Wildlife and the Illinois public: a benchmark study of attitudes and perceptions

Natural resource management agencies are increasingly challenged to involve the public in issues pertaining to wildlife management. However, there has been little systematic attempt to describe the perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes of the gen- eral public regarding using and managing wildlife. We conducted a benchmark study during June-July, 1996, of selected attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge of Illinois residents relative to wildlife and related issues and compared these factors for resi- dents in the northeast metropolitan region (metro) and the rest of Illinois (nonmetro). We considered these findings in the context of emerging knowledge regarding public perceptions of wildlife. A high percentage of residents believed that wild animals add value to their lives and that conservation education should be a priority. There was extensive participation in non-consumptive forms of wildlife recreation and minimal involvement in hunting and trapping. In fact, a minority of residents supported hunt- ing for sport alone, and only a nominal majority supported hunting to provide eco- nomic development, food, or to prevent the overabundance of selected species. Three interrelated factors (place of residence, generation, and gender) in part portray differences in wildlife-related knowledge and attitudes of Illinois residents. Place of residence suggests differences in the populations of the northeastern metropolitan region (metro) and those of the smaller cities and more rural regions of Illinois (non- metro). Compared to nonmetro, metro residents have fewer direct encounters with wildlife, including participation in wildlife recreation, and fewer wild animal prob- lems such as collisions, crop damage, etc. The metro population is less supportive of hunting and hunting-related revenues that benefit wildlife conservation, more likely to attribute imperiled species to overexploitation than to habitat destruction, and more likely to value wildlife similar to the way they value pets or people. The gener- ational factor indicates that the younger portion of the population, the emerging gen- eration of influence, also is more likely to value wildlife similar to the way they value pets or people. Further, they are prone to believe that habitats support unlimited numbers of animals (i.e., are not resource limited). The gender factor suggests that females from both regions are less supportive of hunting and tend to attribute endan- gered species to hunting rather than habitat. Similar to urbanites in general, females were less satisfied with the status of wildlife and management.