This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]On: 06 October 2014, At: 15:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Dimensions ofWildlife: An InternationalJournalPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

Wildlife conservationattitudes and intentionsof conservation reserveprogram participantsTed T. Cable a , Philip Cook b & Penny Dlebel ca Department of Horticulture, Forestry andRecreation Resources , Kansas State University ,b Policy Analysis Group, College of Forest andWildlife Resources , University of Idaho ,c Department of Agricultural and ResourceEconomics , Eastern Oregon State College ,Published online: 22 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Ted T. Cable , Philip Cook & Penny Dlebel (1997) Wildlifeconservation attitudes and intentions of conservation reserve programparticipants, Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal, 2:1, 81-83,DOI: 10.1080/10871209709359089

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871209709359089

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of

the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

57 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Findings Abstracts

Human Dimensions of Wildlife Volume 2, Number 1Spring 1997 pp. 81-83

Wildlife Conservation Attitudesand Intentions of ConservationReserve Program Participants

Ted T. CableDepartment of Horticulture, Forestry and Recreation ResourcesKansas State University

Philip CookPolicy Analysis GroupCollege of Forest and Wildlife ResourcesUniversity of Idaho

Penny DlebelDepartment of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsEastern Oregon State College

Congress established the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in theFood Security Act of 1985 as a voluntary cropland retirement programadministered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDAprovides CRP participants with an annual per acre rent and half the costof establishing a permanent cover (grass or trees) in exchange for retiringhighly erodible or environmentally sensitive cropland for 10 years. The1996 Farm Bill allows agricultural producers the opportunity to return toproduction acres that have been enrolled in CRP for at least five years andare not highly erodible. With the passage of this new legislation, virtuallyall of the 2.8 million acres of CRP land in Kansas will be eligible for thisearly release in 1996-97. CRP lands provide habitat for many wildlifespecies. As landowners consider returning their CRP lands back toproduction, wildlife conservation policy-makers face important decisionsabout what, if any, incentives to offer landowners to maintain or enhancewildlife habitat. In anticipation of the critical decision-making period andin recognition of the far-reaching effects of these land-use decisions onwildlife, we conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 3,000 CRPcontract holders to discover how they value wildlife on their farms, howthey plan to use their enrolled acres when their contracts expire, and toidentify factors that might influence their decisions. The study question-naire asked about reasons for CRP enrollment, potential future uses ofCRP land after contracts expire, CRP's effect on wildlife populations,recreational use of CRP land, and demographics of CRP participants.

The questionnaire asked "Is wildlife an important consideration in yourchoice of farming practices?" Over two-thirds (68%) answered "yes." Thelandowners then were asked to rate nine influences for choosing to enroll

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

57 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

82 Cable. Cook & Diebel

land in CRP using a Likert scale. As would be expected because of thenature of the program, the two highest-ranking reasons for enrollmentwere "control for soil erosion" and "most profitable use of land." Providingwildlife habitat ranked fourth out of the nine reasons, with 59% of CRPcontract holders stating that "to provide wildlife habitat" was an "impor-tant" or "very important" reason for land enrollment.

Contract holders were asked about increases in wildlife populations ontheir farm attributed to land being enrolled in CRP. More than one-thirdof the respondents noted an increase in "wildlife in general" (38%); morethan 50% reported large increases in deer, pheasant, and quail; and 49%reported increases in coyotes. Except for coyotes, the growths in wildlifepopulations were considered desirable. Almost two-thirds of the respon-dents (65%) reported increases in wildlife diversity on their farms fromCRP.

When CRP participants were asked if they would leave the enrolled acresin permanent cover after the contract expires with no annual payment butthe crop base maintained, 15% of respondents replied "yes" and 37%replied "no." An important factor determining the future of CRP lands isthe price that farmers can receive for products grown on marginal acres.When asked to rank the importance of potential influences on thedecision of what to do when the CRP contract expires, respondentsindicated that market prices for crops or livestock that could be producedon CRP land were "important" (20%) or "very important" (46%).

When asked to choose among several alternatives for their CRP acres, overone-third of respondents said they did not know what they would dowhen their contracts expired. About a third chose the alternative ofleaving some land in grass for grazing livestock, and 24% planned onreturning some acres to crop production. Yet when asked directly, "Doyou plan to return some acres to grazing?" 58% responded positively, andwhen asked, "Do you plan on returning some acres to crop productionunder conservation compliance provisions?" 43% answered "yes." Thisinconsistency may indicate that producers have not decided clearly whatthey will do when contracts expire.

Several questions focused on what might influence landowners' decisionsabout CRP land. Availability of cost-share for establishing wildlife habitatranked at the bottom of alternatives, with 41% rating it as "not important."When asked directly if they would be willing to change some vegetationcover on their CRP lands to benefit wildlife at 50% cost-share, 38%answered "no," 38% were uncertain, and only 24% responded "yes."

Assuming that crop supports and market prices remained stable, 89%indicated that they would extend their contracts for five additional yearsand 85% would be willing to extend for another 10 years. The mean bidfor a five-year extension was $53-12/acre/year and $53.69 for a 10-yearextension. Both of these bids are slightly less than the average current bid of$54.49.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

57 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Wildlife Conservation Attitudes and Intentions 83

Another alternative to protect wildlife habitat would be a state-sponsoredwildlife-based recreation access program. Over three-fourths (76%) of allrespondents allowed hunting on CRP land, with only 4% of that groupcharging a fee for hunting access. Most respondents allowed "friends/neighbors" (63%) and "immediate family" (58%) access to CRP acres forhunting or other recreational purposes. Over 40% of respondents allowaccess to anyone who asks. About a fourth (24%) allowed no recreationalaccess and cited "liability concerns" as the main reason for denying access.

A third of the respondents said they would consider participating in anaccess program. The mean bid for participation was $33.62/acre/year, but28% said they would participate for $10 or less/acre/year. For the two-thirds who said they would not participate, the three most importantreasons were "liability concern," "trash/litter," and "vandalism."

Many agricultural producers are sympathetic to the needs of wildlife, andwildlife has played a moderately important role in past farming decisions.Landowners are uncertain about future plans for their CRP land, but theystrongly support CRP and will keep land enrolled if programs and pricesdo not change dramatically. Cost-sharing for wildlife habitat enhance-ment programs receiving relatively weak support likely would have littleeffect on land-use decisions about CRP lands.

References

Diebel, P. L., Cable, T. T., & Cook, P. S. (1995). The future of ConservationReserve Program land in Kansas: The landowner's view. Kansas AgriculturalExperiment Station Report 690.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

57 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014