey was completely voluntary, that it should only require 10 to

15 minutes to complete, and that participants may withdraw at any time. Prior to sending the

survey electronically to the study population, it was approved by the University of Tennessee at

Martin, Institutional Review Board (IRB 13-221-E05-4005/Uric, Mel; Appendix A).

Study Population

An email list of all Tennessee State Park Rangers was used for the survey. The list was

provided and distributed through Tennessee State Parks, Head of Interpretive Services. A total of

209 email addresses were notified with the survey link.

Data Collection

The survey was created and administered, and data were collected through

SurveyMonkey®. On March 11, 2013 the survey was emailed to all participants explaining the

18

study and requesting their participation. A follow-up reminder was sent with the survey link to

increase response rates eight days later. By March 20, 2013 there were a total of 98 respondents.

The survey was closed and completed on March 25, 2013 with a total of 132 respondents. At the

close of the survey, SurveyMonkey® results were saved and downloaded as a Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet and as a portable document format for analysis.

Data Analysis

The main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between wildlife values

and attitudes and the following socio-demographic characteristics: gender, education level, and

rural vs. urban childhood home location. SAS 9.2 statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC)

was used to analyze the survey results. The chi-squared test was used where applicable to

determine relationships among the data. When appropriate for expected cell counts of less than 5,

Fisher’s exact test was used to determine significant relationships. A significance level of 0.10

was used to establish whether or not the relationships were statistically significant.

19

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Socio-Demographics of Respondents

Out of 209 potential respondents, the overall response rate to this survey was 63% (n =

132). Of the 123 respondents to the question of gender, 82% (101) were male and 18% (22) were

female (Table 3). The majority of respondents were between 31-35 years of age (20%), followed

closely by ages 26-30 (18%), and 12% in the 51-55 age category (Table 3). The highest level of

education attained among respondents varied widely from high school/GED (5%) to a master’s

degree (14%) (Table 3). The majority of respondents (80%) had a bachelor’s degree. Only 20%

grew up in urban areas while the other 80% had grown up in a rural area (Table 3).

Survey Results Based on Research Objectives

Objective 1: To determine what attitudes and value orientations toward wildlife use are

present among Tennessee State Park Rangers.

Hunting for meat/consumption (85%), animal population control (74%), or

recreation/sport (49%), were considered always acceptable by the majority of the 131

respondents (Figure 1). Trophy hunting was considered always acceptable by 27% of

respondents and sometimes acceptable by 50% of respondents. Attitudes toward fishing were

similar to hunting; fishing for meat/consumption (88%), fish population control (72%), or

recreation/sport (67%) were considered always acceptable by the majority of respondents (Figure

2). Only 40% felt that trophy fishing was always acceptable (Figure 2). Compared to hunting or

fishing attitudes, all respondents (100%) felt that wildlife watching (birdwatching, other wildlife

watching, and wildlife photography) was always acceptable.

20

Table 3. Demographics of Tennessee State Park Ranger survey respondents. Characteristic Number Percentage Gender

Male 101 82.1

Female 22 17.9

Age 20-25 5 4.1

26-30 22 18.2

31-35 24 19.8

36-40 14 11.6

41-45 12 9.9

46-50 6 5.0

51-55 15 12.4

56-60 14 11.6

61-65 8 6.6

65+ 1 0.8

Highest Level of Education

High School/GED 6 4.9

Associate’s Degree 2 1.6

Bachelor’s Degree 98 79.7

Master’s Degree 17 13.8

Childhood Residence Rural 98 80.3

Urban 24 19.7

21

Figure 1. Respondents’ attitudes toward the acceptability of legal hunting types.

Figure 2. Respondents’ attitudes toward the acceptability of legal fishing types.

85

74

49

27

13

24

42

50

2 2

11

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Meat/Consumption Animal PopulationControl

Recreation/Sport Trophy

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts

Acceptable Legal Hunting Type

Always

Sometimes

Never

88

7267

40

11

2630

43

1 2 3

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Meat/Consumption Fish PopulationControl

Recreation/Sport Trophy

Percent of

resp

ond

ents

Acceptable Legal Fishing Type

Always

Sometimes

Never

22

When asked about methods for attracting wildlife, such as baiting wildlife or using

wildlife calls, respondents had varied opinions. Still, the majority of respondents approve of both

of these actions toward wildlife, with 74% approving of baiting and 89% approving of the use of

calls. When asked, “Baiting of wildlife (bird feeders, deer salt licks, turkey corn feeders, etc.) for

the purpose of wildlife watching is acceptable.”, some respondents showed concern over this

issue. One respondent replied, “For non huntable birds yes, for animals that have a hunting

season no.” Another commented, “Depends on the location, private versus public land.”, “I

think it’s okay for wildlife observation. But to a point I think it could harm the target population

because it starts a dependency that may not be kept up by the baiter.” When asked, “Using calls

for the purpose of attracting wildlife to watch is acceptable.”, some felt that it was only

acceptable under certain circumstances. One respondent replied, “Occasional use perhaps, but

not if it disrupts territories or courtship. Particularly a problem with some songbirds…”

Another stated, “Depends on the wildlife (i.e. do not pish birds during mating seasons, call owls

when they are roosting, etc).”

Two questions focused on attitudes toward the use of wildlife, either living or non-living

wildlife items, for interpretive programs. A large majority of respondents (99%) felt that the use

of live wildlife or non-living wildlife items (pelts, skulls, etc.) in interpretive programs is

acceptable. Seven respondents replied that the use of live wildlife in programming is only

acceptable if the animal is non-releasable.

The majority (96%) of respondents is supportive of the current rules and regulations

regarding hunting and fishing in Tennessee as set in place by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources

Agency. The preferred source for fish and wildlife information are printed field guides/books

(30% of respondents) followed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency website (27% of

23

respondents). Ninety-four percent of respondents would like to see increased funding and/or

effort for fish and wildlife education programs in the state. When given the opportunity to

determine which education programming is most important for Tennessee, 81% felt that

educating youth about fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation was most important, followed by

10% for educating/informing the public on the state’s fish and wildlife, and 9% for training

youth to hunt and fish.

Objective 2: To determine what wildlife use activities Tennessee State Park Rangers

participate in.

Out of 132 respondents, 120 (93%) had participated in some form of wildlife-related

recreation in the past 12 months, including hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing. On average,

individuals participated in 20 trips over the past 12 month period with the primary purpose of

participating in wildlife-related recreation. The greatest percentage of respondents (30%) stay

close to home, within an average of 0-4 miles while participating in wildlife-related recreation.

The top choice of wildlife-related recreation participation by percentage of respondents was

fishing and other wildlife viewing at 25% (Figure 3). Hunting small game ranked last as a top

choice at 2% (Figure 3).

Respondents were asked if they hunt and if so what their primary motivation was (meat,

animal population control, recreation/sport, or trophy hunting); the same question was asked

regarding fishing. Forty-six percent of respondents did not hunt but 33% of respondents hunt for

the primary purpose of obtaining meat (Figure 4). Only one respondent chose trophy hunting. A

smaller percentage (23%) did not fish, and 50% of respondents selected recreation/sport as their

primary motivation to fish (Figure 5).

24

Figure 3. Respondents’ top choice in personal participation of wildlife-related recreation.

Figure 4. Respondents’ primary motivation for hunting, if they hunt, based on four different hunting motives.

17

2

7

25

16

25

5 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts

Top Choice of Wildlife-Related Recreation

46

33

2

18

10

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

I Do Not Hunt Meat/Consumption Animal PopulationControl

Recreation/Sport Trophy Hunting

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts

Primary Motivation for Hunting

25

Figure 5. Respondents’ primary motivation for fishing, if they fish, based on four different fishing motives.

2327

0

50

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

I Do Not Fish Meat/Consumption Fish PopulationControl

Recreation/Sport Trophy Fishing

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts

Primary Motivation for Fishing

26

Two questions asked respondents if they 1) bait wildlife (bird feeders, salt licks, corn

feeders, etc.) in order to watch wildlife and 2) use calls for the purpose of attracting wildlife to

watch. The results were close to a 50-50% yes or no for either question. Forty-eight percent

answered yes to baiting and 48% answered yes to using calls; this left 52% who did not use

these two wildlife attractants. Several respondents said that the baiting they used were bird

feeders. The primary reason given for using calls was as an aid in hunting.

Live wildlife were used by 75% of respondents in interpretive programs while 15% did

not use them; 7% conducted programs that do not involve wildlife, and 3% do not give

programs. Eighty-two percent of respondents use non-living wildlife items such as pelts, skulls,

etc. in interpretive programs, with 11% not using them; 5% did not give programs that involve

wildlife, and 2% do not give programs (Figure 6).

Objective 3. To determine if rural vs. urban childhood residence among Tennessee State Park Rangers is related to attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife use participation.

Respondents were asked if they grew up in an urban or rural location. A total of 98

respondents grew up in a rural location and 24 respondents grew up in an urban location. When

questioned on their attitudes toward the acceptability of legal hunting or fishing, differences

emerged based on the characteristic of rural vs. urban childhood residence. Those respondents

who described growing up in a rural location had slightly higher percentages than their urban

counterparts related to the attitude that legal hunting and/or fishing for meat is always acceptable

(Figures 7, 8), but the relationship between childhood residence and their attitude was not

significant (P = 0.3202 for hunting and P = 0.4827 for fishing; Table 4). The opposite was true

for those who held the attitude that legal hunting and/or fishing for sport or trophy is never

acceptable. Slightly higher respondent percentages for this attitude were seen for those who grew

27

Figure 6. Respondents’ use or non-use of live or non-living wildlife items in interpretive programs.

Figure 7. Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for meat. The relationship between childhood residence and response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.3203).

75

157

3

82

115 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Use in programs Do not use inprograms

Do not give wildlifeprograms

Do not give programs

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts

Interpretive Program Use

Live Wildlife

Non-Living Wildlife Items

88

93

82

18

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Always Sometimes Never

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

lo

cati

on

Acceptability of Meat/Consumption Hunting

Rural

Urban

28

Figure 8. Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for meat. The relationship between childhood residence and response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.4827).

92

71

85

15

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

lo

cati

on

Acceptability of Meat/Consumption Fishing

Rural

Urban

29

Table 4. Comparison of P-values from Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test analysis to determine relationships to wildlife attitudes and wildlife-related recreation participation among gender, childhood residence (rural vs. urban), and education completed by respondents.

* All highlighted P-values are significant with an of 0.10.

P-Value

Attitude or Wildlife Recreation Participation Gender Childhood Residence

Education

Acceptability of hunting for meat 0.0373 0.3203 0.7728

Acceptability of hunting for sport 0.1841 0.5786 0.4132

Acceptability of trophy hunting 0.1112 < 0.0001 0.9203

Acceptability of fishing for meat

0.0663 0.4827 0.8586

Acceptability of fishing for sport 0.2756 0.9155 0.5262

Acceptability of trophy fishing 0.3827 0.2960 0.2577

Wildlife recreation participation (hunting, fishing, birdwatching, other wildlife watching)

0.0522 0.4020 0.1124

Consumptive vs. non-consumptive wildlife recreation participation

0.0087 0.1009 0.1285

Hunter vs. non-hunter 0.0128 0.1140 0.4150

Angler vs. non-angler 0.1988 0.1011 0.2874

30

up in an urban location than those that grew up in a rural location (Figures 9, 10, 11, 12). Again,

the relationship between childhood residence and their response to these questions was not

significant (Table 4). However, Chi-square analysis did show a significant relationship between

childhood residence and the acceptability of trophy hunting (P < 0.0001; Table 4). This

relationship was significant because more respondents who grew up in a rural area indicated that

trophy hunting was always acceptable and more respondents who grew up in an urban area

indicated that trophy hunting was never acceptable (Figure 10).

When examining the relationship between childhood residence and wildlife use

participation there was no significant relationship according to Chi-square analysis (Table 4).

Individuals who grew up in rural locations did have a higher percentage (60%) of consumptive

(hunting or fishing) wildlife use behavior than those who grew up in an urban location (39%)

(Figure 13). Likewise, those who grew up in an urban location had a higher percentage (61%) of

non-consumptive (birdwatching or wildlife watching) wildlife-use behavior than rural childhood

residence respondents (40%) (Figure 14). Respondents who grew up in an urban location were

more likely to not hunt (80%) or fish (73%) than those who grew up in a rural location (Figures

15, 16).

Objective 4. To determine if gender and education level among Tennessee State Park Rangers is related to attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife use participation.

Of all survey respondents, 22 were female and 101 were male. When asked about their

attitudes toward legal hunting and fishing, a higher percentage of males compared to females

indicated that hunting or fishing for meat or sport is always acceptable (Figures 17, 18, 19, 20).

On the contrary, slightly higher percentages of females indicated that hunting and fishing for

sport or trophy is never acceptable (Figures 18, 21, 20, 22). Fisher’s exact test analysis did not

31

Figure 9. Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for sport. The relationship between childhood residence and response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.5786).

Figure 10. Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting. The relationship between childhood residence and the response to this question was significant (Chi-square P < 0.0001).

51

38

11

39

48

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

loca

tion

Acceptability of Sport Hunting

Rural

Urban

35

63

2

10

57

33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

lo

cati

on

Acceptability of Trophy Hunting

Rural

Urban

32

Figure 11. Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for sport. The relationship between childhood residence and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.9155).

Figure 12. Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy fishing. The relationship between childhood residence and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.2960).

67

30

3

70

26

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Percent of respondents within each

location

Acceptability of Sport Fishing

Rural

Urban

38

47

16

48

29

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



locaiton

Acceptability of Trophy Fishing

Rural

Urban

33

Figure 13. Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their primary wildlife-related recreation use, consumptive or non-consumptive. The relationship between childhood residence and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.1009).

Figure 14. Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their primary choice of participation in wildlife-related recreation. The relationship between childhood residence and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.4020).

60

4039

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Consumptive Non‐Consumptive

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

lo

cati

on

Primary Wildlife-Related Recreation Use

Rural

Urban

3129

15

2522

17

28

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Hunting Fishing Birdwatching Other WildlifeViewing

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

lo

cati

on

Primary Wildlife-Related Recreation Participation

Rural

Urban

34

Figure 15. Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their participation in hunting. The relationship between childhood residence and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.1140).

Figure 16. Percent of respondents of either rural or urban childhood residence and their participation in fishing. The relationship between childhood residence and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.1011).

41

59

20

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Hunt Do Not Hunt

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

lo

cati

on

Wildlife-Related Recreation Participation

Rural

Urban

57

43

27

73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Fish Do Not Fish

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

lo

cait

on


Rural

Urban

35

Figure 17. Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for meat. The relationship between gender and the response to this question was significant (Fisher’s exact test P = 0.0373).

Figure 18. Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for sport. The relationship between gender and the response to this question was not significant (Fisher’s exact test P = 0.1841).

89

83

71

29

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



gender


Male

Female

52

38

10

32

50

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Percent of espondents within each

gender


Male

Female

36

Figure 19. Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for meat. The relationship between gender and the response to this question was significant (Fisher’s exact test P = 0.0663).

Figure 20. Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for sport. The relationship between gender and the response to this question was not significant (Fisher’s exact test P = 0.2756).

92

71

76

24

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ge

nd

er


Male

Female

72

25

3

56

38

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ge

nd

er


Male

Female

37

Figure 21. Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting. The relationship between gender and the response to this question was not significant (Fisher’s exact test P = 0.1112).

Figure 22. Percent of male and female respondents and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy fishing. The relationship between gender and the response to this question was not significant (Fisher’s exact test P = 0.3827).

27

53

2019

38

43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ge

nd

er


Male

Female

34

50

16

33

38

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

det

ns

wit

hin

eac

h

gen

der


Male

Female

38

show a significant relationship between gender and the acceptability of hunting or fishing, with

the exception of the acceptability of hunting or fishing for meat (P = 0.0373 for hunting and P =

0.0663 for fishing; Table 4). For those questions a higher percentage of women than men

indicated that hunting or fishing for meat is sometimes acceptable (Figures 17, 19).

A higher percentage of females than males participated in birdwatching and other wildlife

viewing, while a higher percentage of males participated in hunting and fishing (Figure 23).

Fisher’s exact test analysis showed a significant relationship (P = 0.0522) between gender and

type of wildlife recreation participation (Table 4.). A significant relationship (P = 0.0087)

between gender and consumptive (hunting and fishing) vs. non-consumptive (birdwatching and

wildlife viewing) use of wildlife was apparent using Fisher’s exact test (Table 4). Males had a

higher percentage than females in consumptive recreation use and females had a much higher

percentage than males in non-consumptive use (Figure 24). Females were more likely to not hunt

(89%) and fish (67%) than males (Figures 25, 26). Chi-square analysis showed a significant

relationship (P = 0.0128) between gender and whether a respondent was a hunter or a non-hunter

(Table 4).

When asked the highest level of education achieved, 98 respondents selected bachelor’s

degree, 17 respondents selected master’s degree, 2 respondents selected associate’s degree, and 6

respondents selected high school/GED. The large percentage with bachelor’s degrees would be

expected because the degree was likely required for their job positions. When asked about their

attitudes toward legal hunting and fishing, 100% of those with the least amount of education

(associate’s degree and high school/GED) indicated that hunting and fishing for meat is always

acceptable (Figures 27, 28). Respondents of all education levels were more acceptable of sport

fishing than of sport hunting (Figures 29, 30). Forty-three percent of respondents with a

39

Figure 23. Percent of male and female respondents and their primary choice of personal participation in wildlife-related recreation. The relationship between gender and the response to this question was significant (Fisher’s exact test P = 0.0522).

Figure 24. Percent male and female respondents and their primary wildlife-related recreation use, consumptive or non-consumptive. The relationship between gender and the response to this question was significant (Fisher’s exact test P = 0.0087).

33

29

14

24

10

20

30

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



gender


Male

Female

62

38

30

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Consumptive Non-Consumptive

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ge

nd

er


Male

Female

40

Figure 25. Percent of male and female respondents and their participation in hunting. The relationship between gender and the response to this question was significant (Chi-square P = 0.0128).

Figure 26. Percent of male and female respondents and their participation in fishing. The relationship between gender and the response to this question was not significant (Fisher’s exact test P = 0.1988).

44

56

11

89

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Hunt Do Not Hunt

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ge

nd

er


Male

Female

57

43

33

67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Fish Do Not Fish


gender


Male

Female

41

Figure 27. Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for meat. The relationship between education level and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.7728).

Figure 28. Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for meat. The relationship between education level and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.8586).

75

196

84

13

3

100

0 0

100

0 00

20

40

60

80

100

120


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ed

uca

tion

leve

l


Masters

Bachelors

Associates

High School

88

12

0

91

81

100

0 0

100

0 00

20

40

60

80

100

120


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ed

uca

tion

leve

l


Masters

Bachelors

Associates

High School

42

Figure 29. Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of fishing for sport. The relationship between education level and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.5262).

Figure 30. Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of hunting for sport. The relationship between education level and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.4132).

53

41

6

71

26

3

50 50

0

67

33

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ed

uca

tion

leve

l


Masters

Bachelors

Associates

High School

35

47

18

53

37

10

0

100

0

40 40

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Per

cen

t of

res

pop

nd

ents

wit

hin

eac

h

edu

cati

on le

vel


Masters

Bachelors

Associates

High School

43

bachelor’s degree were always acceptable of trophy fishing and only 28% were always

acceptable of trophy hunting (Figures 31, 32). Those respondents with a high school education

had the greatest percentage for hunting at 50%, when looking at the results per education level

(Figure 33). Respondents with a bachelor’s degree had higher percentages for both hunting

(30%) and fishing (31%). This is likely because the majority of respondents held a bachelor’s

degree. Those with a master’s degree, associate’s degree, and high school education all had

higher percentages than those with a bachelor’s degree regarding non-consumptive wildlife-

related use, when looking at the results per education level (Figure 34). Both respondents with an

associate’s degree do not hunt or fish (Figures 35, 36). Chi-square analysis and Fisher’s exact

test did not show a significant relationship between education and the acceptability of hunting or

fishing and wildlife use participation (Table 4).

44

Figure 31. Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy fishing. The relationship between education level and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.2577).

Figure 32. Percent of respondents within each education level and their attitudes toward the acceptability of trophy hunting. The relationship between education level and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.9203).

31

56

13

4339

18

0

50 50

17

83

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ed

uca

tion

leve

l


Masters

Bachelors

Associates

High School

19

56

2528

49

23

0

50 50

17

50

33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ed

uca

tion

leve

l


Masters

Bachelors

Associates

High School

45

Figure 33. Percent of respondents within each education level and their primary choice of personal participation in wildlife-related recreation. The relationship between education level and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.1124).

Figure 34. Percent of respondents within each education level and their primary wildlife-related recreation use, consumptive or non-consumptive. The relationship between education level and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.1285).

15

23

31 3130 31

12

27

0 0

50 5050

0

50

00

10

20

30

40

50

60


Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ed

uca

tion

leve

l


Masters

Bachelors

Associates

High School

38

6261

39

0

100

40

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Consumptive Non-Consumptive

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

pon

den

ts


Masters

Bachelors

Associates

High School

46

Figure 35. Percent of respondents within each education level and their participation in hunting. The relationship between education level and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.4150).

Figure 36. Percent of respondents within each education level and their participation in fishing. The relationship between education level and the response to this question was not significant (Chi-square P = 0.2874).

17

83

39

61

0

100

40

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Hunt Do Not Hunt

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

pon

det

ns


Masters

Bachelors

Associates

High School

43

5757

43

0

100

0

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fish Do Not Fish

Per

cen

t of

res

pon

den

ts w

ith

in e

ach

ed

uca

tion

leve

l


Masters

Bachelors

Associates

High School

47

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION

Collectively, the majority of survey respondents hold very positive attitudes toward the

acceptability of legal hunting and fishing, wildlife watching, the baiting and calling of wildlife,

and the use of live and non-living wildlife items in interpretive programs. They are also very

supportive of the current rules and regulations in place regarding wildlife in the state of

Tennessee. These findings are similar to the views found in the Responsive Management (2005)

survey of Tennessee values toward wildlife.

The majority of respondents would like to see increased funding for fish and wildlife

education and feel that educating youth on this topic is essential. As a group, Tennessee State

Park Rangers tend to hold both consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife use behavior as

acceptable and would likely be considered pluralists. Tennessee State Park Rangers are active

participants in wildlife-related recreation, both in consumptive and non-consumptive activities.

Many individuals participate in a variety of wildlife-related recreation pursuits, such as hunting

big game, birdwatching, and photographing wildlife.

Numerous studies have found significant relationships between rural vs. urban childhood

residence, gender, education, and corresponding wildlife attitudes, values, and recreation

participation (Eisenhauer et al. 2000, Hunter & Brehm 2004, Jones et al. 2003, Manfredo et al.

2003, Muth et al. 1998, Teel et al. 2005, Whittaker et al. 2006, Zinn et al. 2002). While

differences were present among the percentage of respondents in each of these demographic

characteristics (rural vs. urban, gender, education) regarding wildlife attitudes and wildlife-

related recreation participation, there were two demographic characteristics in this study that

showed significant relationships. Respondents’ gender was often predictive of wildlife attitudes

and wildlife-related recreation participation (P ≤ 0.10). Also, attitudes toward the acceptability of

48

trophy hunting were significantly (P < 0.0001) related to rural vs. urban childhood residence

(Table 4).

In general, a higher percentage of respondents who grew up in rural locations had

stronger consumptive wildlife use attitudes and were more likely to participate in consumptive

wildlife use than their urban counterparts, on a percentage basis. Respondents from rural

locations had higher hunting (41%) and fishing (57%) participation than those from urban

locations (hunting 20%, fishing 27%). These findings are similar to the findings in the NSRE

2005-2008 survey, where rural participation in hunting and fishing (43%) was higher than urban

participation (32%) in these consumptive use activities. The FHWAR 2011 survey also found

that the participation rate in hunting and fishing went up with rural residence compared to those

of urban residence. When comparing education levels among survey respondents, there was little

distinction among attitudes and use percentages, which could largely be due to the high number

(98) of individuals who had attained a bachelor’s degree and the less than 10 individuals with

lower levels of education.

Looking at gender among respondents, significant differences emerged. The strongest

predictor of wildlife attitudes, values, and wildlife-related recreation use was between males and

females. Females were significantly (P = 0.0087) more likely to participate in wildlife-related

recreation that was non-consumptive in nature. They were therefore more interested in

birdwatching or viewing other wildlife than in hunting or fishing when compared to males.

Males tended to be more supportive of consumptive use of wildlife than females. Similarly, both

national surveys (NSRE 2005-2008, FHWAR 2011) found higher percentages of males than

females who hunt and fish and higher percentages of females than males who participate in

birdwatching or other wildlife viewing. When separating respondents by gender, it is clear that

49

females in this study tend to hold mutualist wildlife value orientations and are less likely than

males to participate in consumptive wildlife recreation. Males, however, hold stronger utilitarian

wildlife value orientations and are more likely to participate in and are more supportive of

consumptive wildlife recreation. These findings of gender differences were also found in two

previous studies, described by Muth et al. 1998, looking at wildlife professionals. In one study,

females generally entered the field because of the influence of hiking and wildlife watching,

whereas, males entered the field due to the influence of hunting and fishing. The other study

found that males are generally more supportive of consumptive use than females.

50

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION

This study has shed light on the wildlife values, attitudes, and wildlife-related recreation

participation among Tennessee State Park Rangers. With an overall survey response rate of 63%,

these findings are an indication of this population. The majority of Tennessee State Park Rangers

are responsible for giving educational, interpretive programs often geared toward wildlife. They

have a responsibility to relate wildlife facts and perceptions for the general public to gain an

understanding of wildlife and its role in society.

It is important to recognize that this study is a brief overview of the current attitudes and

wildlife-related recreation participation present among Tennessee State Park Rangers. Attitudes

and values will change in the coming years. Gaining an understanding of what attitudes and

participation is present among Tennessee State Park Rangers is an important tool for designing

appropriate training materials and in the development of interpretive programs. This survey

population has a responsibility to educate the public on wildlife, and their views and

participation cannot be taken for granted. This study has shown that more research is needed to

determine to what extent wildlife attitudes, values, and recreation participation are predictive of

Tennessee State Park Ranger programming and the information exchange between rangers and

the general public on wildlife.

51

LITERATURE CITED

Ajzen, I. & M. Fishbein. 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin. 84(5):888-918. Butler, J. S., J. E. Shanahan, & D. J. Decker. 2001. Wildlife attitudes and values: A trend analysis. Human Dimensions Research Unit Publication 01-4, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, N. Y. S. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. Clendenning, C., D. R. Field, & K. J. Knapp. 2005. A comparison of seasonal homeowners and permanent residents on their attitudes toward wildlife management on public lands. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 10:3- 17. Cordell, K. 2008. The latest on trends in nature- based outdoor recreation. Forest History Today. Spring 4-10.

Cordell, K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: A technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-150. Ashville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 167 p.

Cordell, K., C. Betz, & G. Green. 2008. Nature-based outdoor recreation trends and wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness. 14(2): 7-13.

Eisenhauer, B.W., R. S. Krannich, & D.J. Blahna. 2000. Attachments to special places on public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society and Natural Resources. 13:421-441. Fulton, D., M. Manfredo, & J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and

measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 1(2): 24-47.

Homer, P.M. & L.R. Kahle. 1988. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54(4):638-646. Hunter, L.M. & J.M. Brehm. 2004. A qualitative examination of value orientations toward wildlife and biodiversity by rural residents of the intermountain region. Human Ecology Review. 11:13-26. Interagency National Survey Consortium. 2002. 2000-2002 National survey on recreation and the environment. U.S. Forest Service, Recreation, Wilderness, and Demographic Trends Research Group, Athens, Georgia, USA and Human Dimensions Research Lab, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee USA.

Jones, E. R., J. Fly, J. Mark, J. Talley, & K. Cordell. 2003. Green migration into rural America: the new frontier of environmentalism? Society and Natural Resources. 16:221-238.

52

Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island Press, Washington, D. C. USA. Kollmuss, A. & J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research. 8(3):239-259. Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, & A. D. Bright. 2003. Why are public values toward wildlife

changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 8:287-306.

Muth, R.M., D.A. Hamilton, J.F. Orgon, D.J. Witter, M.E. Mather, J.J. Daigle. 1998. The future of wildlife and fisheries policy and management: Assessing the attitudes and values of wildlife and fisheries professionals. Trans-American 63rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 604-627.

Petty, R. E., D. T. Wegener, & L.R. Fabrigar. 1997. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review Psychology. 48:609-647.

Responsive Management. 2005. Public opinion on fish and wildlife management issues and the reputation and credibility of fish and wildlife agencies in the Southeast United States: Tennessee. For: Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Harrisonburg, VA, USA.

Siemer, W. F., T. L. Brown, P. P. Martin, & R. D. Stumvoll. 1991. Tapping the potential of the wildlife rehabilitation community for public education about wildlife damage management. Fifth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference. Paper 34.

Teel, T. L., A. A. Dayer, M. J. Manfredo, & A. D. Bright. 2005. Regional results of wildlife values in the west. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Project Report 58, Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

U. S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. 1986. 1982-1983 Nationwide Recreation Survey. Washington, D.C., Department of the Interior.

U. S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C., Department of the Interior. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington D.C., Department of the Interior.

Vaske, J. J., M. P. Donnelly, D. R. Williams, & S. Jonker. 2001. Demographic influences on environmental value orientation and normative beliefs about national forest management. Society and Natural Resources. 14:761-776.

53

Walton, B. K. & C. Bailey. 2005. Framing wilderness: Populism and cultural heritage as organizing principles. Society and Natural Resources. 18:119-134. Whittaker, D., J. Vaske, & M. Manfredo. 2006. Specificity and the cognitive hierarchy: Value orientations and the acceptability of urban wildlife management actions. Society and Natural Resources. 19: 515-530.

Yung, L., W. Freimund, & J. Chandler-Pepelnjak. 2008. Wilderness politics in the American west. International Journal of Wilderness. 14(2):14-23. Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, & S. C. Barro. 2002. Patterns of wildlife value orientations in hunters’ families. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 7:147-162.

54

APPENDIX A

IRB Letter from the University of Tennessee Martin

55

APPENDIX B

Survey Questions

Greetings: I am requesting your participation in a research survey, “A Survey of Attitudes Held and Participation by Tennessee State Park Rangers Related to Wildlife Use in Various Settings,” approved by IRB Docket #13221E054005/Uric,Mel. The objectives of this project are to identify use patterns and attitudes as they relate to wildlife. This survey is part of a research project which is being conducted to fulfill requirements in the Master of Science in Agriculture and Natural Resources program at the University of Tennessee at Martin. Your Participation in this survey is voluntary. The survey should take no more than 10 to 15 minutes to complete. You may choose to exit the survey at any time; you may also refuse to answer any questions in the survey. Surveymonkey.com has been used to create and administer the survey. The data will be downloaded from the website as an Excel spreadsheet and as an Adobe file. No personal contact information will be collected. Thank you for your help with this research project. Sincerely, Melissa Urick Graduate Student Contact Information: If there are any questions at any time about the study or the procedures please contact the researcher, Melissa Urick, 13975 Cherry Drive, Plato, MO 65552, 4174581266, or [email protected]. If there are any questions about the applicant’s rights as a participant, contact the Compliance Section in the Office of Research, Grants, and Contracts, 100 Moody Hall Administration Building UT Martin, or by calling (731) 8817015. Click the "Next" button below if you are willing to participate.

3. Wildlife watching such as birdwatching, other wildlife watching, and wildlife photography is acceptable.

4. Baiting wildlife (bird feeders, deer salt licks, turkey corn feeders, etc.) for the purpose of wildlife watching is acceptable.

5. Using calls for the purpose of attracting wildlife to watch is acceptable.

1. Legal hunting is acceptable for the following reasons.Always Sometimes Never

Meat/Consumption gfedc gfedc gfedc

Animal Population Control gfedc gfedc gfedc

Recreation/Sport gfedc gfedc gfedc

Trophy Hunting gfedc gfedc gfedc

2. Legal fishing is acceptable for the following reasons.Always Sometimes Never

Meat/Consumption gfedc gfedc gfedc

Fish Population Control gfedc gfedc gfedc

Recreation/Sport gfedc gfedc gfedc

Trophy Fishing gfedc gfedc gfedc

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Other (please specify)

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


6. Using live wildlife in interpretive programs is acceptable.

7. Using nonliving wildlife items (pelts, skulls, etc.) in interpretive programs is acceptable.

8. Do you do baiting of wildlife (bird feeders, deer salt licks, turkey corn feeders, etc.) for the purpose of wildlife watching?

9. Do you use calls for the purpose of attracting wildlife to watch?

10. Do you use live wildlife in interpretive programs?

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

I don't do programs that involve wildlife

nmlkj

I don't do programming

nmlkj


11. Do you use nonliving wildlife items (pelts, skulls, etc.) in interpretive programs?

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

I don't do programs that involve wildlife

nmlkj

I don't do programming

nmlkj


12. In the past 12 months have you participated in wildliferelated recreation such as hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing?

13. How many trips have you gone on in the past 12 months with the primary purpose of participating in wildliferelated recreation?

15. How many miles do you generally travel from your residence to participate in wildliferelated recreation?

14. Rank your reasons for participation in wildliferelated recreation. Simply skip any item you do not participate in.

Top Choice 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Hunting big game nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Hunting small game nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Hunting migratory waterfowl nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Fishing nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Birdwatching nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Other wildlife viewing nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Something Not Listed nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

If you selected "Something Not Listed", what is it?

04

nmlkj

510

nmlkj

1120

nmlkj

2130

nmlkj

3140

nmlkj

4180

nmlkj

More than 80

nmlkj

16. If you hunt, what is your primary motivation?

17. If you fish, what is your primary motivation?

I do not hunt.

nmlkj

Meat/Consumption

nmlkj

Animal Population Control

nmlkj

Recreation/Sport

nmlkj

Trophy Hunting

nmlkj

I do not fish.

nmlkj

Meat/Consumption

nmlkj

Fish Population Control

nmlkj

Recreation/Sport

nmlkj

Trophy Fishing

nmlkj

18. Are you supportive of current rules and regulations regarding hunting and/or fishing in Tennessee?

19. Would you like to see increased funding and/or effort for fish and wildlife education programs in Tennessee?

20. Which program area of the ones listed below do you think is the most important?

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


Training youth to hunt and fish

nmlkj

Educating youth about fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation

nmlkj

Educating/informing the public on the state’s fish and wildlife

nmlkj


21. Where do you currently go for information regarding fish and wildlife? (Check all that apply.)

22. Which source of information regarding fish and wildlife is your preferred source?

I am not interested in information regarding fish and wildlife

gfedc

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency offices/personnel

gfedc

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency website

gfedc

Other websites

gfedc

Smartphone/Tablet App

gfedc

Printed Field Guides/Books

gfedc

Electronic Field Guides/Books

gfedc

Newspapers

gfedc

Magazines

gfedc

Television

gfedc

Sporting goods store/License purchasing location

gfedc

Family/Friends

gfedc


I am not interested in information regarding fish and wildlife

nmlkj

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency offices/personnel

nmlkj

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency website

nmlkj

Other websites

nmlkj

Smartphone/Tablet App

nmlkj

Printed Field Guides/Books

nmlkj

Electronic Field Guides/Books

nmlkj

Newspapers

nmlkj

Magazines

nmlkj

Television

nmlkj

Sporting goods store/License purchasing location

nmlkj

Family/Friends

nmlkj


23. How many years have you worked for Tennessee State Parks?

24. How would you describe the area in which you grew up?

25. In what county do you live?

26. How many years have you lived in this county?

27. What is your highest level of education?

28. What is your age?

Rural

nmlkj

Urban

nmlkj


High School/GED

nmlkj

Associates Degree

nmlkj

Bachelors Degree

nmlkj

Masters Degree

nmlkj

Professional Degree

nmlkj

Doctoral Degree

nmlkj


2025

nmlkj

2630

nmlkj

3135

nmlkj

3640

nmlkj

4145

nmlkj

4650

nmlkj

5155

nmlkj

5660

nmlkj

6165

nmlkj

65+

nmlkj

29. What is your gender?

Thank you!

Female

nmlkj

Male

nmlkj

Documents

A Survey of Tennessee State Park Rangers: Their Attitudes