{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/118376"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/118376","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Wildlife management on Virginia Conservation Reserve Program land: the farmer's view","abstract":"A mail-survey questionnaire concerning wildlife management on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land was sent to one-half (n = 808) the enrollees in Virginia selected at random. Results from a 76% return indicated that 72% wanted to improve the wildlife habitat on their retired land. These respondents felt that wildlife habitat improvement was important because of its visual appeal (23%), hunting opportunities for enrollees (21 %), and future values for descendants (18%). Respondents who did not want to improve wildlife habitat desired to avoid attracting hunters. Most respondents (62%) indicated they had not been informed about improving wildlife habitat on their CRP land, and one-third of them wished someone would do so. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) personnel were the primary source (63%) of wildlife habitat information for CRP participants. CRP land was planted primarily to pines (49%), fescue-clover (19%), and fescue (15%). Only 5% of the land was enrolled as a \"permanent wildlife habitat\" Less than 2% of the respondents indicated that they had planted woody shrubs. Mowing the entire CRP acreage was the primary means (43%) of weed control. Leasing of CRP land to hunters for cash income was uncommon (3%). When asked what amount of compensation would be required to implement a wildlife plan, if the costs of doing so were paid, 27% indicated they would require no payment. CRP participants are older, more likely female, and control more land than typical Virginia farmers. These results indicate a high interest in wildlife on private land and a need for better targeting of information and education efforts by USDA and state wildlife management agencies.","abstract_html":"A mail-survey questionnaire concerning wildlife management on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land was sent to one-half (n = 808) the enrollees in Virginia selected at random. Results from a 76% return indicated that 72% wanted to improve the wildlife habitat on their retired land. These respondents felt that wildlife habitat improvement was important because of its visual appeal (23%), hunting opportunities for enrollees (21 %), and future values for descendants (18%). Respondents who did not want to improve wildlife habitat desired to avoid attracting hunters. Most respondents (62%) indicated they had not been informed about improving wildlife habitat on their CRP land, and one-third of them wished someone would do so. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) personnel were the primary source (63%) of wildlife habitat information for CRP participants. CRP land was planted primarily to pines (49%), fescue-clover (19%), and fescue (15%). Only 5% of the land was enrolled as a "permanent wildlife habitat" Less than 2% of the respondents indicated that they had planted woody shrubs. Mowing the entire CRP acreage was the primary means (43%) of weed control. Leasing of CRP land to hunters for cash income was uncommon (3%). When asked what amount of compensation would be required to implement a wildlife plan, if the costs of doing so were paid, 27% indicated they would require no payment. CRP participants are older, more likely female, and control more land than typical Virginia farmers. These results indicate a high interest in wildlife on private land and a need for better targeting of information and education efforts by USDA and state wildlife management agencies.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Miller, Edwin Joseph"],"institution":"Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University","degree_name":"M.S.","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences","degree_department":"Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1989,"date_issued":"1989","date_published":"1989","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:07Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10919/118376","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Miller, Edwin Joseph"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2024-03-12T20:23:34Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2024-03-12T20:23:34Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1989"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["M.S."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10919/118376"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["A mail-survey questionnaire concerning wildlife management on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land was sent to one-half (n = 808) the enrollees in Virginia selected at random. Results from a 76% return indicated that 72% wanted to improve the wildlife habitat on their retired land. These respondents felt that wildlife habitat improvement was important because of its visual appeal (23%), hunting opportunities for enrollees (21 %), and future values for descendants (18%). Respondents who did not want to improve wildlife habitat desired to avoid attracting hunters. Most respondents (62%) indicated they had not been informed about improving wildlife habitat on their CRP land, and one-third of them wished someone would do so. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) personnel were the primary source (63%) of wildlife habitat information for CRP participants. CRP land was planted primarily to pines (49%), fescue-clover (19%), and fescue (15%). Only 5% of the land was enrolled as a \"permanent wildlife habitat\" Less than 2% of the respondents indicated that they had planted woody shrubs. Mowing the entire CRP acreage was the primary means (43%) of weed control. Leasing of CRP land to hunters for cash income was uncommon (3%). When asked what amount of compensation would be required to implement a wildlife plan, if the costs of doing so were paid, 27% indicated they would require no payment. CRP participants are older, more likely female, and control more land than typical Virginia farmers. These results indicate a high interest in wildlife on private land and a need for better targeting of information and education efforts by USDA and state wildlife management agencies."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["M.S."]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Wildlife management on Virginia Conservation Reserve Program land: the farmer's view"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.department":["Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences"],"dc:creator":["Miller, Edwin Joseph"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2024-03-12T20:23:34Z"],"dc:date.available":["2024-03-12T20:23:34Z"],"dc:date.issued":["1989"],"dc:description.abstract":["A mail-survey questionnaire concerning wildlife management on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land was sent to one-half (n = 808) the enrollees in Virginia selected at random. Results from a 76% return indicated that 72% wanted to improve the wildlife habitat on their retired land. These respondents felt that wildlife habitat improvement was important because of its visual appeal (23%), hunting opportunities for enrollees (21 %), and future values for descendants (18%). Respondents who did not want to improve wildlife habitat desired to avoid attracting hunters. Most respondents (62%) indicated they had not been informed about improving wildlife habitat on their CRP land, and one-third of them wished someone would do so. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) personnel were the primary source (63%) of wildlife habitat information for CRP participants. CRP land was planted primarily to pines (49%), fescue-clover (19%), and fescue (15%). Only 5% of the land was enrolled as a \"permanent wildlife habitat\" Less than 2% of the respondents indicated that they had planted woody shrubs. Mowing the entire CRP acreage was the primary means (43%) of weed control. Leasing of CRP land to hunters for cash income was uncommon (3%). When asked what amount of compensation would be required to implement a wildlife plan, if the costs of doing so were paid, 27% indicated they would require no payment. CRP participants are older, more likely female, and control more land than typical Virginia farmers. These results indicate a high interest in wildlife on private land and a need for better targeting of information and education efforts by USDA and state wildlife management agencies."],"dc:description.degree":["M.S."],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10919/118376"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:title":["Wildlife management on Virginia Conservation Reserve Program land: the farmer's view"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["M.S."],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:07Z"}