Abstract:
In an effort to restore pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) to portions of their native ranges in western Kansas, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks initiated a pronghorn restoration program in 1964 that continued throughout 1991. Landowners originally supported the restoration program, but conflicts between landowners and pronghorn have increased in recent years, hindering the maintenance of a pronghorn population in western Kansas. Many landowners blame pronghorn for spreading bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), damaging crops, competing with livestock for forage, and damaging fences. The conflicts between pronghorn and landowners have caused many landowners to develop negative attitudes toward pronghorn, and as a result many pronghorn are being shot illegally. In an effort to stop the illegal killing of pronghorn and increase landowner tolerance, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks initiated a Pronghorn Education Project in 1998. The first step of the project involved a landowner survey, which entailed the research for my thesis. Information gained from the survey will be used to tailor the education project to address major landowner concerns and to determine how to best convey information to landowners.
Survey results indicated that most respondents thought pronghorn spread
bindweed, damage fences, and cause both forage and crop yield reductions. Respondents felt that the pronghorn population increased during the last five years and tended to overestimate the pronghorn population in Kansas. Most respondents wanted no pronghorn on their land and approximately 20% of respondents indicated nothing would change their attitude or tolerance toward pronghorn. Even though most respondents wanted no pronghorn on their land, many respondents indicated that they enjoyed seeing pronghorn. Major dislikes of pronghorn included that there were too many or that they represented a time or financial burden. Many respondents indicated that information about pronghorn behavior and the impact of pronghorn on farming and ranching operations could potentially increase their tolerance of pronghorn.
Associations existed between opinions about pronghorn and variables such as zone of residence, farm income, farm size, age, organizational affiliation, and whether or not the respondent allowed pronghorn hunting on his/her land. Generally, those respondents who lived within the pronghorn zone, received greater than 50% of their income from farming, owned large amounts of cropland or rangeland, and allowed pronghorn hunting on their land, were more negative toward pronghorn.
