Moose and Moose Management

FINAL REPORT Public Consultation Work: Moose and Moose Management Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Division Department of Environment and Conserv...
1 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
FINAL REPORT

Public Consultation Work:

Moose and Moose Management

Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Division Department of Environment and Conservation

Executive Summary Between October 15, 2012 and November 1, 2012 the opinions of 1772 members of the public were gathered regarding moose management on the Island of Newfoundland. This public view was obtained through focused public consultations, an online survey, and written submissions. The public consultations took place in eight locations across the province and had 237 participants. At the public sessions, participants were invited take part in a round table discussion which included six to eight participants, a facilitator and a recorder. Participants were asked a series of polling questions and seven discussion questions led by a facilitator. The company Harris/Decima was contracted by the Department of Environment and Conservation to develop and implement an online survey component for the public consultation process. The survey was completed by 1505 members of the public, with 502 of those participants representing a randomly selected panel of Newfoundland residents. As a third component of the public consultation process, the general public was encouraged to send written submissions either by mail or email to express their opinions on moose and moose management. A total of 30 written submissions were received throughout the process. Although there were regional differences of opinion amongst participants, overall public opinion was that moose in the province are important for a variety of reasons, including as a food source, for economic and charitable benefits, for tourism, and as a part of culture. Dissatisfaction with current moose management in the province was expressed but there was a divide among participants on what the main priorities should be for future moose management. There was a strong desire to maintain current numbers of moose or to have more moose to maximize hunting opportunity, but participants also indicated a desire for the government to enhance mitigation efforts to improve human safety as it pertains to conflicts with moose. While there were, as expected, differences of opinion between moose hunters and non moose hunters on certain issues, such as the number of licences issued and the importance of moose to them personally, there was a high level of agreement between both groups that moose vehicle collisions/public safety is a key challenge for future moose management. There were distinct differences in opinions between participants living on the eastern side of the province when compared with participants who live more central, on the west coast or on the Northern Peninsula/Labrador when it comes to issues such as changes to hunting quotas and the importance of getting a license versus. getting a moose. There were also noticeable regional differences of opinion on issues such as the minimum hunting age and hunting during winter months. All regions shared a similar opinion on some issues such as the use of outfitters to help manage moose populations in remote locations. The differences expressed across the regions suggest a need to consider a more regional and perhaps varied approach when management strategies are developed and implemented.

1

Introduction The moose population of insular Newfoundland is managed for a variety of benefits, including recreational, subsistence, economic, and non-hunting related activities. Current management has resulted in a sustainable moose harvest exceeding 20,000 moose annually over the past decades, an average annual hunter success rate of 70 per cent and economic benefits roughly estimated to be in excess of $80 million annually. The current strategy has been criticized for not fully addressing issues such as moose vehicle collisions and negative impacts on forest regeneration caused by moose browsing. Hunters are the main tool for effective moose management on insular Newfoundland; therefore a significant drop in hunter success could reduce hunter interest or participation in the hunt which could have negative implications on long-term moose management. As the population dynamics of moose change in the province, along with biological and social priorities for the species, so must management practices and strategies. Under the larger goal of developing a five-year moose management plan, the Department of Environment and Conservation initiated a human dimensions project to better inform the plan with input from the public. The Wildlife Division partnered with the Regional Partnership Development, Executive Council-Rural Secretariat (RPD) to develop and deliver eight public consultation sessions regarding moose management on the island. The company Harris/Decima was contracted to develop and implement an online survey that reflected many of the same topics and issues covered in the public consultations. The Wildlife Division also accepted written submissions (i.e., emails and written letters) from the public regarding their opinions on moose and moose management in the province. The entire process captured the opinions of 1772 members of the public. The combined information collected from the three public engagement strategies was used to help inform the drafting of a new moose management plan to be considered for implementation in 2013. Public Consultations The public consultations took place between October 15, 2012 and November 1, 2012 in eight locations throughout the island and Southern Labrador and had a total of 237 participants from the public (Table 1). Participants were invited to sit and take part in a round table discussion which included six to eight participants, a facilitator and a recorder. The participants were asked a series of polling questions and seven discussion questions led by the facilitator. The responses during discussion questions were collected and themed by a team from the RPD so that they could be relayed back to the group within the same session.

2

Table 1. Moose Management Public Consultation details. Location

Venue

Date

St. John’s Clarenville Marystown L’anse au Clair Plum Point Steady Brook Grand Falls-Windsor Port aux Basques

Sheraton Hotel Clarenville Inn Marystown Hotel Northern Lights Inn Plum Point Motel Marble Mountain Resort Mount Peyton Hotel Hotel Port aux Basques

# of Participants 54 24 8 13 25 57 25 31

October 15, 2012 October 16, 2012 October 18, 2012 October 23, 2012 October 24, 2012 October 29, 2012 October 30, 2012 November 1, 2012

Half of the participants in the public consultations identified as citizens when asked which Stakeholder group they were representing at the consultation with the remaining 50 per cent of participants falling into groups such as outfitter, special interest group, academia, government, or other (Figure 1A). Over 75 per cent of the participants were moose hunters (Figure 1B). Over 50 per cent of the people present were dissatisfied with current moose management practices (Figure 2A) and approximately 80 per cent of those people expressed a desire for the population of moose on the island to either stay the same or be increased (Figure 2B). Stakeholder Group

A

70%

Are you a moose hunter?

B

90% 80%

60%

70%

50%

60% 40%

50% 30%

40% 20%

30%

10%

20% 10%

0% Citizen

Outfitter

Special interest group

Academia

Government

Other

0% Yes

No

Figure 1 (A,B). Polling question results from all of the public consultations. A) Which stakeholder group best represents you? B) Are you a moose hunter?

3

How would you like to see the future moose population in your region?

Satisfaction level with current moose management

A

B

60%

50% 45%

50%

40%

40%

35% 30%

30%

25% 20%

20%

15% 10%

10%

5% 0% More moose

Maintain current number of moose

Few er moose

0%

No moose at all

Satisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied

Figure 2 (A,B). A) How would you like to see the future moose population in your region? B) What is your level of satisfaction with the current moose management in the province? In other polling questions, participants showed little support for a winter hunt but ample support for outfitting in remote locations as an important tool to manage moose in remote and inaccessible areas. When questions about licensing issues were asked, there was little support to increase licences island-wide, along major roadways or in their particular region but there were differences of opinion on a regional level (addressed in Regional Analysis section). When participants were asked whether they thought the current minimum hunting age for big game should remain at 18 or be lowered to a younger age (age options were 14, 15, 16, and 17), approximately 60 per cent chose one of the younger age options with the majority of those choosing age 16 (Figure 3). Over 90 per cent of participants agreed that they have modified their driving behaviours to accommodate for moose on the highways but many were not very aware of the province’s moose vehicle collision awareness program. Should we change the current minimum age for hunting big game?

39% Stay at 18 Lower the Age 61%

4

Figure 3. The results of all people polled in the public consultations on the question of whether the current minimum age for hunting big game should be changed or remain at 18.

The first six discussion questions given during the consultations resulted in a refined collection of information that expressed the top three responses for each topic, as decided by polling following the feedback from each question (Table 2). The seventh discussion question was a less structured question that allowed participants to either add comments about what they felt may have been overlooked in other discussion questions or to reiterate points that had already been made. This question was not themed. Table 2. The top three themes for discussion questions asked during all 8 public consultations. Question 1. What are the benefits of having moose in the province? 1. 2. 3.

Source of Food Economic Value Employment

1. 2. 3.

Moose Vehicle Collisions Maintaining a healthy moose population Impact on the ecosystem

Question 2. What are the challenges of having moose in the province?

Question 3. What are the primary values that the Wildlife Division should be considering when establishing sustainable moose populations in your regions? 1. 2. 3.

Managing a healthy moose population Managing for human safety Maintaining healthy habitat and ecosystems

Question 4. If you were the moose manager for the province, how would you ensure hunter satisfaction is maintained? 1. 2. 3.

Maintain a stable, sustainable, and healthy moose population More either sex licenses Improve hunter success and satisfaction (use their input more)

Question 5. If you were the moose manager for the province, how would you address the conflict issues related to moose? 1. 2. 3.

Increase brush clearing on roadsides Reduce speed limits (especially at night) Improve driver education and awareness

Question 6. If you were the moose manager for the province, how would you address the issues related to habitat management? 1. 2. 3.

Good science, more research, and more surveys Issue more licenses in remote areas Increase/improve access to remote areas

5

Online Survey The Department of Environment and Conservation contracted the company Harris/Decima to develop, deliver and report back on an online research complement to the Public Consultation process initiated to inform moose management. The online survey was carried out in two parts. The first part consisted of the survey being taken by a random representative of Newfoundland residents (referred herein as the “panel”). Panel participants were taken from Harris/Decima’s proprietary panel of residents. In total, 502 residents of the province participated in the panel. The second part of the online portion was delivered using an open link which was accessible from the Department of Environment and Conservation website. Participants were invited to complete this survey through advertising and during the public consultations. A total of 1003 members of the public completed the survey via the online link. The major difference between the panel participants and the online link participants was that the online link was not a random selection of participants and was susceptible to issues such as individuals completing the survey more than once. With the random representative sample used for the panel survey, the majority of the participants were residents of the urban portions of the Avalon Peninsula which meant there were a larger proportion of non-hunters represented in the data. This is shown by the fact that the only 24 per cent of the panel participants identified as a moose hunter or having hunted previously while 60 per cent of the online link participants identified as the same. This 24 per cent is, however, consistent with the current proportion of hunters to residents (approximately 22 per cent) as measured by the hunter database statistics. Based on this major difference between the panel and online link participants, many of the responses to issues related to moose showed similar differences. This discrepancy is reduced when the data is analyzed on a regional level as opposed to looking at as strictly panel vs. online link. Other issues, such as participant satisfaction with the current management of moose, showed the same results when the panel is compared to the online link or when all of the online survey results are compared with the public consultations. The online survey participants (panel and online link) showed that over 55 per cent were dissatisfied with the way the province currently manages the moose (Figure 4). Some of the reasons for participant satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the current management of moose are listed in Table 3.

6

Table 3. Reasons given by online survey participants for either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the current management of moose in the province. Why are you satisfied with the way the province currently manages moose in the province? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Good/stable moose population/growing/not declining Good allocation of licenses/amount issued/easy to acquire Good safety devices/lighting/alarms/fencing along highways Good balance between hunting and sustaining moose

Why are you dissatisfied with the way the province currently manages moose in the province? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Moose are a public safety concern/too many accidents Moose population is declining/too many licenses are given out Too many moose/allowing numbers to increase Poor/inadequate safety measures in place/should be expanded

Satisfaction with Moose Management Q9. How satisfied are you by the way the province currently manages the moose in our province?

General Public

6%

39%

42%

13%

Online Consultation

7%

38%

42%

13%

42%

11%

3%

18-34 General Population

43%

11%

35-44

43%

35%

11%

45-54

5%

37%

46%

11%

55+

6%

37%

42%

15%

7%

Aware of MVC

44%

3%

Unaware of MVC

11%

Male

4%

Female

0% Very satisfied

39%

29% 39% 20%

18% 38%

38% Somewhat satisfied

11%

50%

12%

44% 40%

60%

Not that satisfied

13% 80%

100%

Not at all satisfied

Base: All respondents (n=1,505)

Figure 4. The online survey results for the question regarding satisfaction level with the way the province currently manages the moose in our province (Harris/Decima report, page 25). When asked questions regarding licensing issues, again there was little support to increase licenses but there were differences of opinion on a regional level. There was also support, as in the public consultations, to have the moose population remain the same or show an increase. There was a conflicting result between the panel participants and the online link participants when asked what their priority for moose management in their region is. The panel participants made ‘minimizing conflict with moose’ their priority (49 per cent) while the online link participants responded that ‘maximizing hunting 7

opportunity’ is their priority (47 per cent). As before, the discrepancy between the panel and online link on these issues is minimized when the participant responses are analyzed regionally. Most participants in both the panel and the online link expressed that moose are important to them personally when it comes to specific reasons such as hunting, a food source, culture, tourism, economic benefits and charity.

Moose Hunting Q7. How important are each of the following as it pertains to moose? Online Link

Personal food source

60%

Cultural activity

53%

Tourist attraction

50%

Charitable benefits

Hunting

26% 9%5%

Personal food source

23%

8%6%

Cultural activity

21%

9%8%

Tourist attraction

24%

11%8%

Economic benefits

33%

33%

43%

Economic benefits

15% 0%

39% 53%

20%

Very important

Panel Link

27% 3% 4%

65%

Hunting

40%

17% 15% 60%

80%

100%

Somewhat important

Charitable benefits

36% 31%

0% Not very important

47%

20%

22%

21% 16%

48%

32%

10%17%

24%

42%

15% 10%

36%

17% 11% 25% 14%

31%

26%

40% 60% 80% Not at all important

100%

Base: All respondents (n=1,505)

Figure 5. Online survey results for the question regarding the importance of moose to each participant personally (Harris/Decima report, page 23). There was strong support from online survey participants for outfitting in remote areas as tool to manage inaccessible moose populations (>80 per cent support). There was also strong support for a multi-partner moose license greater than the current limit of two people (>55 per cent support). Even though there are differences between overall results of the panel and the online link when asked what the government’s top priority for moose management, both groups agree that the top priority should be ‘increase public safety’. When asked questions regarding moose vehicle collisions, all online survey participants agreed that actions such as scanning both sides of the road, driving more slowly, reducing speeds after dark, and increasing the number of warning signs on roadways are important in avoiding moose vehicle collisions.

8

Written submissions The Department of Environment and Conservation encouraged the general public to send written submissions either by mail or email to express their opinions on moose and moose management in the province. A total of 30 submissions were received. Table 4 summarizes the overall themes expressed in those received submissions. Table 4. Overall themes expressed in the 30 written submissions regarding moose and moose management, received by the Department of Environment and Conservation as part of the public consultation process. Themes Mitigations

Number 23

Hunter success vs. opportunity

10

Population size Season opening Support of winter harvest

8 7 4

Support for greater research/monitoring Support for hunter education

3 3

Notes Brush clearing, lowering speeds, fencing Request for either sex licenses (3), need to increase success rates (3), need recruitment of young hunters (4) Too high (7), Too low (1) Open 2nd week of October Yes to winter harvest (1), No to winter harvest (3)

Mandatory for all hunter

9

Regional Analysis Initial data analysis following the completion of the consultations, the online survey and the written submissions illustrated some clear regional differences of opinion on the values of moose and how they should be managed. As a result, a more in-depth analysis of the regional data was undertaken. In fact, much of the data were best analyzed on a regional level to get a better idea of how the public opinion can vary substantially on some of the moose and moose management issues and topics. Some topics generated a similar opinion in all regions such as the importance of moose to people on a personal level, support for the use of outfitters as a tool to control inaccessible moose populations and the dissatisfaction with current moose management. The results for other issues showed a noticeable difference in opinions when the responses are compared on a regional level. When participants from both the public consultations and the online survey were asked questions regarding their opinion on increasing licences, participants that were residents of the Eastern region (Northeast Avalon, Avalon, Clarenville-Bonavista, and Burin Peninsula Region) showed much stronger support for a licence increase when compared to the Central Region (Gander-New-Wes-Valley Region, and Grand Falls-Windsor-Bai Verte-Harbour Breton Region), the Western Region (Stephenville-Port aux Basques/Burgeo and Corner Brook-Rocky Harbour Region), and Northern Region (St. Anthony-Sally’s Cove Region and Labrador) (Figures 6 and Figure 8). The exception was the strong support from the Western Region when asked specifically if they think the province should increase moose licenses along major roadways (Figure 7). Should the Province Increase Moose Licenses Island-wide 80%

60%

Percent support

40%

20%

0%

Eastern

Central

Western

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

Regions

%Support

%No Support

10

Northern

Figure 6. The regional results when participants from all public engagement strategies were asked if the province should increase moose licences island-wide.

Should the Province Increase Moose Licenses Along Major Roadways 80%

60%

Percent support

40%

20%

0%

Eastern

Central

Western

Northern

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

Regions

%Support

%No Support

Figure 7. The regional results when participants from all public engagement strategies were asked if the province should increase moose licences along major roadways. Should the Province Increase Moose Licenses in the Region where I Live 80%

60%

Percent support

40%

20%

0%

Eastern

Central

Western

Northern

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

Regions

%Support

%No Support

Figure 8. The regional results when participants from all public engagement strategies were asked if the province should increase moose licences in the region where I live.

11

Although there wasn’t a large difference of opinion across all regions, the Eastern region expressed that moose were less important to them on a personal level when compared to all other regions (Figure 9).

How important is moose to you personally? 100%

80%

Percent Importance

60%

40%

20%

0%

Eastern

Central

Western

Northern

-20%

-40%

Regions

%Important

%Not Important

Figure 9. The regional results when participants were asked how important moose are them personally.

12

Survey participants were asked to rank the priorities of maximizing hunting, minimizing conflict with moose, reducing the moose population and increasing the moose population in order of importance for future moose management in the province (Figure 10). There were strong differences in the answers on a regional level (most prominently between the Eastern Region and the Western Region) and this difference was most seen in the top two ranked priorities. The Eastern Region showed strong support to have minimizing conflict with moose as the top priority while the Western Region showed stronger support to maximize hunting as the top priority (Figure 11). What is your priority for futrue moose management in the province? 70.00

60.00

Percent

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

Maximize hunting

Minimize conflict

Reduce Moose

Increase Moose

Priorities

Eastern

Central

Western

Northern

Figure 10. The regional results from participants, of the public engagements, when they were asked to rank management priorities in order of importance for future moose management in the province.

13

Maximizing hunting opportunity vs. Minimizing human conflict with moose 80%

60%

Percent support

40%

20%

0%

Eastern

Central

Western

Northern

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

Regions

%Max Hunting

%Min conflict

Figure 11. The regional comparison of the top two ranked management priorities as chosen by the participants in the public engagements.

14

Although most participants were in support of either maintaining or increasing the moose population, there was once again a regional difference of opinions when they were asked how they would like to see the future moose population in the province (Figure 12). The Western and Northern Regions showed stronger support to maintain or increase the population. How would you like to see the future moose population in the province? 70.00

60.00

Percent

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

No Moose

Fewer Moose

Current Number

More Moose

Population preference

Eastern

Central

Western

Northern

Figure 12. The regional differences of participants who answered the question of how they would like to see the future moose population in the province.

15

Participants who were from the Western or Northern Region expressed a stronger belief that it is more important for a hunter to get a moose than it is to get a license while the Eastern and Central regions show equal support (Figure 13). Is it more important to get a moose license than it is to get a moose? 60%

40%

Percent support

20%

0%

Eastern

Central

Western

Northern

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

Regions

%Support

%No Support

Figure 13. The regional differences of participants who answered the question of whether it is more important to get a moose license than it is to get a moose. When participants were asked to express their support for hunting during the months of January and February the Eastern, Central and Western Regions all showed greater than 55 per cent support for it while the Northern Region was >60% against the concept. When the subject of the current minimum age for hunting big game was presented the Eastern and Northern region participants felt that the legal age should remain at 18 while the Central and Western Regions showed support for lowering the minimum legal hunting age to either 16 or 14 (the Central Region showed more support for 16 while the Western Region showed more support for 14).

16

Should the current minimum legal age for big game hunting remain at 18 or should it be lowered? 80.00

70.00

Percent Support

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

Stay at 18

Lower

Eastern

Central

Western

Northern

Figure 14. The regional differences in results when participants were asked if the current minimum legal age for big game hunting should remain at 18 or should it be lowered. Conclusions Although there were regional differences of opinion amongst participants, overall public opinion was that moose in the province are important (as a food source, for economic and charitable benefits, for tourism, and as a part of culture). Dissatisfaction with current moose management in the province was expressed but there was a divide among participants on what the main priorities should be for future moose management. There was a strong desire to maintain current numbers of moose or to have more moose to maximize hunting opportunity, but participants also indicated a need to enhance mitigation efforts to improve human safety as it pertains to conflicts with moose. There were distinct differences in opinions between participants living on the Eastern side of the province when compared with participants who live more central, on the west coast or on the Northern Peninsula/Labrador when it comes to issues such as changes to hunting quotas and the importance of getting a license vs. getting a moose. There were also noticeable regional differences of opinion on issues such as the minimum hunting age and hunting during winter months. All regions shared a similar opinion on some issues such as the use of outfitters to help manage moose populations in remote locations. The differences expressed among the regions should lead to a similar regional approach when management strategies are developed and implemented. What is good for one part of the province may not be good for all parts of the province. The results also show that biological and social issues need to be addressed. To quote a participant from the Steady Brook Public Consultation, “A good wildlife manager manages based on biological and social aspects; however, neither should have the loudest voice”.

17

Environment and Conservation P.O. Box 8700, 4th Floor, West Block Confederation Building St. John's, NL A1B 4J6 www.gov.nl.ca/env

Suggest Documents