Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and ... · three different black bear-human...
Transcript of Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and ... · three different black bear-human...
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears
and their Management in Wisconsin
Jordan Petchenik, Lauren Bradshaw and Robert Holsman
Submitted to:
Bureau of Wildlife Management
Prepared by:
Bureau of Environmental Analysis and Sustainability
June 2018
For additional information please contact:
Jordan Petchenik or Robert Holsman
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Environmental Analysis and Sustainability
101 S. Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 2
About this Report
This report presents results of a statewide survey of Wisconsin residents regarding their awareness of
and attitudes about black bears. It also examines the public’s tolerance for various bear behaviors and
preferences for management actions in response to three different black bear–human interaction
scenarios. The study was conducted to support the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’
wildlife management program. This report presents study findings, interprets the information within
pertinent contexts, and may identify potentially useful lines of additional inquiry. This report does not,
however, include specific recommendations or policy prescriptions.
Acknowledgements
• Lauren Bradshaw managed survey logistics, including printing and assembling the mail survey
She was also responsible for entering the majority of the survey data in addition to her roles as
analyst and co-author of this report.
• David MacFarland, the department’s carnivore specialist in Wildlife Management when the
project was initiated, was the lead proponent for the conduct of this study. Dave also
contributed much thinking to the design of sampling procedures and research questions we
addressed.
• Members of the department’s Bear Advisory Committee were influential in the study design
and reviewed survey questions prior to focus group testing. External partner members included
Dan Eklund, Ralph Fritsch, Mike Gappa, Rich Kirchmeyer, Joe Koback, Al Lobner, Nick
McCann, Mike Rogers and Robert Willging; department members included Brian Dhuey,
Nancy Frost, Wayne Hall, Jr., John Huff, Gregory Kessler, Bradley Koele, Kirk Konichek,
Dave MacFarland (chair), Linda Olver, Nathan Roberts, Robert Rolley (retired), Margaret
Stewart and Michelle Woodford.
• We appreciate the support and direction provided by Sanjay Olson, Eric Lobner and Bob Nack
in undertaking this effort.
• Dreux Watermolen, Section Chief for Analysis Services, played a critical leadership role in
coordinating meetings between the bureaus of Wildlife Management and Environmental
Analysis and Sustainability.
• Dougal Walker produced the maps for the report and numerous presentations.
• Thanks for pre-testing the questionnaire are extended to William Erikson, Steve Geis, Michael
Halstad, Adam Mednik, Cheryl Moon, Greg Pils and Dougal Walker.
• Funding for this research was provided through a federal Pittman-Robertson grant.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 3
Table of Contents
2 Acknowledgements
4 Introduction
6 Methods: Sampling, Data Collection and Analysis
6 Questionnaire Design and Development
6 Regional Composition
7 Sampling
9 Results and Discussion
9 Awareness of Black Bears in Wisconsin
11 How the Public Feels about Black Bears and Concerns about Safety
13 Thoughts on Wisconsin’s Black Bear Population
19 Public Tolerance for and Preferred Management Response to Black Bear Behavior
31 Respondent Background
36 Literature Cited
37 Regional Snapshots
37 Northwest Respondent Profile
39 Northeast Respondent Profile
41 West Respondent Profile
43 Central Respondent Profile
45 Columbia Respondent Profile
47 East Respondent Profile
49 Appendix: Mailed Questionnaire
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 4
Introduction
Wisconsin’s black bear (Ursus americanus) population has increased from approximately 4,000 in the
1980s to over 25,000 today (Kohn 1982, MacFarland 2009, Dennison et al. 2017). In conjunction with
bear population growth, bear range has expanded from the less-populated forested northern counties
into the central and western (and more populated) counties (MacFarland 2009). Today resident bears
are found in more than half of Wisconsin’s counties and have been observed in every county of the
state. A consequence of the range expansion and growth in numbers has been the need to manage black
bear-human interactions; bears are now sighted more frequently throughout the urban-rural fringe.
The public lodged 755 bear complaints in 2017, 55 percent fewer than were received during the
highest year in 1995 (Engstrom et al. 2017). Most of the complaints are defined as nuisance bears that
damage bird feeders, raid garbage cans or other minor property damage. Most of these are resolved
through phone consultations with Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or United States
Department of Agriculture staff. Extreme cases, which include threats to public safety, are addressed
by euthanizing the offending bears; there were five such cases in 2017 (Engstrom et al. 2017).
Trapping and relocating bears is frequently relied on to address problem bears; it is most typically used
where there is documented agricultural losses to crops or bee hives. In 2016, 590 black bears were
trapped and relocated in Wisconsin, an increase from approximately 400 in 1990 (Engstrom et al.
2016). Bear damage to agriculture and nuisance complaints are also managed by issuing landowners
special shooting permits. Fifty bears were killed on these permits in 2017, all in agricultural situations
(Engstrom et al. 2017).
Black bears are managed as a big game animal and Wisconsin boasts one of the highest success rates
among states that allow harvest. Over 100,000 people apply annually to hunt bears with many waiting
seven to 11 years to be drawn for a harvest permit. Hunters harvested over 4,000 bears during the 2017
season (Dhuey et al. 2017).
The Wisconsin DNR has been managing the state’s bear population guided by a plan that was last
updated in the 1980s. In 2012, members of the department’s black bear advisory committee comprised
of department staff and represents from partner organizations, including the Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission, concluded that an updated black bear management plan would be merited.
The advisory committee also acknowledged that bear population management goals included in the
existing plan may not accurately represent current preferences by the public; a fresh understanding of
the public’s tolerance for bear behavior and human-bear interactions could help better inform
development of an updated management plan.
The research reported here was conducted to inform the Wisconsin DNR’s wildlife management
program on the public’s awareness of and attitudes towards black bears as well as the public’s
tolerance for different types of bear behavior and preferences for management actions in response to
three different black bear-human interaction scenarios.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 5
The results are based on data generated from a questionnaire mailed to 5,700 residents within bear
range and from an on-line panel of 600 residents of the south-eastern counties that are generally
considered non-bear range.
To anticipate the detailed findings, the public generally:
• held similar attitudes across the state towards bears and their management;
• holds positive feelings towards bears, including a willingness to live near where bears live even
after experiencing multiple types of bear nuisance and/or damage;
• considers bear management decisions as being important to them, with residents of the north
significantly more likely than southern residents to say bear management decisions are
important;
• would like to see the bear population maintained or managed at a population level that the
habitat can support;
• does not view bears as being dangerous but has safety concerns for children and pets when they
are outdoors in areas where bears are found;
• is tolerant of bear sightings and minor intrusions such as damage to bird feeders and garbage
cans but considerably less tolerant of the most intrusive and damaging behavior such as
attempting to enter a home or vehicle or attacking livestock;
• supports the state’s current response approach to bear-human interactions by follow-up
consultations and an abatement preference for trapping and relocating offending bears;
• and public support for lethal removal of an offending bear, while still representing an overall
minority, increases after a bear demonstrates more than one type of offense, and in those
situations, there is a greater preference for the landowner rather than a wildlife official to kill
the bear.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 6
Methods: Sampling, Data Collection and Analysis
Questionnaire Design and Development
Public attitudes towards black bears in Wisconsin were assessed using two survey modes: a postal
survey of randomly selected Wisconsin households and an online survey of panelists recruited by a
third-party firm to represent residents of the south-eastern counties that are generally considered non-
bear range. Questions of interest were developed through consultation with the DNR’s carnivore
ecologist, in-depth discussions at two meetings of the bear advisory committee and a review of black
bear related survey work conducted in other states. After an initial draft was developed, it was
presented to the bear advisory committee for review and feedback followed by an internal review by
Bureau of Wildlife Management leadership and agency administration. Two questions regarding the
use of dogs in bear hunting and a question on the number of bait sites allowable per hunter were
subsequently removed. The revised questionnaire was then pretested in a focus group with staff
volunteers; participants were a mix people who own property in traditional northern bear territory and
southern, non-bear territory. Minor revisions (e.g., clarifying ambiguous language, adding response
options) were made to the draft which was then shared with the bear advisory committee for final
review and approval.
Regional Composition
As noted in other studies we’ve conducted, a standard public opinion survey for Wisconsin might
contact between 400 and 1,000 people. We drew a large sample (n = 6,300) because we wanted to
assess potential differences in bear attitudes and preferences across the state and to generate results that
would be applicable to a geographic scale finer than a statewide picture or north-south dichotomy.
Budget constraints prevented sampling at a county level, so we developed six regions. Composition
was determined through consultation with the DNR’s carnivore ecologist and then presented for
review to wildlife managers across the state and the bear advisory committee. In developing the
regions, six county-level criteria were considered: historical bear range, emerging range, bear density,
bear sightings, primary landscape type (e.g., agricultural lands versus forested lands) and human
population. Input from managers and committee members resulted in six regions (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Adjacent counties comprising the six
analytical regions used in this study.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 7
The ‘northwest’ region is considered primary bear range. It contains copious, large public land areas
including national, state and county forests. There is some agriculture present in this region. It also is
generally considered to have the highest bear densities in the state. Correspondingly, this region also
has the highest number of bear complaints annually.
The ‘northeast’ region is also considered primary bear range with large forested blocks. This region
has less agriculture than the northwest but has many lake homes and cottages. Bear densities are also
relatively high throughout this region, especially in its western most counties.
The ‘central’ region corresponds to an area where large forests transition to smaller blocks of wooded
habitat interspersed with agriculture. There are also several metropolitan communities in this region.
Bear numbers are lower here than the two more northerly zones, but the species is still relatively
common and its population is likely increasing in the area.
The ‘west’ region follows the Mississippi River corridor and the state’s Driftless Region. Historically,
bears would have been considered rare in this area, and today are still not common. This region,
however, has experienced some degree of range expansion for black bears as more northerly habitats
may have become saturated.
The ‘Columbia’ region consists of five rural counties where resident bear numbers are considered low
and habitat is generally fragmented other than along a connecting corridor along the Wisconsin River.
This area was singled out because of its potential to see future bear expansion if statewide population
increases were to occur.
Finally, the ‘east’ region includes the most urbanized counties of the state and is not considered to
provide bear habitat. Residents of this region are assumed to only encounter bears on very rare
occasions, usually transient males.
Sampling
An eight-page questionnaire was mailed to 5,700 randomly selected Wisconsin adults (minimum age
of 18 years) residing in households in all regions except the east. Household addresses were purchased
from a commercial firm and randomly drawn within each sampling region using a mix of address-
based-sampling of U.S. Census records with an oversample of known rentals and households with
younger adults. Sample size across the five regions varied based on anticipated response rate and total
region population. We followed standard mail survey protocols. A maximum of three contacts were
made with each household: 1) an initial questionnaire with a cover letter (signed by the Wildlife
Management bureau director) and a first-class hand-stamped, addressed return envelope (known as the
full mailing); 2) a follow-up letter which served as a “thank you” for returning the questionnaire or as a
reminder to please complete and return it; 3) and a second full mailing sent to all non-respondents.
Mailings were conducted in May-June 2017.
The survey of adults in the east region was conducted via an online panel. Rather than a mail survey,
an on-line panel was selected due to our belief that the topic would not be as salient to residents of this
part of the state (i.e. non-bear range, rare sightings of bears, very limited interactions) and thereby
reducing the likelihood of achieving a response rate sufficient to develop a picture of resident attitudes
towards black bears. The third-party survey firm guaranteed 600 completed questionnaires from
participants selected to mirror the demographics of the region (or a better representation of the
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 8
demographics than would be obtained from a mailed survey). Questions in the mail survey which were
not applicable to this region were not asked of the panel participants (e.g., perception of bear numbers
in panelist’s home county). Online panelists were sent an e-mail link to an electronic questionnaire
posted on the department’s survey platform. The e-mail message was routed through the company
from which the panel was recruited and maintained. Access to the survey was closed when the number
of completed surveys reached 600. (NOTE: Omission of the east region in the main body of the report,
whether in table or summary text, indicates that the question was not included in the panel survey.)
Responses to the mail and panel surveys were weighted to reflect within-region demographics using
U.S. Census data. We also weighted data to correct for geographic oversampling of some regions and
pooled the resulting responses to create a statewide composite of attitudes and preferences.
The response rate is based on a formula that divides the number of returned questionnaires by the total
number mailed, minus the number of cases determined to be ‘non-sample.’ For this study a non-
sample is defined as respondents who are deceased or mailings undelivered with no forwarding address
provided. The on-line panel survey achieved its target of 600 completes, essentially a 100 percent
usable response. Of the 5,700 mail questionnaires, 569 were eliminated as non-sample. Usable
questionnaires were returned by 2,761 residents for a mailed questionnaire response rate of 54 percent.
Including the returns from the on-line panel yields a total response rate of 59 percent (Table 1).
Table 1. Sample size and response rate per region.
Region Sample size Non-deliverable Returned Response rate
Northwest 1,000 94 514 57%
Northeast 1,200 103 626 57%
West 1,200 129 551 51%
Central 1,300 148 603 52%
Columbia 1,000 95 467 52%
East 600 0 600 100%
Total 6,300 569 3,361 59%
The Bureau of Environmental Analysis and Sustainability conducted all tasks associated with the
survey effort. This included assembling the mailings, tracking the response rate, performing the
necessary data entry and data cleaning, and conducting all analyses using SPSS version 24. All
mailings originated from and were returned to the Bureau of Environmental Analysis and
Sustainability in Madison. The margin of error for the study is +/-3 percent.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 9
Results and Discussion
Awareness of Black Bears in Wisconsin
Survey respondents were asked four questions to assess their awareness of black bears in Wisconsin
and their experience with bear damage. Nearly everyone said that prior to receiving the survey they
were aware that black bears lived in Wisconsin. Ninety one percent of the east respondents knew bears
resided in the state; awareness in the other five regions was 98 percent to 100 percent.
A majority of state residents have seen a black bear in the wild somewhere in Wisconsin. Sightings
were most common among residents living in primary bear range; 98 percent of residents in the
northwest region and 95 percent of residents in the northeast region have at some point seen a wild
bear (Table 2). Sightings were next most common in the central region where more than eight residents
in ten (86%) said they have seen a wild bear. Sightings were also common in the west (65%) and
Columbia (70%) regions. Bear sightings by residents of the east region explain the significant finding;
two-fifths of the residents (41%) indicated they have seen a wild black bear in Wisconsin.
Table 2. Percent of respondents who indicated seeing a black bear in Wisconsin (not including zoos)
and the number of wild bear sightings in past 12 months.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
Seen a bear in Wisconsin (not including zoos?) (p < 0.000)
Yes 98% 95% 65% 86% 70% 41% 76%
No 2 5 35 14 30 59 24
Number of wild bear sighting in past 12 months (% Yes, above) (p < 0.000)
Zero 9% 20% 46% 31% 55% 43% 31%
Once 15 20 27 29 24 39 24
2–5 times 47 43 22 33 18 17 33
6–10 times 16 8 3 4 2 1 7
11+ 13 8 2 3 2 0 5
Of the respondents who have seen a wild black bear in Wisconsin, a majority had seen a bear within
the 12 months prior to the survey (Table 2). Only the Columbia region included a majority of
respondents who had not seen a bear during the past 12 months. As expected, sightings were most
frequent (two or more times) by residents of the northwest (76%) and northeast regions (59%),
followed by residents of the central region (40%). Sightings reported by residents of the east region
were assumed to have occurred in parts of the state where bears inhabit and may be explained by
ownership of or renting property in northern Wisconsin.
Experience with damage from black bears was addressed with a question asking if the respondents had
ever experienced any damage from bears, allowing the respondent to check as many from a list of 11
experiences or checking “None of the above:”
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 10
Have you experienced damage from bears in Wisconsin to any of the following? (check all that
apply)
□ Bird feeders □ Crops grown for commercial purpose
□ Garbage cans □ Residential vegetable gardens
□ Buildings □ Livestock raised for commercial purpose
□ Car or truck (from hitting a bear) □ Residential poultry and/or rabbits
□ Bee hives □ Something else? Please specify below.
□ Apple and/or Christmas trees _________________________________
□ None of the above
Across the five regions (damage experience was excluded from the east region survey), damage to
birdfeeders was most commonly reported (28%) followed by garbage cans (13%). No other damage
type in any region exceeded five percent. As might be expected, respondents who derive an income
from farming (including beekeeping) were more likely (49%) than non-farmers (36%) to report some
form of damage (p < 0.000).
For analysis simplicity, the response to the damage question was summed to create a 3-point damage
scale identifying those that have never experienced any damage from bears, those that have
experienced one form of damage and those that have experienced two or more forms of damage. It is
important to note that the question addressed types of damage, not total occurrences. It is possible that
a respondent experienced one type of damage (e.g., raided garbage cans) but the damage occurred
more than one time.
Table 3. Respondents’ experience with black bear damage.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia 5 Regions
No damage 35% 43% 82% 72% 85% 63%
One type 28 31 12 16 11 20
Two or more types 37 26 6 12 4 17
Table 3 indicates that more than one-third of the respondents (37%) had experienced some form of
damage attributed to black bears. As might be expected, respondents from the two northern regions
were most likely to experience damage (p < 0.000); two-thirds of the northwest respondents (65%) and
more than one-half of the northeast respondents (57%) reported damage. Respondents from the other
three regions were considerably less likely to experience bear damage (p < 0.000); one-fifth (21%) of
the aggregate population reported some form of damage.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 11
How the Public Feels about Black Bears and Concerns about Safety
Three questions addressed the respondents’ feelings towards bears and one three-part question
addressed potential concerns about safety. Across the six regions, respondents expressed favorable
feelings towards bears. Although a statistical difference was found (p < 0.005), substantive differences
across the regions were small. Favorable or very favorable feelings ranged from a minimum of 55
percent in the Columbia region to 60 percent in the northeast region. Unfavorable or very unfavorable
feelings were noted by at most 13 percent of residents of the northwest region. Further analysis reveals
that residents with the most occurrences of damage by bears had significantly higher unfavorable
feelings (22% unfavorable) than those without damage experience (8%) (p < 0.000). Note, however,
that a slight majority of 51 percent of those experiencing the most types of damage still express
favorable feelings towards bears.
Another question focused on the importance of bear management to the respondent. When asked,
“How important are the decisions regarding bear management in Wisconsin to you personally?,”
results align as one might expect. Respondents from the two northern regions were significantly more
likely to say that bear management decisions are important to them than were respondents from any
other region (Table 4; p < 0.000). Additionally, respondents from the east region were least likely to
say bear management decisions are important to them and most likely to indicate indifference,
meaning management decisions are neither important nor unimportant to them (p < 0.000).
Table 4. Importance of black bear management decisions to the respondents.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
Very important 33% 34% 19% 24% 19% 13% 23%
Somewhat important 48 44 48 46 48 39 45
Neither 14 16 27 23 26 35 24
Somewhat unimportant 4 4 4 5 6 11 6
Very unimportant 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
Regardless of where a person lives across the state, the vast majority of the public (81%) agreed that
bears deserve our appreciation (Table 5). Although significant differences were found across the
regions, substantive differences were not important, meaning appreciation levels were generally
similar across the regions. Likewise, a majority of the public (77%) agreed that bears help keep nature
in balance. The east region stands out by offering the strongest level of agreement (87% agree or
strongly agree – approximately ten percentage points higher than the five other regions; p < 0.000).
Respondents were also asked if they agreed or disagreed that in general, black bears are not dangerous
to people. Overall, seven respondents in ten (70%) agreed that bears do not pose a danger to humans.
The standout region, as noted elsewhere, is the east. The region where respondents were least likely to
have ever seen a wild bear in Wisconsin offered the lowest level of agreement (though a slight
majority of 51%) that black bears are not dangerous to people. In contrast, more than three-fourths of
the respondents from the northwest region (78%) agreed that bears are not dangerous to people.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 12
Table 5. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree that black bears deserve appreciation and that
black bears help balance nature.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
Black bears deserve our appreciation. (p < 0.004)
Strongly agree 28% 34% 29% 32% 24% 34% 30%
Agree 52 49 56 49 54 49 51
Unsure 14 13 12 14 19 14 14
Disagree 5 4 3 4 2 2 3
Strongly disagree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Black bears help keep nature in balance. (p < 0.000)
Strongly agree 23% 27% 24% 25% 18% 28% 24%
Agree 49 50 55 51 55 59 53
Unsure 21 18 17 19 23 12 18
Disagree 6 4 4 3 3 2 4
Strongly disagree 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
We explored safety concerns further by presenting three situations, each with a different focus: concern
for personal safety while outdoors in black bear areas, concern for the safety of children who are
outdoors in bear areas, and concern for pets while they are outdoors in areas where bears live. Results
overall indicate that when outdoors in areas where bears live, respondents would worry less about their
personal safety than about the safety of children or pets (Table 6). On a statewide level, as many people
would worry about their personal safety (37%) when outdoors in areas where black bears live as would
not worry (38%). The greatest disparity occurred between respondents from the east region and those
from the northeast region. Respondents from the east were most likely to agree that they would worry
(50%) while respondents from the northeast were least likely to agree they would worry (29%).
Respondents expressed being considerably more worried about the safety of children when they are
outdoors in areas where black bears live. When the five regions are aggregated (i.e. east region
excluded), 62 percent agreed that they would worry compared to 24 percent that disagreed they would
worry. Without respondents from the east the disparity between regions is not as striking, yet statistical
differences were found. Respondents from the Columbia region were most likely to agree that they
would worry about the safety of children (66%) while respondents from the northeast were least likely
(but nevertheless a majority) to agree they would worry (58%) (p < 0.048; Table 6). We found similar
results for worrying about the safety of pets (results apply only to the 80% that indicate pet ownership).
Across the five regions, more than one-half (54%) agreed that they would worry about their pets
compared to 28 percent that disagreed they would worry (Table 6). The most notable differences were
again found between the Columbia and northeast regions. Respondents from the Columbia region were
most likely to agree that they would worry about the safety of their pets (61%) while respondents from
the northeast were least likely to agree they would worry (nearly one-half, 48%) (p < 0.000; Table 6).
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 13
Table 6. Percent of respondents who agree or disagree that they would worry about safety (percent
responses to “I would worry about…”).
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East1 Statewide
…my personal safety while outdoors in areas where bears live.” (p < 0.000)
Strongly agree 9% 7% 9% 10% 9% 17% 10%
Agree 27 22 28 24 30 33 27
Neither 26 23 24 26 26 25 25
Disagree 21 33 30 29 27 22 27
Strongly disagree 18 15 9 11 7 4 11
…the safety of children who are outdoors in areas where bears live.” 2 (p < 0.048)
Strongly agree 20% 20% 20% 23% 24% 21%
Agree 43 38 44 39 42 41
Neither 13 15 16 15 15 15
Disagree 16 20 15 17 15 17
Strongly disagree 9 8 5 6 4 7
…the safety of my pets while outdoors in areas where bears live.” 2 (p < 0.000)
Strongly agree 17% 17% 18% 21% 16% 18%
Agree 39 31 36 31 45 36
Neither 17 18 20 20 18 18
Disagree 18 26 20 22 17 21
Strongly disagree 10 9 6 7 4 7 1 To minimize response burden, respondents to the east region survey were not asked about safety of children or
safety of pets. 2 Non-pet owners were excluded via the “Not applicable” response option.
Thoughts on Wisconsin’s Black Bear Population
Understanding the public’s perception of the black bear population, the willingness to have bears live
near where people live, as well as desired changes in the bear population are essential for establishing
regional population goals across the state. We considered the public’s perception of the current bear
population and range along with their preference for bear numbers near where they live and across the
state using a series of questions. Due to the esoteric nature of the topic and to ease respondent burden,
response options were generalized, meaning “increase” or “decrease” rather than presenting specific
population goals.
When asked, “Prior to receiving this survey, would you have said the number of bears across
Wisconsin is…[increasing or decreasing]?”, a slight majority of respondents (51%) said the black bear
population was either greatly (16%) or slightly (35%) increasing (Table 7). Perceptions of increase
were greatest in the northwest (58%) and northeast (59%) regions; those from the east region were
least likely to say that bear numbers were increasing (34%) and most likely to say that bear numbers
were decreasing (17%, compared to 8% for the entire state) (p < 0.000). Black bear numbers were
perceived to be stable by about one-fifth to one-fourth of the total respondents, although about one-
third of the respondents from the east region (34%) thought that bear numbers have remained stable.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 14
Table 7. Respondents’ perceptions of Wisconsin’s black bear population (percent responses to “Prior
to receiving this survey, would you have said the number of bears across Wisconsin is…?”).
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
Greatly increasing 28% 23% 11% 18% 11% 5% 16%
Slightly increasing 30 36 38 37 43 29 35
Remaining stable 24 22 21 21 23 34 24
Slightly decreasing 3 5 7 4 4 15 7
Greatly decreasing 0 1 0 1 0 2 1
Unsure 15 14 24 20 20 15 18
Results also indicate that one-half or more of the respondents believe that black bears have been
expanding their range across the state (Table 8). As one might expect, respondents from the two
regions where bears have most recently expanded their range were most likely to agree that bear range
is expanding: sixty-one percent of respondents from the west region and seven respondents in ten
(70%) from the Columbia region believe that bears are expanding their range. Respondents from the
east region were least likely to say that bear range is expanding (42%) and most likely to say that bear
range has been shrinking (19%, compared to 8% for the entire state; p < 0.000; Table 8). Black bear
range was perceived to have remained unchanged by about one-fifth of the respondents, with the
exception of those residing in the west and Columbia regions where slightly more than one respondent
in ten (13% and 11%, respectively) perceived range stability.
Table 8. Respondents’ perceptions of black bear distribution in Wisconsin (percent responses to
“Prior to receiving this survey, would you have said the geographic range of bears across
Wisconsin is…?”).
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
Greatly expanding 23% 18% 17% 18% 16% 9% 17%
Slightly expanding 29 32 44 37 54 33 38
Remaining stable 25 25 13 19 11 28 21
Slightly shrinking 4 4 7 5 3 15 6
Greatly shrinking 1 1 3 2 1 4 2
Unsure 18 20 17 19 16 12 17
Respondents expressed positive feelings towards having bears in Wisconsin. Table 9 indicates that
regardless of region, about three-fourths of the respondents (75%) disagreed with the statement that
Wisconsin should have as few bears as possible. (A significant difference across the regions was noted
but the difference was not substantive.) About one respondent in ten (10%) felt otherwise, agreeing
that the state should have as few bears as possible. Results also indicate that across the regions, more
than one-half of the respondents (54% to 59%) believed the state should have as many bears as the
habitat can support; a possible indication that respondents considered the role bears play in maintaining
a balanced ecosystem. There was some disparity across the regions for those who disagreed. Measures
of disagreement with having as many bears as the habitat can support were nearly doubled in the
northwest region (28% disagreeing) to that found in the east region (15% disagreeing). About one-fifth
to one-fourth of the respondents from the other four regions disagreed.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 15
Table 9. Percentage of respondents who agree or disagree that Wisconsin should have as few bears as
possible and as many bears as the habitat will support.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
“I think the state should have as few bears as possible.” (p < 0.043)
Strongly Agree 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2%
Agree 7 10 7 10 7 6 8
Unsure 15 13 15 15 16 17 15
Disagree 42 40 45 41 48 44 43
Strongly disagree 34 34 31 32 27 33 32
“I think the state should have as many bears as the habitat in the state will support.” (p < 0.000)
Strongly agree 16% 16% 15% 18% 14% 19% 16%
Agree 40 43 39 37 40 36 39
Unsure 16 20 22 22 25 31 23
Disagree 22 15 22 19 17 12 18
Strongly disagree 6 6 3 5 4 3 4
Three questions asked respondents to think about black bears closer to where they live rather than at a
statewide perspective. Results were as expected when asked to assess the abundance of bears in the
respondent’s home county (Table 10). Black bear numbers were perceived to be “abundant” or “very
abundant” by respondents from the northwest region (50%) and those from the northeast region (53%).
Although these regions hold the highest black bear density in the state, two-fifths or more of the
respondents from the northwest and the northeast thought bears were present in their region, but not
abundant (40% and 46%, respectively). An assessment of “present, but not abundant” was the most
common response from respondents residing in the west (46%), central (58%) and Columbia (54%)
regions. The west region was most likely to offer an assessment of “rare” or “very rare” (35%). East
region residents were not asked this question.
Results continue to reveal public acceptance for black bears residing on Wisconsin’s landscape. Table
10 further tells us that regardless of region, more than one-half of the respondents are willing to have
black bears residing near where they live. Willingness to live near bears was strongest in the northwest
(69%) and northeast (67%) regions, perhaps indicative of respondents’ history of and numerous
experiences from living near bears. To be fair, not all northern respondents were willing to live near
bears; slightly less than one-fourth (23%) of people residing in the northwest and northeast regions
would prefer not to live near bears. A willingness to live near bears was also expressed by a majority
of respondents from the west (54%), central (56%) and Columbia (53%) regions. Approximately three
respondents in ten (28% to 31%) from these latter regions would prefer not to live near bears.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 16
Table 10. Respondents’ perceptions of bear numbers in their county of residence and willingness to
have bears near where they live.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia 5 Regions
“Would you say the number of bears occurring in your county of residence is…” (p < 0.000)
Very abundant 16% 12% 1% 3% 0% 7%
Abundant 34 43 6 14 7 19
Present, not abundant 40 46 46 58 54 49
Rare 3 3 27 13 22 13
Very rare 1 1 8 3 7 4
Not present 0 1 2 1 1 1
Unsure 5 5 11 8 10 8
“Are you willing to have bears residing near where you live?” (p < 0.000)
Yes, absolutely 28% 30% 18% 20% 17% 23%
Yes, probably 41 37 36 36 36 37
Not sure 7 11 19 14 15 13
No, probably not 20 17 21 21 24 21
Absolutely not 3 6 7 8 7 6
One might hypothesize that a willingness to live near bears is in-part derived from good or bad
experiences with bears. We questioned if respondents who have experienced bear damage were more
likely to report an unwillingness to live near bears. Regardless of damage experience, no correlation
was found with the willingness to live near bears. In each region, respondents who experienced two or
more types of damage were just as likely to say they were willing to live near bears as were
respondents who have never experienced bear damage. This may be an indication that the experienced
damage is not great (i.e. costly to repair, frequently occurring or extensive) or that bear damage is an
acceptable consequence of residing in bear country. Such an explanation may be supported by the
finding that respondents who perceived bears to be abundant or present in their home county were
significantly most likely to say they were willing to live near bears (p < 0.000). Further exploration
(via interviews or focus groups) would be needed to better understand the dynamics of the relationship.
Respondents were next asked if they would like to see black bear numbers increase or decrease in their
residential county as well as in the rest of the state. Results indicate a preference for the status quo.
One-half or more of the respondents from each region (50% to 56%) said they would like to see black
bear numbers in their county remain stable (Table 11). Preference for fewer black bears was greatest in
the northwest (29%) and northeast (25%) regions. Respondents from the west region were most likely
to indicate a preference for an increase in black bear numbers (24%), although the preference was
nearly uniform across the regions. Similar results are found when the perspective switches from the
respondent’s home county to the state as a whole. Nearly one-half of the respondents from each region
(44% to 48%) would prefer statewide black bear numbers to remain at current levels. A preference for
black bear numbers to increase outside a respondent’s home county was noted among respondents in
the west (30%) and Columbia (29%) regions. A preference for black bear numbers to decrease
statewide was observed in the northwest (23%) and northeast (19%) regions. Further analysis did not
reveal any differences in preferred black bear numbers in the respondent’s home county and the rest of
the state. In other words, black bear numbers that respondents most preferred for their home county
were also what they most preferred for the rest of the state.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 17
Table 11. Respondents’ preference for black bear numbers to increase or decrease in their county of
residence and elsewhere in Wisconsin.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia 5 Regions
“In your county of residence, would you like to see the number of bears…” (p < 0.000)
Greatly increase 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 3%
Slightly increase 13 15 22 15 17 16
Remain the same 50 51 51 55 56 53
Slightly decrease 19 18 4 11 7 12
Greatly decrease 10 7 7 6 5 7
Unsure 5 6 12 10 12 9
“What about for the rest of Wisconsin? Would you like to see the number of bears…” (p < 0.000)
Greatly increase 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 4%
Slightly increase 13 16 25 19 24 19
Remain the same 44 46 44 48 48 46
Slightly decrease 17 15 7 12 6 12
Greatly decrease 6 4 4 3 4 4
Unsure 17 15 15 13 14 15
Survey participants were asked if they regularly visited another area of the state outside their home
county for vacations or recreation. Three in five respondents (61%) from the east region said they
regularly visit counties other than their home county. Within the other regions, 37 percent of
respondents from the northwest and 35 percent from the northeast regularly visit other counties; 44
percent of respondents from the west, central and Columbia regions visit other counties regularly.
Table 12. Respondents’ perceptions of black bear abundance in their vacation regions.
Perception of black bear population Northern respondents who vacation in…
Central East
Abundant 24%
Present 49
Rare/Not present 17
Unsure 10
Central respondents who vacation in…
North East
Abundant 59% 0%
Present 32 18
Rare/Not present 4 60
Unsure 4 22
East respondents who vacation in…
North Central
Abundant 42% 9%
Present 48 41
Rare/Not present 8 36
Unsure 2 14
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 18
Except within the east region, response numbers were insufficient to assess respondent perceptions of
black bear abundance and preferences for bear numbers in each vacationing region. To permit further
analysis, we combined the northeast and northwest regions into a “north” region and combined the
west, central and Columbia regions into a “central” region. The east region remained unchanged. Even
when combining the northern regions, however, the number of respondents in the combined group who
indicated that they vacation in the east region was insufficient to allow statistical measures (blank cells
in Tables 12 and 13).
Black bears were perceived to be abundant in the combined three central regions by one-fourth (24%)
of respondents from the two northern regions (Table 12). Approximately one-half (49%) of northern
respondents perceived black bears to be present but not abundant in the central regions. Approximately
three in five (59%) respondents from the central regions perceived black bears to be abundant in the
two northern regions, while one-third (32%) from the central regions perceived bears to be present but
not abundant in the north regions. Three-fifths (60%) of respondents from the central regions perceived
black bears to be rare or not present in the east region. Approximately two-fifths (42%) of respondents
from the east region perceived black bears to be abundant in the combined northern regions. About one
respondent in ten (9%) from the east perceived black bears to be abundant in the combined central
regions; 41 percent perceived bears to be present but not abundant in the central regions.
Table 13. Respondents’ preferences for black bear numbers in their vacation region.
Preference for black bear numbers Northern respondents who vacation in…
Central East
Increase 27%
No change 45
Decrease 18
Unsure 9
Central respondents who vacation in…
North East
Increase 23% 12%
No change 59 64
Decrease 14 0
Unsure 5 24
East respondents who vacation in…
North Central
Increase 25% 29%
No change 66 58
Decrease 9 8
Unsure 0 5
Respondents who regularly visit areas outside their home county expressed preferences for black bear
numbers in the areas they visit (Table 13). As above, the number of respondents in the combined
northern region who vacation in the east region was insufficient to allow statistical measures. Northern
respondents were most likely to prefer that bear numbers remain unchanged (45%) in their central
region vacation counties. Slightly more than one-fourth (27%) of northern respondents would like to
see bear numbers increase in the central regions, while 18 percent would like to see fewer bears in the
central regions. Nearly three-fifths (59%) of respondents from the central regions preferred the status
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 19
quo in the northern regions; nearly one-quarter (23%) preferred bear numbers to increase in the
northern regions while 14 percent preferred bear numbers to decrease. Respondents from the central
region overwhelmingly preferred bear numbers to remain unchanged in the east region (64%). Slightly
more than one respondent in ten (12%) from the central regions would like to see bear numbers
increase in the east. Lastly, one-fourth (25%) of respondents from the east region preferred bear
numbers in the northern regions to increase while two-thirds (66%) preferred no change. About three
respondents in ten (29%) from the east preferred bear numbers to increase in the central regions; more
than one-half (58%) preferred bear numbers to remain unchanged in the central regions.
The perceptions of those living in a particular region (Tables 10 and 11) differed somewhat from the
perceptions of those visiting that same region (Tables 12 and 13). For the northern regions, black bears
were perceived to be abundant by 47 percent of northern residents compared to 59 percent of
respondents from the central regions and 42 percent of respondents from the east region. For the
central regions, black bears were perceived to be abundant by ten percent of central region residents
compared to 24 percent of northern respondents and nine percent of east region respondents. Similar
observations can be made with respect to preferences for black bear numbers. For the northern regions,
17 percent of the northern residents preferred bear numbers to increase compared to 23 percent and 25
percent of respondents from the central and east regions, respectively. Further, 27 percent of residents
of the northern regions preferred black bear numbers to decline compared to 14 percent and 9 percent
of respondents from the central and east regions, respectively. For the central regions, 21 percent of
central region residents preferred black bear numbers to increase compared to 27 percent and 29
percent of northern and east region respondents, respectively. Lastly, 13 percent of residents of the
central regions preferred black bear numbers to decline compared to 18 percent and 8 percent of
northern and east region respondents, respectively.
Public Tolerance for and Preferred Management Response to Black Bear Behavior
Due to the esoteric nature of black bear management for much of the public, we minimized the number
of detailed management questions in our survey.
We asked one question regarding the season length for baiting:
The use of bait is a popular way to hunt black bears in Wisconsin. Current rules allow
hunters to place bait in mid-April through the end of the hunting season in mid-October.
Which statement best describes your opinion regarding the current regulation about the
length of time that baiting is allowed? (check one)
□ I have no opinion about the baiting timeline
□ I think the current regulation is adequate and should not be changed
□ I think the time allowed for baiting should be lengthened
□ I think the time allowed for baiting should be shortened
We did not find a majority preference within any region, but modal responses perhaps hint at the
saliency of bear management across the state. A preference for shortening the length of time for bear
baiting was noted in the northwest (34%) and northeast (35%) regions (Table 14). These modal
responses are within a few percentages of “no change” in the northwest (33%) and “no opinion” in the
northeast (31%). The modal response for each remaining region was “no opinion” (ranging from 36%
to 44%), perhaps an indication of respondents being unfamiliar with the activity or ambivalent.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 20
Overall, a significant majority within each region either had “no opinion” or preferred the time allowed
for baiting remain unchanged.
Table 14. Respondents’ preference for the length of the black bear baiting season.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
No opinion 27% 31% 37% 36% 44% 37% 35%
No change 33 29 30 30 26 26 29
Lengthened 6 5 6 6 4 3 5
Shortened 34 35 28 28 27 33 31
An additional necessity to establish regional population goals across the state is to understand the
public’s tolerance for interactions with black bears (e.g., damage to agricultural crops, raiding garbage
cans, ambling through backyards, etc.). The questionnaire addressed public tolerance for bear behavior
using two different presentations. The first presented seven examples of bear behavior ranging from
most intrusive (i.e. attempting to enter a person’s home) to least intrusive (i.e. sighted on public forest
land) and asked how often such behavior would be acceptable to the survey respondent. Accepted
frequency was measured with five response options:
Never acceptable to you
Acceptable one time, but not after that
Acceptable if it occurs occasionally, but not often
Always acceptable, even if it occurs often
Unsure
Results revealed that the public has little tolerance for the most intrusive and damaging black bear
behavior but considerable tolerance for seeing bears near where respondents live and in forested
public lands (Table 15). Regardless of region, a high majority of respondents (exceeding 70%)
believed it is never acceptable for a black bear to enter a person’s home, garage or vehicle. More
than six respondents in ten (62% overall) believed that a black bear attack on livestock is never
acceptable; 15 percent of the respondents overall are accepting of such behavior. Compared to the
previous two situations, the public is more accepting of black bear damage to agricultural crops.
Regardless of region, crop damage is never acceptable to about one-third of the public (32%);
nearly one-half of the public (48% overall) is considerably more accepting of black bear damage
to crops. While some might hypothesize that seeing a black bear on a camping trip would be
exciting and therefore increase the overall experience, the public expressed low levels of
acceptance for a black bear loitering around their campsite. More than four respondents in ten
(45% overall) expressed no tolerance for campsite loitering while about one respondent in five
(19% overall) was accepting of a single occurrence but not more; approximately one-third of the
respondents (33% overall) expressed higher levels of acceptance of a black bear loitering around a
campsite.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 21
Table 15. Respondents’ acceptance of black bear-human interactions (percent responses to “When is it
acceptable for a bear to…”).
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia 5 Regions
…attempt to enter a person’s home, garage or vehicle? (NS)
Never 75% 74% 74% 72% 71% 73%
One time 14 16 18 17 17 16
Occasionally 9 8 7 8 8 8
Always 0 0 0 1 0 0
Unsure 2 2 2 3 4 2
…attack livestock on an agricultural farm? (NS)
Never 65% 62% 61% 61% 61% 62%
One time 17 21 20 21 20 20
Occasionally 14 15 16 14 16 15
Always 0 1 0 1 0 0
Unsure 4 2 3 3 2 3
…damage agricultural crops? (NS)
Never 30% 33% 31% 33% 32% 32%
One time 17 15 15 16 14 16
Occasionally 44 43 46 42 47 44
Always 4 4 4 5 3 4
Unsure 5 5 4 4 4 5
…be loitering around a campsite? (NS)
Never 42% 44% 46% 47% 45% 45%
One time 22 17 19 19 18 19
Occasionally 32 32 28 30 32 31
Always 1 3 4 2 2 2
Unsure 3 3 3 3 3 3
…destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans on someone’s property near where you live? (p < 0.000)
Never 27% 26% 33% 29% 33% 30%
One time 18 15 23 22 17 19
Occasionally 48 50 36 42 46 45
Always 6 6 4 4 2 4
Unsure 1 3 4 2 3 3
…be sighted in someone’s yard near where you live? (p < 0.000)
Never 13% 13% 21% 15% 20% 16%
One time 10 14 17 17 12 14
Occasionally 60 52 47 55 55 54
Always 15 19 13 10 10 14
Unsure 2 2 2 3 2 2
…be sighted on public forest land (county, state and federally owned land)? (p < 0.000)
Never 1% 1% 5% 2% 4% 3%
One time 1 2 3 2 2 2
Occasionally 33 27 32 32 29 31
Always 64 68 59 60 62 63
Unsure 1 2 2 4 3 3
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 22
Statistical differences across the regions are noted for the remaining three situations, although the
differences were not substantively important. About three respondents in ten (30% overall)
indicated it is never acceptable for a black bear to destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans on a
neighboring property. The highest level of intolerance was found for the west region (33% never
acceptable). Across all regions, the modal response was “occasionally,” with the two northern
regions, where respondents are most likely to be familiar with black bears and their behavior,
being most accepting (p < 0.000). Approximately one-half or more of the respondents are
accepting of an occasional sighting of a black bear in a yard near where they live (47% in the west
and 60% in the northwest, p < 0.000). Respondents from the northeast region had the highest level
of tolerance with nearly one in five (19%) accepting such behavior even on a regular basis. Black
bear encounters were most acceptable on public forested lands where the encounters are limited to
a sighting (i.e. damage or intrusion is not a factor). The modal response across the regions
(approximately 60% or greater) was “always” acceptable. This modal response also holds the only
statistical difference; a response of “always” was noted by 59 percent of the west respondents and
68 percent of the northeast respondents (p < 0.000).
Additional analyses examined whether affiliation with farming and experience with damage might
shed greater understanding of the public’s acceptance for bear behaviors. As one might expect,
respondents who derive some part of their income from farming or beekeeping were more likely
than those who do not to indicate it is never acceptable for a bear to attack livestock on a farm
(72% and 60% respectively, p < 0.000). Levels of tolerance for bear damage to agricultural crops,
however, were nearly identical regardless of income derived from farming. Further, a statistical
difference was not found when acceptance of a bear entering a person’s home, garage or vehicle
was explored by respondent experience with bear damage. Regardless of damage experience (no
damage experience, one type of damage experience or two or more types of damage experience),
respondents were equally accepting or unaccepting of a bear entering a person’s home, garage or
vehicle. Likewise, regardless of damage experience, respondents were equally accepting or
unaccepting of a bear damaging agricultural crops.
Statistical differences were found for levels of acceptance for bear attacks on livestock and bear
damage to birdfeeders or raiding garbage cans. Sixty percent of respondents without damage
experience compared to 68 percent of respondents with two or more types of damage experience
indicated that a bear attack on livestock is never acceptable (p < 0.016). Although statistically
significant, the finding’s application loses its “punch” given that a majority is intolerant, regardless
of damage experience, of such behavior. Public acceptance of bear damage to birdfeeders and
raiding garbage cans is less clear. One-third of the respondents (32%) without damage experience
compared to 24 percent and 27 percent of those with one type of damage and two or more types of
damage, respectively, indicated that a bear damaging birdfeeders or raiding garbage cans is never
acceptable. The modal response was “occasionally” acceptable with responses of 42 percent, 51
percent and 46 percent for respondents without damage experience, those with one type of damage
experience and those with two or more types of damage experience, respectively (p < 0.000).
The second approach sought to measure both tolerance and preferences for various management
response to three black bear-human interaction scenarios. We presented the scenarios (see next page)
and allowed respondents to: 1) indicate their support or opposition to five different management
responses to each, and 2) select the management response they most preferred.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 23
Situation 1: A homeowner loses bird feeders to bears and /or has garbage cans raided. Do you
support, oppose or are you unsure about using each of the options for this situation?
(Check one box for each option)
Options Support Unsure Oppose
A. No involvement by wildlife officials. □ □ □ B. Consultation with wildlife officials to only provide
recommendations to discourage future bear visits. □ □ □
C. Wildlife officials capture bear and release
elsewhere. □ □ □
D. Bear is killed by wildlife officials. □ □ □ E. Bear is killed by landowner with special permit. □ □ □
Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears cause damage to
property.
Situation 2: Bears cause damage to a farmer’s crop resulting in loss of revenue for the farmer. Do
you support, oppose or are you unsure about using each of the options for this situation?
(Check one box for each option)
Options Support Unsure Oppose
A. No involvement by wildlife officials. □ □ □ B. Consultation with wildlife officials to only provide
recommendations to discourage future bear visits. □ □ □
C. Wildlife officials capture bear and release
elsewhere. □ □ □
D. Bear is killed by wildlife officials. □ □ □ E. Bear is killed by landowner with special permit. □ □ □
Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears damage a farmer’s
crops resulting in revenue loss.
Situation 3: Over time, bears are seen more frequently in non-rural settings, such as towns and
villages, walking through multiple yards, resulting in more frequent bear-human conflicts.
Do you support, oppose or are you unsure about using each of the options for this
situation?
(Check one box for each option)
Options Support Unsure Oppose
A. No involvement by wildlife officials. □ □ □ B. Consultation with wildlife officials to only provide
recommendations to discourage future bear visits. □ □ □
C. Wildlife officials capture bear and release
elsewhere. □ □ □
D. Bear is killed by wildlife officials. □ □ □ E. Bear is killed by landowner with special permit. □ □ □
Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears move into non-
rural settings such as towns and villages.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 24
The following text introduced the three scenarios (which appear on page 23):
Sometimes black bears cause problems for people or are perceived to pose safety risks.
Wildlife officials often receive complaints from the public when bear interactions occur.
The following set of questions asks your opinion about how wildlife officials should address
different interactions involving black bears.
To anticipate the detailed findings, people are fairly tolerant of bear damage and the interactions they
have with bears across the state’s geography. Although the state has been working under a 30+ year
old management plan, the state’s response to bear – human interactions is acceptable to the public and
what they most prefer. Little support was found for the lethal removal of offending bears and where
support was noted, a greater percentage of the respondents believe a bear should be killed by the
landowner rather than by a wildlife official.
In response to a black bear destroying a bird feeder or raiding garbage cans, a majority of survey
respondents believe that some kind of response is warranted (indicated by less than one-half of the
respondents supporting “No involvement by wildlife officials, Table 16). Respondents from the two
northern regions were significantly more likely than those from other regions to support no official
involvement (p < 0.000). Regardless of region, consultation with wildlife officials was supported by
three-fourths or more (at least 75%) of the respondents. Although a statistical difference is noted (p <
0.001), a substantive difference of at least eight percent was not found, indicating similar perspectives
across the regions. Capturing the black bear and releasing it elsewhere was another management
response supported by a majority of respondents in each region. A statistical difference was noted (p <
0.000), with respondents from the two northern regions slightly less likely than other respondents to
support such action (perhaps an indication of their experience of residing in black bear territory and
accepting the consequences or their understanding that relocating bears may only create new problem
encounters in someone else’s backyard).
Contacting a wildlife official to kill the black bear was an unpopular response; the management action
was opposed by 70 percent of more within each region. No differences across the five regions were
found. The final option of allowing the landowner to kill the black bear under a special permit was
supported by approximately three respondents in ten; approximately one-half of the respondents
opposed the action, perhaps another example of an extreme and unnecessary response. A possible
foreshadow of findings not yet presented, results from this first scenario may indicate that if an
offending black bear needs to be removed, more respondents view that action as the responsibility (or
perhaps the right?) of the landowner rather than that of a wildlife official.
The preferred management response is as one might expect: approximately two out of five respondents
(41%) equally preferred consultation with wildlife officials or capturing the black bear and releasing it
elsewhere (Table 17). A statistical difference was noted (p < 0.008) with respondents from the two
northern regions showing a slightly stronger preference for consultation rather than capturing and
releasing.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 25
Table 16. Responses to Situation 1: A homeowner loses bird feeders to black bears and/or has garbage
cans raided (percent response to “Do you support, oppose or are you unsure about using
each of the options for this situation?”).
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia 5 Regions
No involvement by wildlife officials (p < 0.000)
Support 42% 41% 33% 35% 31% 37%
Unsure 26 25 23 31 31 27
Oppose 32 34 44 34 38 36
Consultation with wildlife officials (p < 0.001)
Support 83% 84% 81% 79% 75% 81%
Unsure 11 9 13 15 15 12
Oppose 6 7 6 6 10 7
Wildlife officials capture bear and release elsewhere (p < 0.000)
Support 54% 54% 65% 59% 61% 58%
Unsure 21 21 15 24 20 20
Oppose 25 25 20 18 19 21
Bear is killed by wildlife officials (NS)
Support 11% 10% 9% 11% 8% 10%
Unsure 19 16 18 19 22 19
Oppose 70 75 73 70 71 72
Bear is killed by landowner under special permit (p < 0.005)
Support 30% 28% 27% 30% 25% 28%
Unsure 20 19 28 22 28 23
Oppose 50 53 45 48 47 49
Table 17. Respondents’ preferred management responses in Situation 1 (percent who indicated, “Of
the five options, I would prefer…”.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia 5 Regions
No involvement by wildlife official 5% 7% 4% 5% 3% 5%
Consultation with wildlife officials 44 43 38 39 42 41
Wildlife officials capture bear and
release elsewhere
37 36 47 43 43 41
Bear is killed by wildlife official 2 2 3 4 3 3
Bear is killed by landowner under
special permit
11 12 9 10 9 10
The scenario exploring crop damage yielded similar results as the bird feeder scenario, but with a
higher frequency of support for capture and release (Table 18). A small percentage (approximately one
respondent in five, 21%) supported the option of no involvement from wildlife officials. Respondents
in the east region were least likely to support non-action (13%, p < 0.000). Most respondents (74%
statewide) supported consulting a wildlife official; the east region offered significantly lower, but still
majority support (67%, p < 0.000). Capturing the black bear and releasing it elsewhere was another
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 26
management response supported by a majority of respondents. Support was uniform across the regions
(70% to 78%); the east region again was the outlier, offering statistically significant but only slightly
higher support (78%) and slightly lower opposition (5%) for this option (p < 0.000). Contacting a
wildlife official to kill the black bear garnered slightly more support than that noted in the bird feeder
scenario, but this management action continued to be viewed as an unacceptable response; it was
opposed by two-thirds or more (62% or more) of the respondents within each region. A statistical
difference was noted (p < 0.000), but practical interpretation of results would conclude uniformity
across the regions. As foreshadowed above, if a black bear needs to be killed, there is more public
support for the landowner taking on that responsibility than for having a wildlife official dispatch the
bear. Support ranged from 21 percent in the east region to 40 percent in the northwest region (p <
0.000). Overall, a greater percentage of respondents in each region opposed this management action
than supported it.
The preferred management response is clearer in the crop damage scenario than that which emerged
from the bird feeder scenario; more respondents in each region prefer the bear to be captured and
released elsewhere in the state (Table 19). Respondent preferences were similar across five regions
(approximately 50% preference), with the east region being the outlier that showed significantly
greater preference for the trap and relocate option (72%, p < 0.000).
Table 18. Responses to Situation 2: Black bears cause damage to a farmer’s crop resulting in loss of
revenue for the farmer (percent response to “Do you support, oppose or are you unsure
about using each of the options for this situation?”).
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
No involvement by wildlife officials (p < 0.000)
Support 21% 23% 23% 22% 24% 13% 21%
Unsure 30 28 28 29 24 31 29
Oppose 49 50 50 49 53 55 50
Consultation with wildlife officials (p < 0.000)
Support 75% 77% 79% 74% 75% 67% 74%
Unsure 14 13 13 17 18 26 17
Oppose 10 10 9 10 7 7 9
Wildlife officials capture bear and release elsewhere (p <0 .000)
Support 71% 70% 73% 72% 73% 78% 73%
Unsure 15 17 14 17 17 17 16
Oppose 14 14 13 12 10 5 11
Bear is killed by wildlife officials (p < 0.000)
Support 18% 14% 13% 16% 11% 7% 13%
Unsure 16 15 21 22 22 24 20
Oppose 66 71 67 62 67 69 67
Bear is killed by landowner under special permit (p < 0.000)
Support 40% 33% 37% 38% 32% 21% 33%
Unsure 16 20 22 20 27 29 22
Oppose 44 47 41 42 42 51 45
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 27
Table 19. Respondents’ preferred management responses in Situation 2 (percent who indicated, “Of
the five options, I would prefer…”.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
No involvement by
wildlife official
2% 4% 3% 3% 4% 6% 4%
Consultation with
wildlife officials
30 28 31 26 28 18 27
Wildlife officials capture
bear and release
elsewhere
46 48 49 51 52 72 54
Bear is killed by wildlife
official
3 1 3 3 1 2 2
Bear is killed by
landowner under special
permit
19 19 14 17 15 1 14
The third scenario describing increased sightings of black bears in non-rural settings resulted in the
highest support for the capture and release option (Table 20). As with the previous two scenarios, a
high percentage of respondents across the state believe some form of action is warranted. No
involvement from wildlife officials was opposed by approximately two-thirds of the respondents (56%
to 66%). Respondents from the east region, more so than other regions, showed greater uncertainty (p
< 0.000). Consultation with a wildlife official was similarly supported by 70 percent or more of the
respondents across the regions. Although statistically significant, practical differences are negligible.
Likewise, practical differences are negligible across the regions for capturing and releasing the bear
elsewhere; more than eight respondents in ten (81% to 86%) support this option. Looking at the lethal
action options, even with an increase in bear-human interactions across non-traditional black bear
landscapes, relatively strong opposition was found for the lethal removal of bears. Lethal action by a
wildlife official garnered results similar to those found in the previous two scenarios; approximately 60
percent of respondents opposed the option. Support for lethal control by wildlife officials came from
approximately one respondent in five (20%) in five of the regions; the east region was, again, the
outlier with eight percent of its respondents offering support (p < 0.000). Support for lethal action by
the landowner was statistically the same as lethal action by a wildlife official; approximately one-fifth
of respondents (22%) support the action while more than one-half of the respondents (52% in the east
to 61% in the northwest, p < 0.000) oppose it.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 28
Table 20. Responses to Situation 3: Over time, black bears are seen more frequently in non-rural
settings, such as towns and villages, walking through multiple yards, resulting in more
frequent bear-human conflicts (percent response to “Do you support, oppose or are you
unsure about using each of the options for this situation?”).
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
No involvement by wildlife officials (p < 0.006)
Support 17% 17% 15% 15% 18% 14% 16%
Unsure 23 22 19 23 20 30 23
Oppose 60 61 66 62 62 56 61
Consultation with wildlife officials (p < 0.000)
Support 77% 76% 73% 74% 70% 70% 73%
Unsure 12 13 13 16 17 22 16
Oppose 12 11 14 11 13 8 11
Wildlife officials capture bear and release elsewhere (p < 0.000)
Support 84% 84% 86% 85% 85% 81% 84%
Unsure 7 9 7 11 11 14 10
Oppose 9 8 7 4 4 5 6
Bear is killed by wildlife officials (p < 0.000)
Support 21% 16% 21% 21% 20% 8% 17%
Unsure 18 19 22 21 21 26 21
Oppose 62 65 57 58 60 66 61
Bear is killed by landowner under special permit (p < 0.000)
Support 24% 22% 25% 23% 18% 20% 22%
Unsure 15 19 21 21 24 28 22
Oppose 61 59 54 56 58 52 56
Table 21. Respondents’ preferred management responses in Situation 3 (percent who indicated, “Of
the five options, I would prefer…”.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
No involvement by
wildlife official
2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 5% 3%
Consultation with
wildlife officials
25 19 20 20 18 22 21
Wildlife officials capture
bear and release
elsewhere
57 66 69 69 72 66 67
Bear is killed by wildlife
official
9 4 4 6 3 3 5
Bear is killed by
landowner under special
permit
6 7 5 3 6 4 5
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 29
The preferred management response for black bear incursions into non-rural settings is clear; more
respondents in each region prefer the black bear to be captured and released elsewhere in the state
(Table 21). Respondent preference ranged from 57 percent in the northwest region to 72 percent in the
Columbia region (p < 0.000).
It should be noted that the east region is comprised of counties considered non-bear range, meaning
black bears are either not present or only rare transients. That configuration may account for the
region’s numerous outlier results, thereby producing statistically significant differences where
substantive ones are not noted in the other five regions. When scenarios two and three presented to east
region residents were removed from analysis, results were as expected–numerous findings were no
longer statistically significant. For the crop damage scenario, statistical significance disappeared for
response options of no involvement from wildlife officials, consultation with wildlife officials and
capture and release. Further, no difference was found across the five regions for the most preferred
management response. For bear excursions into non-rural settings, statistical significance disappeared
for response options of no involvement from wildlife officials, consultation with wildlife officials and
having a wildlife official kill the bear.
To provide a deeper understanding of what might drive respondent preferences for management
actions, we turned our attention to first-hand experiences that respondents may have had with black
bears, particularly any damage experiences. Results seem to indicate a relationship between damage
experience and a slight increase in the preference for the lethal removal of offending bears. For this
analysis, we focused on the preferred management response to each scenario and we eliminated the
east region to more clearly identify any preference differences among the five remaining regions.
Figure 2. Respondents’ preferred management responses to damaged bird feeders or raided garbage
cans by respondents’ experience with damage.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 30
Results of the first scenario indicate that the public has a fairly high tolerance for black bear behavior;
lethal removal of the bear is far from the preferred management response, even from those that are
experiencing multiple types of damage (Figure 2). However, we found an increase in preference for
landowner lethal removal of a black bear as undesirable behavior experiences increase (from 8% to
20%). It’s also worth noting the difference between the preferred response of lethal removal by a
wildlife official and removal by the landowner. The difference between those that have never
experienced any kind of damage and those that have experienced one type of damage was negligible.
Similar results were found for the crop damage scenario but with an even higher percentage of the
public preferring lethal action by the landowner for those experiencing multiple types of damage–30
percent preferred the landowner take lethal responsibility while only three percent preferred a lethal
response by wildlife officials (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Respondents’ preferred management responses to damage to farmer’s crops by respondents’
experience with damage.
The above trend holds when black bears are found in non-rural settings. We found an increase in
preference for lethal landowner response with different offenses, but the disparity between a single
experience (14% preferring landowner lethal response) and multiple experiences (30% preferring
landowner lethal response) is not as strong here as in the prior two scenarios (Figure 4). To uncover
what’s going on here would require additional follow-up work, probably through interviews or focus
groups, but it is possible that frequent sightings alone is not enough to warrant lethal removal and it is
not until a black bear demonstrates multiple types of damaging behavior that public tolerance erodes
and lethal removal becomes more of an acceptable response.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 31
Figure 4. Respondents’ preferred management responses to bears being seen in non-rural settings by
respondents’ experience with damage.
Respondent Background
This final section summarizes seven socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents to help
readers understand who responded to the survey.
Across the state, response to the survey was equally split between males and females (Table 22). The
only disparity was found in the central region where three respondents in five (60%) were male.
Table 22. Gender and age of respondents.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
Gender Gender (p < 0.003)
Male 50% 50% 50% 60% 51% 51% 52%
Female 50 50 50 40 49 49 48
Age Age (p < 0.000)
18 – 34 13% 9% 18% 14% 16% 33% 17%
35 – 44 23 25 27 26 23 13 23
45 – 54 16 15 13 12 14 17 15
55 – 64 22 25 22 18 23 16 21
65+ 26 27 20 31 24 21 25
Mean age 53 54 50 53 52 * *
* Mean ages could not be calculated due to categircal responses presented in the east panel survey.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 32
With the exception of the east region, respondent age skewed 55 years and older. In the east, one-third
of the respondents (33%) were under the age of 35 and slightly more than one-third (37%) were 55 or
older. In the remaining five regions, the percentage of respondents under 35 ranged from nine percent
in the northeast region to 18 percent in the west region; approximately one-half of the respondents
from each region was 55 or older. The mean age in all regions other than the east ranged from 50 in the
west region to 54 in the northeast region.
Overall, a small percentage of respondents (12%) derive income from farming or beekeeping (Table
23). Involvement was most prevalent in the central (12%) and Columbia (14%) regions. Those
deriving income from farming or beekeeping were subsequently asked to identify their form of
involvement: grain or vegetable crops, livestock, orchards, tree farm, beekeeping, leasing land to other
producers, leasing land from someone else, and a final open-ended “other” option. Given that
approximately nine in ten respondents were not involved in agriculture, regional differences in types of
involvement were not found. Overall, about one-half of agriculatural respondents were involved in
grain or vegetable crops (47%) and livestock farming (52%). Three agricultural respondents in ten
(29%) leased land to other producers; 15 percent leased land from someone else and another 15 percent
identified some other form of involvement. Fewer than one agricultural respondent in ten was involved
in orchards (7%), tree farming (6%), or beekeeping (6%).
Table 23. Percent response to “Does any part of your income come from farming or beekeeping?”
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia Statewide
Yes 2% (50) 3% (72) 2% (59) 12% (68) 14% (63) 12% (312)
No 98 97 98 88 86 88
Affiliation with agriculture was further explored to uncover any effects on perceptions of and
preferences for black bear numbers as well as attitudes towards black bears. As previously noted,
respondents who derive an income from farming (including beekeeping) were more likely (49%) than
non-farmers (36%) to report some form of damage (p < 0.000). Farmers were more likely than non-
farmers to prefer black bear numbers decline in their county (29% and 17%, respectively, p < 0.000)
although a modal response of 50 percent for no change was found regardless of agricultural affiliation.
Farmers were also more likely to believe black bears in their county were “abundant” or “very
abundant” (37%) compared to non-farmers (24%) (p < 0.000). A modal response of “present” was
found for both farmers (44%) and non-farmers (50%). Regardless of affiliation with farming, a
majority of all respondents were willing to reside near where black bears live (60%, non-significant).
Analysis also found that although farmers were more likely to hold unfavorable opinions of black
bears (19%) than were non-farmers (10%) (p < 0.000), a majority of farmers (52%) and non-farmers
(58%) held favorable opinions of bears. Lastly, regardless of affiliation with farming, three-fourths or
more of all respondents said that black bears “deserve our appreciation.”
Two questions on residency were asked: where respondents currently live and where they grew up.
Response options for both questions included:
On a farm Town or village of 2,000-9,999
In the country, but not on a farm City or suburb of 10,000-25,000
Town of less than 2,000 City over 25,000
Tribal reservation
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 33
Results were as anticipated: approximately one respondent in ten currently resides on a farm (13% in
the Columbia region), respondents from the north were most likely to reside in the country but not on a
farm (44% of northwest respondents and 46% of northeast respondents) and those from the east region
were most likely to reside in a city of 10,000 or greater (68%) (Table 24). Results also document the
expected migration from farm life. Apart from the east region where only three percent indicated
growing up on a farm, all other regions saw a decline in farm residency of approximately one-half or
more between where respondents grew up and where respondents currently reside. Overall, one
respondent in five (20%) grew up on a farm compared to approximately one respondent in ten (9%)
currently residing on a farm.
Table 24. Respondents’ self-description of where they currently live and where they grew up.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
Description of current residency (p < 0.000)
Farm 10% 11% 11% 8% 13% 1% 9%
Country, non-farm 44 46 25 27 36 6 30
Town < 2,000 10 13 10 9 12 6 10
Town 2,000-9,999 19 20 27 18 21 19 21
City 10,000-25,000 7 6 15 19 11 19 13
City > 25,000 7 2 12 19 9 49 17
Tribal reservation 2 1 0 0 0 0 1
Description of where respondent grew up (p < 0.000)
Farm 22% 21% 25% 29% 23% 3% 20%
Country, non-farm 27 29 16 21 31 12 22
Town < 2,000 9 10 10 8 6 7 8
Town 2,000-9,999 12 15 19 10 12 18 14
City 10,000-25,000 10 10 11 13 12 18 12
City > 25,000 18 15 19 19 17 42 22
Tribal reservation 2 1 0 1 0 1 1
A more informative analysis considers respondent migration from urban to rural areas, hypothesizing
that urban-rural transplants may hold different opinions and attitudes than life-long rural residents. For
such analysis, residency descriptions were defined by two discrete categories of urban and rural. Rural
included those that live on a farm, in the country, or in a town or village with a population of less than
10,000 people. Urban includes those that live in cities or suburbs with populations of 10,000 or more
people. Among those respondents who grew up in urban areas, nearly one-half (47%) now live in rural
areas and are henceforth referred to as “urban-rural transplants” (Table 25). Respondents who grew up
in rural settings were unlikely to move to an urban setting. A clear majority of 81 percent of those that
grew up rural, remain in rural areas today and this “exclusively rural” group will serve as the main
comparison against urban-rural transplants.
Urban-rural transplants were nearly equal across the six regions with the relative percentage ranging
from 13 percent in the central region to 21 percent in the northeast region (Table 26). While it is
unclear how recently these respondents moved to rural areas of Wisconsin, they do appear to differ
from other exclusively rural residents in their opinions regarding black bears. Overall, those
respondents who grew up in urban areas and now live in rural areas seemed to feel more favorably
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 34
about having black bears living nearby, are slightly more interested in increasing the number of bears
in their county and are more willing to have bears live near where they reside (Table 27).
Table 25. Where respondents grew up by where they currently live.
Where respondent currently lives Where respondent grew up
Rural Urban
Rural 81% 47%
Urban 19 53
Table 26. Urban-rural transplants by region.
Northwest Northeast West Central Columbia East Statewide
Urban-rural transplant 19% 21% 16% 13% 17% 14% 16%
Exclusively rural 81 79 84 87 83 86 84
Table 27. Urban-rural transplants’ opinions about black bears and preference for bear numbers.
Urban-rural
transplant
Exclusively
rural
Significance
Favorable feelings towards bears 62% 56% .029
Preference for increasing bear
numbers in home county
23% 18% .000
Willingness to live near bears 65% 59% .046
When examined more closely by cluster, respondents from the northwest, northeast and west regions
who grew up in an urban area and now live in a rural area were proportionally more likely to harbor
favorable feelings towards black bears (62% to 71%) than were life-long rural residents from those
same regions. Discernable differences in feelings towards black bears were not found for respondents
of the other regions based on moving from urban to rural areas. Respondents from the northwest,
northeast and west regions who grew up urban and now live in a rural area were also more likely to
indicate that they want black bear numbers in their county to increase (approximately 25% per region)
whereas those who were life-long rural residents were more likely to want bear numbers to decrease. A
difference was not found for respondents from the central region. Curiously, an anomaly was found
within the Columbia region where proportionally more exclusively rural respondents (22%) than urban
transplants (12%) wanted to see black bear numbers increase in their county. Additionally, urban
transplants in the northwest, northeast and west regions were proportionally more likely to be willing
to have black bears residing near their home (62% to 81%), whereas exclusively rural respondents
were more likely than transplants to be unwilling. Discernable differences in willingness to have black
bears reside near where they live were not found for respondents of the central or Columbia regions.
Table 28 reports the respondents’ self-identification with eight labels or stakeholder groups. The labels
are not mutually exclusive, meaning respondents could identify with multiple labels or groups.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 35
Table 28. Respondent self-identification to eight labels and stakeholder groups.
Labels
Central to who I am
Applies to me, but not
central to who I am
Not me at all
Nature lover 64% 28 8
Conservationist 46% 35 19
Environmentalist 39% 39 22
Birdwatcher 35% 37 28
Deer hunter 19% 26 55
Farmer 9% 16 75
Bear hunter 2% 19 79
Trapper 2% 10 88
Note: Totals to 100% across rows.
More respondents (64%) identified with being a “nature lover” than with any other label or
constituency group. Other labels that resonated with a notable percentage of respondents included
“conservationist” (46%), “environmentalist” (39%) and “birdwatcher” (35%). Self-identification was
lowest for the three consumptive activities and with being a farmer; more than one-half of the
respondents (55%) do not identify at all with being a deer hunter, three-fourths (75%) do not identify
with being a farmer, approximately eight in ten (79%) do not identify with being a bear hunter and
nearly nine in ten (88%) do not identify with being a trapper.
Of the eight labels and groups, three were selected to explore differences in opinions and preferences
for bear numbers; “farmer,” due to possible experience with bear damage, “bear hunter” and “deer
hunter.” Results indicate numerous statistical differences (but not all substantive) between respondents
who indicate the label is central to their identity and those who indicate the label does not describe
them at all. Respondents who identify with being a farmer were nearly equally likely as those without a
farmer identity to prefer black bear numbers in their county of residence to increase (22% and 19%,
respectively) or to decrease (20% and 16%, respectively) and they were significantly more likely to
believe that the number of black bears occurring in their home county was “abundant” (33%)
compared to respondents without a farmer identity (23%) (p < 0.002). A willingness to live near black
bears had a stronger correlation with respondents who self-identified as a farmer (69%) than with those
without a farmer identity (59%) (p < 0.001).
Similar results were found for those who do or do not identify as a bear hunter. Self-identified bear
hunters were considerably more likely (46%) than those without a bear hunter identity (17%) to prefer
black bear numbers in their county of residence to increase (p < 0.000). Respondents who identify with
being a bear hunter were significantly more likely to believe that the number of black bears occurring
in their home county was “abundant” (41%) than were respondents without a bear hunter identity
(21%) (p < 0.002). Likewise, bear hunter identity was more likely to be correlated with a willingness to
live near black bears (74%) than with those without a bear hunter identity (56%) (p < 0.000).
Results for the deer hunter label were similar to the above. Slightly more respondents who identify
with being a deer hunter (25%) preferred black bear numbers in their county of residence to increase
than did non-deer hunters (16%). Deer hunter identity was also more likely than no identity to correlate
with a preference for black bear numbers to decrease (29% and 15%, respectively) (p < 0.000).
Respondents who identify with being a deer hunter were significantly more likely to believe that the
number of black bears occurring in their home county was “abundant” (42%) than were respondents
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 36
without a deer hunter identity (16%) (p < 0.000); those identifying as a deer hunter also had a
significantly greater willingness to live near bears (68%) than those without a deer hunter identity
(51%) (p < 0.000).
The number of respondents who indicated that “deer hunter” was central to their identity was sufficient
to permit regional analysis. In both northern regions, self-identified deer hunters were significantly
more likely than those without a deer hunter identity to prefer black bear numbers in their home
counties to decline rather than increase (p < 0.000 for both regions) while self-identified deer hunters
in the remaining three regions (excluding the east) were more likely than those without a deer hunter
identity to prefer black bear numbers to increase (a minimum significance of p < 0.012 per region).
This difference may possibly be explained by the perceived toll that black bears take on whitetail deer
fawns. Likewise, self-identified deer hunters in the two northern regions were significantly more likely
than those without a deer hunter identity to perceive the black bear population in their home counties
as “abundant” (p < 0.000 for each region). Self-identified deer hunters in the other regions were also
more likely than those without a deer hunter identity to perceive an “abundant” black bear population
in their home county, but the disparity between the deer hunter–non-deer hunter identity was not nearly
as great as that found in the northern regions (p < 0.000 for the west and central regions; a non-
significant difference was noted in the Columbia region). Lastly, regardless of region, a greater
percentage of self-identified deer hunters than those without a deer hunter identity indicated a
willingness to reside near where black bears live (p < 0.000 for each region). Within each region the
disparity in percentages between the deer hunter–non-deer hunter identity was approximately 20
percent (e.g., in the central region respondent willingness to live near bears was noted by 69 percent of
the self-identified deer hunters and 49% of those without a deer hunter identity), the exception being in
the northwest where the disparity for respondent willingness to live near bears was six percent (69%
deer hunters compared to 63% non-deer hunter identity).
Literature Cited
Dennison, C.C, N.M. Roberts, and D.M. MacFarland. 2017. Black bear population analyses, 2017. Wisconsin
Wildlife Reports. 6 pp. Wisconsin DNR, Madison. Available at https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/
documents/reports/bearpop.pdf.
Dhuey, B., S. Walter, and B. Koele. 2017. Wisconsin black bear harvest report, 2017. Wisconsin Wildlife
Reports. 11 pp. Wisconsin DNR, Madison. Available at https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/
documents/reports/bbharv17.pdf.
Engstrom, P., B. Willging, and D. Ruid. 2016. Black bear damage and nuisance complaints, 2016. Wisconsin
Wildlife Reports. 4 pp. Wisconsin DNR, Madison. Available at https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/
documents/reports/bbeardamnuiscompl2.pdf.
Engstrom, P., B. Willging, and D. Ruid. 2017. Black bear damage and nuisance complaints, 2017. Wisconsin
Wildlife Reports. 4 pp. Wisconsin DNR, Madison. Available at https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/
documents/reports/bbeardamnuiscompl.pdf.
Kohn, B.E. 1982. Status and management of black bears in Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin 129. Wisconsin DNR,
Madison. Available at https://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ss/SS0129.pdf.
MacFarland, D.M. 2009. Population estimation, habitat associations and range expansion of black bears in the
Upper Midwest. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 37
Regional Snapshots
Northwest Respondent Profile
Current Residence
Most respondents reside on a farm or in the country but not
on a farm (54%), 29 percent reside in a town of less than
10,000 and 15 percent reside in a suburb or city of at least
10,000 (2% reside on a tribal reservation).
Income from Farming and/or Beekeeping
One respondent in ten (10%) earned at least part of his/her
income from farming and/or beekeeping.
Self-identification
Farmer: Nearly three-fourths of the respondents (73%) do
not identify as a farmer, 11 percent indicate that a farmer identity is central to who they are while 16
percent identify in-part with being a farmer.
Nature lover: Six percent of the respondents do not identify at all as a nature lover, 70 percent indicate
that a nature lover identity is central to who they are while nearly one-fourth (24%) identify in-part
with being a nature lover.
Deer hunter: Nearly one-half of the respondents (47%) do not identify at all as a deer hunter, one-
fourth (25%) indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they are while a nearly equal
percentage (27%) identify in-part with being a deer hunter.
Feelings about Black Bears
A majority of respondents (57%) had “very favorable” (30%) or “favorable” (27%) feelings towards
bears; approximately one respondent in eight (13%) had an unfavorable view of bears.
Concerns for Personal Safety
Slightly more than one-third of the respondents (35%) expressed concern for their personal safety
while outdoors in areas where bears live; a slightly higher percentage (39%) were not concerned.
Experience with Black Bear Damage
Two-thirds of the respondents (66%) had experienced some form of bear damage; more than one-third
(37%) had experience with two or more different types of bear damage.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 38
Preference for Black Bear Numbers
More than one-half of the respondents “strongly agree” (16%) or “agree” (40%) that the state should
have as many bears as the habitat can support.
Exactly one-half of the respondents perceived bears in their home county to be either “very abundant”
(16%) of “abundant” (34%).
Exactly one-half of the respondents (50%) preferred bear numbers in their home county to remain
unchanged; 16% prefer to see the number of bears increase while 29 percent prefer to see the number
of bears decline.
Nearly seven respondents in ten were “absolutely” willing to live near bears (28%) or “probably”
willing to live near bears (41%).
Tolerance for Black Bear Behavior
“When is it acceptable for a bear to…”
Attempt entry into a home, garage or vehicle: 75 percent say “never.”
Attack livestock: 65 percent say “never.”
Damage agricultural crops: 47 percent say “never” (30%) or “one time only” (17%) while 48 percent
say “occasionally” (44%) or “always” (4%).
Destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans: 45 percent say “never” (27%) or “one time only” (18%)
while 53 percent say “occasionally” (48%) or “always” (5%).
Be sighted in a yard near where you live: 24 percent say “never” (14%) or “one time only” (10%)
while 75 percent say “occasionally” (59%) or “always” (15%).
Preference for Management Response
Homeowner loses bird feeders and/or has garbage cans raided: 44 percent most preferred consultation
with a wildlife official to discuss ways of discouraging future bear visits
Damage to crops resulting in revenue loss for farmer: 46 percent most preferred wildlife officials
capture and release the bear elsewhere.
More frequent sightings of bears in non-rural towns, walking through yards, resulting in increased
bear–human conflicts: 58 percent most preferred wildlife officials capture and release the bear
elsewhere.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 39
Northeast Respondent Profile
Current Residence
Most respondents reside on a farm or in the country but not
on a farm (57%), 33 percent reside in a town of less than
10,000 and 9 percent reside in a suburb or city of at least
10,000 (1% reside on a tribal reservation).
Income from Farming and/or Beekeeping
Approximately one respondent in eight (13%) earned at
least part of his/her income from farming and/or
beekeeping.
Self-identification
Farmer: Nearly three-fourths of the respondents (73%) do not identify as a farmer, 10 percent indicate
that a farmer identity is central to who they are while 17 percent identify in-part with being a farmer.
Nature lover: Seven percent of the respondents do not identify at all as a nature lover, 73 percent
indicate that a nature lover identity is central to who they are while one-fifth (21%) identify in-part
with being a nature lover.
Deer hunter: Nearly one-half of the respondents (46%) do not identify at all as a deer hunter, one-
fourth (24%) indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they are while a slightly greater
percentage (30%) identify in-part with being a deer hunter.
Feelings about Black Bears
A majority of respondents (60%) had “very favorable” (34%) or “favorable” (26%) feelings towards
bears; approximately one respondent in ten (11%) had an unfavorable view of bears.
Concerns for Personal Safety
Approximately three respondents in ten (29%) expressed concern for their personal safety while
outdoors in areas where bears live; nearly one-half of the respondents (48%) were not concerned.
Experience with Black Bear Damage
More than one-half of the respondents (57%) had experienced some form of bear damage; one-fourth
of the respondents (26%) had experience with two or more different types of bear damage.
Preference for Black Bear Numbers
More than one-half of the respondents “strongly agree” (16%) or “agree” (43%) that the state should
have as many bears as the habitat can support.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 40
Nearly two-fifths of the respondents perceived bears in their home county to be either “very abundant”
(12%) of “abundant” (32%).
One-half of the respondents (51%) preferred bear numbers in their home county to remain unchanged;
18% prefer to see the number of bears increase while 25 percent prefer to see the number of bears
decline.
Two-thirds of the respondents were “absolutely” willing to live near bears (30%) or “probably” willing
to live near bears (37%).
Tolerance for Bear Black Behavior
“When is it acceptable for a bear to…”
Attempt entry into a home, garage or vehicle: 74 percent say “never.”
Attack livestock: 62 percent say “never.”
Damage agricultural crops: 48 percent say “never” (33%) or “one time only” (15%) while 47 percent
say “occasionally” (44%) or “always” (4%).
Destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans: 41 percent say “never” (26%) or “one time only” (15%)
while 56 percent say “occasionally” (50%) or “always” (6%).
Be sighted in a yard near where you live: 27 percent say “never” (13%) or “one time only” (14%)
while 71 percent say “occasionally” (52%) or “always” (19%).
Preference for Management Response
Homeowner loses bird feeders and/or has garbage cans raided: 43 percent most preferred consultation
with a wildlife official to discuss ways of discouraging future bear visits
Damage to crops resulting in revenue loss for farmer: 48 percent most preferred wildlife officials
capture and release the bear elsewhere.
More frequent sightings of bears in non-rural towns, walking through yards, resulting in increased bear
– human conflicts: 66 percent most preferred wildlife officials capture and release the bear elsewhere.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 41
West Respondent Profile
Current Residence
Slightly more than one-third of the respondents reside on a
farm or in the country but not on a farm (36%), 37 percent
reside in a town of less than 10,000 and 27 percent reside
in a suburb or city of at least 10,000.
Income from Farming and/or Beekeeping
Slightly more than one respondent in ten (12%) earned at
least part of his/her income from farming and/or
beekeeping.
Self-identification
Farmer: Nearly three-fourths of the respondents (73%) do not identify as a farmer, 10 percent indicate
that a farmer identity is central to who they are while 17 percent identify in-part with being a farmer.
Nature lover: Seven percent of the respondents do not identify at all as a nature lover, 68 percent
indicate that a nature lover identity is central to who they are while one-fourth (25%) identify in-part
with being a nature lover.
Deer hunter: More than one-half of the respondents (53%) do not identify at all as a deer hunter, one-
fifth (19%) indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they and 29 percent identify in-part
with being a deer hunter.
Feelings about Black Bears
A majority of respondents had “very favorable” (29%) or “favorable” (27%) feelings towards bears;
one respondent in ten (10%) had an unfavorable view of bears.
Concerns for Personal Safety
More than one-third of the respondents (37%) expressed concern for their personal safety while
outdoors in areas where bears live; a similar percentage of respondents (39%) were not concerned.
Experience with Black Bear Damage
Approximately one-fifth of the respondents (19%) had experienced some form of bear damage; six
percent had experience with two or more different types of bear damage.
Preference for Black Bear Numbers
More than one-half of the respondents “strongly agree” (15%) or “agree” (39%) that the state should
have as many bears as the habitat can support.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 42
Seven percent of the respondents perceived bears in their home county to be either “very abundant”
(1%) of “abundant” (6%); 46 percent said bears are present but not abundant in their county.
One-half of the respondents (51%) preferred bear numbers in their home county to remain unchanged;
one-fourth of the respondents (25%) preferred to see the number of bears increase while one
respondent in ten (11%) preferred to see the number of bears decline.
Slightly more than one-half of the respondents were “absolutely” willing to live near bears (18%) or
“probably” willing to live near bears (36%).
Tolerance for Black Bear Behavior
“When is it acceptable for a bear to…”
Attempt entry into a home, garage or vehicle: 73 percent say “never.”
Attack livestock: 61 percent say “never.”
Damage agricultural crops: 46 percent say “never” (31%) or “one time only” (15%) while one-half
(50%) say “occasionally” (46%) or “always” (4%).
Destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans: 56 percent say “never” (33%) or “one time only” (23%)
while 40 percent say “occasionally” (36%) or “always” (4%).
Be sighted in a yard near where you live: 37 percent say “never” (21%) or “one time only” (16%)
while 60 percent say “occasionally” (47%) or “always” (13%).
Preference for Management Response
Homeowner loses bird feeders and/or has garbage cans raided: 47 percent most preferred consultation
with a wildlife official to discuss ways of discouraging future bear visits
Damage to crops resulting in revenue loss for farmer: 49 percent most preferred wildlife officials
capture and release the bear elsewhere.
More frequent sightings of bears in non-rural towns, walking through yards, resulting in increased
bear–human conflicts: 69 percent most preferred wildlife officials capture and release the bear
elsewhere.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 43
Central Respondent Profile
Current Residence
Approximately one-third of the respondents reside on a
farm or in the country but not on a farm (34%), 27 percent
reside in a town of less than 10,000 and 38 percent reside
in a suburb or city of at least 10,000.
Income from Farming and/or Beekeeping
Slightly more than one respondent in ten (12%) earned at
least part of his/her income from farming and/or
beekeeping.
Self-identification
Farmer: Slightly more than seven respondents in ten (72%) do not identify as a farmer, 10 percent
indicate that a farmer identity is central to who they are while 18 percent identify in-part with being a
farmer.
Nature lover: Approximately one respondent in ten (11%) does not identify at all as a nature lover, 63
percent indicate that a nature lover identity is central to who they are while 27 percent identify in-part
with being a nature lover.
Deer hunter: Nearly one-half of the respondents (48%) do not identify at all as a deer hunter, nearly
one-fourth (23%) indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they and 30 percent identify in-
part with being a deer hunter.
Feelings about Black Bears
A majority of respondents had “very favorable” (32%) or “favorable” (28%) feelings towards bears;
one respondent in ten (11%) had an unfavorable view of bears.
Concerns for Personal Safety
One-third of the respondents (34%) expressed concern for their personal safety while outdoors in areas
where bears live; two-fifths of the respondents (41%) were not concerned.
Experience with Black Bear Damage
More than one-fourth of the respondents (28%) had experienced some form of bear damage; 12
percent had experience with two or more different types of bear damage.
Preference for Black Bear Numbers
More than one-half of the respondents “strongly agree” (18%) or “agree” (37%) that the state should
have as many bears as the habitat can support.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 44
Seventeen percent of the respondents perceived bears in their home county to be either “very
abundant” (3%) of “abundant” (14%); 59 percent said bears are present but not abundant in their
county.
More than one-half of the respondents (55%) preferred bear numbers in their home county to remain
unchanged; 18 percent preferred to see the number of bears increase while a nearly equal 17 percent
preferred to see the number of bears decline.
More than one-half of the respondents were “absolutely” willing to live near bears (20%) or
“probably” willing to live near bears (36%).
Tolerance for Bear Black Behavior
“When is it acceptable for a bear to…”
Attempt entry into a home, garage or vehicle: 72 percent say “never.”
Attack livestock: 61 percent say “never.”
Damage agricultural crops: one-half of the respondents (50%) say “never” (33%) or “one time only”
(17%) while 46 percent say “occasionally” (42%) or “always” (4%).
Destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans: Slightly more than one-half (52%) say “never” (30%) or
“one time only” (22%) while 46 percent say “occasionally” (42%) or “always” (4%).
Be sighted in a yard near where you live: one-third of the respondents (34%) say “never” (16%) or
“one time only” (18%) while 64 percent say “occasionally” (54%) or “always” (10%).
Preference for Management Response
Homeowner loses bird feeders and/or has garbage cans raided: 43 percent most preferred wildlife
officials capture and release the bear elsewhere; consultation with a wildlife official to discuss ways of
discouraging future bear visits was most preferred by 39 percent of the respondents.
Damage to crops resulting in revenue loss for farmer: 51 percent most preferred wildlife officials
capture and release the bear elsewhere.
More frequent sightings of bears in non-rural towns, walking through yards, resulting in increased
bear–human conflicts: 69 percent most preferred wildlife officials capture and release the bear
elsewhere.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 45
Columbia Respondent Profile
Current Residence
Nearly one-half of the respondents reside on a farm or in the
country but not on a farm (48%), 32 percent reside in a town
of less than 10,000 and 20 percent reside in a suburb or city
of at least 10,000.
Income from Farming and/or Beekeeping
One respondent in seven (14%) earned at least part of his/her
income from farming and/or beekeeping.
Self-identification
Farmer: Seven respondents in ten (70%) do not identify as a farmer, nine percent indicate that a farmer
identity is central to who they are while 21 percent identify in-part with being a farmer.
Nature lover: Approximately one respondent in ten (9%) does not identify at all as a nature lover, two-
thirds of the respondents (66%) indicate that a nature lover identity is central to who they are while
one-fourth (25%) identify in-part with being a nature lover.
Deer hunter: Slightly more than one-half of the respondents (52%) do not identify at all as a deer
hunter, nearly one respondent in five (20%) indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they
and 28 percent identify in-part with being a deer hunter.
Feelings about Black Bears
A majority of respondents had “very favorable” (29%) or “favorable” (26%) feelings towards bears;
nearly one respondent in ten (9%) had an unfavorable view of bears.
Concerns for Personal Safety
Nearly two-fifths of the respondents (39%) expressed concern for their personal safety while outdoors
in areas where bears live; 35 percent of the respondents were not concerned.
Experience with Black Bear Damage
Approximately one respondent in six (16%) had experienced some form of bear damage; four percent
had experience with two or more different types of bear damage.
Preference for Black Bear Numbers
More than one-half of the respondents “strongly agree” (14%) or “agree” (40%) that the state should
have as many bears as the habitat can support.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 46
Seven percent of the respondents perceived bears in their home county to be either “very abundant”
(0%) of “abundant” (7%); 54 percent said bears are present but not abundant in their county.
More than one-half of the respondents (56%) preferred bear numbers in their home county to remain
unchanged; 20 percent preferred to see the number of bears increase while 11 percent preferred to see
the number of bears decline.
More than one-half of the respondents were “absolutely” willing to live near bears (17%) or
“probably” willing to live near bears (36%).
Tolerance for Black Bear Behavior
“When is it acceptable for a bear to…”
Attempt entry into a home, garage or vehicle: 71 percent say “never.”
Attack livestock: 61 percent say “never.”
Damage agricultural crops: slightly less than one-half of the respondents (46%) say “never” (32%) or
“one time only” (14%) while exactly one-half (50%) say “occasionally” (47%) or “always” (3%).
Destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans: one-half of the respondents (50%) say “never” (33%) or
“one time only” (17%) while 47 percent say “occasionally” (45%) or “always” (2%).
Be sighted in a yard near where you live: one-third of the respondents (33%) say “never” (21%) or
“one time only” (12%) while 64 percent say “occasionally” (54%) or “always” (10%).
Preference for Management Response
Homeowner loses bird feeders and/or has garbage cans raided: 43 percent most preferred wildlife
officials capture and release the bear elsewhere; consultation with a wildlife official to discuss ways of
discouraging future bear visits was most preferred by 42 percent of the respondents.
Damage to crops resulting in revenue loss for farmer: 52 percent most preferred wildlife officials
capture and release the bear elsewhere.
More frequent sightings of bears in non-rural towns, walking through yards, resulting in increased
bear–human conflicts: 72 percent most preferred wildlife officials capture and release the bear
elsewhere.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 47
East Respondent Profile (Note: Residents of this region received a truncated electronic
version of the mailed paper questionnaire. As such, the profile
is less comprehensive.)
Current Residence
Fewer than one respondent in ten resides on a farm or in
the country but not on a farm (7%), 25 percent reside in a
town of less than 10,000 and 68 percent reside in a suburb
or city of at least 10,000.
Self-identification
Farmer: The vast majority of respondents in ten (85%) do
not identify as a farmer, four percent indicate that a
farmer identity is central to who they are while 11 percent
identify in-part with being a farmer.
Nature lover: Eight percent of the respondents do not identify at all as a nature lover, slightly more
than one-half of the respondents (52%) indicate that a nature lover identity is central to who they are
while approximately two-fifths (40%) identify in-part with being a nature lover.
Deer hunter: Eight respondents in ten (80%) do not identify at all as a deer hunter, three percent of the
respondents indicate that a deer hunter identity is central to who they and 16 percent identify in-part
with being a deer hunter.
Feelings about Black Bears
More than one-half of the respondents had “very favorable” (23%) or “favorable” (33%) feelings
towards bears; fewer than one respondent in ten (7%) had an unfavorable view of bears.
Concerns for Personal Safety
One-half of the respondents (50%%) expressed concern for their personal safety while outdoors in
areas where bears live; one-fourth of the respondents (26%) were not concerned.
Preference for Black Bear Numbers
More than one-half of the respondents “strongly agree” (19%) or “agree” (36%) that the state should
have as many bears as the habitat can support.
Preference for Management Response
Damage to crops resulting in revenue loss for farmer: 72 percent most preferred wildlife officials
capture and release the bear elsewhere.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 48
More frequent sightings of bears in non-rural towns, walking through yards, resulting in increased
bear–human conflicts: 66 percent most preferred wildlife officials capture and release the bear
elsewhere.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 49
Appendix: Mailed Questionnaire
Wisconsin Black Bear Opinion Survey
Black bears are native to Wisconsin. They were historically found
in the extensive forested areas of northern Wisconsin. Over the past
several decades the bear population has grown and expanded.
Today, there are resident bears in more than half of Wisconsin’s
counties and black bears have been observed in every county of the
state. Bears bring many positives to the state but there is also the
potential for bears to cause damage or become a nuisance in areas
where people live. Bears can evoke strong feelings among people
and a diversity of views. Understanding those views is important as
the state makes future bear management decisions.
SECTION 1: YOUR AWARENESS OF BEARS IN WISCONSIN
1. Before receiving this survey, were you aware that black bears live in Wisconsin?
□ Yes □ No If NO, go to Section 2 on next page
2. Have you ever seen a bear in Wisconsin (not including zoos)?
□ Yes □ No If NO, go to Question 4
3. During the last 12 months, approximately how many different occasions have you seen a bear in
Wisconsin (not including zoos)? (check one)
□ Zero □ Once □ 2 – 5 times □ 6 – 10 times □ More than 10 times
4. Overall, how would you describe your feelings about bears? (check one)
□ Very favorable □ Somewhat unfavorable
□ Somewhat favorable □ Neither favorable nor unfavorable □ Very unfavorable
5. Have you experienced damage from bears in Wisconsin to any of the following? (check all that apply)
□ Bird feeders □ Crops grown for commercial purpose
□ Garbage cans □ Residential vegetable gardens
□ Buildings □ Livestock raised for commercial purpose
□ Car or truck (from hitting a bear) □ Residential poultry and/or rabbits
□ Bee hives □ Something else? Please specify.__________________
□ Apple and/or Christmas trees □ None of the above
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 50
SECTION 2: YOUR THOUGHTS ON WISCONSIN’S BEAR POPULATION
1. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about bears in Wisconsin:
a) Black bears deserve our appreciation. (check one)
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Unsure □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
b) Black bears are generally not dangerous to people. (check one)
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Unsure □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
c) Black bears help keep nature in balance. (check one)
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Unsure □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
2. Prior to receiving this survey, would you have said the number of bears across Wisconsin is …?
(check one)
□ Greatly increasing □ Slightly decreasing
□ Slightly increasing □ Remaining stable □ Greatly decreasing □ Unsure
3. Prior to receiving this survey, would you have said the geographic range of bears across Wisconsin is …?
(check one)
□ Greatly expanding □ Slightly shrinking
□ Slightly expanding □ Remaining stable □ Greatly shrinking □ Unsure
4. What is your level of agreement or disagreement with the following two statements about bears?
a) I think the state should have as FEW bears as possible. (check one)
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Unsure □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
b) I think the state should have as MANY bears as the habitat in the state will support. (check one)
□ Strongly agree □ Agree □ Unsure □ Disagree □ Strongly disagree
5. In your opinion, would you say the number of bears occurring in your county of residence is… (check
one)
□ Very abundant □ Rare
□ Abundant □ Present, but not abundant □ Very rare□ Not present □ Unsure
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 51
6. Are you willing to have bears residing near where you live? (check one)
□ Yes, absolutely □ Yes, probably □ Not sure □ No, probably not □ Absolutely not
7. In your county of residence would you like to see the number of bears… (check one)
□ Greatly increase □ Slightly decrease
□ Slightly increase □ Remain about the same □ Greatly decrease □ Unsure
8. What about for the rest of Wisconsin? Would you like to see the number of bears… (check one)
□ Greatly increase □ Slightly decrease
□ Slightly increase □ Remain about the same □ Greatly decrease □ Unsure
9. Do you regularly visit another area of the state (outside your home county) for vacations or recreation?
□ Yes In which COUNTY do you spend the most time?________________________ Continue to
Question 10
□ No If NO, SKIP to Question 12 on next page
10. In your opinion, would you say the number of bears occurring in your vacation county is… (check one)
□ Very abundant □ Rare
□ Abundant □ Present, but not abundant □ Very rare□ Not present □ Unsure
11. In your vacation county, would you like to see the number of bears… (check one)
□ Greatly increase □ Slightly decrease
□ Slightly increase □ Remain about the same □ Greatly decrease □ Unsure
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 52
12. People have different levels of comfort regarding wildlife species. Please indicate the extent to which you
agree or disagree with the following statements about bears in Wisconsin. (Check one box in each row.)
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Does
not
apply
I would worry about my personal
safety while outdoors in areas where
bears live. □ □ □ □ □
I would worry about the safety of
children who are outdoors in areas
where bears live.
□ □ □ □ □
I would worry about the safety of my
pets while outdoors in areas where
bears live. (If you do not have pets
please check the last option “Does
not apply.”)
□ □ □ □ □ □
SECTION 3: OPINIONS ABOUT BEAR MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
1. How important are the decisions regarding bear management in Wisconsin to you personally? (check one)
□ Very important □ Somewhat unimportant
□ Somewhat important □ Very unimportant
□ Neither important nor unimportant
2. The use of bait is a popular way to hunt black bears in Wisconsin. Current rules allow hunters to place bait
in mid-April through the end of the hunting season in mid-October. Which statement best describes your
opinion regarding the current regulation about the length of time that baiting is allowed? (check one)
□ I have no opinion about the baiting timeline
□ I think the current regulation is adequate and should not be changed
□ I think the time allowed for baiting should be lengthened
□ I think the time allowed for baiting should be shortened
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 53
3. A possible result of a larger bear population or of bears expanding their range is an increase in encounters
people may have with bears. For each situation below, circle the number that most closely represents your
level of acceptance for that situation in your county of residence, even if you do not think there are
bears in your home county. Indicate if that situation is:
1 = Never acceptable to you
2 = Acceptable one time, but not after that
3 = Acceptable if it occurs occasionally, but not often
4 = Always acceptable, even if it occurs often
5 = Unsure
When is it acceptable for a bear to…
a. …attempt to enter a person’s home, garage or vehicle? (circle one number)
1 2 3 4 5
Never One time only Occasionally Always Unsure
b. …attack livestock on an agricultural farm? (circle one number)
1 2 3 4 5
Never One time only Occasionally Always Unsure
c. …damage agricultural crops? (circle one number)
1 2 3 4 5
Never One time only Occasionally Always Unsure
d. …be loitering around a campsite (circle one number)
1 2 3 4 5
Never One time only Occasionally Always Unsure
e. …destroy a bird feeder or raid garbage cans on someone’s property near where you live?
(circle one number)
1 2 3 4 5
Never One time only Occasionally Always Unsure
f. …be sighted in someone’s yard near where you live? (circle one number)
1 2 3 4 5
Never One time only Occasionally Always Unsure
g. …be sighted on public forest land (county, state and federally owned land) (circle one number)
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 54
1 2 3 4 5
Never One time only Occasionally Always Unsure
4. Sometimes black bears cause problems for people or are perceived to pose safety risks. Wildlife officials
often receive complaints from the public when bear interactions occur. The following set of questions asks
your opinion about how wildlife officials should address different interactions involving black bears.
Situation 1: A homeowner loses bird feeders to bears and /or has garbage cans raided. Do you support, oppose
or are you unsure about using each of the options for this situation?
(Check one box for each option)
Options Support Unsure Oppose
A. No involvement by wildlife officials. □ □ □
B. Consultation with wildlife officials to only provide
recommendations to discourage future bear visits.
□ □ □
C. Wildlife officials capture bear and release elsewhere. □ □ □
D. Bear is killed by wildlife officials. □ □ □
E. Bear is killed by landowner with special permit. □ □ □
Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears cause damage to property.
Situation 2: Bears cause damage to a farmer’s crop resulting in loss of revenue for the farmer. Do you support,
oppose or are you unsure about using each of the options for this situation?
(Check one box for each option)
Options Support Unsure Oppose
A. No involvement by wildlife officials. □ □ □
B. Consultation with wildlife officials to only provide
recommendations to discourage future bear visits.
□ □ □
C. Wildlife officials capture bear and release elsewhere. □ □ □
D. Bear is killed by wildlife officials. □ □ □
E. Bear is killed by landowner with special permit. □ □ □
Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears damage a farmer’s crops
resulting in revenue loss.
Situation 3: Over time, bears are seen more frequently in non-rural settings, such as towns and villages,
walking through multiple yards, resulting in more frequent bear-human conflicts. Do you support,
oppose or are you unsure about using each of the options for this situation?
(Check one box for each option)
Options Support Unsure Oppose
A. No involvement by wildlife officials. □ □ □
B. Consultation with wildlife officials to only provide
recommendations to discourage future bear visits.
□ □ □
C. Wildlife officials capture bear and release elsewhere. □ □ □
D. Bear is killed by wildlife officials. □ □ □
E. Bear is killed by landowner with special permit. □ □ □
Of the five options, I would prefer Option _______ be used when bears move into non-rural
settings such as towns and villages.
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 55
SECTION 4: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Are you? □ Male □ Female
2. What is your age? _______ years
3. Please indicate the extent to which the following labels fit you in terms of how you think about yourself.
(Circle one number in each row.)
Identity label….. This is not
me at all
This is only a
small part of
who I am
This applies to
me, but is not the
central part of
who I am
This is
central to
who I am
Bear hunter…………………… 1 2 3 4
Birdwatcher…..……………….. 1 2 3 4
Conservationist….……………. 1 2 3 4
Deer hunter…...….……………. 1 2 3 4
Environmentalist….……………. 1 2 3 4
Farmer…………………………. 1 2 3 4
Nature lover……………………. 1 2 3 4
Trapper………………………... 1 2 3 4
4. What best describes where you live now? (check one)
□ On a farm □ Town or village of 2,000-9,999
□ In the country, but not on a farm □ City or suburb of 10,000-25,000
□ Town of less than 2,000 □ City over 25,000
□ Tribal reservation
5. What best describes the area where you grew up? If you lived in more than one area, select the place you
lived the longest while growing up. (check one)
□ On a farm □ Town or village of 2,000-9,999
□ In the country, but not on a farm □ City or suburb of 10,000-25,000
□ Town of less than 2,000 □ City over 25,000
□ Tribal reservation
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 56
6. Does any part of your income come from farming or beekeeping?
□ Yes Continue to Question 7 □ No If NO, skip Question 7. You have completed the survey.
7. What type(s) of farming do you do? (check all that apply)
□ Grain or vegetable crops □ Beekeeping
□ Livestock □ I lease land to other producers
□ Orchards □ I lease land from someone else
□ Tree farm □ Other? ____________________________________________
The space below may be used to offer additional comments on bears, bear hunting or bear management
in Wisconsin.
Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please return it at your earliest
convenience in the provided stamped, return envelope.
This study was funded in-part through Wildlife Restoration dollars. PUB-SS-1171-2017
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
This publication is available upon request in alternate formats for visually impaired persons. Please
contact Jordan Petchenik at (608) 266-8523 to request an alternate format.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment
programs, services and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please
write to: Equal Opportunity Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240
Public Awareness of and Attitudes Towards Black Bears and their Management in Wisconsin 57