OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE AND MOOSE MANAGEMENT AT THE SOUTHERN EXTENT OF MOOSE RANGE IN CONNECTICUT Andrew M. LaBonte1, Howard J. Kilpatrick1, and John S. Barclay2 1Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, 391 Route 32, North Franklin, Connecticut 06254; 2Wildlife Conservation Research Center, University of Connecticut, 1376 Storrs Road, Unit 4087, Storrs, Connecticut, USA. 06269. ABSTRACT: Increasing moose (Alces alces) populations in the northeastern United States present new challenges for wildlife managers who must balance beneficial and adverse aspects of moose popu- lations. It is important that managers understand stakeholder attitudes and values about moose and incorporate such into outreach and management programs. The objective of this research was to assess landowner and hunter perceptions about status, management, and concerns associated with a small moose population in Connecticut. The majority of landowners and hunters correctly believed that <100 moose existed in Connecticut, half believed that the population was increasing but had no opinion about appropriate size, and few had ever observed a moose in Connecticut or been involved in a moose-vehicle accident (MVA). Landowner support for viewing areas was high and moose hunt- ing low unless MVAs increased; support for hunting moose was high among hunters. If human-moose conflicts increase, principally MVAs, we expect reduced public support for the resident moose popula- tion. Proactive education and management are suggested to reduce human-moose conflicts, MVAs, and increase acceptance of hunting as a possible population management tool. ALCES VOL. 49: 83–98 (2013) Key Words: Alces alces, Connecticut, moose, human dimensions, survey. Moose (Alces alces) populations have increased throughout northern New England over the past 30 years presenting manage- ment challenges to balance their beneficial and potentially adverse aspects (Wattles and DeStefano 2011). Moose provide intrinsic economic value to both consumptive and non-consumptive users (Schwartz and Bart- ley 1991), with watching and hunting as major revenue generators (Wolfe 1987, Tim- mermann and Rodgers 2005), especially in northern New England. Populations reaching levels sufficient for recreational opportu- nities may result in higher levels of adverse consequences in the form of moose-vehicle accidents (MVAs) and ecological damage (Mirick 1999, Timmermann and Rodgers 2005), although such conflicts can also occur in small populations and suburban areas (McDonald et al. 2012). Assessing attitudes of various stake- holder groups toward a wildlife species is useful to understand societal support and opposition about current and potential man- agement decisions (Bath and Enck 2003), and importantly, incorporating stakeholder attitudes into outreach and management pro- grams (Teel et al. 2002). Natural resource agencies increasingly emphasize stakeholder participation in decision-making (Lauber and Knuth 1997) and management of human-wildlife interactions (Ericsson 2003) to implement plans (Flanigan 1987, Hartig and Thomas 1988, Pinkerton 1991, Landre and Knuth 1993), strengthen public relation- ships (Landre and Knuth 1993), and reduce conflict (Erickson 1979, Twight and Pattern- son 1979, Nelkin 1984, Blahna and Yonts- Shepherd 1989). 83 Relative to other big game species, human dimensions (HD) research with moose was initially limited in North America (Wolfe 1987). An evaluation of articles from 1974-2001 in Alces indicated that the major- ity of early HD research pertained to hunting of moose or MVAs, with less attention to public values and attitudes towards moose (Ericsson 2003). In the northeastern United States, states have used HD research to eval- uate public opinion about their initial moose management programs in Vermont (Alexan- der 1993), New Hampshire (Donnelly and Vaske 1995), and New York (Lauber and Knuth 1997, 1999). Relative to non- consumptive recreation in New Hampshire, Silverberg et al. (2001) measured knowledge level, attitudes, and motivation of wildlife viewers at a moose viewing site. And recently, HD research was used to evaluate public opinions about moose to provide effective educational strategies to reduce human-moose conflicts, principally MVAs, in Prince George, British Columbia (McDo- nald et al. 2012). However, similar HD information is non-existent in Connecticut, the southern extent of moose range in New England. Although the potential for moose popula- tions to continue expanding in Connecticut is unclear, developing management strate- gies and programs that are both effective and acceptable to the public is important relative to managing human-moose conflicts. Our objective was to survey landowners and hunters about the status, management, and associated concerns with the moose popula- tion in Connecticut. STUDY AREA AND BACKGROUND Connecticut (12,548 km2) was the fourth most densely populated area (3,500,000 peo- ple, 278 people/km2) in the United States at the time of this research (Connecticut Eco- nomic Resource Center 2006, 2010). Located in southern New England, it is bounded on the south by Long Island Sound, and by the states of Rhode Island to the east, Massachusetts to the north, and New York to the west. Connecticut is about half forested (55.6%), 20% developed or barren, 16.7% turf, grass, or agricultural field, 4.4% wet- lands (non-forested, forested, and tidal), and 3.2% water (Hochholzer 2010). Historic accounts suggest that moose existed in Connecticut prior to the 18th cen- tury (Trumbull 1797, DeForest 1964); how- ever, Goodwin (1935) noted that at the beginning of the 18th century there was no record of moose in Connecticut. Further, the lack of archaeological deposits of moose suggests that they likely existed in low num- bers, if at all (N. Bellantoni, Connecticut State Archeologist, pers. commun.). A few reports of transient moose occurred between 1916 and 1956 (Connecti- cut Wildlife 2000), and on 18 September 1956, the Board of Fisheries and Game (cur- rently the Department of Energy and Envir- onmental Protection, DEEP) passed an emergency regulation that gave full protec- tion to moose in Connecticut. Sporadic reports of moose occurred until the early 1990s (Kilpatrick et al. 2003), and in 1992 the DEEP began documenting all credible sightings and MVAs. In 1996 a question was added to the annual deer hunter ques- tionnaire asking them to report any moose observation during the deer (Odocoileus vir- ginianus) hunting season. In 1998, the Wild- life Division of DEEP adopted a directive (DEEP2431-D1) that outlined procedures for responding to problem moose situations that included hazing, capture and relocation, and euthanasia. Since 2000, observations of cows with calves confirmed the establish- ment of a small resident population (Kilpa- trick et al. 2003). An empirical model based on public sightings of moose reported to the DEEP conservatively estimated the population at ∼64 in 2004 (LaBonte and Kilpatrick 2006) with ∼75 present at the 84 OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE – LABONTE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 time of this survey in 2008 (LaBonte 2011). Despite low moose numbers, Connecticut was experiencing 2–4 MVAs annually (DEEP, unpublished data) and DEEP staff were exploring options to implement a moose management strategy to address increasing MVAs. However, it was unknown if the general public or hunting community would support a management strategy that included moose hunting given the minimal population. Understanding public and hunter opinions about moose and moose manage- ment is essential for developing an effective moose management plan in Connecticut. METHODS Based on the distribution of moose sightings by the public (Kilpatrick et al. 2003), hunters (LaBonte et al. 2008), and reported MVAs (DEEP, unpublished data) (Fig. 1), northern Connecticut was selected as the study area for the landowner survey. Based on geographic features and an assess- ment of human population densities, towns in northern Connecticut were delineated into 3 groups for the landowner survey (Fig. 1) and were used for landscape level comparisons. Towns were grouped as Cen- tral (n = 13), Eastern (n = 16), and Western (n = 20) (Table 1, Fig. 1). Landowner Survey A database containing the names and addresses of landowners in the 49 study towns was obtained from municipal town offices. We set a sampling rule to include pri- vate landowners and removed all identifiable outliers (e.g., limited liability companies, corporations, companies, schools, churches, trustees, towns). We deleted duplicate land- owner records (i.e., multiple ownerships) to compile a list of landowners with an equal likelihood of being randomly selected and receiving a single survey. We calculated minimum sample sizes required for each landscape based on a stratified random sampling approach (Scheaffer et al. 1996). A mail survey was chosen because it can include complex ques- tions, access geographically dispersed groups, and recipients can reply at their con- venience with low potential for social desir- ability bias (Decker et al. 2001). We used a 3-wave survey with a variation of the repeated mailing technique (Dillman 1978). Surveys were mailed to randomly selected landowners stratified among the 3 land- scapes (Eastern, Central, Western) in January 2008; 2 follow-up surveys were mailed to non-respondents about 4–8 weeks apart. After 3 attempts to contact landowners by mail, we contacted a sub-sample of non- respondents by telephone to assess non- response bias. We used Likert-scale questions in the surveys (Likert-scale numbers indicated by each response were used to calculate mean response scores) to assess beliefs and experi- ences about wildlife (5-point scale), con- cerns about moose, support for hunting (5- point scale), and acceptability of situations involving moose (6-point scale). There were 3 general types of questions with 3 response categories: 1) landowner beliefs and experiences (agree, neutral, disagree), 2) landowner opinions about management (support, neutral, oppose), and 3) landowner concerns (acceptable, not acceptable/no action, not acceptable/action). The study protocol and survey were reviewed and approved by the Connecticut Wildlife Division, the Northeast Wildlife Damage Management Cooperative, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB), Office of Research Compliance at the University of Connecticut; the IRB Chair deemed the sur- vey exempt from IRB status. Surveys were conducted in accordance with federal guide- lines in which minors (<18 years of age) were excluded, results were not identifiable to individuals, and surveys involved no risk to individuals. ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 LABONTE ET AL. – OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE 85 Fig. 1. The study area was in the state of Connecticut located in the northeastern portion of the United States. Landowner surveys were conducted in 2008 in the northern portions of Connecticut (shaded areas) where most moose-vehicle accidents (•) occurred, while hunter surveys were conducted at town halls ( ) located throughout the state. 86 OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE – LABONTE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 Hunter Survey We selected 31 of 169 (18%) town clerks to distribute the survey to any resident or non-resident hunter purchasing a Connecti- cut firearms hunting license or combination hunting/fishing license; towns and sampling period were selected based on the highest volume of hunting license sales in 2004. Sur- veys were distributed during 3 sampling per- iods (January, April, and October 2008) which were chosen to obtain a representative sample of each hunter group; many hunters purchase a license to pursue game during a specific season and the timing coincided with peak issuance. Packets containing an instruction letter, return envelope, and speci- fic number of surveys were mailed to the town clerks before each sample period; the number of surveys per town was based upon the respective volume of 2004 license sales. Town clerks were instructed to provide a survey to every other individual that pur- chased a hunting or combination hunting/ fishing license; upon completion, they col- lected the survey and mailed all after each sampling period. We generated questions to evaluate hunt- ing activity, participation in outdoor-related activities, and perceptions and opinions about Connecticut's moose population. We used a 5-point Likert-scale question to assess support for hunting and grouped responses into 3 categories: support, neutral, or oppose. The review and approval of the study proto- col and survey were identical to the Land- owner Survey. Analysis We treated ordinal-level (Likert Scale) data as interval-level data as previous studies have validated the use of such data in survey research (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994, Zinn and Andelt 1999, Daley et al. 2004). We cal- culated Levene's Test (P < 0.05) for Equality of Variances and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality; based on these results we used the Kruskal-Wallis test (P < 0.05) for all analysis at the landscape level, and the Mann-Whitney U test (P < 0.05) for compar- isons between landowners and hunters. Pear- son Chi-square tests (P < 0.05) were used to examine nominal level variables and com- pare responses between respondents and non-respondents. All analyses were con- ducted using SYSTAT 12.0 (SYSTAT 2007). RESULTS Respondent demographics Landowner survey — Surveys were returned from 622 of 2,023 landowners (35.7% Eastern, 31.3% Central, 37.9% Wes- tern); proportionally, 66% from the first, 20% from the second, and 14% from the final mailing. There was no difference among landscapes in gender (χ2 = 3.44, P < 0.178) and age of respondents (χ2 = 0.410, P < 0.999); 56.4% were male and the mean age of all respondents was 54.4 (SD = 14.7) years. After 3 attempts by mail, we contacted 51 non-respondents by telephone to assess non-response bias for specific questions. Hunting was not com- monly allowed in any landscape but was higher in the Western (16%, χ2 = 13.6, P < 0.001) and Eastern (14.7%, χ2 = 20.3, P < 0.001) than the Central landscape (3%). Table 1. Human densities and landscape level (Eastern, Central, Western) characteristics in Connecticut, 2008. Location Eastern Central Western Number of towns 16 13 20 Population 79/km2 185/km2 71/km2 % Forest 65.4 29.8 67.9 % Commercial/ residential 14.2 43.2 11.7 % Turf/agriculture 12.4 21.1 12.6 % Wetlands 4.6 2.8 3.8 % Water 2.3 1.8 3.3 % Other 1.1 1.3 0.7 ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 LABONTE ET AL. – OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE 87 Hunter Survey — Surveys were completed by 446 of 485 hunters (91.9%) and due to this high response rate, we did not assess non-response bias. Gender of hunters was primarily male (97.6%) and the mean age was 48.1 (SD = 12.5) years; the majority had harvested deer (65.2%) and a few bear (7.0%) and moose (3.6%). The majority (>60%) would participate in non- consumptive moose recreation (watching, photography) and half (50.8%) would hunt moose (Table 2). Landowner beliefs and experiences with wildlife Most landowners believed that wildlife and management were important, and the mean response scores were similar across all landscape levels except for hunting- related questions. In general, the majority of landowners were not unsupportive of hunting, but 30-60% were neutral/or dis- agreed with some aspect of hunting (Table 3). Knowledge about moose Landowner survey — Landowners were asked to identify the moose from 3 sketches depicting a deer, moose, and bear. Responses were combined as no differences existed among landscapes (χ2 = 1.562, P = 0.458); most (90.3%) correctly selected the image of the moose with the remainder selecting the deer. Respondent and non- respondent opinions about the number of moose existing in Connecticut were not dif- ferent (χ2 = 2.316, P = 0.128) and no adjust- ments were made. All responses were combined because no differences (χ2 = 4.315, P = 0.634) among landscapes existed in perceptions about how many moose exist in Connecticut. The majority (64%) correctly estimated that there were <100 moose in Connecticut, and >90% estimated <500 moose (Table 2). Landowner-Hunter comparisons — A similar proportion of landowners (63.9%) and hunters (67.4%) believed that <100 moose existed in Connecticut (χ2 = 1.31, P = 0.253) (Table 2). More hunters (27.7%) than landowners (18.5%) believed that <10 moose existed in Connecticut (χ2 = 11.9, P = 0.001); although both were <10%, con- versely, more landowners than hunters believed that >500 moose existed (χ2 = 8.6, P = 0.003). The primary source of informa- tion influencing opinions about the size of the moose population was from other Table 2. Landowner and hunter opinions about the moose population in Connecticut, USA, 2008. Lower case n refers to # of respondents. Percent of respondents Survey question Landowner Hunter Number of moose (n) 590 408 0 3.0 6.9 <10a 18.5 27.7 <100a 63.9 67.4 100–499 28.0 29.0 >500 8.0 3.5 Status of moose population (n) 606 430 Increasing 51.8 67.6 Decreasing 7.8 <1.0 Stable 10.0 11.6 No opinion 30.4 20.0 Opinion of moose population (n) 604 427 Too high 3.0 3.9 Too low 25.9 40.6 Just right 15.7 19.2 No opinion 54.9 36.1 Activities would participate in (n) 626 404 Watching moose 62.1 33.8 Photographing moose 50.7 27.5 Hunting moose 10.7 50.8 Other 2.0 1.0 None 20.0 19.0 aIncludes all respondents who indicated 0 or <10. 88 OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE – LABONTE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 Table 3. Landowner beliefs and experiences about wildlife in Connecticut, USA, 2008. Beliefs and experiences about wildlife % Responsea Agree Neutral Disagree No opinion Mean response scoresb C E W C E W C E W C E W C E W Hc Pc n I notice birds and wildlife around me daily 98 99 96 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1.65 1.77 1.70 4.60 0.101 626 Observing and learning about wildlife is important to me 88 92 89 10 7 7 2 1 3 0 0 1 1.34 1.47 1.40 3.12 0.210 624 Hunting animals for any purpose should not be permitted 19 12 22 22 16 12 58 71 65 2 2 1 −0.54 −0.89 −0.68 7.66 0.022 623 It is important to manage some wild animal populations 84 86 86 9 5 9 6 8 4 1 1 1 1.08 1.16 1.18 3.09 0.214 622 Wild animal populations should be managed for the benefit of all people 68 69 74 16 16 13 14 13 13 1 3 1 0.78 0.84 0.81 0.38 0.826 620 Participation in hunting helps people appreciate wildlife and natural processes 36 53 44 23 23 15 36 22 37 4 3 4 −0.01 0.40 0.03 8.62 0.013 623 If wildlife populations are abundant, it is ok to use them as a natural renewable resource 53 65 55 22 15 24 19 17 17 6 3 5 0.45 0.71 0.49 5.13 0.077 613 Regulated hunting is an acceptable use of a natural resource 65 76 69 15 9 12 16 13 17 4 2 3 0.63 0.94 0.70 9.88 0.007 621 C = Central, E = Eastern, W = Western. aLikert scale ranged from −2 (“Strongly disagree”) to 2 (“Strongly agree”). To evaluate percentages, responses were truncated into “Agree, Neutral, Disagree.” bNot included in analysis are the number of respondents who choose “No opinion.” cH and P values for Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistic comparison between Eastern, Central, and Western groups. A L C E S V O L . 4 9 , 2 0 1 3 L A B O N T E E T A L . – O P IN IO N S A B O U T M O O S E 8 9 sources (33.1%) for landowners and personal experience (37%) for hunters. Opinions about moose Landowner survey — Respondent and non-respondent opinions about the status of Connecticut's moose population (χ2 = 5.997, P = 0.112) and the number of moose in Connecticut (χ2 = 6.374, P = 0.095) were not different and no adjustments were made. No difference among landscapes (χ2 = 0.835, P = 0.659) existed between the pro- portion believing that the moose population was either increasing (about half) or decreas- ing, or that believed it was too high (∼3%) or too low (∼25%) (χ2 = 2.71, P = 0.257); therefore, responses were combined (Table 2). Likewise, no landscape differences existed (χ2 = 2.68, P = 0.262) and responses were combined for the proportion of land- owners (∼70%) who would support desig- nating viewing areas for moose watching. Landowner-hunter comparisons — About half (51.8%) of landowners and 2/3 of hunters believed that Connecticut's moose population was increasing, but few (3 and 4%, respectively) believed the population was too high (Table 2). More hunters (68%) than landowners (52%) believed that the population was increasing, and fewer that it was decreasing (χ2 = 33.1, P <0.001). There was no difference (χ2 = 0.559, P = 0.455) in the proportion of landowners and hunters who believed that the population was too low or too high; although, measurably more hunters thought the population was too low (40.6 vs. 25.9%; Table 2). From a list of 3 potential moose-related activities if moose were common in Connec- ticut, landowners favored watching and photography (62.1 and 50.7%), and hunters favored hunting and watching (50.8 and 33.8%). The proportion of landowners and hunters who would participate in watching (χ2 = 60.8, P < 0.001), photographing (χ2 = 41.9, P < 0.001), or hunting moose (χ2 = 247.6, P < 0.001) was different. The propor- tion of landowners and hunters who would not participate in any moose activity was similar (∼20%; χ2 = 0.057, P < 0.811) (Table 2). Interactions with moose Landowner survey — A minority (15%) of landowners observed moose in 29 towns and differences existed among land- scapes (χ2 = 14.3, P = 0.001). Twice as many landowners observed moose in Wes- tern (27.0%) than Central (12.0%, χ2 = 13.6, P < 0.001) and Eastern landscapes (12.6%, χ2 = 6.07, P = 0.014) which were not different (χ2 = 0.031, P = 0.860) (Table 4). An additional 51 landowners reported moose tracks or other sign with the same landscape differences (χ2 = 13.3, P = 0.001); more moose tracks and sign were observed in Western (21.8%) than in Central (7.8%, χ2 = 13.2, P < 0.001) and Eastern (10.0%, χ2 = 3.99, P = 0.046) landscapes which were not different (χ2 = 0.464, P = 0.496) (Table 4). Only landowners in western landscapes had been in a MVA (n = 4) in Connecticut. Although the rate of MVA experiences in any landscape was low over all (<5%), land- scape differences existed (χ2 = 8.29, P = 0.016) (Table 4). Landowners in western landscapes (4.9%) were in more MVAs than those in Central landscapes (<1.0%, χ2 = 7.45, P = 0.006); there was no differ- ence between Western and Eastern (1.0%, χ2 = 2.71, P = 0.100) or Eastern and Central (χ2 = 0.001, P = 0.979) landscapes (Table 4). Hunter survey — Moose were observed by 20% of hunters (n = 91) in 36 towns, with 71 others observing tracks or scat in 14 towns where sightings occurred, as well as in 13 other towns. Landowner concerns about moose Landowner concerns were not different among landscapes regarding health, safety, 90 OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE – LABONTE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 or damage-related issues (H = 0.059–2.115, 0.742 >P >0.347), and were combined for analysis (Table 5). The majority were only concerned about MVA, with <20% very con- cerned (Table 5). Moose Population Management Landowner survey — Responses were combined because mean scores were not dif- ferent among landscapes (H = 1.44–5.59, 0.487 > P > 0.061) for any scenario regard- ing moose population management (Table 6). A minority (31%) of landowners supported hunting as a method to control moose populations in Connecticut based on their current level of concern; their support was highest if hunting was carefully regu- lated and controlled by the state, or if the moose population and number of MVAs were increasing (both 54%). Conversely, the vast majority of hunters (83-88%) sup- ported hunting under all scenarios (Table 6). The proportion of landowners and hun- ters who supported hunting was different “if it was carefully regulated and controlled by the state” (U = 53,194, χ2 = 211.53, Table 4. Landowner interactions with moose in Connecticut, USA, 2006–2007. Moose-human interactions % Response Yes No C E W C E W χ2 Pa Observed Moose 12.0 12.6 27.0 88.0 87.4 73.0 14.30 0.001 In Yard 1.5 4.6 5.3 98.5 95.4 94.7 5.56 0.062 Outside Yard 3.8 3.4 13.7 96.2 96.6 86.3 13.55 0.001 Crossing Road 5.8 2.3 13.7 94.2 97.7 86.3 9.88 0.007 Other 3.5 5.7 5.3 96.5 94.3 94.7 1.26 0.531 Observed Tracks/scat 7.8 10.0 21.8 92.2 90.0 78.2 13.30 0.001 Moose-vehicle accident 1.0 (0.0b) 1.0 (0.0b) 4.9 (4.0b) 99.0 99.0 95.1 8.29 0.016 E = Eastern (n = 87), C = Central (n = 343), W = Western (n = 95). aχ2 and P values for Pearson Chi-square comparison between eastern, central, and western groups. bMVA reported just in Connecticut. Table 5. Landowner concerns about moose interactions in Connecticut, USA, 2008. Concerns about moose % Response Mean response scoresa Hb Pb No concern Some concern Very concerned No opinion Encountering a moose 67.4 24.9 4.0 3.7 1.47 1.263 0.532 The cost of residential property damage caused by moose 57.2 30.9 4.9 7.1 1.61 2.115 0.347 Being injured in a motor vehicle accident that involves a moose 28.0 50.7 18.6 2.8 2.33 1.385 0.500 Potential problems that moose may cause to the ecosystem 52.5 31.3 4.9 11.3 1.66 0.596 0.742 Overall current level of concern related to moose 57.3 34.6 3.4 4.7 1.58 0.662 0.718 aLikert scale ranged from 1 (“Not concerned”) to 4 (“Very concerned”). To evaluate percentages, “slightly con- cerned” and “somewhat concerned” responses were truncated into “Some concern.” bH and P values for Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistic comparison between Eastern, Central, and Western groups. ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 LABONTE ET AL. – OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE 91 Table 6. Landowner and hunter opinions about managing moose populations using hunting in Connecticut, USA, 2008. Concerns about moose % Response Mean response scoresa Support Neutral Oppose Hb Pb Uc Pc χ2 Land Hunt Land Hunt Land Hunt Land Hunt Land Land Based on your current level of concern? 31 NA 29 NA 40 NA −0.23 2.05 0.35 If your level of concern increases? 47 NA 25 NA 29 NA 0.20 3.98 0.13 If hunting were carefully regulated and controlled by the state? 54 88 22 6 24 6 0.34 1.41 2.82 0.24 53,194 0.00 211.5 If you knew that the moose population would be maintained at its current level? 41 83 30 8 29 9 0.09 1.23 2.69 0.26 49,524 0.00 206.2 If you knew that hunting is currently allowed in other New England states? 41 NA 30 NA 29 NA 0.10 5.59 0.06 If you knew the likelihood of a human fatality was greater d? 54 85 26 8 21 7 0.44 1.37 1.44 0.48 18,731 0.00 268.0 aLikert scale ranged from −2 (“Strongly oppose”) to 2 (“Strongly support”). To evaluate percentages, “strongly support” and “support” were truncated into “support,” and “oppose” and “strongly oppose” were truncated into “oppose.” bH and P values for Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistic comparison between Eastern, Central, and Western groups. cU and P values for Mann-Whitney U test between landowners and hunters. dIf you knew the likelihood of a human fatality was greater for a moose-vehicle accident than a deer-vehicle accident and that the moose population and number of moose- vehicle accidents were increasing in Connecticut? NA = Not asked on survey. 9 2 O P IN IO N S A B O U T M O O S E – L A B O N T E E T A L . A L C E S V O L . 4 9 , 2 0 1 3 P < 0.001), “if they knew that the moose population would be maintained at its cur- rent level” (U = 49,524, χ2 = 206.22, P < 0.001), and “if the moose population and number of MVAs was increasing in Connec- ticut” (U = 18,731, χ2 = 268.01, P < 0.001) (Table 6). The range of responses was evenly dis- tributed (13–18% per response, n = 6 responses) for those either primarily support- ing or opposing hunting moose in Connecticut (Table 7). In general, those sup- porting hunting of moose wanted to either hunt moose or linked human-moose conflicts with need for hunting. Conversely, those opposed to hunting moose were either unsupportive of hunting or believed that the population/conflict rate was too low (Table 7). Landowner opinions about roadside sightings and moose-vehicle accidents No differences existed at the landscape level in opinions about roadside sightings (H = 3.7–5.8, 0.15 > P > 0.054), MVAs (H = 0.61–2.8, 0.23 > P > 0.73), or fatalities resulting from a MVA (H = 2.2 – 3.0, P > 0.22). The proportion of landowners who deemed “it not acceptable and some action should be taken” increased substantially in all categories if the overall problem of MVAs rose (Table 8). DISCUSSION Although few landowners hunted or per- mitted hunting on their property, observing and learning about wildlife was important to most landowners and they were suppor- tive of designating viewing areas for moose. Hunting activity, beliefs, and experiences with wildlife if hunting was involved, and direct interactions with moose and MVAs were influenced by landscape. But, knowl- edge, opinions about moose and moose man- agement, and concerns about moose were similar across landscapes despite landscape differences in moose experiences, albeit experiences were low (<20%) in all landscapes. We found that landowner and hunter knowledge about moose abundance was lim- ited, as in Massachusetts 20 years ago (Vecellio et al. 1993). A small number (<50) of landowners and hunters combined believed no moose existed in Connecticut. The main source of information about moose for landowners was from non-DEEP sources, Table 7. Landowner responses regarding reasons why they primarily supported or opposed hunting to control moose populations in Connecticut, USA, 2008. Primarily supported hunting n % Respondents Regulated hunting is a legitimate method to control moose population growth 306 18.1 Moose threaten human safety 254 15.1 DEEP officials are well trained to handle problems associated with moose 252 14.9 Moose population is too high or may become too high 244 14.5 Moose cause damage to crops or property 244 14.5 Want the opportunity to hunt moose 222 13.2 Don't know 101 6.0 Other 63 3.7 Primarily opposed to hunting Moose are not a threat to human safety at their current level 211 16.3 Moose do not cause enough damage to warrant management 205 15.8 Moose population is too low and does not warrant management 198 15.3 Do not support hunters killing moose 190 14.6 Disagree with hunting 181 14.0 Do not support DEEP killing moose 176 13.6 Do not know 85 6.6 Other 51 3.9 ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 LABONTE ET AL. – OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE 93 Table 8. Landowner opinions about roadside sightings and moose-vehicle accidents in Connecticut, USA, 2008. % Response Acceptable Not acceptable/no action Not acceptable/ action Mean response scoresa Concerns about moose C E W C E W C E W C E W Hb Pb A moose is on or near a busy highway occasionally 35.6 39.2 23.7 13.9 13.4 19.6 50.5 47.4 56.7 3.31 3.29 3.60 3.742 0.154 Moose are frequently on or near busy highways 14.6 19.8 10.2 10.9 14.6 9.2 74.5 65.6 80.6 4.13 4.01 4.36 5.837 0.054 1 Moose-vehicle collision occurs each year statewide 38.1 34.4 31.6 21.5 36.5 34.7 40.4 29.2 33.7 3.16 3.05 3.11 0.618 0.734 2-5 Moose-vehicle collisions occur each year statewide 26.5 26.6 20.4 15.5 18.1 18.4 58.0 55.3 61.2 3.80 3.78 3.93 1.009 0.604 6-10 Moose-vehicle collisions occur each year statewide 18.1 21.3 10.5 15.4 7.9 14.7 66.5 70.8 74.7 4.14 4.26 4.40 2.878 0.237 >10 Moose-vehicle collisions occur each year statewide 13.2 17.8 9.4 12.4 7.8 8.3 74.4 74.4 82.3 4.39 4.49 4.68 2.746 0.253 A human fatality results from a motorist hitting a moose in Connecticut 16.7 20.0 10.5 21.0 24.4 23.2 62.4 55.6 66.3 4.08 3.82 4.23 2.964 0.227 2-5 human fatalities result from a motorist hitting a moose in Connecticut 10.8 13.3 6.3 14.2 10.0 10.4 75.0 76.7 83.3 4.52 4.56 4.69 3.069 0.216 E = Eastern, C = Central, W = Western. aLikert scale was 1 (“Acceptable”), 2 (“Not acceptable/no management action taken”), 3 (“Not acceptable/action should be taken”). bH and P values for Kruskal-Wallis Test Statistic comparison between Eastern, Central, and Western groups. 9 4 O P IN IO N S A B O U T M O O S E – L A B O N T E E T A L . A L C E S V O L . 4 9 , 2 0 1 3 whereas hunters were most influenced by personal experience and DEEP communica- tions. It is not surprising that ∼25% of land- owners and hunters believed <10 moose existed (Table 2), because few ever observe a moose in Connecticut. Many landowners and hunters had no opinion about the moose population status (20–30%) or how many moose should exist in Connecticut (35–55%) (Table 2). The low response rate probably reflects their lack of experience, familiarity, and interest in moose. Riley and Decker (2000) also found a large portion of people lacked opi- nions about cougars in Montana, presumably for the same reasons. They suggested that lack of opinion may indicate 1) a lack of general concern in the everyday lives of resi- dents, 2) stakeholder perceptions that man- agers do not listen to stakeholder concerns, or 3) distrust in delegation of decision-mak- ing to managers. Overall, the majority of landowners had few concerns about moose except MVAs. Less than half supported using hunting as a method to control moose populations in Connecticut based on their current knowl- edge of population levels, as opposed to hun- ters who were strongly supportive. More than half of landowners were supportive of moose hunting if it was carefully regulated and controlled by the state. Although all forms of hunting are controlled by state fish and wildlife agencies, Kilpatrick et al. (2007) found that landowners often are unaware of regulations or requirements that govern wildlife resources and expressed increased support for certain regulations or requirements although they already existed. Predictably, if the number of roadside sight- ings, MVA, or the number of related human fatalities increased, the proportion finding such unacceptable also increased. Given that the first reported MVA in Connecticut occurred in 1995 and the annual rate remains low (2.3 MVA per year), it is not surprising that residents are minimally concerned about moose. Overall, few land- owners (<1%) had ever been involved in a MVA in Connecticut. If the frequency of moose sightings along roads increases sub- stantially, support for controlling moose populations will presumably increase regard- less of the number of MVAs or human fatal- ities. About 50% believed that a moose near a busy highway was unacceptable requiring action, and 58% believed action was required at 2–5 MVA per year, the current reported MVA rate (Table 7). A similar situa- tion occurred with elk (Cervus elaphus) in urban areas of Flagstaff, Arizona (Lee and Miller 2003), where most respondents were concerned about being in an automobile accident involving an elk or seeing one along a roadside. The collective ability for humans to accept the presence and consequences of any wildlife species will eventually define the wildlife acceptance capacity (WAC) for that species (Decker and Purdy 1988). In Anchorage, Alaska where moose popula- tions exceed habitat carrying capacity (WAC is either higher or lower), only half of residents supported moose hunting (Whit- taker et al. 2001). In British Columbia, McDonald et al. (2012) found that most respondents suggested reducing attractants or relocating moose to alleviate moose- human conflicts, presumably over hunting, however sample size was small (n <100). Acceptance of hunting among certain stake- holders may be influenced more by basic beliefs about hunting which are based on fundamental value orientations toward use or protection of wildlife (Fulton et al. 1996, Zinn et al. 1998). In Connecticut, because moose are of such low numbers and few resi- dents have any direct experience with moose, an associated WAC is probably not measurable or is exceedingly high. We expect a reduction in WAC if moose- human conflicts increase measurably and ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 LABONTE ET AL. – OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE 95 advocate for a proactive management strat- egy that would increase public education about moose, MVAs, and the potential role of hunting to help protect human safety. Edu- cational efforts should improve public awareness through posted warnings about local moose on Department of Transporta- tion Variable Message Boards (VMBs), erecting moose-crossing signs in appropriate areas, and meeting with stakeholder groups. The effectiveness of VMBs and signs to reduce MVAs is unknown, but they should alert drivers otherwise unaware about moose in Connecticut. A multi-faceted strategy should increase public awareness and educa- tion about moose in Connecticut and aid in developing a long-term moose management program beyond simply minimizing MVAs. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank G. Chasko, P. Curtis, J. Enck, M. Gregonis, M. Ortega, D. May, and R. Ricard for reviewing surveys and drafts of this manuscript, and J. Brooks, T. Goodie, P. Lewis, T. Muni, and A. Ocampo for assist- ing with data collection. This project was supported by the University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Wildlife Conservation Research Center, the Northeast Wildlife Damage Management Cooperative, and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project 49-35. REFERENCES ALEXANDER, C. E. 1993. The status and man- agement of moose in Vermont. Alces 29: 187–195. BATH, A. J., and J. W. ENCK. 2003. Wildlife- human interactions in national parks in Canada and the USA. National Park Ser- vice Research Review 4: 1–32. BLAHNA, D. J., and S. YONTS-SHEPHARD. 1989. Public involvement in resource planning: toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural Resources 2: 209–227. CONNECTICUT ECONOMIC RESOURCE CEN- TER. 2006. State-by-state analysis. Rocky Hill, Connecticut, USA. (accessed December 2010). ———. 2010. Connecticut CERC State Pro- file. Rocky Hill, Connecticut, USA. (accessed December 2010). Connecticut Wildlife. 2000. Wildlife man- agement through the century. Connecti- cut Wildlife 20(6): 14–17. DALEY, S. S., D. T. COBB, P. T. BROMLEY, and C. E. SORENSON. 2004. Landowner atti- tudes regarding wildlife management on private land in North Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 209–219. DECKER, D. J., T. L. BROWN, and W. F. SIE- MER. 2001. Human Dimensions of Wild- life Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Mary- land, USA. ———, and K. G. PURDY. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 523–527. DEFOREST, J. W. 1964. History of the Indians of Connecticut From the Earliest Known Period to 1850. Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut, USA. DILLMAN, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley –Interscience, New York, New York, USA. DONNELLY, M. P., and J. J. VASKE. 1995. Pre- dicting attitudes towards a proposed moose hunt. Society and Natural Resources 8: 307–319. ERICKSON, P. A. 1979. The role of the public. Pages 309–321 in P. A. Erickson, editor. Environmental Impact Assessment: 96 OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE – LABONTE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 http://www.cerc.com/Content/Resources.asp http://www.cerc.com/Content/Resources.asp http://www.cerc.com/TownProfiles/Customer-Images/connecticut.pdf http://www.cerc.com/TownProfiles/Customer-Images/connecticut.pdf Principles and Applications. Academic Press. New York, New York, USA. ERICSSON, G. 2003. Of moose and man: the past, the present, and the future of human dimensions in moose research. Alces 39: 11–26. FLANIGAN, F. H. 1987. Public involvement in the Chesapeake Bay, USA program. Pages 512–517 in S. K. Majumdar, L. W. Hall, and H. M. Austin, editors. Con- taminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources. Pennsylvania Academy of Science. Easton, Pennsylvania, USA. FULTON, D., M. J. MANFREDO, and J. LIPSCOMB. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: a con- ceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1: 24–47. GOODWIN, G. 1935. The Mammals of Con- necticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey, Bulletin 53. Hartford, Connecticut, USA. HARTIG, J. H., and R. L. THOMAS. 1988. Devel- opment of plans to restore degraded areas in the Great Lakes. Environmental Man- agement 12: 327–347. HOCHHOLZER, H. 2010. Connecticut's forest resource assessment and strategy; build- ing a better tomorrow for Connecticut's forests today. Department of Environ- mental Protection, Bureau of Natural Resources, Forestry Division, Hartford, Connecticut, USA. KILPATRICK, H. J., R. RIGGS, A. M. LABONTE, and D. CELOTTO. 2003. His- tory and status of moose in Connecticut 2002. Bureau of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Department of Envir- onmental Protection, Hartford, Connecti- cut, USA. ———, A. M. LABONTE, and J. S. BARCLAY. 2007. Acceptance of deer management strategies by suburban landowners and bowhunters. Journal of Wildlife Manage- ment 71: 2095–2101. LABONTE, A.M. 2011. An assessment of moose (Alces alces American) and moose management in Connecticut. MS Thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA. ———, and H. J. KILPATRICK. 2006. Moose (Alces alces) in Connecticut: establish- ment, expansion, and future expecta- tions. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference. Groton, Connecticut, USA. ———, ———, and W. REID. 2008. 2007 Connecticut Deer Summary Report. Department of Environmental Protec- tion, Bureau of Natural Resources, Wild- life Division, Hartford, Connecti- cut, USA. LANDRE, B. K., and B. A. KNUTH. 1993. The role of agency goals and local context in Great Lakes water resources public invol- vement programs. Environmental Man- agement 17: 153–165. LAUBER, T. B., and B. A. KNUTH. 1997. Fair- ness in moose management decision- making: the citizen's perspective. Wild- life Society Bulletin 25: 776–787. ———, and ———. 1999. Measuring fair- ness in citizen participation: a case study of moose management. Society and Nat- ural Resources 11: 19–37. LEE, M. E., and R. MILLER. 2003. Managing elk in the wildland-urban interface: atti- tudes of Flagstaff, Arizona residents. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 185–191. MCDONALD, A. M. H., R. V. REA, and G. HESSE. 2012. Perceptions of moose- human conflicts in an urban environ- ment. Alces 48: 123–130. MIRICK, P. G. 1999. Back in the company of moose. Massachusetts Wildlife 49: 17–25. NELKIN, D. 1984. Approaches to participa- tion in natural resource decisions. Pages 175–182 in C. W. Churchman, A. H. Rosenthal, and S. H. Smith, editors. Nat- ural Resource Administration. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA. NUNNALLY, J. C., and I. H. BERNSTEIN. 1994. Psyclandtric Theory. Third edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, USA. ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 LABONTE ET AL. – OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE 97 PINKERTON, E. 1991. Locally based water quality planning contributions to fish habitat protection. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 48: 1326–1333. RILEY, S. J., and D. J. DECKER. 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cou- gars in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulle- tin 28: 931–939. SCHEAFFER, R. L., W. MENDENHALL III, and L. OTT. 1996. Elementary Survey Sam- pling. Fifth edition. Duxbury Press, Wadsworth Publishing Company Inc, Raritan, New Jersey, USA. SCHWARTZ, C. C., and B. BARTLEY. 1991. Reducing incidental moose mortality: considerations for management. Alces 27: 227–231. SILVERBERG, J. K., P. J. PEKINS, and R. A. ROBERTSON. 2001. Impacts of wildlife viewing at Dixville Notch Wildlife View- ing Area. Proceedings of the 2001 North- east Recreation Research Symposium, Bolton Landing, New York, USA. SYSTAT SOFTWARE. 2007. Systat 12.0 Statis- tics III. SYSTAT Software, Inc., San Jose, California, USA. TEEL, T. L., R. S. KRANNICH, and R. H. SCHMIDT. 2002. Utah stakeholders' atti- tudes toward selected cougar and black bear management practices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 2–15. TIMMERMANN, H. R., and A. R. RODGERS. 2005. Moose: competing and comple- mentary values. Alces: 85–120. TRUMBULL, B. D. 1797. A Complete History of Connecticut, Civil and Ecclesiastical, From the Emigration of its First Planters From England, in 1630 to 1713. Hudson and Goodwin, Hartford, Connecti- cut, USA. TWIGHT, B. W., and J. J. PATTERSON. 1979. Conflict and public involvement: mea- suring consensus. Journal of Forestry 77: 771–776. VECELLIO, G. M., R. D. DEBLINGER, and J. E. CARDOZA. 1993. Status and management of moose in Massachusetts. Alces 29: 1–7. WATTLES, D. W., and S. DESTEFANO. 2011. Status and management of moose in the northeastern United States. Alces 47: 53–68. WHITTAKER, D., M. J. MANFREDO, P. J. FIX, R. SINNOTT, S. MILLER, and J. J. VASKE. 2001. Understanding beliefs and attitudes about an urban wildlife hunt near Anchorage, Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 1114–1124. WOLFE, M. L. 1987. An overview of the socioeconomics of moose in North America. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1: 659–675. ZINN, H. C., and W. ANDELT. 1999. Attitudes of Fort Collins, Colorado residents toward prairie dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 1098–1106. ———, M. J. MANFREDO, J. J. VASKE, and K. WITTMANN. 1998. Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society and Natural Resources 11: 649–662. 98 OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE – LABONTE ET AL. ALCES VOL. 49, 2013 OPINIONS ABOUT MOOSE AND MOOSE MANAGEMENT AT THE SOUTHERN EXTENT OF MOOSE RANGE IN CONNECTICUT STUDY AREA AND BACKGROUND METHODS Landowner Survey Hunter Survey Analysis RESULTS Respondent demographics Landowner beliefs and experiences with wildlife Knowledge about moose Opinions about moose Interactions with moose Landowner concerns about moose Moose Population Management Landowner opinions about roadside sightings and mooseicle accidents DISCUSSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES