2007 Summaries of Wildlife Research Findings - Minnesota State ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3-40: Belief about whether MY FRIENDS think I should support a ban on lead shot in the farmland zone in Minnesota. N Extremely unlikely Quite unlikely Slightly unlikely Neutral Slightly likely Quite likely Extremely likely Statewide 1 860 18.1% 14.0% 9.3% 36.7% 9.7% 8.0% 4.2% 3.5 METRO 365 12.3% 13.7% 9.0% 39.2% 12.1% 9.0% 4.7% 3.7 NONMETRO 528 19.5% 13.3% 9.5% 35.8% 9.5% 8.0% 4.5% 3.4 χ2 =9.128 n.s.; Cramer’s V = 0.101 1 A stratified sample based on region of residence was drawn. Statewide data is weighted to reflect metropolitan/nonmetropolitan proportions in the population and to correct for non-response bias. n.s. = not significant, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 F=5.348*; η=0.077 Table 3-41: Belief about whether OTHER HUNTERS think I should support a ban on lead shot in the farmland zone in Minnesota. N Extremely unlikely Quite unlikely Slightly unlikely Neutral Slightly likely Quite likely Extremely likely Statewide 1 861 18.6% 14.1% 13.4% 33.1% 10.7% 6.8% 3.4% 3.4 METRO 365 15.6% 12.3% 12.6% 35.3% 13.2% 7.1% 3.8% 3.5 NONMETRO 529 18.7% 14.2% 13.2% 32.3% 10.4% 7.4% 3.8% 3.4 χ 2 =3.832 n.s.; Cramer’s V = 0.065 1 A stratified sample based on region of residence was drawn. Statewide data is weighted to reflect metropolitan/nonmetropolitan proportions in the population and to correct for non-response bias. n.s. = not significant, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 Table 3-42: Belief about whether ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS think I should support a ban on lead shot in the farmland zone in Minnesota. N Extremely unlikely Quite unlikely 232 Slightly unlikely Neutral Slightly likely Quite likely Extremely likely Mean Mean F=2.069 n.s.; η=0.048 Statewide 1 858 3.4% 3.1% 3.0% 26.7% 13.4% 24.1% 26.3% 5.2 METRO 363 2.5% 1.4% 2.2% 23.4% 13.2% 27.8% 29.5% 5.4 NONMETRO 527 3.4% 3.8% 3.4% 27.1% 13.5% 22.8% 26.0% 5.2 χ2 =10.504 n.s.; Cramer’s V = 0.109 1 A stratified sample based on region of residence was drawn. Statewide data is weighted to reflect metropolitan/nonmetropolitan proportions in the population and to correct for non-response bias. n.s. = not significant, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 F=7.726**; η=0.093 Mean
Table 3-43: Belief about whether PHEASANTS FOREVER thinks I should support a ban on lead shot in the farmland zone in Minnesota. N Extremely unlikely Quite unlikely Slightly unlikely Neutral Slightly likely Quite likely Extremely likely Statewide 1 853 5.9% 5.0% 4.1% 48.7% 12.7% 16.2% 7.4% 4.4 METRO 360 5.0% 4.7% 5.6% 46.4% 12.2% 17.8% 8.3% 4.4 NONMETRO 524 5.9% 4.6% 3.8% 49.0% 12.6% 16.4% 7.6% 4.4 χ 2 =2.463 n.s.; Cramer’s V = 0.053 1 A stratified sample based on region of residence was drawn. Statewide data is weighted to reflect metropolitan/nonmetropolitan proportions in the population and to correct for non-response bias. n.s. = not significant, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 Table 3-44: Belief about whether DUCKS UNLIMITED thinks I should support a ban on lead shot in the farmland zone in Minnesota. N Extremely unlikely Quite unlikely Slightly unlikely Neutral Slightly likely Quite likely Extremely likely Mean F=0.274 n.s.; η=0.018 Statewide 1 851 4.2% 3.4% 2.2% 36.8% 10.7% 21.2% 21.5% 5.0 METRO 361 2.8% 3.9% 2.2% 36.0% 10.0% 23.8% 21.3% 5.0 NONMETRO 522 4.4% 2.9% 2.3% 37.0% 10.9% 20.3% 22.2% 5.0 χ2 =3.718 n.s.; Cramer’s V = 0.065 1 A stratified sample based on region of residence was drawn. Statewide data is weighted to reflect metropolitan/nonmetropolitan proportions in the population and to correct for non-response bias. n.s. = not significant, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 F=0.356 n.s.; η=0.020 Table 3-45: Belief about whether THE MINNESOTA DNR thinks I should support a ban on lead shot in the farmland zone in Minnesota. N Extremely unlikely Quite unlikely 233 Slightly unlikely Neutral Slightly likely Quite likely Extremely likely Statewide 1 854 2.8% 3.0% 1.3% 33.7% 13.0% 25.6% 20.5% 5.1 METRO 362 1.9% 2.8% 1.1% 32.0% 13.8% 26.5% 21.8% 5.2 NONMETRO 524 3.1% 3.1% 1.3% 34.0% 12.6% 25.8% 20.2% 5.1 χ2 =1.977 n.s.; Cramer’s V = 0.047 1 A stratified sample based on region of residence was drawn. Statewide data is weighted to reflect metropolitan/nonmetropolitan proportions in the population and to correct for non-response bias. n.s. = not significant, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 F=1.365 n.s.; η=0.039 Mean Mean
Page 1 and 2:
Summaries of Wildlife Research Find
Page 3 and 4:
September 2008 State of Minnesota,
Page 5 and 6:
The value of farm programs for prov
Page 7 and 8:
Understanding variations in autumn
Page 9 and 10:
MANAGING BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN WHI
Page 11 and 12:
3 the lungs or chest cavity that we
Page 15:
" Winter 2007 Deer Removal Location
Page 19 and 20:
METHODS The MNDNR planned to sample
Page 21 and 22:
Table 1. Bird species sampled for h
Page 23:
Table 2 continued. Northern Pintail
Page 27 and 28:
Blood was centrifuged and serum was
Page 29 and 30:
Liver and Lung Culture A total of 1
Page 31 and 32:
Positive results indicate exposure
Page 35 and 36:
ESTIMATING WHITE-TAILED DEER ABUNDA
Page 37 and 38:
or 2 quadrats. As a result, associa
Page 39 and 40:
Table 1. Deer population and densit
Page 41 and 42:
OBJECTIVE • To estimate density a
Page 43 and 44:
35 Figure 1. Locations of trail cam
Page 45 and 46:
EA hunters, identified in MNDNR 200
Page 47 and 48:
percentage of EA hunters harvesting
Page 49 and 50:
Deer harvested per 100 hunters 60 5
Page 51 and 52:
FACTORS AFFECTING POPULATION INDICE
Page 53 and 54:
following the first listening perio
Page 55:
Table 1. Pheasant crowing and roads
Page 59:
Index (males/stop) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1
Page 62 and 63:
feeders (52%), depredation in cattl
Page 64 and 65:
Table 3. Response for question 3: S
Page 66 and 67:
Table 7. Responses for question 7:
Page 68 and 69:
Table 10. Responses for question 10
Page 70 and 71:
4. Do you need more information on
Page 72 and 73:
EVIDENCE OF WILD TURKEYS IN MINNESO
Page 74 and 75:
the upper valleys of the Mississipp
Page 76:
68 Hoy, P. R. 1882. The larger wild
Page 79 and 80:
71 songbirds, lagomorphs, rodents,
Page 81 and 82:
73 (Cleary 1994). The first method
Page 83 and 84:
Function #7: Public Relations with
Page 85 and 86:
77 Evrard, J.O. 2000. Overwinter fo
Page 87 and 88:
79 Murphy, R.K., N.F. Payne and R.K
Page 89 and 90:
METHODS 81 We selected 36 study are
Page 91 and 92:
Hens were relatively abundant durin
Page 93 and 94:
85 Gabbert, A. E., A. P. Leif, J. R
Page 95 and 96:
Table 3. Pheasant population indice
Page 98 and 99:
Pheasants/100 Miles Pheasants/100 M
Page 100 and 101:
RESULTS Thirty-six respondents comp
Page 102 and 103:
Table 1. Mean rank (1 most importan
Page 104 and 105:
EVIDENCE OF LEAD SHOT PROBLEMS FOR
Page 106 and 107:
Wildlife Species Ingesting Lead Sho
Page 108 and 109:
Michigan Department of Environmenta
Page 110 and 111:
102 Battaglia, A., S. Ghidini, G. C
Page 112 and 113:
104 Friend, M. and J.C. Franson (ed
Page 114 and 115:
106 Lemay, A., P. McNicholl, and R.
Page 116 and 117:
108 Pain, D.J., I. Carter, A.W. Sai
Page 118 and 119:
110 Tsuji, L.S., & N. Nieboer. 1997
Page 120 and 121:
SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME REFERENCE L
Page 122 and 123:
SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME REFERENCE L
Page 124 and 125:
NONTOXIC AND LEAD SHOT LITERATURE R
Page 126 and 127:
Brown, C.S., J.Luebbert, D. Mulcahy
Page 128 and 129:
CWS (Canadian Wildlife Service). 19
Page 130 and 131:
European Commission Enterprise Dire
Page 132 and 133:
124 Haldimann, M., A. Baumgartner,
Page 134 and 135:
Johansen, P., G. Asmund, and F. Rig
Page 136 and 137:
Lance, V.A., T.R. Horn, R.M. Elsey
Page 138 and 139:
Mateo, R., M. Rodríguez-de la Cruz
Page 140 and 141:
Ochiai, K., T. Kimura, K. Uematsu,
Page 142 and 143:
Rocke, T. E., C. J. Brand, and J. G
Page 144 and 145:
Sleet, R. B., and J. H. Soares, Jr.
Page 146 and 147:
USEPA (United States Environmental
Page 148 and 149:
140 - Reviews the international env
Page 150 and 151:
142 - Summarizes current scientific
Page 152 and 153:
144 Cummings School of Veterinary M
Page 154 and 155:
146 - Lead poisoning of wildlife oc
Page 156 and 157:
Lance, V.A., T.R. Horn, R.M. Elsey
Page 158 and 159:
150 Michigan Department of Natural
Page 160 and 161:
152 - Although all visible pellets
Page 162 and 163:
154 Thomas, V. G., and Owen, M. 199
Page 164 and 165:
SUPPORT FOR, ATTITUDES TOWARD, AND
Page 166 and 167:
Statewide Estimates The study sampl
Page 168 and 169:
Table 1: Response rates for each ma
Page 170 and 171:
Table 7: Mean beliefs about and eva
Page 172 and 173:
Protecting wildlife from lead poiso
Page 174 and 175:
The southern portion of Minnesota i
Page 176 and 177:
Although our domestic sheep weighed
Page 178 and 179:
1 I 'T 'l 170 Figure 1. General loc
Page 180 and 181:
172 Small Game Hunter Lead Shot Stu
Page 182 and 183:
Executive Summary The purpose of th
Page 184 and 185:
Table S-1: Gauge of shotgun used mo
Page 186 and 187:
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Support for/Oppositio
Page 188 and 189:
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Figure S-8: Concern a
Page 190 and 191: Conclusions 182 These survey result
Page 192 and 193: 184 Small Game Hunter Lead Shot Stu
Page 194 and 195: Acknowledgements This study was a c
Page 196 and 197: Introduction Study Purpose and Obje
Page 198 and 199: Bohrnstedt and Mee, 2002, p. 414).
Page 200 and 201: Section 1: Small Game Hunting Activ
Page 202 and 203: Table 1-1: Proportion of respondent
Page 204 and 205: Table 1-7: How often do you hunt wi
Page 206 and 207: Table 1-13: Involvement in small ga
Page 212 and 213: Table 1-29: Involvement With and Co
Page 214 and 215: Section 2: Shotgun and Shot Prefere
Page 216 and 217: Table 2-4: Gauge of shotgun used mo
Page 218 and 219: Table 2-10: Type of shot used most
Page 220 and 221: Table 2-16: Number of boxes of shel
Page 222 and 223: Table 2-22: Number of boxes of shel
Page 224 and 225: Section 3: Beliefs, Attitudes, and
Page 226 and 227: 218 Respondents were asked to indic
Page 228 and 229: Table 3-4: Beliefs about using lead
Page 230 and 231: Table 3-10: Beliefs about using lea
Page 232 and 233: Table 3-16: Likelihood that banning
Page 234 and 235: Table 3-22: Likelihood that banning
Page 236 and 237: Table 3-28: How good or bad is the
Page 238 and 239: Table 3-34: How good or bad is the
Page 242 and 243: Table 3-46: Belief about whether TH
Page 244 and 245: Table 3-52: I want to do what DUCKS
Page 246 and 247: Section 4: Trust in the Minnesota D
Page 248 and 249: Media Resources Table 4-4: Trust in
Page 250 and 251: Media Resources Table 4-10: Trust a
Page 252 and 253: Media Resources Table 4-16: Trust a
Page 254 and 255: Section 5: Environmental Values Env
Page 256 and 257: Table 5-5: Environmental values: Th
Page 258 and 259: Table 5-13: Environmental values: H
Page 260 and 261: Table 5-19: I am concerned about en
Page 262 and 263: References Cited Dillman, D. (2000)
Page 264 and 265: Appendix A: Survey Instrument Small
Page 266 and 267: Q4. How many boxes of shells (25 to
Page 268 and 269: Nationwide there is concern about t
Page 270 and 271: Q16. Next we would like to know how
Page 272 and 273: Q18. Next we would like to know how
Page 274 and 275: Q 21. People are generally concerne
Page 276 and 277: 268 Small Game Hunter Lead Shot Com
Page 278 and 279: Acknowledgements 270 This study was
Page 280 and 281: Nationwide there is concern about t
Page 282 and 283: Figure S-2: Perceived narrative qua
Page 284 and 285: Figure S-5: Agreement with message
Page 286 and 287: Figure S-9: Importance of self-dire
Page 288 and 289: Conclusions 280 Our results suggest
Page 290 and 291:
282 Small Game Hunter Lead Shot Com
Page 292 and 293:
Acknowledgements 284 This study was
Page 294 and 295:
Introduction Study Purpose and Obje
Page 296 and 297:
Games-Howell post-hoc test over oth
Page 298 and 299:
Section 1: Message Quality Responde
Page 300 and 301:
Section 1: Message Quality Table 1-
Page 302 and 303:
Section 1: Message Quality Figure 1
Page 304 and 305:
Section 2: Factual Versus Narrative
Page 306 and 307:
Section 2: Factual Versus Narrative
Page 308 and 309:
Section 3: Message Involvement Tabl
Page 310 and 311:
Section 3: Message Involvement Tabl
Page 312 and 313:
Section 4: Message Evaluation Table
Page 314 and 315:
Section 4: Message Evaluation Table
Page 316 and 317:
Section 5: Agreement With Message R
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Section 6: Values Table 6-1: How im
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
324 Section 7: Background Informati
Page 334 and 335:
Section 7: Background Information T
Page 336 and 337:
Section 8: Model Development Based
Page 338 and 339:
References Cited Areni, C. S. (2003
Page 340 and 341:
Appendix C: Treatment Messages Cont
Page 342 and 343:
Appendix C: Treatment Messages Trea
Page 344 and 345:
Appendix C: Treatment Messages 336
Page 346 and 347:
Appendix D: Survey Instrument Q1. P
Page 348 and 349:
Appendix D: Survey Instrument Q5. W
Page 350 and 351:
Appendix D: Survey Instrument BACKG
Page 352 and 353:
Appendix D: Survey Instrument Thank
Page 354 and 355:
MOOSE POPULATION DYNAMICS IN NORTHE
Page 356 and 357:
aerial survey. Manuscripts discussi
Page 358 and 359:
The complete HCP describes in some
Page 360 and 361:
Table 1. Incidents of Canada lynx t
Page 364 and 365:
ECOLOGY AND POPULATION DYNAMICS OF
Page 366 and 367:
Trapping We trapped in the NW study
Page 368 and 369:
Table 1. Causes of mortality of rad
Page 370 and 371:
Table 5. Black bear cubs examined i
Page 372 and 373:
Bone growth and weight gain were de
Page 374 and 375:
FISHER AND MARTEN DEMOGRAPHY AND HA
Page 376 and 377:
(fisher: 30 mg/kg ketamine and 3 mg
Page 378 and 379:
We also deployed a Reconyx PC85 rem
Page 380 and 381:
372 Olson, C. 2006. 2005 small mamm
Page 382 and 383:
Figure 1. Fisher and marten study a
Page 384 and 385:
may benefit management programs for
Page 386 and 387:
378 area that were accessible by pu
Page 388 and 389:
Table 1. A priori models for explai
Page 390:
Table 3. Parameter estimates averag
Page 393 and 394:
Probability of occupancy 1.0 0.8 0.
Page 395 and 396:
IDENTIFYING PLOTS FOR SURVEYS OF SH
Page 397 and 398:
ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIP OF CONIF
Page 399 and 400:
preliminary descriptions of seasona
Page 401 and 402:
head/neck position on collar perfor
Page 403 and 404:
395 White-tailed deer ecology and m
Page 405 and 406:
Number of missed locations 45 40 35
Page 407 and 408:
MANAGEMENT-FOCUSED RESEARCH NEEDS O
Page 409 and 410:
egions ranked forest stand improvem
Page 411 and 412:
Table 2. Forest management activiti
Page 413 and 414:
Table 3. Forest management activiti
Page 415 and 416:
Table 3 continued. 407 Fire break d
Page 417 and 418:
Appendix 1. Survey of management-fo
Page 419 and 420:
Percent agreed needs evaluation (%)
Page 421 and 422:
TABLE OF CONTENTS 413 EXECUTIVE SUM
Page 423 and 424:
415 remain intact. New biological c
Page 425 and 426:
1. INTRODUCTION The most comprehens
Page 427 and 428:
• melting sea ice reduces the Ear
Page 429 and 430:
• With precipitation concentrated
Page 431 and 432:
oomers begin to pass their 85 th bi
Page 433 and 434:
3. EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON LAN
Page 435 and 436:
Currie (2001) and Hansen et al. (20
Page 437 and 438:
Prairie Parkland (Figure 1, MNDNR 2
Page 439 and 440:
undulating plains with deep glacial
Page 441 and 442:
433 If conditions in the Laurentian
Page 443 and 444:
435 carbon pool and should not be o
Page 445 and 446:
Animal species associated with mesi
Page 447 and 448:
increase the primary productivity o
Page 449 and 450:
Warmer, drier conditions could excl
Page 451 and 452:
443 hydroperiods for temporary wetl
Page 453 and 454:
The Minnesota Department of Natural
Page 455 and 456:
taken to manage the unavoidable imp
Page 457 and 458:
• Dedicate 1 new FTE position at
Page 459 and 460:
contributions to shallow lake eutro
Page 461 and 462:
Busby, W. H., and W. R. Brecheisen.
Page 463 and 464:
III to the Fourth Assessment Report
Page 465 and 466:
MNDNR. 2005b. Field guide to the na
Page 467 and 468:
Poiani, K. A., W. C. Johnson, and T
Page 469 and 470:
Westcott, P. C. 2007. U.S. ethanol
Page 471 and 472:
463 Northern Southern Eastern Weste
Page 473 and 474:
Scientific Name Common Name LMF Pro
Page 475 and 476:
Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Louis
Page 477 and 478:
MINNESOTA’S RING-NECKED DUCK BREE
Page 479 and 480:
Estimated Pair Density Mean pair de
Page 481 and 482:
LITERATURE CITED 473 SAS. 1999. SAS
Page 483 and 484:
Table 2. Sampling rates by Ecologic
Page 485 and 486:
Table 4. Estimated indicated breedi
Page 487 and 488:
479
Page 489 and 490:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Page 491 and 492:
MOVEMENTS, SURVIVAL, AND REFUGE USE
Page 493 and 494:
prior to hunting season were simila
Page 495 and 496:
Figure 1. Ring-necked duck study ar
Page 497 and 498:
INFLUENCE OF FISH, AGRICULTURE, AND
Page 499 and 500:
Mechanisms structuring characterist
Page 501 and 502:
Chemical Properties and Water Quali
Page 503 and 504:
Submerged Aquatic Plants Submerged
Page 505 and 506:
At a broad scale, wetland and shall
Page 507 and 508:
Table 1. Relative abundance (mean w
Page 509 and 510:
Number of Fish 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
Page 511 and 512:
Total # Captured a) 50 40 30 20 10
Page 513 and 514:
Relative Units 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 a)
Page 515 and 516:
THRESHOLDS AND STABILITY OF ALTERNA
Page 517 and 518:
MANAGEMENT-FOCUSED RESEARCH NEEDS O
Page 519 and 520:
Table 1. Survey questions for wetla
Page 521 and 522:
VARIANCE OF STRATIFIED SURVEY ESTIM
Page 523 and 524:
EXPLORING MIGRATION DATA USING INTE
Page 525 and 526:
Forest Research Group Publications
Page 527:
Roy Nielsen, C., and C. K. Nielsen.
show all

2007 Summaries of Wildlife Research Findings - Minnesota State ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?