Utah wolf management plan



Yüklə 0,67 Mb.
səhifə11/11
tarix08.01.2019
ölçüsü0,67 Mb.
#93011
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11


Table 4. Utah residents’ assessment of the acceptability of control methods for wolves that kill livestock.a

Response item:

Sample

n

Mean

Std. D.

Std. Err.

t

P

Live trap and relocate.

Urban

306

5.87

1.76

0.10

3.77

0.001

Rural

338

5.28

2.17

0.12

























Live trap and shoot.

Urban

299

3.52

2.20

0.13

3.35

0.001

Rural

344

4.12

2.30

0.12

























Live trap and lethal injection.

Urban

298

3.48

2.11

0.12

3.77

0.001

Rural

336

4.15

2.31

0.13

























Shooting from the air.

Urban

297

3.13

2.17

0.13

2.57

0.1

Rural

336

3.60

2.40

0.13

























Hunting wolves.

Urban

299

4.41

2.22

0.13

2.7

0.007

Rural

341

4.88

2.16

0.12

























Poisoning wolves.

Urban

295

2.24

1.86

0.11

2.27

0.024

Rural

334

2.61

2.22

0.12

























Livestock guarding dogs.

Urban

299

5.52

1.73

0.10

2.22

0.027

Rural

332

5.18

2.03

0.11

























Harassment.

Urban

301

5.20

1.90

0.11

1.42

0.157

Rural

328

4.96

2.19

0.12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a Based on a 7-point scale: 1 = never acceptable to 7 = always acceptable.


Table 5. Utah residents’ top priority for wolf management (% who selected item).




Urban

Rural




Response item:

n = 313

n = 352

Rank

Ensure there are always wolves in Utah………………….

17.3

8.5

3 -- 5

Maximize the number of wolves……………………………

2.9

3.4

6 -- 6

Minimize livestock - wolf conflicts………………………….

29.1

24.4

2 -- 2

Minimize any effects wolves might have on big game….

5.4

8.8

5 -- 4

Minimize negative economic impacts…………………….

37.4

39.2

1 -- 1

Maximize the visibility of wolves to increase tourism……

1.6

2.8

7 -- 7

Other…………………………………………………………..

6.4

12.8

4 -- 3

 

 

 

 














Table 6. Utah residents' support for various wolf management options.

Variable

Sample

n

Mean

Std. Dev.

t

%A

%N

%D

2































Wolf numbers should be kept low to provide for plentiful deer and elk in an area. a

Urban

316

4.83

2.88

4.54***

34.2

22.8

43.0

20.13***

Rural

346

5.91

3.23

49.4

22.8

27.7































Wolf populations should be kept low to minimize their impact on livestock production. a

Urban

318

5.68

2.95

3.80***

53.8

15.4

30.8

6.99*

Rural

349

6.60

3.25

63.3

14.0

22.6































If wolves do not return to Utah by themselves, then they should be actively returned to the state. a

Urban

320

4.69

3.05

4.01***

36.3

25.6

38.1

15.84***

Rural

350

3.69

3.40

26.6

20.0

53.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 































Wolves should not be reintroduced, but they should be allowed to repopulate Utah naturally. b

Urban

319

4.41

1.87

0.901

48.9

22.9

28.2

1.91

Rural

361

4.39

2.10

49.9

18.8

31.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at P P P

a Item measured on an 11-point scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree.







b Item measured on an 7-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.









1“Established” is defined as “at least 2 breeding pairs of wild wolves successfully raising at least 2 young each (until December 31st of the year of their birth), for 2 consecutive years.” [USFWS, Reintroduction of Grey Wolves into Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho, Final EIS, May 1994, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT; Pages 6-66 and 6-67 in Appendix 8: Memorandum Regarding Definition of a Wolf Population. From EIS Team Wolf Scientist and Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Coordinator, March 11, 1994.]


1 This statement pertains to the Utah Wolf Management Plan as it was presented to the Utah Wildlife Board (Board) by the WWG and some members of the WWG may not support the changes made by the Board that are identified herein.

1 “Established” is defined as “at least 2 breeding pairs of wild wolves successfully raising at least 2 young each (until December 31st of the year of their birth), for 2 consecutive years.” [USFWS, Reintroduction of Grey Wolves into Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho, Final EIS, May 1994, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT; Pages 6-66 and 6-67 in Appendix 8: Memorandum Regarding Definition of a Wolf Population. From EIS Team Wolf Scientist and Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Coordinator, March 11, 1994.]


2 Managing Predatory Wildlife Species” dated January 19, 1996.


1 Steve Nadeau (Idaho Fish and Game Department) presentation to the Utah Wolf Working Group, 29 June 2004. Doug Smith (National Park Service) presentation to the Utah Wolf Working Group, 27 July 2004.



2 For the cougar management plan, see http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/cmgtplan.pdf .

For the bear management plan, see http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/bear/pdf/00bearplan.pdf .






Yüklə 0,67 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©muhaz.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

gir | qeydiyyatdan keç
    Ana səhifə


yükləyin