WITH INCREASING THREATS TO THE
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, tightening agency budgets,
a burgeoning population, and a variety of emerging
public demands, it is more important than ever for fish
and wildlife agencies to set a clear future direction
based on a solid foundation of fact. Nowhere is this
more important than in Delaware, the second smallest
state in area but the sixth most densely populated state
in the union.
With direct responsibility for
managing approximately 60,000 acres of lands including
ponds, wildlife, and water access areas and facilities,
the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control's Division of Fish and Wildlife
contracted with Responsive Management to assist in
setting the future direction for the Division by
determining state residents' opinions on and experiences
with outdoor recreation and wildlife management, as well
as Division employees' and stakeholders' opinions on
management efforts and the work of the
Division.
One of the best ways to assist in
setting strategic direction is to couple an internal
assessment -- an "inside-out" approach -- with an
external assessment -- an "outside-in" approach.
Assessment from the "inside out" means that the Division
takes the time to understand the opinions, attitudes,
and priorities of its employees, takes a detailed look
at where it wants to go (mission and vision), sets
realistic goals and measurable objectives, and
identifies strategies to meet those goals and
objectives. Assessment from the "outside in" means that
the Division gains a better understanding of its
constituents' opinions, attitudes, and priorities
regarding the agency's programs, activities, and
efforts. Setting future direction would necessarily take
internal as well as external perspectives into
consideration.
For this study, three separate
scientific surveys were administered, to Division
employees, stakeholders, and Delaware residents. The
questionnaires for the surveys were developed
cooperatively by Responsive Management and the Division.
Major findings of the employee and resident surveys are
presented here.
Fish, Wildlife, and Outdoor
Recreation Issues in Delaware
In an open-ended question (meaning
that no answer set is read and respondents can instead
respond with anything that comes to mind), Delaware
residents indicated that they thought the most important
fish or wildlife issues that Delaware faces are
pollution in general (35%), development (9%), and
conservation in general (6%). Meanwhile, Division
employees' most common responses contained some mention
of habitat loss or habitat degradation (55%), securing
or maintaining funding for the Division (18%), and
attracting new sportsmen or broadening the Division's
constituent base (10%).
Although Delaware residents did
not specifically mention habitat loss or degradation in
their responses, development can be considered a
parallel response in that it has the direct effect of
habitat loss or degradation. Still, Delaware residents
did not show the same level of concern for this as did
Division employees: only 9% of residents mentioned
development as an important fish and wildlife issue,
whereas 55% of Division employees mentioned loss of
habitat when asked the same question.
This represents a major communication
challenge for the Division. While habitat issues are by
far the top priority for employees, loss of habitat is
not a top-of-mind issue for Delaware residents. While
the survey findings show that Delaware residents are
very concerned about development issues in the state (see further findings below),
residents do not seem to immediately connect the
two. Communications will necessarily need to link
Delaware residents' concerns over development to habitat
loss as a top-of-mind issue. When communicating with
Delaware residents about the issue of habitat loss, the
discussion needs to start with development and lead to
habitat destruction and loss. Delaware residents can
relate to development because they see it every
day, but the larger issue of habitat loss seems one step
removed as a top-of-mind, salient
issue.
While habitat loss was
the highest priority for employees,
it was not a
top-of-mind issue among Delaware
residents.
(Click image
to enlarge)
Overall Ratings of the Fish
and Wildlife Division and Its Wildlife
Section
Delaware residents were asked whether
they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the Division.
Positive answers led negative answers by a ratio of 6 to
1, with 37% satisfied and only 6% dissatisfied; however,
the majority (53%) answered "Don't know." Residents were
also asked whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied
with the Division's Wildlife Section. Positive answers
led negative answers by a ratio of about 10 to 1, with
43% satisfied and 4% dissatisfied; however, half (50%)
answered "Don't know." This indicates that Delaware
residents need to be made more aware of the Division's
activities.
From a communications standpoint, this
represents a major challenge for the Division. It is
clear that Delaware residents support the Division's
activities, and those who are familiar with the Division
feel it is doing a great job. However,
numerous Delaware residents are not familiar with the
Division. To increase support among Delaware
residents, the Division must make Delaware residents
more aware of the agency and its involvement in the
issues that Delaware residents have indicated
are important.
General Opinions on Fish and
Wildlife Management in Delaware
The survey asked residents whether
they agreed or disagreed with 10 statements about
wildlife management and conservation. Four statements
stand out with markedly more agreement than the other
statements:
♦ Fish and wildlife species should be
protected from the impacts of land development even if
it means reduced or less housing development in Delaware
(92% agree).
♦ Hunting and fishing are part of the
scientific management of fish and wildlife populations
(83% agree).
♦ The use and development of land in
Delaware should be restricted to protect fish and
wildlife (83% agree).
♦ The Division of Fish and Wildlife
needs to protect fish and wildlife from the impacts of
global warming or climate change (78%
agree).
By contrast, the statements that had
the lowest levels of agreement among residents
are:
♦ The Division of Fish and Wildlife is
doing enough to protect our state's fish and wildlife
populations (54% agree).
♦ The Division of Fish and Wildlife is
doing enough to protect fish and wildlife habitat in
Delaware (53% agree).
These results demonstrate that
Delaware residents have a high level of concern for the
state's natural resources but that they feel more needs
to be done to protect wildlife and habitat in the state.
In short, a majority of Delaware residents strongly
support the goals of the Division, and these findings
may provide the public and political support that the
Division needs to further strengthen its mission of
protecting the state's fish and wildlife through active
management and habitat protection.
Division employees were asked
whether they agreed or disagreed with the same 10
statements. Three statements stand out with markedly
more agreement than the other statements, and they are
among the same statements that received the highest
percentages of agreement from residents:
♦ Fish and wildlife species should be
protected from the impacts of land development even if
it means reduced or less housing development in Delaware
(95% agree).
♦ Hunting and fishing are part of the
scientific management of fish and wildlife populations
(90% agree).
♦ The use and development of land in
Delaware should be restricted to protect fish and
wildlife (80% agree).
By contrast, only about a quarter
of Division employees agree with the following
statements. These are the statements that have the
lowest level of agreement among Division employees, and
they are among the same statements that met with the
lowest agreement from Delaware residents:
♦ The Delaware Division of Fish
and Wildlife is doing enough to protect our state's fish
and wildlife populations (28% agree).
♦ The Delaware Division of Fish
and Wildlife is doing enough to protect fish and
wildlife habitat in Delaware (22% agree).
These results indicate high levels
of agreement between Division employees and Delaware
residents that more needs to be done to protect habitat
and wildlife in the state. It is also a clear indication
that a majority of Delaware residents stand behind the
mission of the Division and its employees.
Employees and
Delaware residents show high levels of agreement
when asked
about wildlife management and conservation in the state.
(Click image
to enlarge)
Opinions on and Ratings of Division Efforts and
Programs
Delaware residents were asked to rate
the importance of 22 programs or efforts of the
Division. For each program or effort, residents rated
its importance on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not
at all important and 10 being extremely important.
Residents were then asked to rate the Division's
performance of those same 22 programs or efforts on a
scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being poor and 10 being
excellent. The results for each of these series of
questions were examined separately, and then the results
were examined together.
In the importance ratings, three
programs or efforts are markedly perceived by residents
as being more important than the rest: protecting
threatened and endangered species (mean importance
rating of 8.89), protecting and restoring native fish
and wildlife species (8.77), and protecting, improving,
and restoring native fish and wildlife habitats (8.75).
Delaware residents considered programs or efforts
related to consumptive activities (e.g., trapping and
hunting) to be markedly lower in importance by
comparison.
In the performance ratings,
programs or efforts that received the highest rating
from Delaware residents include the following: managing
game species (mean performance rating of 7.35), managing
and protecting non-game species (species that are not
hunted) (7.30), protecting threatened and endangered
species (7.23), and protecting, improving, and restoring
native fish and wildlife habitats (7.22).
Finally, the importance and
performance ratings for each program or effort were
compared. When a program or effort is rated high in
importance but not high in performance, this indicates
that residents may feel that the Division needs to do a
better job at the program or effort. In these instances,
the Division should strive to obtain better performance
ratings. Conversely, if a program or effort is rated
high in performance but not high in importance, this
indicates that residents may feel that the Division is
spending too much of its resources on that program or
effort. In these instances, the Division may need to
inform residents of why the program or effort is
important.
There are seven programs or
efforts that fall relatively far from having
"commensurate" ratings, with markedly higher importance
ratings than performance ratings:
♦ reducing the impacts of
development on natural resources and wildlife
habitat;
♦ reducing the impacts of climate
change on natural resources and wildlife
habitat;
♦ providing educational programs
on Delaware's fish and wildlife;
♦ protecting threatened and
endangered species;
♦ reducing the impacts of human
use of natural resources and wildlife
habitat;
♦ protecting and restoring native
fish and wildlife species; and
♦ protecting, improving, and
restoring native fish and wildlife
habitats.
This indicates that Delaware
residents feel that the Division should focus more
attention on these programs or efforts. The Division
should also make Delaware residents aware of what it is
doing in these areas.
Division employees were asked to
rate the importance of the same 22 programs or efforts
of the Division, but not the Division's performance for
the 22 programs or efforts. In the importance ratings,
all but six programs or efforts received a mean rating
of more than 7.00 from Division employees. Five programs
or efforts are markedly perceived by Division employees
to be more important than the rest, with mean ratings of
more than 8.00: protecting and restoring native fish and
wildlife species (mean rating of 8.73), protecting
threatened and endangered species (8.65), protecting,
improving, and restoring native fish and wildlife
habitats (8.58), reducing the impacts of development on
natural resources and wildlife habitat (8.58), and
providing opportunities for hunting (8.33).
Division employees consider the
importance of providing opportunities for hunting to be
much higher than do Delaware residents. Delaware
residents rated the importance of that effort with a
mean of only 5.66 (with 20% of residents giving it a
rating of importance of 9 or 10), compared to Division
employees, who rated it with a mean of 8.33 (with 55% of
Division employees giving it a rating of importance of 9
or 10). This does not mean,
however, that Delaware residents do not support
hunting -- it simply is not as high a priority to them
as other issues. One implication is that the Division
could increase its education efforts to inform Delaware
residents of the major role that hunting plays in
funding wildlife management through license fees and
excise taxes on hunting equipment.
Participation in and Opinions
on Outdoor Activities in Delaware
The survey asked residents if they
support or oppose four outdoor activities (legal
hunting, legal recreational fishing, regulated trapping,
and trapping as a recreational activity) in Delaware.
Support is high for legal recreational fishing (92%
support; 5% oppose) and legal hunting (78% support; 17%
oppose). Trapping receives less support: 56% support
regulated trapping (35% oppose), and 31% support
trapping as a recreational activity (61% oppose). Unlike
trapping in a mostly recreational context, a majority of
Delaware residents support trapping as a method of
nuisance animal control by the Division (76% support;
while 18% oppose).
The Division employee survey also
asked respondents to rate access for five different
outdoor activities in Delaware on an
excellent/good/fair/poor scale. The activities included
wildlife viewing, boating, target shooting, trapping,
and "other outdoor recreational activities" like hiking,
mountain biking, and similar activities. For three of
these activities, a majority of employees rate access in
Delaware as excellent or good: boating (82% of employees
say access for boating is excellent or good), wildlife
viewing (62%), and "other outdoor recreation activities"
such as hiking, mountain biking, and similar activities
(56%). At the other end of the spectrum, a large
majority of employees (70%) rate access for target
shooting in Delaware as fair or poor.
Opinions on Funding for the
Division of Fish and Wildlife
Funding is perhaps the most important
issue for most state fish and wildlife agencies. This
study was meant to be an initial assessment of
where Delaware residents stand in general on this
important issue.
Among Delaware residents overall,
there is much more support for (75%) than opposition to
(18%) increases in user fees, such as hunting and
fishing licenses, to cover the costs of conserving and
managing fish and wildlife. There is much more support
for (72%) than opposition to (21%) increases in user
fees, such as hunting and fishing licenses, if it means
that there will be more opportunities for these
activities. However, as might be expected, support among
those who have hunted, trapped, and/or fished in the two
years preceding the survey is weaker than among Delaware
residents as a whole: only 64% support, and 31% oppose
such increases. Support and opposition only change
slightly if the increases would mean more opportunity:
in this case, 69% support, and 27% oppose.
Agreement (68%) far exceeds
disagreement (27%) among Delaware residents that the
costs of conserving and managing fish and wildlife
should be paid for primarily by those who fish and hunt
through such fees as hunting and fishing licenses.
Support among those who have hunted, trapped, and/or
fished in the two years preceding the survey is somewhat
less, and opposition more, with 61% agreeing and 36%
disagreeing.
Among Delaware residents overall,
agreement (78%) far exceeds disagreement (15%) that
specific user fees, such as hunting and fishing
licenses, should be used to pay the costs of conserving
and managing fish and wildlife, including non-game and
threatened and endangered species. Those who hunted,
trapped, and/or fished in the two years preceding the
survey largely agree with Delaware residents on this
statement: 79% agree, and 18% disagree.
This is a dilemma that fish and
wildlife agencies across the nation face: Should the
general population, which clearly benefits from wildlife
management efforts, assist in paying for wildlife
management and conservation? Internal assessments
such as this study can serve as a starting point for
agencies to take on such issues. With factual knowledge
from scientific surveys of agency employees, the general
population, and constituent groups such as hunters and
anglers, agencies can make informed decisions regarding
this type of issue.
Agreement (77%) far exceeds
disagreement (18%) among Delaware residents that the
costs of conserving and managing fish and wildlife,
including non-game and threatened and endangered
species, should be paid for by those who participate in
outdoor recreational activities other than hunting and
fishing that involve the use of the resources and land,
such as wildlife viewing, hiking, and mountain biking.
In addition, support (67%) far exceeds opposition (27%)
among Delaware residents for an annual $10 general access or user fee for use of
Public Wildlife Areas for these types of activities.
This indicates strong public support for potential
alternative funding for the Division. While this study
was only an initial general assessment, information
collected from this study can serve as a jumping off
point to explore possibilities for acquiring additional
funding for the state's fish and wildlife management
efforts.
Among Division employees, support
for (78%) far exceeds opposition to (20%) an annual $10
general access or user fee for use of Public Wildlife
Areas for outdoor recreational activities other than
hunting and fishing in Delaware that involve the use of
resources and land, such as wildlife viewing, hiking,
and mountain biking.
The full report, including results
and analysis regarding residents' perceived values of
natural resources and outdoor recreation, opinions on
and ratings of species-specific wildlife management in
Delaware, and large tract owners' participation in the
Division's landowner programs, is available here (1.3MB PDF). A printable
version of this article is available here (784KB
PDF). 
