Scott Sanders Chris Wynn Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Adam S. Willcox William M. Giuliano Department of Wildlife Ecology and ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Scott Sanders
Chris Wynn
Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission
Adam S. Willcox
William M. Giuliano
Department of Wildlife Ecology
and Conservation
University of Florida
Photo: Robert Hoffman, University of Florida
Photo: James Henderson, Gulf South Research Corporation, Bugwood.org Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge and thank all of the private landowners who participated in the focus groups used to design the survey and completed the survey. You have been invaluable in shaping the future of private lands wildlife management in Florida. Kristen Nolte and Leander Lacy were integral in arranging logistics for focus group meetings and supporting their facilitation. The Private Lands Biologists of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission helped immensely with survey design, editing, and consolidating the mailing lists, and contacting landowners for meetings. The members of the Watermelon Pond Conservation Cooperative assisted us by completing a pilot survey that was instrumental when designing the statewide survey. We also thank University of Florida IFAS County Extension Faculty for their hospitality when they provided us with space for meetings. Funding for this work was provided by a State Wildlife Grant as part of Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative www.floridaconservation.org/ WILDLIFEHABITATS/Legacy_index.htm. Printed on at least 10% post-consumer recycled paper with biodegradable vegetable- based inks. © 2009 University of Florida and The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
I appreciate the opportunity to fill this out; I am always
interested in managing my land for “natural Florida”
habitat.
–Survey respondent
Florida’s natural lands and waters are likely many other agencies to tailor future
invaluable to fish and wildlife and our services to landowner needs.
quality of life. However, the recently The survey was administered within
published Wildlife 2060 report (www. Landowner Assistance Program focal
MyFWC.com/wildlife2060) projects a areas, and directed at nearly 7,000
dismal future for fish and wildlife over landowners that own 20 acres or more.
the next 50 years, if our abundant Approximately 3,500 landowners were
natural habitats continue to be randomly selected to receive a survey
converted to urban uses in support and we achieved a 51% response rate
of an ever-growing human population. (Figure 1). The questions answered are
The future for fish and wildlife greatly helping us better understand landowner
depends upon decisions made by demographics, landowner needs/
private landowners who own and concerns, and current levels of active
manage more than half of Florida’s management.
natural resources. The Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission We thank you for taking the time to
(FWC) recognizes the critical role private complete the survey, if you were selected.
landowners serve and is engaged in Given appropriate funding levels, we
multiple efforts to support private hope to conduct a similar survey in 2010
landowner wildlife management. This and look forward to your participation.
booklet provides results of a recent This booklet was produced for private
effort initiated by the FWC to better landowners and other interested parties
understand private landowner wildlife and is designed to inform the reader about
perspectives. the survey results while also providing
information about a few key wildlife
During 2008, the FWC and the programs. We hope you find the booklet
University of Florida Department of useful and encourage your feedback.
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
partnered to administer a “Florida The Florida Fish and
Private Landowner Wildlife Survey.” Wildlife
The survey was conducted to better Conservation
understand and document private Commission
landowner needs associated with University of Florida
wildlife management. The results will Department of
help FWC’s Landowner Assistance Wildlife Ecology
Program (www.MyFWC.com/LAP) and and Conservation
3
This survey was very important to our agency. By better
understanding landowner needs and concerns, we are now
able to provide specific programs to directly support their
wildlife management interests.
–Scott Sanders, section leader, FWC
Isolated protected areas in a Conservation Commission (FWC)
landscape of urbanizing and working realizes the shortcomings of
agricultural lands likely will never be designing programs without sufficient
able to effectively conserve wildlife, stakeholder input and this survey is
as they are too small, fragmented, one of the means by which they are
and of poor quality to provide the addressing the wildlife needs of all
suitable habitat and connectivity Floridians.
that healthy wildlife populations
require. In Florida-the state with the PROJECT AREA: The FWC identified
highest percentage of public lands in 11 focus areas in which to initially
the Southeast-for 179 rare species, concentrate technical and financial
existing public lands inadequately assistance for private landowners
protect at least 56 species. (Figure 2). The focal areas were
Therefore, wildlife conservation developed to target high priority
agencies must devise programs to habitats identified in Florida’s Wildlife
encourage landowners to conserve Legacy Initiative, large blocks of
healthy and stable populations private land adjacent to public lands,
of wildlife on private lands to and clusters of landowners near
compliment public lands programs. areas with successful FWC private
lands programs. The focal areas
Fish and wildlife agency personnel contained three general habitat
have been criticized in the past for types: scrub, sandhill and dry prairie.
designing and producing materials
and programs that do not meet Scrub is characterized by well-
the needs of their audience. drained sandy soils, dominated by
Wildlife programs sometimes oak shrubs, Florida rosemary, ground
suffer from a lack of insight into lichens and open patches of barren
stakeholder attitudes, beliefs, and sand. Scrub can contain an open or
values. This can cause biases and closed canopy of pines, and is largely
misperceptions that can negatively restricted to Florida.
affect the utility, acceptance and Sandhill is the elevated dry portion
effectiveness of wildlife programs. of the high pine ecosystem. It is
The Florida Fish and Wildlife typified by sandy soils, an open
canopy of primarily pine and some
4
Photo: Brandon Schad, FWC
oak, and an understory of perennial the 11 focal areas using a five-
grasses and forbs. Sandhill high contact mailing. This included a
pine is found throughout the coastal pre-letter, the survey, a post card
plain from Alabama and east Texas reminder, a replacement survey for
to southeastern Virginia. nonrespondents, and a third survey
for nonrespondents (Figure 1).
Dry prairie is dominated by
expanses of nearly treeless areas The data were analyzed using
of grasses and forbs, acidic soils, appropriate statistical techniques.
and sparse palmettos and shrubs. Focus areas were grouped regionally
Dry prairie can become covered with based on demographic and land use
water in the height of the summer variables to facilitate analysis and
rainy season. future wildlife program delivery.
METHODS: We developed a mail
back questionnaire survey based
on FWC regional coordinator and
private lands biologist surveys and
private landowner focus groups.
The questionnaire included items
that measured land use, wildlife
management activities, wildlife
enterprises, wildlife recreation,
and landowner demographics. We
also asked a series of questions
about wildlife management financial
assistance and planning programs.
Our target group was landowners
who owned 20 or more acres in
Figure 1: Florida Private Landowner Wildlife
the focus areas. Addresses were
Survey questionnaire cover.
obtained using the Florida property
tax parcel Geographic Information
System database. We administered
surveys to a random sample of
3,377 landowners, stratified by 5
Photo: William M. Giuliano, University of Florida
RESULTS: Of the 3,271 deliverable uses. Landowners in the focal areas
addresses, we received 1,658 of the Panhandle and northern parts
responses for an overall response of the state primarily reported having
rate of 51%. planted timber and native forest. The
central portions of the state were
Demographics and land use - The fairly diverse, while the southern
majority of landowner respondents areas were dominated by planted
were 50-64 years old (42%), white grazing land, orchards and groves,
(95%), and male (76%). Statewide, native range, and native forest.
the most frequently reported income
category was $50,000-$99,000 Data were examined to understand
(31%). Most landowners had overall patterns with respect to
bachelor’s degrees (25%), followed income, land size and land use (Figure
by some college (22%), high school 2). Osceola Scrub, Lake Wales Ridge,
diplomas (20%), master’s degrees and South Florida Dry Prairie (South)
(12%), associates degrees (6%), were grouped together because
doctorates (5%), professional degrees landowners were typically from
(5%), and less than a high school higher income brackets ($100,000-
diploma (4%). $149,000), land acreage was larger
(1,316-11,934 acres), and lands
Statewide, landowners held an contained a large proportion of native
average of 1,129 acres with a and planted grasslands (45-60%).
minimum of 20 and a maximum of
330,000 acres. Landowners and A second group (Central) was
their families owned their property formed with Chassahowitzka, Citrus/
for an average of 23 years. Seventy- Marion, and Brooksville Ridge as
one percent of landowners indicated properties in these areas were
their primary land use was agriculture, moderately sized (336-1,161 acres),
followed by development (20%), and landowners had the second highest
recreation (9%). income ($50,000-$99,999), and land
use was mixed between grassland
We asked landowners to further and forest uses (30-40% grassland,
classify their land use, detailing the 35-45% forest).
amount of land devoted to different
6
With our ranch management, we benefit both livestock
and wildlife.
–Survey respondent
The final grouping (North) contained incomes ($50,000-$99,999), and the
Apalachicola/St. Marks, Camp Blanding properties were small (224-758 acres).
Uplands, Ecofina, and Lake/Volusia These groupings will be referred to as
Scrub. These areas were primarily South, Central and North throughout the
native forests and planted timber (50- remainder of this report, respectively.
85%), landowners had statistically lower
Landowner Assistance Program
Focus Areas
North
µ
Blackwater/Eglin Central
Econfina
Apalachicola/
St. Marks
South
Camp Blanding
Uplands
Brooksville Ridge
Citrus/Marion
Lake/Volusia
Chassahowitzka
Lake Wales Ridge
Osceola
South FL Dry Prairie
Priority Habitats Legend
County Boundaries
Scrub Habitat
Dry Prairie Habitat
Sandhill Habitat
0 20 40 80 120 160
Miles
Figure 2: FWC Focus Areas grouped by demographic and
land use similarities (i.e., South, Central, and North).
7
I really enjoy planting food plots for deer and other
game. I like putting out feed for deer and other animals.
Keeping a strong herd of deer and turkey flocks are key
for me. I harvest only a small amount.
–Survey respondent
Wildlife management and and South, and higher in the South
conservation - Statewide, 68% than Central. Upland game bird
of landowners thought that their management was higher in the South
regular land management practices than North and Central, but did not
benefited wildlife and habitat. differ between the North and Central.
Fifty-eight percent of landowners General wildlife habitat management
indicated that they actively managed was not different between South
for wildlife on their property. and Central or Central and North,
but South was higher than North.
Of the respondents who indicated No differences were detected
they actively managed for wildlife, among regions for small mammals
they primarily managed for deer (squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, etc.) or
(22%), followed by upland game songbirds.
birds, and general wildlife habitat
(Figure 4). Considering the top We asked a series of questions
five groups, there were differences about common land management
among regions. Deer management practices that benefit wildlife
was higher in the North than Central including planting trees, grasses,
Endangered
Species
Waterfowl 4%
Reptiles and 6%
Amphibians Deer
7% 22%
Fish
8%
Songbirds Upland
11% Gamebirds
18%
Small Mammals Habitat
12% 12%
Figure 4: Wildlife and habitat managed for by Florida Private
8 Landowner Wildlife survey respondents.
Photo: Chris Evans, River to River CWMA, Bugwood.org
shrubs, and food plots, feeding Wildlife recreation - Forty-four
wildlife, using prescribed fire, and percent of landowner respondents or
installing nest boxes or other wildlife their families hunted.
shelters, with similar findings among
regions (Figure 5). Respondents from the Central
region hunted less than the North
Wildlife problems - Statewide, more and South, and the North and South
than 50% of landowners reported were not different. Statewide, 6%
having problems with wildlife. The of landowners lease their land to
South had more problems than hunters with no differences among
North and Central, but there was regions. Twenty-two percent
no difference between Central of landowners practice quality
and North. Landowners reported deer management. Only 3% of
coyotes, hogs, armadillos, raccoons landowners conducted guided hunts
and rodents as the top five problem and 4% conducted ecotourism, bird
wildlife species. watching, or wildlife viewing tours.
Wildlife Management
100% Activities
80% Plant trees
Prescribed fire
60%
Plant grass and shrubs
40% Nest boxes
Feed wildlife
20% Plant food plots
0%
South Central North
Figure 5: Beneficial wildlife land management activities reported by Florida Private
Landowner Wildlife survey respondents. 9
Photo: Adam S. Willcox, University of Florida
Conservation program participation a conservation and management
- Forty-two percent of landowners plan in the future.
maintained a Greenbelt, which
provides tax benefits for Fourteen percent of landowners
agriculturalists. Five percent of indicated they have received financial
landowners had conservation assistance for land management
easements on their property. The activities, with no differences among
South had more reported easements regions. The most frequent financial
than North and Central, but North assistance program reported was
and Central did not differ. Thirteen the Environmental Quality Incentives
percent of landowners indicated Program (EQIP; 33%), followed by
they would be interested in placing the Landowner Incentives Program
a conservation easement on their (LIP; 28%), Conservation Reserves
property with no differences among Program (CRP; 23%), and the Wildlife
regions. Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP;
12%).
Twenty-four percent of
landowners indicated they had a Seven percent of landowners
land management plan, with no participated in financial assistance
differences among regions. Of the programs for wildlife habitat
people who had management plans, management, and 13% of
most were personally developed landowners indicated they plan
(50%), 29% had a Forest Stewardship to apply for wildlife management
plan, 13% had Natural Resource financial assistance programs in the
Conservation Service conservation future.
plans, and 8% had private contractor RECOMMENDATIONS: Wildlife
developed plans. management already plays a major
Twenty-four percent of landowners role on private lands in Florida, with
indicated they have or are currently nearly 70% of respondents indicating
developing a conservation and that their routine land management
land management plan, and 30% activities benefit wildlife and nearly
suggested they would like to develop 60% of them actively managing to
promote wildlife on their property.
At the same time, more than 50%
10I would like some help to get a good management plan
started. It would not take a lot of money to make my farm
nice for cattle, gophers, rabbits, birds and many more
species ...I could make this farm a thing of beauty forever.
–Survey respondent
of landowners reported having upland game birds. And, landowners
problems with wildlife. across the state were interested in
general wildlife habitat management.
Because of this, the FWC is Consequently, the FWC is pairing a
designing and modifying private species focus with general habitat
lands wildlife management and management tailored to regional
conservation programs with the preferences, where appropriate.
understanding that wildlife have
benefits but also may lead to Even where FWC goals primarily
problems, sometimes on the same focus on nongame or threatened
property. The FWC is preparing their and endangered species, tailoring
private lands wildlife biologists to programs to popular game species
address these issues simultaneously with similar needs can directly and
to achieve individual landowner goals indirectly accomplish those goals as
of protecting some land uses while many of these animals share similar
increasing wildlife populations on the habitats. Additionally, landowner-
property. preferred species programs are
initiating and strengthening positive
The 44% of landowners and their relationships, potentially increasing
families who hunt in Florida is much the opportunity to promote other
greater than the general public’s 4% wildlife programs.
regional average and the 5% national
public average.
With hunting remaining very
popular with private landowners
in the state, the FWC is currently
evaluating their game species
management programs for private
landowners.
Our results showed a strong
preference for deer management in
the North, whereas landowners in the
South showed an inclination toward
11Landowners should be rewarded for having endangered
species on their property rather than penalized with rules,
regulations and restrictions.
–Survey respondent
Landowners listing agriculture, both those who currently have or
including forestry and livestock are developing plans and those
production, as their primary land who intend to develop them in the
use were in the majority (70%). future. The FWC private lands
Therefore, the FWC is focusing their biologists will continue to support
private lands wildlife management and provide technical assistance to
programs in agricultural systems landowners that request planning
to increase quality and quantity of assistance. The FWC has also
preferred species while minimizing initiated an information campaign.
crop depredation. Additionally, This brochure is part of that
the FWC is supporting applied campaign to provide information to
research studies that tackle landowners about the benefits of
technical issues related to wildlife conservation plans and the technical
and agriculture. For example, they assistance programs available
have recently funded research to assist private landowners with
projects investigating the effects planning. Additionally, the FWC has
of prescribed burning and roller expanded its financial assistance
chopping on vegetation and wildlife cost-share programs to focus on
in South Florida, translocation high-priority habitats. This will allow
of bobwhite quail to repopulate people owning land in those areas to
private lands, and wild turkey use these funds for many different
habitat preferences. The FWC, in species including both game and
cooperation with UF/IFAS Extension, nongame wildlife.
is also adapting their outreach and
extension programs to include a There is substantial participation
significant agricultural component in programs such as Greenbelt that
through demonstration plots, field reduce taxes or evaluate agricultural
days and workshops. property values differently than other
land uses. With recent passage of
Land management and a state constitutional amendment
conservation plans are popular to qualify private conservation lands
with landowners. This is true for for tax relief, the FWC will work
closely with landowners wanting to
participate.
12This will likely be linked to existing The FWC realizes the primary focus
planning programs including Forest of private lands in Florida remains
Stewardship and NRCS conservation agriculture, so they are designing and
plans that could potentially certify implementing wildlife programs that
landowners for tax relief or other integrate agricultural and wildlife land
financial assistance. uses for the landowner’s benefit.
Although there is currently not The best approach to achieving
much participation in conservation integration may be through holistic
easement programs, 13% of land and conservation planning.
landowners were interested in These planning processes
placing a conservation easement incorporate wildlife into normal land
on their property. Conservation use operations where possible and
easements provide tax relief for address wildlife issues contrary to
landowners, while conserving the primary land use. These plans
the land in perpetuity and can provide assistance to increase
allow for continued use including wildlife quantity and quality specific
agriculture. The FWC will continue to landowner preferred wildlife
promoting conservation easements species and habitat. Plans will
and strengthen partnerships with also expedite targeted financial
nongovernmental conservation assistance and tax relief programs to
easement organizations to provide interested landowners. The planning
information and technical assistance process will facilitate the passage of
to interested landowners. knowledge between landowner and
agency biologists so that they can
CONCLUSIONS: Private landowners work together to effectively integrate
in Florida continue to be the wildlife management on private
stewards of the vast majority of lands.
wildlife and wild places. The FWC is
very encouraged by this and adapting
current private lands technical and
financial programs to better meet
landowner needs.
13Photo: Johnny N. Dell, Bugwood.org
CURRENT WILDLIFE PROGRAMS: Habitat Management Workshops
Many wildlife and habitat and Field Days - The FWC and their
management programs were partners offer technical wildlife
discussed in this report. Several of management workshops year round
these have been reauthorized and for the public. They are listed at
expanded in the 2008 edition of the www.MyFWC.com/CONSERVATION/
Food Conservation and Energy Act, ConservationYou_LAP_workshops.htm
a.k.a. “Farm Bill.” Below, you will
find brief descriptions of programs Wildlife Habitat Management
currently available and their Internet Calendar - The FWC and other
addresses. On the following page, partners produce an annual calendar
we also offer phone numbers for the with wildlife management tips and
FWC regional and extension offices. critical dates. Contact your FWC
We encourage you to contact the regional office for a copy.
FWC and UF/IFAS Extension for Forest Stewardship Program -
more information regarding these Administered by Florida’s Division of
programs and application processes. Forestry, it helps landowners develop
Finally, for a complete report of the plans to improve forestlands and the
survey please visit www.MyFWC.com/ environment. Both the FWC private
CONSERVATION/ConservationYou_ lands biologists and IFAS Extension
LAP_index.htm to download a copy. help implement this program.
Landowner Assistance Program www.fl-dof.com/forest_manage ment/
- Administered by the FWC, this cfa_steward_index.html
program seeks to improve habitat UF/IFAS Wildlife Extension - The
conditions for high priority habitats. IFAS Wildlife Extension program
FWC biologists meet with landowners offers many wildlife management
to recommend habitat improvement programs for private landowners in
techniques and possibly offer Florida. You should contact your
financial assistance. local county extension office or the
www.MyFWC.com/CONSERVATION/ State Wildlife Specialist for further
ConservationYou_LAP_index.htm information.
www.solutionsforyourlife.ufl.edu/
14How do I find out more about the issues in this survey?
–Survey respondent
Farm Bill Programs - The Natural Private Landowner Virtual Network:
Resources Conservation Service www.privatelandownernetwork.com
and Farm Service Agency administer
many programs designed to CONTACT INFORMATION: Please
assist landowners, groups, and contact your regional FWC office by
communities with conservation and phone or email. They can provide
maintenance of natural resources. you with more information regarding
One of the most important programs private lands programs and answer
is Conservation Technical Assistance questions you may have. You can
(CTA) which helps landowners e-mail the FWC private lands regional
develop a “whole farm plan.” To coordinators here: www.MyFWC.com/
learn more about CTA and many CONSERVATION/ConservationYou_
other Farm Bill Programs please visit: LAP_contact.htm
www.fl.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/index. Northwest Region
html 850-265-3676
Partners for Fish and Wildlife - Southwest Region
Administered by the U.S. Fish and 863-648-3200
Wildlife Service, this program seeks
North Central Region
to efficiently achieve voluntary
386-758-0525
habitat restoration on private lands,
through financial and technical South Region
assistance, for the benefit of Federal 561-625-5122
Trust Species.
www.fws.gov/partners/ Northeast Region
352-732-1225
Other useful links for landowners -
Florida Forest Steward Newsletter: You can also contact your local
www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extension/florida_ UF/IFAS County Extension office
forestry_information/additional_ or Bill Giuliano, the State Wildlife
pages/newsletter.html Specialist, for further information on
these programs: 352-846-0575 or
Florida Invasive Species Partnership: e-mail docg@ufl.edu
www.floridainvasives.org/index.html
15Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Millie Ferrer, Interim Director, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, publishes this information to further the purpose of the May 8 and June 30, 1914 Acts of Congress; and is authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. Copyright Information This document is copyrighted by the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for the people of the state of Florida. UF/IFAS and FWC retain all rights under conventions, but permits free reproduction by all agents and offices of the Cooperative Extension Service, the FWC, and the people of Florida. Permission is granted to others to use these materials in part or full for educational purposes, provided that full credit is given to UF/IFAS and the FWC, citing the publication, its source and date of publication.
You can also read
