New Survey Results Released
by Responsive Management
A
STUDY CONDUCTED RECENTLY BY Responsive
Management for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADFG) found that most adults living in Anchorage
appreciate, or at least tolerate, wildlife in the
state's largest city.
"Anchorage residents understand
the challenges of coexisting with large, potentially
dangerous wild animals, but they also appreciate the
uniqueness," says Rick Sinnott, a state wildlife
biologist. "Anchorage is a blueprint for living with
wildlife, including bears and wolves, for the rest of
the world."
A city of about 290,000 people,
Anchorage is surrounded by natural areas. An estimated
250-300 black bears, more than 60 brown bears, 4 wolf
packs, and 1,700 moose live in or near the city,
according to the ADFG. The survey was conducted a little
over a year after three Anchorage residents were mauled
by brown bears within the city limits. According to the
ADFG, the summer of 2009 was relatively quiet by
comparison, with few problems with bears and no maulings
in the Anchorage area.
The study was conducted to
determine Anchorage residents' opinions on bear and
moose populations, problems caused by bear and moose,
and the management of these populations in the Anchorage
area. The study included a series of preliminary focus
groups and a telephone survey of Anchorage area
residents of at least 18 years old.
Methodology
Focus
groups with Anchorage residents and trail users were
conducted in Anchorage, Alaska, in August 2009. The
primary purpose of the focus group research was to help
refine survey topics and questions for the telephone
survey.
The focus groups were moderated by
Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director of Responsive
Management. The moderator used discussion guides
developed by the ADFG and Responsive Management, which
allowed for consistency in the data collection. By using
the discussion guide, the moderator kept the discussions
within design parameters without exerting a strong
influence on the discussion content.
For the survey, telephones were
selected as the preferred sampling medium because of the
almost universal ownership of telephones among Anchorage
residents. Additionally, telephone surveys, relative to
mail or Internet surveys, allow for more scientific
sampling and data collection, provide higher quality
data, obtain higher response rates, are more timely, and
are more cost effective. Telephone surveys also have
fewer negative effects on the environment than mail
surveys because of reduced use of paper and reduced
energy consumption for delivering and returning the
questionnaires. A central polling site at the Responsive
Management office allowed for rigorous quality control
over the interviews and data collection.
Interviews were conducted Monday
through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday
from noon to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 5:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m., local time. A five-callback design was used
to maintain the representativeness of the sample, to
avoid bias toward people easy to reach by telephone, and
to provide an equal opportunity for all to participate.
When a respondent could not be reached on the first
call, subsequent calls were placed on different days of
the week and at different times of the day. The
telephone survey was conducted in December 2009 and
January 2010.
Respondents were classified by
where they lived, based on the likelihood of
encountering bears in their neighborhood: downtown,
midtown, and west Anchorage were in one zone; east
Anchorage, the Hillside, and the military bases were in
an intermediate zone; and outlying communities such as
Eagle River, Chugiak, Bird, and Girdwood were in the
third zone.
Wildlife Values and Knowledge of
Wildlife
The increase in
wildlife populations in the Anchorage area is an
important wildlife issue to residents, particularly the
moose and bear populations. Despite some concern about
wildlife populations, Anchorage residents hold generally
positive attitudes toward wildlife-a majority (92%) of
residents say that wildlife is an important part of
their community, and a majority (86%) say that wildlife
encounters, despite the possible danger, make life in
Anchorage more interesting and special.
Other questions in the survey tested
residents' tolerance levels with bears, and a majority
(61% for black bears) and nearly half (48% for brown
bears) indicate being tolerant to having bears in the
Anchorage area. Conversely, about a third (35%)
regarding black bears and nearly half (48%) regarding
brown bears do not want bears in the Anchorage area.
Note that tolerance levels are higher for black bears
than they are for brown bears.
The survey also tested tolerance
levels regarding moose. While acknowledging that moose
cause some problems, the large majority of Anchorage
residents (87%) say that encounters with moose make life
in Anchorage seem more interesting and special. A
further indication of tolerance toward moose is that an
overwhelming majority (94%) of Anchorage residents
indicate that they have enjoyed watching moose in the
Anchorage area in the past 2 years.
Residents' self-rated knowledge
levels indicate fairly high knowledge about black and
brown bears, with a majority (71%) saying that they know
a great deal or moderate amount about black bears and a
majority (66%) saying the same about brown bears. The
leading sources of information about bear and moose
among Anchorage residents are (in order of decreasing
importance) newspapers (30%), television (25%), the
Internet (20%), personal experience (20%), books (15%),
and word of mouth (15%).
Opinions on the Amount of Wildlife in the
Anchorage Area
Although
residents are generally tolerant of wildlife in the
Anchorage area, they do not want the wildlife
populations to increase-a large majority want the
populations of black bears (58%), brown bears (56%), and
moose (63%) to remain the same. However, a substantial
number of residents want a decrease in the population of
black bears (28%), brown bears (31%), and moose (24%).
The survey explored how often
residents actually see black and brown bears in their
neighborhoods and how often they would like to see them
in their neighborhoods. The most common response among
residents regarding black bears is that they see them
about as much as they would like to; note, however, that
the large majority (61%) never see black bears, and a
large majority (60%) never want to see them. However,
those who see black bears the most often have the
highest tendency to want to see them less often,
although not to the degree of saying that they never
want to see them. Those who never see black bears are
the most likely to say that they never want to see
them.
Regarding brown bears, the most
common response among residents is that they see them
about as much as they would like to see them; note,
however, that the large majority (85%) never see brown
bears, and a large majority (79%) never want to see
them. Among those who see brown bears a few times a
year, two-fifths (40%) would like to never see them.
Indeed, very few people indicated that they want to see
brown bears more often.
In a comparison of the two types
of bear, black bears are seen more often in residents'
neighborhoods than are brown bears, and residents would
like to see black bears more often than brown bears.
Opinions on Wildlife in Anchorage
Parks
A large majority of Anchorage
residents think it is acceptable to have bears (both
black and brown) in Far North Bicentennial Park (73% for
black bears and 63% for brown bears) and in Chugach
State Park (87% for black bears and 82% for brown
bears). In comparing the two parks, there is more
acceptance about having bears in Chugach State Park than
in Far North Bicentennial Park (the latter is closer to
downtown Anchorage).
Although residents for the most part
think it is acceptable to have bears in Far North
Bicentennial Park, majorities nonetheless support legal,
regulated hunting of bears to control their populations
in the park: 65% (for black bears ) and 66% (for brown
bears) support legal, regulated hunting of them.
Likewise, although having moose in the Anchorage area is
acceptable to most residents, a majority (70%) support
legal, regulated hunting of moose to control their
population in the Anchorage area, including the large
parks.
Another indication of the fairly
high level of tolerance toward bears and moose is that
the possibility of encountering a black bear, brown
bear, or moose has not prevented the overwhelming
majority of Anchorage residents from using trails and
parks in the Anchorage area-71% (black bear), 64% (brown
bear), and 90% (moose) say this. Here, too, brown bears
are perceived the most negatively regarding trail and
park use.
Regarding trail use, the
overwhelming majority of Anchorage residents (89%)
support temporarily closing trails at times when the
risk of encountering a brown bear is high. Regarding a
proposed new or improved trail along a salmon stream
where authorities believe the risk of brown bear attacks
will be increased with increased trail use, the majority
(57%) of residents still favor building the trail, with
conditions.
Negative Interactions and Damage Caused by
Wildlife
Residents were asked
about problems with black and brown bears in the past 2
years at their primary home, and black bear problems
were more common, although very few residents reported
problems with either black or brown bears-only about 1
in 20 reported having problems. The specific problems
vary by the type of bear. Getting into garbage, entering
a home, and damage to ornamental or fruit trees are the
leading problems with black bears; building damage (but
no entry), getting into garbage, being in the yard, and
damage to a parked vehicle are the leading problems with
brown bears.
Despite this, the overwhelming majority
of residents (88%) agree that most problems with bears
in the Anchorage area can be prevented by taking a few
simple precautions, such as using bear-proof garbage
containers. The large majority of residents (84%)
support fines for not storing garbage to prevent
problems with bears, and the overwhelming majority (85%)
support a regulation or ordinance to require Anchorage
area residents to use bear-proof garbage containers in
neighborhoods frequented by bears. The large majority of
residents (71%) also support paying more for their trash
service if the city of Anchorage were to provide
bear-proof garbage containers.
Opinions on Wildlife Management
Options
Opinions on
management options for bears and moose indicate that
Anchorage residents are tolerant of wildlife. A majority
of Anchorage residents oppose having wildlife
authorities destroy some black or brown bears in
Anchorage every year to reduce the population (54%
oppose regarding black bears, and 53% oppose regarding
brown bears), and a majority (63%) oppose having
wildlife authorities destroy some moose in Anchorage
every year to reduce the population.
This should not be taken to mean that
there are not situations in which Anchorage residents
would support killing bears, however. A large majority
(83%) support having wildlife authorities destroy
specific bears at their discretion when the bears pose a
threat to human safety, and a slight majority
(53%) support having wildlife authorities kill bears at
their discretion that cause property damage. Residents
are split over killing bears that get into garbage (46%
support, and 48% oppose), and support for (35%) is
exceeded by opposition to (56%) killing bears that are
seen frequently in neighborhoods. Indeed, in most
residents' view, just being seen is not cause to kill
bears, because a majority of Anchorage residents (60%)
oppose designating specific areas in Anchorage where any
bears coming into the area would be killed. Regarding
the interaction between bears and moose, there is much
more opposition to (68%) than support for (23%) reducing
the moose population (a food source for bears) in
Anchorage to reduce the number of brown bears.
The full telephone survey report,
including results comparing different regions of the
city, trail use, park use, and trends based on an
earlier study, is available here (885KB PDF). A report of
the focus group results is available here (402KB PDF). A printable
version of this article is available here (730KB
PDF). 
