Social Significance of Conservation in Missouri

Eighty pounds of sugar. At my home this summer, we've used 80 pounds of sugar so far to keep our four hummingbird feeders filled. Especially just before dark, there have been over 40 hummingbirds at one time flying about the feeders. We enjoy watching them and apparently the feeders have helped keep the hummers productive in the dry weather and close to the house for us to watch.

Is this what Leopold had in mind? In 1933, Aldo Leopold wrote as the first sentence of the first chapter, in his book Game Management, that "Game management is the art of making land produce sustained annual crops of wild game for recreational use."

Supplying food and cover for hummingbirds has produced an annual "crop" and we've done this for several years. Yet feeding hummingbirds is just the tip of a really large iceberg to what is required to accomplish sustainable land management that supports a variety of native plants and animals.

Leopold had a much bigger vision of conservation management. Leopold continues in his book, through another 15 chapters and 391 pages discussing biology, research, the importance of science, and successful techniques before making this statement on page 392, "But it is not merely a supply of game, in the strictly quantitative sense, that is in question. The conservation movement seeks rather to maintain values in which quality and distribution matter quite as much as quantity."

He continues in the same chapter on page 403, "The objective of the game management program is to retain for the average citizen an opportunity to hunt" and "The objective of a conservation program for non-game wild life should be exactly parallel: to retain for the average citizen the opportunity to see, admire and enjoy, and the challenge to understand, the varied forms of birds and mammals indigenous to his state. It implies not only that these forms be kept in existence, but that the greatest possible variety of them exist in each community."

He states on page 405, "There is, in short, a fundamental unity of purpose and method between bird-lovers and sportsmen. Their common task of teaching the public how to modify economic activities for conservation purposes is of infinitely greater importance, and difficulty, than their current differences of opinion over details of legislative and administrative policy."

Social significance of conservation. Leopold concludes in the last four pages "The game manager manipulates animals and vegetation to produce a game crop. This, however, is only a superficial indication of his social significance. What he really labors for is to bring about a new attitude toward the land" and "Herein lies the social significance of game management. It promulgates no doctrine, it simply asks for land and the chance to show that farm, forest, and wild life products can be grown on it, to the mutual advantage of each other, of the landowner, and of the public."

Seventy five years later in Missouri. Today, most Missourians (93 percent), indicate they are interested in Missouri's fish, forests, and wildlife. Thirty-six percent say they fish, and 27 percent say they hunt. Many Missouri households have one or more participants who watch birds and wildlife (72 percent), feed birds and wildlife (64 percent), and observe wildflowers (61 percent).

Even with this level of support and participation, however, surveys and focus groups also provide hints that Missourians are pressed for time to stay knowledgeable and remain in touch with the natural world. A big task of conservation workers is to do exactly what Leopold wrote nearly 75 years ago, which is to "bring about a new attitude toward the land."

I'm not just feeding hummingbirds, I'm participating in a social movement of conservation.

If you want to know more about conservation, you can read about the Department of Conservation's plan for the future of conservation in Missouri in The Next Generation of Conservation. Leopold would be especially pleased with the approach to define wildlife very broadly in the Department's Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy, or any one of the other state wildlife action plans.

You can see some great photographs of wildlife and read about conservation work in the Department's monthly magazine, the Missouri Conservationist, which is free to Missourians who request it.

Human Dimensions, the Gnomon, and Indicators of Satisfaction with Conservation Performance

During late June and July, I spent two weeks at Philmont Scout Ranch in northeastern New Mexico helping with the National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience (NAYLE), a leadership training course for Scouts. In several parts of the program, the staff and participants pledge to be servant leaders with the statement that "as the sun dial measures the passage of time, so will my service be measured over time, by my impact on others."

The post on a sun dial, the part that casts a shadow, is called the gnomon. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the gnomon as "an object that by the position or length of its shadow serves as an indicator."

Driving home, I thought about how the human dimensions of resource management can be used like the gnomon on the sun dial, in that the attitudes and opinions of Missourians about fish, forest, and wildlife management are an indicator. We can use human dimensions information as an indicator of satisfaction with conservation performance.

In several surveys, the Department of Conservation has asked Missourians to rate the job the Department is doing to provide conservation services. In 2003, 64.1 percent of Missourians indicated, for themselves, that the Department was doing an "Excellent" or "Good" job. In addition, 26.5 percent indicated "Don't Know," 8.5 percent said "Fair," and less than one percent said "Poor."

This level of satisfaction with the Department has remained almost exactly the same over the last 10 years. I can use this human dimensions information to help Department of Conservation staff understand the level of satisfaction that Missourians have for our conservation performance. Then the information can be used to help make plans for the future.

Human dimensions information is a very useful indicator of performance, just like using the gnomon on a sun dial to measure the passage of time.

More information about the Missouri Department of Conservation's performance is available in the Department's annual reports, and you can find more information about conservation programs on the Department's Web pages.

Using The Gallup Organization Brain to Understand Conservation Opinions in Missouri

The Gallup Organization has useful survey results. An online resource that I use frequently is provided by The Gallup Organization. They have an extensive list of polling results organized in an alphabetical list.

Or, the "Gallup Brain" is a database of questionnaires and opinion results. They describe the Gallup Brain as "a searchable, living record of 70 years of public opinion. Inside, you'll find answers to more than 136,000 questions, and responses from more than 3.5 million people interviewed by The Gallup Poll since 1935." Much of the information in the database requires a paid subscription, although there are a wide variety of reports and updates of current issues that are available without cost.

For example, in an article titled "The People's Priorities: Gallup's Top 10" they list the top 10 priorities that are the "American public's priorities for their elected representatives in Washington -- the men and women sent to the nation's capital to do the people's bidding. The Top 10 Priorities list is based on an analysis of open-ended responses to questions asking Americans to name the top priorities for the government and to name the most important problem facing the nation today, plus a series of additional questions in which Americans rate the priorities of the issues and concerns facing the nation today."

I compare the opinions of the American public with the opinions of Missourians. I find it useful to compare results from surveys conducted in Missouri for the Missouri Department of Conservation with the results reported by Gallup.

I noted in the Gallup list of the top 10 priorities that the environment is listed tenth.

The Gallup commentary describes the American public's opinions about environmental issues as "the environment is not highly likely to be mentioned spontaneously by Americans as a top problem facing the United States at this time, and has a low top-of-mind presence when the public is asked about priorities for government. The environment is seen as more important when Americans respond to a prompted list of issues. Americans willingly say the government is doing too little to protect the environment. Many worry about environmental conditions. A significant majority believes that the quality of the environment is getting worse, not better. While there has been an increase in Americans' general concern about the environment and awareness of global warming, their willingness to compromise economic growth or energy production in the furtherance of environmental quality has not grown."

Further, the commentary concludes that "the environmental policy initiatives Americans would most welcome would appear to be those with the most direct impact: maintaining the safety of drinking water, curbing toxic waste, and improving water and air quality."

Missourians support conservation. In Missouri, there are some similar feelings about the environment as the results from Gallup and yet some differences also. In an earlier post, I showed results for Missourians and their opinions about some conservation issues in Missouri. When asked about several conservation issues, Missourians indicated that they worry the most about drinking water pollution, pollution of rivers, streams, and lakes, air pollution, and the loss of natural habitat for wildlife. And like the Gallup results, conservation tasks may not be exactly at the top of many Missourians priority list, since in a survey conducted in 2000, only a few Missourians could agree on any one thing that the Department of Conservation could do to better serve them.

In a 2003 survey in Missouri, a majority of Missourians, 55 percent, agreed with the statement "I approve of protecting wildlife, unless it hurts the economic livelihood of people who make a living off the land" yet only 22 percent of Missourians agreed with the statement "I approve of filling wetlands if the land can be used to produce more jobs and income."

Regarding forests, 94 percent of Missourians approve of cutting trees to remove diseased or dying trees and 91 percent approve of cutting trees to improve forest health yet only 31 percent of Missourians approve of cutting trees to produce income for landowners.

Overall, 91 percent of Missourians agree that "it is important for outdoor places to be protected even if you don't plan to visit the area."

Clearly the Gallup results seem to match some of the general opinions of Missourians. On the other hand, the support for some issues in the Missouri survey results indicate that Missourians do support environmental issues differently than the general American public. And the overwhelming support in previous elections in Missouri, for conservation, in addition to recent continued support in elections for parks and soils, is a clear sign that Missourians recognize the benefits of conservation tasks.

I'll keep using the Gallup brain and their survey reports to compare with Missouri results as a way to better understand what Missourians are thinking about conservation.

Human Dimensions is Servant Leadership in Action for Conservation in Missouri

Human dimensions information for conservation is servant leadership in action. I have to recall the past to show how I believe human dimensions information for conservation is a servant leadership in action.

A decade of teaching and learning leadership skills. In 1996, I was asked to participate on the adult staff of a leadership training course for young men. While at that course, although I certainly enjoyed the experience, I would not have predicted that I would continue volunteering my vacation time for similar leadership training courses for every year since that time. This summer I will be part of the adult staff for my 10th course in Missouri. I'll also be involved in my sixth course at the national level, working with youth for an advanced experience at the Philmont Training Center in New Mexico.

Servant leadership is a concept about helping others. The training syllabus that we use has changed since 1996. In the 90s, it focused more on the rote skills of leadership, including communication, planning, conflict resolution, using resources effectively, and other skills. Today, using some of the best parts of current leadership theory and theories that have stood the test of time, the course is slightly different, with a focus more on broader concepts in addition to skills. One concept is that of servant leadership. Being a servant leader involves many things, and Larry Spears writes that the concept is "one that seeks to involve others in decision making, one strongly based in ethical and caring behavior, and one that is attempting to enhance the personal growth of people while improving the caring and quality of our many institutions." At its simplest, servant leadership is about a focus on the needs of others.

The training syllabus describes the concept as: "The concept of servant leadership encourages leaders to serve others while staying focused on achieving results in line with the organization's values and integrity. Servant leadership emphasizes collaboration, trust, empathy, and the ethical use of power."

This idea of including others in decision making, using an approach that is both ethical and respectful of others point-of-view, is what using human dimensions and public involvement in conservation decision-making is all about.

Human dimensions information is used to help others. Human dimensions helps resource mangers make informed decisions about fish, forest, and wildlife conservation. In Missouri, human dimensions efforts are some of the ways citizen opinions are included in conservation decisions. Human dimensions information helps managers and decision-makers provide conservation programs and services that meet the needs and expectations of Missourians. That is why I believe that human dimensions is servant leadership in action.

"What We Believe" statements of the Missouri Department of Conservation guide actions. Using human dimensions information helps me and the staff of the Missouri Department of Conservation demonstrate our "What We Believe" statements. The second statement is "All citizens are important; we value their trust and their point of view" and the third is "Missourians are our partners to achieve conservation success." The last statement includes: "Our decisions and behavior will be based on fairness, objectivity and the best scientific information."

Excellent public service is what we will provide. I believe that using human dimensions information for conservation decision-making helps achieve the first "What We Believe" statement "Excellent public service is what we will provide." These words in the "What We Believe" statements are very similar to the words I use each summer when teaching about the concept of servant leadership. Using human dimensions information and public involvement to meet the needs and expectations of Missourians for fish, forest, and wildlife in Missouri looks exactly like servant leadership to me.

Human Dimensions Information for Fish, Forest, and Wildlife Conservation in Missouri

Human dimensions information is used everyday for conservation decisions. As I drove home Friday evening, thinking about the events of the week, I thought about how several of the tasks I participated in during the week demonstrate how human dimensions information and the distribution of that information are a part of the decisions that are made everyday about conservation.

1. Thirty years of human dimensions work. I was interviewed by Cindi Jacobson about the Missouri Department of Conservation's approach to use human dimensions information in fish, forest, and wildlife management efforts. Ms Jacobson is an Alaska Department of Fish and Game employee who is conducting Ph.D. research through the Human Dimensions Research Unit at Cornell University. She was in Missouri interviewing individuals at the Department of Conservation. She is also interviewing individuals in Arkansas, Maine, and New Mexico. I provided comments to her about the Department's nearly 30 years of human dimensions research and public involvement efforts. The Department of Conservation employed its first full-time social researcher in 1978.

2. Public involvement is used to find solutions and provide guidance. I reviewed materials to help in a citizen forum next week to collect solutions about a forest management issue. The Department of Conservation frequently uses public meetings, forums, and focus groups to enable citizens to provide direction for conservation issues. Examples of comments from several public forums conducted by the Department are available online.

3. Using technology to increase efficiency and reduce process time and costs. I participated in a meeting with Department staff to improve our use of SharePoint, a software collaboration tool, to make a wide variety of information easier to find, access, and use, including human dimensions and policy information.

4. Managing electronic files and information. I was interviewed by an outside consultant for a statewide effort to examine the needs of Missouri government agencies for managing and retrieving electronic files and documents. Managing the increasing number of electronic files is an important issue. From my perspective, improving the ability to find and access human dimensions reports, files, and data is very important both for my work and to increase the use of human dimensions information by Department staff, other agencies, and Missourians. Improving access to human dimensions information will make it easier for that information to be used to guide and provide accountability for conservation decisions.

5. Staying in touch with conservation opinions, satisfaction, and participation. I edited questions for a statewide survey about conservation opinions, participation, and satisfaction. This particular survey of Missourians was first conducted by the Department of Conservation in 1994 and has been repeated at regular intervals. It is an important effort to understand how Missourians feel about conservation issues.

Human dimensions information improves accountability. One of the nine goal categories of the Missouri Department of Conservation's strategic plan, The Next Generation of Conservation, is "Accounting for Department Operations." The goal statement is: "The Conservation Department will operate effectively with accountability for public funds and respect for Missouri citizens." Human dimensions information helps me and other Department staff make informed decisions. Although information can certainly increase our understanding of the complexity of issues and increase our awareness of the far-reaching consequences of decisions, sometimes information can make decisions more difficult or uncertain rather than easier. Even if a decision is difficult or the outcome uncertain, however, using information almost always makes a decision more accountable.

The desired results of the goal Accounting for Department Operations include:

Missouri citizens providing frequent input into Conservation Department decisions and programs.

Conservation efforts led by a highly trained, diverse, technologically skilled and professional staff.

Fair and ethical business methods that enable Missourians to see how public funds are spent on conservation priorities.

I think that all five of the examples I thought about from the past week help achieve these desired results.

The entire document of The Next Generation of Conservation is available online. Individual sections are also on the Department of Conservation's Web pages. A special issue of the Missouri Conservationist magazine, in September 2006, included information and other articles related to The Next Generation of Conservation.

The most recent annual reports from the Department of Conservation are also available online and a two-page summary of the 2006 annual report is in the January issue of the Missouri Conservationist magazine.

Participation in Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation in Missouri

Every five years. The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation has been conducted about every five years since 1955. The survey is conducted for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Single best source. The survey is the single best source of information about participation and spending patterns related to fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching. There is no other nationwide survey conducted in a similar statistically valid way. There is no better source of information. Results in recent surveys have been reported for each state. More information about the survey and how it is conducted is available here.


No statistical change between 1991 and 2001 for Missouri. The report for Missouri from the National Survey, available here, indicates there was not a statistically significant change in fishing, hunting, or wildlife-viewing participation away from home between 1991 and 2001 in Missouri. You can see in the chart here that there was a slight numerical decline in the estimates of participation for all but viewing around the home, which did have a statistically significant decline.

New data available soon from 2006. Preliminary results from the 2006 survey are being released now and the final reports will be available soon. I am very interested in seeing the results, especially to compare with previous years.

Why the survey is better than license sales to understand participation. In Missouri, a variety of fishing and hunting participation does not require a permit. For example, individuals under the age of 16 and those 65 and older do not need a permit for most fishing and hunting opportunities. Landowners of parcels five acres and larger do not need a permit for many fishing and hunting activities on their own property, except for needing transportation tags for deer and turkey and for appropriate waterfowl permits. More information about fishing and hunting licenses in Missouri is available here and a library of information about who needs a permit and who is exempted is available here. License sales are certainly useful to monitor trends, but don't show the entire range of participation.

The National Survey uses a statistically valid random sample of Missourians to estimate the levels of participation and expenditures for fishing, hunting, and wildlife-related recreation. The survey provides the best overall estimate of fishing and hunting available in Missouri. The Missouri Department of Conservation does conduct its own surveys and studies of permit numbers to gain additional information that is not collected in the National Survey.

In general, for the activities of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching that do have results reported in the National Survey, the survey numbers provide the best picture of participation.

Missourians Who Worry "A Fair Amount" and "A Great Deal" About Selected Conservation Issues

When asked about a variety of conservation issues, the pollution of drinking water had the highest level of personal worry by Missourians when the responses of "a fair amount" and "a great deal" are added together.

This "top two" approach provides an indication of the more strongly held opinions of Missourians about the selected conservation issues in this question.

Almost 80 percent or more of Missourians worry about drinking water pollution, pollution of rivers, streams, and lakes, and air pollution. A clear majority of Missourians worry about the loss of natural habitat for wildlife and not enough regulation for housing, business, or shopping developments. About one-half of Missourians worry about urban sprawl and a significant number of Missourians worry about channelized or altered streams.

The strongest held opinions, those that worry "a great deal," increase as the overall level of worry increases (the green shaded areas on the right in the chart) for the conservation issues in the list. For each issue, the number of Missourians that worry "a fair amount" (the areas shaded yellow on the left) is about the same.

In this chart, the overall ranking stays the same compared to the rankings obtained if only the levels of "a great deal" are compared in a chart or if the levels of all Missourians who had any inclination to worry about the issues are compared. Although I would be comfortable reporting any of the three ranking charts, the "top two" approach in the chart here provides a very clear perspective about what a majority of Missourians feel about the selected conservation issues.

Even a quick inspection of the chart indicates that the top four issues have the highest levels of worry by Missourians, including the issues of drinking water pollution, pollution of rivers, streams, and lakes, air pollution, and the loss of natural habitat for wildlife.

These results for how Missourians personally worry about conservation issues are from a conservation opinion survey conducted for the Missouri Department of Conservation by the University of Missouri in 2003. The survey was conducted by mail and a statistically valid random sample of Missouri adults from every Zip Code in Missouri were asked to provide their opinions. A total of 6,352 Missourians provided completed survey forms.

The Levels of Worry by Missourians for Selected Conservation Issues

Yesterday I provided a link to a report from the Brookings Institute about changes in population and where people live in Missouri and showed a chart using results from a conservation opinion survey about how Missourians worry about several conservation issues. In the chart, I included an overall total for the responses of "only a little," "a fair amount," and "a great deal."

It is often useful in survey analysis to compare the different responses to a question and look beyond the overall totals.

In the chart here, I have broken out the responses for each issue. Note in the chart that as the overall total level of worry for a specific issue increases, the number of Missourians who worried "only a little" decreases (the red shaded areas on the left) and the number that worry "a fair amount" stays about the same (the yellow shaded areas in the middle). It is the number of Missourians who worry "a great deal" that steadily increases as the overall level of worry increases (the green shaded areas on the right).

This suggests increasing awareness and concern for the conservation issues that have the highest levels of worry. Something about the issue itself has a stronger emotional meaning or seems more important. It could be that the issues that have the highest level of worry seem closer, or more personally "real" to Missourians.

Tomorrow, I'll look at just the top two responses for each conservation issue in the question. I want to see how the issues compare using the strongest levels of concern, including the responses of "a fair amount" and "a great deal," to see if this "top two" approach provides a different perspective about the level of importance of these issues to Missourians.

Missourians Personally Worry About Conservation Issues

When asked about a variety of conservation issues, the pollution of drinking water had the highest level of personal worry by Missourians.

Almost all Missourians worry about drinking water pollution, pollution of rivers, streams, and lakes, air pollution, and the loss of natural habitat for wildlife. A clear majority of Missourians also worry about not enough regulation for housing, business, or shopping developments, urban sprawl, and channelized or altered streams.

Many of these kinds of conservation issues were also discussed in a report published by the Brookings Institute in December, 2002 entitled Growth in the Heartland: Challenges and Opportunities for Missouri. The executive summary of that report is available here.

The Brookings Institute report describes Missouri as:

"Situated in the heartland, Missouri reflects the full range of American reality. The state is highly urban yet deeply rural. It contains two bustling metropolises, numerous fast growing suburbs, and dozens of typically American small towns. Elsewhere lie tranquil swaths of open country where farmers still rise before dawn and the view consists mainly of rich cropland, trees, and sky. Missouri sums up the best of the nation, in short."

The Brookings Report executive summary closes with:

"In the end: Citizens and localities have choices about how their communities grow, and can meaningfully shape their communities' futures for the better. Hopefully Growth in the Heartland will help Missourians make the best possible choices to ensure their state grows in a fiscally responsible and high-quality manner for generations to come."

For me, the most important message from the Brookings report is that Missourians are moving away from the truly urban and truly rural areas. The resulting increase of suburban areas will continue to have impacts on a variety of conservation issues. It is obvious that many Missourians personally worry about those conservation issues.

The results of how Missourians personally worry about conservation issues are from a conservation opinion survey conducted for the Missouri Department of Conservation by the University of Missouri in 2003. The survey was conducted by mail and a statistically valid random sample of Missouri adults from every Zip Code in Missouri were asked to provide their opinions. A total of 6,352 Missourians provided completed survey forms. The results reported here include the responses of "a little," "a fair amount," and "a great deal."

Finding Human Dimensions Information About Conservation in Missouri with American Factfinder

Human dimensions information about conservation, or even demographic information of any kind, used to be easy to find but was often difficult to obtain. There were relatively few books or sources and they were difficult to locate in a nearby library or expensive to purchase.

Now, it seems that because so much information is available online, specific information is harder to find, but easier to obtain. There are so many online sources for demographic information that narrowing a search to find what is needed can be difficult. Once the information is identified, it is often incredibly easier to obtain, usually requiring only a mouse click to download the file or to design custom analysis.

The most important source of information about people in Missouri or the United States, and the first place to look, is the U.S. Census Bureau and their American Factfinder Web pages available here.

For example, type in "Missouri" in the state entry box for "Get a fact sheet for your community..." and press "GO" which will yield a list of population characteristics with all sorts of variables of interest. Down the page is a listing of housing units and characteristics, as available here. If you are interested, the estimate for total housing units in Missouri for 2005 was 2,592,809.

Try entering your own community and look at the characteristics available.

Or you can view a narrative with graphs about the how the population of Missouri is distributed as available here. In the text it is stated that in 2005 there were 2.3 million households in Missouri. The average household size was 2.5 people.

You can use the American Factfinder to obtain very focused and specific information. Overall, I think it's relatively easy to use and the availability of information is incredible. Obtaining the information is very easy. And don't be overwhelmed at the amount of information. Finding what you want is usually a matter of persistence and logical searching.

Finding and obtaining information at the American Factfinder is probably easier than my new puppy's experience at selecting a plastic egg out of a basket. He was just not sure which egg to chew on first.

New Portal for Human Dimensions in Natural Resources and Conservation

A portal. When I was much younger I don't recall if portal was in our vocabulary.

Even now, the word portal to me suggests a way to enter something new or far away. An entryway to something different.

I'm hoping that the new portal for human dimensions information in natural resources and conservation is exactly that--an entry to something different.

The HD.gov portal will become available about the middle of June.

From the HD.gov Web page, the effort is described:

This resource will serve as a credible online information resource as well as a portal with featured service‐links to guide users to existing online information relevant to their specific information needs (e.g., online tools, publications, methods, calendar of events). This work will add value to existing agency sites by highlighting the widely applicable aspects of their content, while retaining links to their agency‐specific information.

Human Dimensions leaders from several federal natural resource management agencies are launching the effort, as an interagency human dimensions Web resource.

You can tour the prototype pages and check out the pages when released later in June at: http://www.hd.gov/

Using Surveys for Public Involvement in Conservation

Frederick Mosteller, who applied statistics to help everyday people understand many subjects, said "It is easy to lie with statistics, but it is easier to lie without them."

Statistics from surveys are often used to provide accountability for conservation decisions related to fish, forest, and wildlife management. Opinions, interests, participation in activities, and satisfaction with performance are some of the human dimensions of conservation efforts. These human dimensions help the staff of the Missouri Department of Conservation make informed and accountable decisions.

Surveys provide a cost-effective way to learn about the conservation opinions of Missourians by asking a relatively small number of individuals to provide their opinions. For most questions, valid results can be obtained by asking about 800-1000 individuals to offer their opinions from the entire 5.8 million individuals that live in Missouri. When conducted correctly, a survey can provide results that are representative of the entire population. If we are willing to accept a slight decrease in the ability to separate overall responses for individual questions, a valid survey in Missouri could be conducted with 300-400 individuals.

Think of looking at the shoes that people wear. If you look at enough people, in enough places, you'll soon see most of the kinds of shoes that people wear, without having to look at everyone, in every place. Using the information you observe, you can soon predict the kinds of shoes people are wearing in other places.

An introduction to using surveys to collect public opinions is available at: http://www.whatisasurvey.info/

An article in the Missouri Conservationist that describes how surveys are used for conservation and fish, forest, and wildlife management is available at: http://www.mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2007/01/20.htm and a previous article is available at: http://www.mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2000/02/40.htm

Frederick Mosteller, who died in 2006, has biographical information at the American Statistical Association, available at: http://www.amstat.org/about/statisticians/index.cfm?fuseaction=biosinfo&BioID=10

If you want to become a statistician and pursue a career using statistics, an excellent source of information about what a statistician does and how to become one is available at: http://www.amstat.org/careers/index.cfm?fuseaction=main

Missouri: Forestry and Wood Products

In Missouri, there are about 14 million acres that are forested; and most of the forests in Missouri are privately owned, at about 85 percent of the acres.

The wood-using and forest products industry in Missouri has an economic impact of about $4.4 billion each year and supports 32,250 jobs with earnings of $1.1 billion.

Each year, the forestry and wood-using industries in Missouri generate $54 million in state sales tax.

More than 1 million acres of forests have been added to Missouri's landscape in the last 30 years.

Forests in Missouri are increasing faster than they are being harvested.

Forests are important to Missourians who enjoy outdoor recreation such as camping, sightseeing, watching birds, canoeing, photographing nature, hunting, or fishing.

Forests in Missouri are essential for healthy streams, clean water, wildlife habitat, and environmental stability.

At the Missouri Department of Conservation forest nursery, each year, more than 5 million seedlings of more than 50 species are grown and distributed throughout the state. The seedlings are planted on both public and private land.

In the recent fiscal year, more than $270,000 of cost-share assistance was provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation to more than 40 Missouri communities for tree planting and maintenance of urban forest resources.

Missouri Department of Conservation staff work with over 800 fire departments to offer training, to provide federal excess equipment, to provide grants for the purchase of fire equipment, and to assist in wildfire prevention activities.

The amount of sales tax generated from the forest products industry and fish and wildlife recreation is well over the amount of sales tax received by the Missouri Department of Conservation from the Conservation Sales Tax; in other words, conservation pays its way in Missouri.

A fact sheet on Missouri forestry and wood products is on page 15 of the 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Missouri Department of Conservation available at: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/13141.pdf
There is additional information on the accomplishments related to forestry on pages 17-35 and 47.

Human Dimensions and Decision-Making for Conservation

Human dimensions information for fish, forest, and wildlife decision making is like the information available for a pilot in the instruments of an airplane or the notes on a page for a musician.

Human dimensions information involves the social and economic aspects of fish, forest, and wildlife management. Human dimensions is market information, customer satisfaction information, participation levels, and public involvement efforts. In Missouri, it is about the people of Missouri and their interests and participation related to the fish, forests, wildlife, and conservation efforts in the state.

Simply, human dimensions is about people, and their needs, wants, and demands. In marketing terms, needs are their requirements, wants are their requests, and demands are the items that meet their requests that they are willing to pay for or take action to obtain. Human dimensions is any information about those needs, wants, and demands.

Are there obstacles to using human dimensions information in making decisions? You bet.

Time is the most frequent obstacle since it can be difficult to conduct scientifically sound information gathering in time to help a manager make a decision. In addition, anyone can be overwhelmed with information. Data can become a black hole, leading us away from making decisions rather than taking action. And just because we have information does not guarantee a desirable or expected outcome. Conservation decisions often involve balancing the needs, wants, and demands of many groups and interests. Sometimes, information seems to make decisions more difficult as we become aware of competing requests and demands.

Even the best, most timely, and comprehensive information is only information however; decisions are required to take action.

The instruments for a pilot, the notes on a page for a musician, a recipe for a cook, or human dimensions information for a resource manager are only information; a truly exemplary performance requires decisions and actions.

Human dimensions data do not tell us what decisions to make, but do provide accountability for our decisions and many clues to informed management.

A great reference about the human dimensions of wildlife management is a book entitled Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America and is edited by D.J. Decker, T.L. Brown, and W.F. Siemer. It was published in 2001. The book is available from The Wildlife Society at: http://www.wildlife.org/publications/index.cfm?tname=pubslist

The First Fifty Years of Conservation in Missouri

If we read the signs correctly, we might learn something about what is up ahead.

Human dimensions, the social and economic aspects of fish, forest, and wildlife conservation, is very useful in trying to understand the past and present. The insights about the past and present can then be used like informational highway signs to make informed decisions about the future.

Past events can guide our thinking about change and provide much insight into the future.

Winston Churchill said “The further backward you look, the further forward you can see” and Harry S. Truman said “The only news you haven’t heard is the history you haven’t read.”

I often turn to a book called The First Fifty Years by James F. Keefe to learn about the past events of the Missouri Department of Conservation and to gain insight into what conservation workers were thinking and the decisions they made in the years before I was even born. I like to think that understanding more about the past can help me, and other Department of Conservation staff, interpret and determine how the information we have available today can help us make more accountable and reliable decisions that will certainly affect the future.

I was fortunate to meet and visit many times with Jim Keefe before he died in 1999.

An article in an All Outdoors news release from 1999, available at http://www.mdc.mo.gov/news/out/1999/091799.htm#2 had the following about Jim:

"Starting as an information writer for the Conservation Department in 1951, Keefe served as managing editor of Missouri Conservationist Magazine from 1955 until 1985. During that time the magazine's monthly circulation increased from 20,000 to nearly 400,000. He penned hundreds of articles and monthly editorials in which he articulated the Conservation Department's philosophy and explained its policies to millions of readers. Conservation Commissioner Ron Stites once called Keefe "Missouri's conservation conscience."

In 1958 the Conservation Commission promoted Keefe to head its Information Section. He continued in that capacity for 27 years, building a public information program that won national and international acclaim for its magazine, books and nature films.

In 1985, the Conservation Commission assigned Keefe to write a history of the Conservation Department's first five decades. The First 50 Years, begins with voter approval of a constitutional amendment in 1936 giving the Conservation Department autonomy in administering science-based conservation programs. It continues through full implementation of the state's conservation program with a dedicated conservation sales tax approved by voters through another constitutional amendment in 1976.

Keefe himself was instrumental in convincing voters of the need for stable funding for conservation programs. At the same time, he also was active in national conservation information efforts. He served as president of Association for Conservation Information and the Missouri Outdoor Communicators and was active in the Outdoor Writers Association of America, earning that group's highest conservation honor, The Jade of Chiefs Award, in 1980.

The Conservation Commission named him a Master Conservationist in 1998, and the Conservation Federation of Missouri honored Keefe with its Conservation Communicator of the Year Award in 1970."

The entire text of The First Fifty Years is available at: http://www.mdc.mo.gov/about/50_yrs/

Read a bit, look backward, and use the information to think about the future. I do.

The current issue of the Missouri Conservationist magazine, and archives of past issues, is available at: http://www.mdc.mo.gov/conmag/

The magazine is free to adult Missourians that request it, and more information about how to subscribe is available at: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/applications/conmag/conmag.aspx

Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Anglers

Fishing catches more than just a fistful of dollars in the Missouri economy.

Using data from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, all fishing in Missouri by anglers 16 years and older generates $772,090,940 in retail sales each year.

The expenditures have an economic impact of $1,561,999,764 (that’s over $1.5 billion) support 13,870 jobs with $340,274,506 in earnings, and generate $38,755,026 in state sales taxes.

Black bass fishing has the largest economic influence at over $560 million ($560,823,740) in overall economic impact, followed by crappie fishing with $242,102,174, then trout fishing with $240,096,201, and fishing for catfish with $156,831,989.

Nonresident anglers contribute $130,435,326 to the overall fishing expenditures, and their expenditures generate $254,296,023 in overall economic impact. The expenditures of nonresident anglers support 2,438 jobs and $7,318,285 in state sales taxes.

On the average, each angler in Missouri spends $635.49 each year. Resident anglers spend more each year per person, at $680.82, than do nonresidents, who spend $478.71 per person.

Missouri resident trout anglers spend the most per person each year, on the average, at $662.92, followed by black bass anglers with $537.89. Panfish anglers spend the least amount per person each year, at $144.51.

When I was a boy, $144.51 would have purchased quite a pile of cane poles, bobbers, and worms. Instead, I often used my grandfather’s cane pole, or sometimes just a long stick, with a cotton twine line and a steel hook. The bobber might have been relatively new. I pulled a bunch of bluegill from a farm pond with that type of rig.

When my own boys were young, we managed to spend more for the same kind of fun, using child-sized Zebco rods and reels, plastic PowerBait, and cool-colored bobbers. With two boys, they kept me pretty busy keeping hooks baited, lines untangled, and rods pointed towards the water. Our trips to the store certainly helped the Missouri economy, one bobber at a time.

Obviously, current generations of Missouri anglers are also making trips to the store for poles, line, bobbers, and bait, with a positive effect on the Missouri economy.

More information about the economic impacts of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-related recreation, in addition to participation and demographics information, is in a report entitled "The 2001 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Watching in Missouri" available at: http://www.southwickassociates.com/freereports/default.aspx

Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Wildlife Watchers

Wildlife viewing is an important economic activity in Missouri.

Using data from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, all wildlife watching activities in Missouri by those 16 years of age and older, generates $448,755,690 in retail sales each year.

These expenditures have an economic impact of $937,795,501, support 7,850 jobs with $200,070,083 in earnings, and generate $22,095,502 in state sales taxes.

It is interesting to note that the retail sales, economic impact, and state sales taxes generated by wildlife viewing activities are slightly higher than for the activity of hunting in Missouri.

Nonresident wildlife viewers contribute $117,792,624 to the overall wildlife viewing expenditures, and generate $229,607,674 in economic impact. The expenditures of nonresident wildlife viewers support 2,030 jobs and $6,575,202 in state sales taxes.

On the average, each Missouri resident wildlife viewer spends about $80.91 annually on wildlife watching near the home, and $401.46 each year for wildlife watching away from home. Nonresident wildlife viewers spend slightly more per year in Missouri, on wildlife watching away from their homes, than Missouri residents, at $537.81.

More information about the economic impacts of wildlife-related recreation, hunting, and fishing, in addition to participation and demographics information, is in a report entitled "The 2001 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Watching in Missouri" available at: http://www.southwickassociates.com/freereports/default.aspx

Economic Activity Generated by Missouri Hunters

Hunting is really "cooking" in the Missouri economy.

Using data from the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, all hunting in Missouri by hunters 16 years and older generates $437,194,608 in retail sales each year.

The expenditures have an economic impact of $853,390,343, support 8,007 jobs with $191,169,148 in earnings, and generate $18,074,340 in state sales taxes.

Deer hunting has the largest economic influence at over $445 million ($445,403,674) in overall economic impact, followed by turkey hunting with $248,146,380, then small game hunting with $89,966,991, and migratory bird hunting with $66,044,839.

Nonresident hunters contribute $72,982,053 to the overall hunting expenditures, and their expenditures generate $148,267,468 in overall economic impact. The expenditures of nonresident hunters support 1,360 jobs and $3,471,380 in state sales taxes.

On the average, each hunter in Missouri spends $894.77 each year. Resident hunters spend slightly more each year per person, at $900.33, than for nonresidents, who spend $868.01 per person.

More information about the economic impacts of hunting, fishing, and wildlife-related recreation, in addition to participation and demographics information, is in a report entitled "The 2001 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Watching in Missouri" available at: http://www.southwickassociates.com/freereports/default.aspx

Missouri: Wildlife Recreation

There are about 1.8 million individuals in Missouri each year, age 16 years and older, that view, feed, photograph, and observe wildlife. An additional 320,000 Missouri residents of ages 6 to 15 are involved in wildlife watching.

Each year, over 738,000 individuals participate in wildlife watching in Missouri away from their home. Of the total nonresidential wildlife watchers, 519,000 are state residents and 219,000 are nonresidents.

The wildlife viewing that occurs away from home involves over 4 million trips each year and wildlife watchers spend, on average, about 17 days participating in some kind of wildlife viewing. For individual activities, on average: 19 days are spent observing wildlife; 7 days photographing wildlife; and 26 days feeding wildlife. Overall, over 12.4 million days are spent viewing wildlife away from home.

Around their home, over 1.5 million Missourians participate in wildlife watching. Overall, over 106 million days are spent observing and photographing wildlife by Missourians near their homes.

The economic impact of wildlife viewing in Missouri includes $449 million in total expenditures that result in a total economic impact of over $937 million. The expenditures support 7,850 jobs and generate $200 million in earnings. The expenditures generate over $22 million in state sales taxes and a combined total of over $30 million in state sales and income taxes.

In Missouri, adults involved in wildlife viewing would fill Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City more than 23 times.

The amount of sales tax generated from fish and wildlife recreation and the forest products industry in Missouri is well over the amount of sales tax received by the Missouri Department of Conservation from the Conservation Sales Tax; in other words, conservation pays its way in Missouri.

More information is available from the 2001 National Survey report for Missouri which is available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/01fhw/fhw01-mo.pdf and the economics report for Missouri which is available at: http://www.southwickassociates.com/freereports/default.aspx

A fact sheet on Missouri hunting and fishing is on page 14 of the 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Missouri Department of Conservation and is available at: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/13141.pdf

Missouri: Hunting and Fishing

In Missouri, there are about 489,000 hunters each year, that are of age 16 years and older. There are an additional 92,000 hunters that are of age 6 to 15 years.

Of the total hunters 16 years and older, 405,000 are state residents and 84,000 are nonresidents. Deer hunting is the most popular in terms of hunter numbers and days spent hunting. There are over twice as many deer hunters as turkey hunters and deer hunters spend over twice as many total days hunting as turkey hunters.

Each year, hunters spend an average of about 15 days hunting. Migratory bird hunters spend the most days on average, at about 13 days. Rabbit hunters spend the fewest days hunting, at about 9 days.

Overall, hunters spend over 6.6 million days hunting each year.

In Missouri, there are about 1.2 million anglers each year, of age 16 years or older. There are an additional 321,000 that participate that are of age 6 to 15 years old. Of the total freshwater anglers in Missouri, age 16 years and older, 942,000 are state residents and 272,000 are nonresidents. Most fishing activity, in numbers of anglers and days spent fishing, is for black bass.

Each year, anglers spend an average of about 11 days fishing. Catfish anglers spend the most days, at about 11 days, and trout anglers the fewest, at about 6 days.

Overall, anglers fish a total of over 13.2 million days each year.

Hunters and anglers in Missouri spend over $1.2 billion each year in retail sales, support 21,877 jobs, and generate $57 million in state sales tax. The total sales and income taxes generated is $77 million. The total economic impact each year from the retail sales is over $2.4 billion. That is $2.4 billion of economic impact.

Put into other terms, more Missourians hunt or fish than the number who attend St. Louis Rams or Kansas City Chiefs games.

One of every four Missouri residents hunts or fishes.

Annual spending by hunters and anglers is more than the cash receipts for cattle production in Missouri.

The amount of sales tax generated from fish and wildlife recreation and the forest products industry is well over the amount of sales tax received by the Missouri Department of Conservation from the Conservation Sales Tax; in other words, conservation pays its way in Missouri.

More information is available from the 2001 National Survey report for Missouri which is available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/01fhw/fhw01-mo.pdf and the economics report for Missouri is available at: http://www.southwickassociates.com/freereports/default.aspx

A fact sheet on Missouri hunting and fishing is on page 13 of the 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Missouri Department of Conservation available at: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/13141.pdf