1. Influence of Stakeholder Identification on Attitudes Towards Beaver Control Methods in North Dakota Kelly Pearce 1, Jennifer Bohrman 2, Sadie Stevens 1,2,3, Tom Serfass 1,3 1 University of Maryland, Marine, Estuarine, and Environmental Sciences Program 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3 Frostburg State University, Department of Biology and Natural Resources

2. Project Objectives 1.Compare participant knowledge, familiarity and attitudes towards beavers and beaver management among 3 stakeholder groups 2.Explore the extent to which experience with beaver damage is related to attitudes towards beavers and beaver management

3. Increase in human-beaver interactions in North Dakota Beavers are widespread throughout the state Human population growth and expansion into wildlife habitat 500 incidents in 2006 Beaver-related damage was $557,100 in 2006 2 Wildlife Service 5 major assistance activities – “Protecting property and human health and safety from beaver damage”

4. Survey participants 3 stakeholder groups 1.General anglers encountered at popular public fishing sites in the state (General Anglers)(n = 116) 2.Delta Waterfowl Foundation of North America (Delta Waterfowl) (n = 87) 3.Property owners who had received assistance from state wildlife control officers to control nuisance beavers (Property Owners) (n = 92)

5. http://projectlinnaeus.blogspot.com/2012/11/beaver.html Anglers -Offer wildlife viewing during recreation -Alter currents and water temperatures -Increase food available and reduce predation Delta Waterfowl -Provide breeding and brood-rearing habitat for waterfowl -Increase amount of wetland area Property Owners -Flood roadways and yards -Damage trees

6. Hypotheses Delta Waterfowl group would be most favorable towards beavers, their presence, and less favorable towards lethal control methods Residents who have had property damage from beavers would be least favorable beavers, their presence, and more favorable towards lethal control methods

7. Methods May 2011- Sept 2011 and July-August 2012 Face-to-face interviews General anglers (n = 186) 15 locations along the Missouri and Red Rivers Montana Minnesota Missouri River Red River South Dakota

8. Methods Self-administered mail survey Delta Waterfowl members (n = 300) Property Owners (n = 309) Randomly selected Cover letter and survey Mutually exclusive groups

9. Methods 1.Character profile Demographics Participation in hunting/trapping activities Beaver population near their residence Frequency of contact with beavers 2.Knowledge, attitudes, and opinions on beavers “I would like a larger beaver population in North Dakota” 3.Knowledge, attitudes and opinions on beaver management “Do you think the size of beaver populations need to be controlled in North Dakota?” Support for management techniques for controlling nuisance beavers

10. Statistical Methods Descriptive statistics Character profile Attitude Index Measure 15 Likert Questions Rescaled 0-100 Logistic regression Assess acceptable beaver management techniques among different groups

11. Results Participant CategoryGeneral AnglersDelta WaterfowlProperty Owners Response rate62%29%30% Mean Age (SD)42 yrs (13.30)52 yrs (15.42)61 yrs (11.42) Predominant Occupation (%) Oil field worker (10%)Construction worker (6%)Farmer/rancher (47%) Hunter (%)94 (81%)85 (98%)94 (81%) Trapper (%)17 (14%)31 (36%)0 (0%)

12. “Do you have a beaver population near your residence?” Angler Group (n = 114), DW Group (n = 87), and Property Owner Group (n = 92) Results: Beaver near residence PROPERTY OWNERS

13. Results: Pest species? “Do you consider the beaver to be a pest species?” Angler Group (n = 114), DW Group (n = 87), and Property Owner Group (n = 92) %

14. Results: Frequency of Contact “How often do you come in contact with beavers?” among Angler Group (n = 105), DW Group (n = 84), and Property Owner Group (n = 91) %

15. “For what wildlife do beaver dams create habitat?” among Angler Group (63%), DW Group (62%) and Property Owner Group (35%) participants who indicated that beavers create habitat for other wildlife Results: Habitat for other wildlife?

16. Results: Index General Anglers Delta Waterfowl Property Owners There was a significant difference for the mean attitude index between Angler (x=82.08) and Property Owners (x=76.73) (p<0.01) and between Delta Waterfowl (x=83.127) and Property Owners (p<0.01) + -

17. Support of beaver management techniques for nuisance beavers Killing by gov’t Killing by self Trapping by recreation trappers Trap and re-locate Non-lethal Property owner

18. Conclusions The DW group had the most favorable attitudes towards beavers –Least contact frequency Property Owner group had the least favorable attitudes towards beavers –Highest contact frequency http://lrd.buffalohair-jage.com/2011/09/17/pbs-sky- island/

19. Conclusion: Management Implications Consistent with literature – Attitudes appear to be affected by personal experience with beavers Negative personal experience with beavers outweighs perceived benefits of their presence

20. Acknowledgments Sandra Johnson, Patrick Isakson, and Steve Dyke of the Conservation Section of the Conservation/Communication Division of North Dakota Game and Fish Department Project was funded by a State Wildlife Grant for North Dakota Game and Fish