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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 5: Agreement With Message Recommendations Table 5-7: The outcome of the decision to ban lead shot in the farmland zone is not relevant to me. N Extremely Disagree Quite Disagree Slightly Disagree Neutral Slightly Agree Quite Agree Extremely agree Control 525 24.4% 22.9% 20.0% 16.2% 9.5% 4.6% 2.5% 2.87 Basic 163 25.2% 20.9% 17.2% 17.2% 8.6% 6.1% 4.9% 3.01 DNR declaration 183 23.5% 19.1% 20.2% 24.0% 7.1% 3.3% 2.7% 2.93 Concession question 165 15.8% 23.6% 23.6% 19.4% 8.5% 4.8% 4.2% 3.13 Qualifier 167 22.8% 24.6% 22.2% 15.0% 7.2% 4.8% 3.6% 2.88 Value expressive 182 18.1% 28.6% 15.9% 23.1% 7.1% 4.4% 2.7% 2.97 Social adjustive – norms aligned 202 23.3% 24.3% 21.8% 19.3% 5.4% 2.5% 3.5% 2.81 Social adjustive – norms not aligned 164 23.2% 17.7% 25.0% 17.7% 6.1% 6.7% 3.7% 3.01 3 rd person narrative 174 21.8% 23.0% 17.8% 19.5% 5.7% 6.9% 5.2% 3.06 1 st person narrative 168 20.2% 27.4% 17.3% 21.4% 6.5% 5.4% 1.8% 2.90 n.s. = not significant, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 χ 2 =49.153 n.s.; Cramer’s V = 0.063 Table 5-8: The final decision regarding whether lead shot is banned in the Minnesota farmland zone or not will have an impact on my life. N Extremely Disagree Quite Disagree 312 Slightly Disagree Neutral Slightly Agree Quite Agree Extremely agree Mean F=0.724 n.s. η=0.056 Control 525 8.6% 13.5% 9.0% 26.3% 17.5% 14.5% 10.7% 4.17 Basic 163 10.4% 6.7% 11.7% 25.8% 17.8% 18.4% 9.2% 4.26 DNR declaration 183 8.7% 7.7% 12.0% 30.6% 18.0% 13.1% 9.8% 4.20 Concession question 166 7.2% 12.7% 7.2% 27.1% 27.1% 9.6% 9.0% 4.19 Qualifier 167 8.4% 12.0% 11.4% 26.3% 21.0% 10.8% 10.2% 4.13 Value expressive 182 9.3% 15.4% 7.7% 27.5% 14.8% 14.3% 11.0% 4.10 Social adjustive – norms aligned 202 10.9% 10.4% 9.9% 27.2% 14.4% 15.3% 11.9% 4.17 Social adjustive – norms not aligned 165 9.1% 7.9% 12.7% 27.9% 21.8% 15.2% 5.5% 4.13 3 rd person narrative 174 12.6% 9.8% 10.3% 27.0% 17.2% 14.4% 8.6% 4.04 1 st person narrative 167 9.0% 10.2% 13.8% 33.5% 16.8% 8.4% 8.4% 3.98 n.s. = not significant, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 χ 2 =56.129 n.s.; Cramer’s V = 0.067 Mean F=0.397n.s. η=0.041
Section 5: Agreement With Message Recommendations Table 5-9: Would you be likely or unlikely to support a ban on using lead shot to hunt small game in the farmland zone of Minnesota within the next 5 years? N Extremely unlikely Quite unlikely Slightly unlikely Neutral Slightly likely Quite likely Extremely likely Control 502 23.5% 13.3% 9.8% 7.2% 13.5% 18.1% 14.5% 3.86 Basic 157 12.7% 9.6% 8.3% 5.1% 15.3% 25.5% 23.6% 4.71 DNR declaration 181 21.0% 9.4% 9.9% 3.3% 11.0% 23.8% 21.5% 4.31 Concession question 157 18.5% 14.0% 7.0% 6.4% 10.8% 24.2% 19.1% 4.26 Qualifier 159 19.5% 10.7% 3.8% 6.9% 15.7% 27.0% 16.4% 4.35 Value expressive 172 20.9% 9.3% 6.4% 4.7% 12.2% 25.6% 20.9% 4.38 Social adjustive – norms aligned 193 16.6% 9.8% 5.7% 6.2% 14.5% 27.5% 19.7% 4.53 Social adjustive – norms not aligned 152 14.5% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 11.8% 28.3% 19.7% 4.59 3 rd person narrative 167 17.4% 9.0% 7.8% 12.0% 12.0% 28.1% 13.8% 4.32 1 st person narrative 164 13.4% 10.4% 7.3% 7.3% 14.6% 21.3% 25.6% 4.66 n.s. = not significant, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 χ 2 = 73.372*; Cramer’s V = 0.078 Table 5-10: I intend to support a ban on lead shot in the Minnesota farmland zone. N Extremely Disagree Quite Disagree 313 Slightly Disagree Neutral Slightly Agree Quite Agree Extremely agree Mean F=3.873***; η=0.131 Control 525 22.9% 11.8% 7.6% 17.9% 13.3% 15.0% 11.4% 3.78 Basic 162 13.0% 9.9% 6.8% 20.4% 9.9% 21.6% 18.5% 4.43 DNR declaration 182 19.8% 8.2% 9.9% 16.5% 12.1% 17.0% 16.5% 4.10 Concession question 166 19.3% 12.0% 6.0% 18.1% 10.8% 22.9% 10.8% 4.01 Qualifier 166 19.9% 10.2% 3.6% 12.7% 21.1% 18.7% 13.9% 4.16 Value expressive 181 20.4% 9.9% 3.3% 20.4% 11.6% 20.4% 13.8% 4.09 Social adjustive – norms aligned 202 18.8% 9.9% 4.5% 18.8% 11.9% 23.3% 12.9% 4.16 Social adjustive – norms not aligned 164 13.4% 8.5% 9.1% 17.1% 10.4% 25.6% 15.9% 4.43 3 rd person narrative 174 18.4% 6.9% 7.5% 22.4% 12.1% 24.1% 8.6% 4.10 1 st person narrative 167 13.8% 9.6% 7.2% 15.6% 14.4% 24.0% 15.6% 4.41 n.s. = not significant, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 χ 2 =74.427*; Cramer’s V = 0.077 Mean F=2.830** η=0.110
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 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
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 240 and 241:
Table 3-40: Belief about whether MY
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 326 and 327: Section 6: Values Table 6-1: How im
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?