Public preferences for nongame wildlife programs in Virginia

Abstract

Attitudes of Virginia citizens toward wildlife management programs were studied using a survey questionnaire mailed to 2,000 randomly selected households. The response rate was 56%. Wildlife's ecological, viewing, cultural, existence, and scientific benefits were valued by most of the respondents (81-96%)- Fewer respondents (44-57%) valued wildlife for hunting recreation, food and furs, and economic benefits; 48% valued wildlife because they believed animals have souls. Most respondents (81-96%) participated in nonconsumptive activities which required little time, money, or knowledge of the wildlife resource. Fewer respondents (26-43%) participated in activities which require greater commitments such as photographing wildlife, traveling to see wildlife, and hunting. Most respondents (77%) felt that active management of wildlife was necessary, and most (79%) agreed that management should benefit wildlife populations rather than humans. Similarly, when asked to assign nongame budget percentages to various activities, respondents gave priority to programs benefitting wildlife rather than people. We suggest that most people prefer the intangible benefits they receive from knowing that wildlife populations exist and are being preserved, to the tangible benefits they receive from direct use of the wildlife resource.

A second sample of 400 Virginia nongame fund contributors was compared to self-declared hunters from the general public sample. Contributors to Virginia's nongame fund are more likely than hunters to be single, suburban males, with advanced educations and white-collar jobs. Contributor preferences and values are similar to those of hunters except they are less likely to value wildlife for utilitarian purposes.