This study was conducted for the Florida Advisory Council on Environmental Education to reliably and accurately assess the publics awareness and knowledge levels, opinions and attitudes, and behaviors regarding panther habitat and panther-related issues.

Results are based upon a random-digit dialing (RDD) computer-assisted telephone survey of the resident Florida population aged 18 or older. Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish. Telephones were selected as the preferred sampling medium since nearly all Florida residents have access to a telephone. In addition, a central polling site allowed for rigorous quality control over the interviewers and data collection. Some response distributions may not add to 100% exactly due to rounding, while a few questions allowed for multiple responses. Also, strongly and moderately statements may not add to the total reported because of rounding. For example, the results for the questions regarding restrictions on land development reads "The majority of respondents supported (66%) efforts to preserve habitat by restricting development on some lands, even if the land was privately owned; specifically, 46% strongly supported, 21% moderately supported..., i.e., 46+21=67. However, 66% total support was reported because the exact numbers were: strongly support (45.6%) + moderately support (20.6%) = total support (66.2%).

Awareness and Knowledge Levels of Panther Issues
Respondents were asked several questions to assess their awareness of and knowledge levels regarding panther issues. Ninety percent of respondents were aware that panthers exist in Florida.

Nineteen percent responded that they had heard a great deal about the Florida panther, 35% said they had heard a moderate amount, 37% said they heard a little bit, 9% said they heard nothing at all, while 1% did not know.

Overall, respondents were aware that the panther is endangered, with 58% of respondents describing the status of the panther population in Florida as endangered. Four percent said the panther population was stable and healthy, 26% said declining, 2% said extinct, and 10% did not know when asked to describe the status of the panther population.

Those respondents who knew panthers existed in Florida were asked two additional knowledge questions. first, respondents were asked what general region of the state panthers live in and about how many panthers live in Florida today. Thirty percent of respondents who knew panthers exist in Florida did not know what region they live in, 2% said statewide, 15% said north Florida, and 44% said south Florida. Respondents were allowed to say more than one region, therefore response percentages do not add to 100. Second, respondents were asked about how many panthers live in Florida today. Forty-one percent of those who knew panthers exist in Florida did not know how many, 14% said less than 50, 11% said 100-199, 12% said 200-499, 4% said 500-999, and 8% said more than 1000 panthers live in Florida today.

Opinions and Attitudes Toward Panther Conservation Efforts
Respondents were asked what they felt is the greatest cause of the Florida panther being endangered. Overall respondents attributed the decline of the panther to loss of habitat with 46% referring generally to development, construction, or too many people, and 12% noting habitat loss specifically. Nineteen percent of respondents said hunting, 10% did not know, 7% said car accidents, with the remaining 7% of respondents citing a variety of other causes.

An overwhelming majority of respondents (91%) supported efforts to save the Florida panther from extinction, only 3% opposed conservation efforts. Specifically, 58% of respondents strongly supported, 33% moderately supported, 1% moderately opposed, 1% strongly opposed, 4% had no opinion, and 2% did not know.

Respondents were given two statements to which they were asked to agree or disagree, with the statements designed to assess the importance they placed on panther conservation efforts.

Ninety-two percent of respondents agreed (67% strongly and 26% moderately) while 6% disagreed (2% strongly and 4% moderately) with the statement: Although I may never see a Florida panther in the wild, it is important to know they exist in Florida. Only 2% of respondents said no opinion or don't know.

Eleven percent of respondents agreed (4% strongly and 7% moderately) while 82% disagreed (58% strongly and 25% moderately) with the statement: Maintaining panther populations in the wild is a threat to the economic prosperity of Florida. Seven percent of respondents said no opinion or don't know.

Later in the survey respondents were asked what they would do if they saw a panther in the wild. Twenty-eight percent of respondents said they would leave the area, 27% said they would observe the panther, 13% said they would stand still, 10% said they would take a photograph, 6% said they would continue with whatever they were doing, 5% did not know, and the remaining 11% said other things such as leave the panther along, or report the sighting. Less that 1% said they would shoot the panther.

Toward the end of the survey respondents were asked what they think is the most important thing the state government can do to help save the Florida panther. Twenty-one percent of respondents said habitat preservation, 18% said don't know, 11% said control development and construction, 9% said educate the public, 7% said restrict hunting of panthers, increased fines for poachers or enforce poaching laws better, 6% said items general related to funding, and less than 5% of the population said any one of the following: buy habitat (4%), reintroduce panthers (4%), have panthers mate with cougars (3%), put panthers into restricted areas (3%), leave the panthers alone (3%), or conduct research (2%). Eight percent said others things, and only 2% said do not save the panther.

Knowledge and Opinions Toward Panther Funding
Respondents were asked if they knew how efforts to save the Florida panther are funded. Thirty-two percent of respondents said donations, 30% did not know, 21% said general state funds, 17% said the panther license plate, 9% said other responses, and 7% said federal funds. Respondents were allowed to say more than one funding source.

Generally, respondents did not know if money for efforts to save the Florida panther from extinction have been spent efficiently or wastefully; 60% said don't know. Eighteen percent felt that money had been spent efficiently, 3% had no opinion, and 19% said wastefully.

Respondents were told that efforts to save the Florida panther from extinction are being funded primarily through private donations and money generated by the voluntary panther license plate, although some federal funds are used for staff. Opinions toward using public funds such as general tax revenues to fund conservation efforts was assessed.

The majority (70%) of respondents supported (32& strongly and 38% moderately) using public funds such as general tax revenues to fund efforts to save the Florida panther, 24% of residents opposed this idea (11% strongly and 12% moderately), while 7% did not know or had no opinion.

Opinions and Attitudes Toward Panther Reintroduction Efforts
Twenty-five percent of respondents were aware, and 75% were not aware that state and federal government agencies are considering a program to reintroduce panthers into the Osceola National Forest Region of north Florida to help re-establish panther populations.

The majority of respondents (83%) were supportive of reintroduction efforts (47% strongly supported and 36% moderately supported), 7% opposed reintroduction efforts (4% strongly and 3% moderately) and 11% had no opinion or did not know.

Next, respondents were presented with several issues that have come up regarding panther reintroduction and were asked to state if the issue was a major concern, a minor concern, or not a concern for them.

Human safety was not an overwhelming concern for respondents, although 27% of respondents did cite this as a concern. Eleven percent stated that panther reintroduction is a major concern for them because it s likely that panthers will harm people, 16% said this is a minor concern, but 71% of respondents said this was not a concern, while 3% did not know.

Safety of pets was not an overwhelming concern for respondents either, although 26% of respondents did cite this as a concern. Seven percent stated that panther reintroduction is a major concern for them because it is likely that panthers will harm pets, 19% said this is a minor concern, but 72% or respondents said this was not a concern, while 3% did not know.

Safety of livestock was more of an issue with a third of respondents stating it was a concern. Eleven percent stated that panther reintroduction is a major concern for them because it is likely that panthers will harm livestock, 26% said this is a minor concern, and 58% of respondents said this was not a concern, while 5% did not know.

The final issue presented to respondents was related to right of landowners. Not quite a third of respondents stated that panther reintroduction was a concern for them because there may be restrictions placed on property near the Osceola National Forest, such as how land can be developed. Specifically, 12% stated this as a major concern, 19% said this is a minor concern, 62% said this in not a concern and 7% did not know.

The last series of questions regarding panther reintroduction were in the form of statements to which respondents were asked to agree or disagree.

The first statement was: I would be afraid if panthers live in my county or surrounding counties. The majority of respondents (81%) disagreed with this statement. Specifically, 11% strongly agreed, 7% moderately agreed, 32% moderately disagreed, 50% strongly disagreed, and 1% did not know or had no opinion.

The next statement was: If I saw a panther in the woods, I would be afraid it would attack me. A third of respondents (36%) agreed with this statement. Specifically, 21% strongly agreed, 15% moderately agreed, 23% moderately disagreed, 37% strongly disagreed, and 4% did not know or had no opinion.

The third statement was: I favor the reintroduction of panthers in my county or surrounding counties. The majority of respondents (77%) agreed with this statement. Specifically, 48% strongly agreed, 29% moderately agreed, 7% moderately disagreed, 11% strongly disagreed, and 5% did not know or had no opinion.

The final statement was: Panthers should not be reintroduced because panther take away deer that should be left for hunters. The majority of respondents (89%) disagreed with this statement. Specifically, 48% strongly agreed, 29% moderately agreed, 7% moderately disagreed, 11% strongly disagreed, and 5% did not know or had no opinion.

Opinions and Attitudes Toward Habitat Preservation
Two questions specifically addressed issues related to habitat preservation. First respondents were told that in order for habitat to remain suitable for panthers, there need to be restrictions on land development. The majority of respondents supported (66%) efforts to preserve habitat by restricting development on some lands, even if the land was privately owned; specifically, 46% strongly supported, 21% moderately supported, 9% moderately opposed, 16% strongly opposed, and 8% did not know or had no opinion.

The majority of respondents (56%) felt that efforts that focus on encouraging large landowners to preserve panther habitat should be increased, 27% said remain the same, and 6% said decreased, while 11% did not know or had no opinion.

Opinions Toward Releasing Cougars into South Florida
Respondents were told that state and federal government agencies are releasing eight cougars from Texas, which are not endangered, into the Big Cypress and Everglades region so the cougars could mate with the Florida panthers. Supporters say this may be the panther's only chance for survival because the panthers are having reproductive problems. Respondents were asked if they supported or opposed this program, even though the offspring would not be pure panthers, but a mixture of panther and cougar.

The majority of respondents (69%) supported releasing a few cougars into the Big Cypress and Everglades region; specifically, 38% strongly supported, 31% moderately supported, 8% moderately opposed, and 12% strongly opposed, while 12% did not know or had no opinion.

Sources for Information on Panthers
Respondents were asked where they have received information about Florida panthers. Forty-four percent of respondents said newspapers, 36% said TV, 19% said magazines, 10% said family or friends, 8% said books, 5% said brochures but could not attribute the source to any particular organization, 5% said school or work, 5% said personal experience, and less than 5% said any one of the following, panther exhibit or display, panther license plates, radio, zoo, conservation organizations, or agencies such as the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or USFWS. Nine Percent said they did not have any information, and 7% said this survey was their source of information. Respondents were allowed to say more than one information source.

Participation in Wildlife-Related Activities
Three percent of respondents said they have a vehicle registered in their name that has a panther license plate on it. Five percent of respondents said they hunted in Florida in the past two years. Thirty-five percent of respondents said they fished in Florida in the past two years. Sixty percent of respondents said that in the past two years they took a special interest in wildlife around their home, that is, closely observing, feeding or trying to identify wildlife near their home. Thirty-nine percent of respondents said that in the past two years they took a trip or outing in Florida of t least one mile away from home for the primary purpose of observing, photographing or feeding wildlife. This did not include trips to the zoo, circus, aquarium, museum, or trips for fishing or hunting.

About the Authors

Mark Damian Duda

Mark Damian Duda is currently Executive Director of Responsive Management, a project developed to help fish and wildlife organizations better understand and work with their constituents. Mark conducts public opinion and attitude surveys, focus groups, develops marketing plans and teaches workshops for over 30 fish and wildlife agencies, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Canadian Wildlife Service, as well as private organizations such as the Wildlife Management Institute, the Izaak Walton League, American Sportfishing Association and Falcon Publishing Company. He is the author of the Virginia Wildlife Viewing guide and has recently completed another Falcon Press book titled Watching Wildlife

He has published over forty papers on human dimensions and marketing in natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation. For his work in applying social science to wildlife issues, Mark was named Conservation Educator of the Year by the Florida Wildlife Federation and National Wildlife Federation. Mark holds a masters degree from Yale University in Natural Resource Policy and Planning.

Kira Young

Kira C. Young is currently a senior research statistician for Responsive Management. For the past three years she has directed numerous polls on fish and wildlife issues using a variety of methodologies from sample surveys to censuses using in-person, mail and telephone interviews. She oversees the entire research process from training interviewers to maintaining computer operations, as well as conducts statistical analyses and co-authors reports with Mark. She holds a bachelors degree in Applied Mathematics with an emphasis in Statistics from Florida State University. Kira conducts workshops for Responsive Management on public opinion polling for natural resources managers and on specific software packages used for conducting surveys. Workshops have been conducted for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Georgia Game and Fish Division, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. She also edits the newsletter, Responsive Management Report.