ESTIMATES OF THE DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus Agazzizii ... Project.pdf · tortoises to the estimates...

ESTIMATES OF THE DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus Agazzizii) DOMESTIC POPULATION IN THE GREATER LAS VEGAS AREA, NEVADA

2018

PREPARED BYCENTER FOR BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH, UNLV

cber.unlv.edu

Copyright ©2018 by the UNLV Center for Business and Economic Research

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas or the Nevada System of Higher Education.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas Box 456002 4505 S. Maryland Parkway Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-6002 (702) 895-3191 [email protected] http://cber.unlv.edu

mailto:[email protected]

Domestic Desert Tortoise Population Estimates in the Greater Las Vegas Area

cber.unlv.edu

1

The Estimates of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii) Domestic Population in the Greater Las Vegas Area, Nevada

Sponsorship: The Tortoise Group (Las Vegas, NV) sponsored this research study. The Executive Director of the Tortoise Group is Kobbe Shaw. Research Objective: This study estimates the domestic (with owners) desert tortoise population in the Greater Las Vegas area, Nevada. Methods: The study was conducted from March 2018 through November 2018. We define the geographical area of Greater Las Vegas to include Boulder City, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Henderson, Summerlin, and the Clark County unincorporated areas. This area largely captures metropolitan Las Vegas. The study employed a mail survey in English and Spanish, using a stratified (by ZIP Code) random sample of households. The Tortoise Group and CBER designed the questionnaire and the survey was distributed for CBER by Haines Direct, a nonprofit direct marketing firm located in North Canton, Ohio, using regular mail. Mail responses were collected, tabulated, and analyzed by CBER staff, using the STATA software described in the STATA Survey Data Reference Manual (Release 10). The issue of non-response bias, which dominates survey analysis, was dealt using the post-stratification methodology and three alternative weighting schemes. Results: We employed three weighting schemes (WS). The first (WS1) does not take into account the problem of non-response bias. The last two (WS2 and WS3) do account for the non-response bias and use the post-stratification methodology. WS2 corrects for misrepresentation of the population by ZIP Codes. WS3 addresses the misrepresentation both by ZIP Codes and household size. The results vary depending on the weighting scheme. The total count estimate of the desert tortoise population in Greater Las Vegas varies from 137,172 (standard deviation 23,486) in WS1, to 137,331 (standard deviation 22,424) in WS2, and 153,783 (standard deviation 44,755) in WS3. The estimates also vary by ZIP Codes. As a sub-product of the survey, we also obtained the estimates of the total domestic ownership of the cat and dog populations. Conclusions: An association was observed between the size of the desert tortoise domestic population and the size of the cat and dog pet population in the Greater Las Vegas area as follows: 1 tortoise =1.83 cats = 3.7 dogs (weighting scheme 1); 1 tortoise =1.97 cats = 3.79 dogs (weighting scheme 2); 1 tortoise =1.72 cats = 3.24 dogs (weighting scheme 3).


cber.unlv.edu

2

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3

II. DATA COLLECTION and METHOLOGICAL ISSUES ....................................................................... 4

Data collection .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Non-response bias ..................................................................................................................................... 6

III. THE DATA ............................................................................................................................................. 8

Data Collection Tool ................................................................................................................................. 8

Population and Sample ............................................................................................................................. 8

IV. RESULTS and DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 9

Summary statistics .................................................................................................................................... 9

Population Analysis by ZIP Codes.......................................................................................................... 11

V. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 12

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 1: Number of households that own any pets in the survey sample .................................................. 16

Table 1: Results of pet population using WS1 ............................................................................................ 17

Table 2: Results for pet population using WS2 .......................................................................................... 17

Table 3: Results for pet population using WS3 .......................................................................................... 17

Table 4: Percent of households owned pets by ZIP Code ........................................................................... 18

Table 5: Results for domestic desert tortoise population by ZIP Code ....................................................... 20

Table 6: Results for pet cat population by ZIP Code .................................................................................. 22

Table 7: Results for pet dog population by ZIP Code ................................................................................. 24

Appendix A: ZIP-Code Maps for Highest and Lowest Desert Tortoise/Cat/Dog Populations................... 27

MAP A1: The Greater Las Vegas region by ZIP Codes ............................................................................. 27

MAP A2: ZIP Codes with the highest desert tortoise population ............................................................... 28

MAP A3: ZIP Codes with the lowest desert tortoise population ................................................................ 29

MAP A4: ZIP Codes with the highest cat population ................................................................................. 30

MAP A5: ZIP Codes with the lowest cat population .................................................................................. 31

MAP A6: ZIP Codes with the highest dog population ............................................................................... 32

MAP A7: ZIP Codes with the lowest dog population................................................................................. 33

Appendix B: Questionnaire ......................................................................................................................... 34


cber.unlv.edu

3

I. INTRODUCTION Over the past several years, researchers have conducted various studies to estimate domestic

animal populations in different regions. These studies catered to socio-biological needs such as

promoting community disease control, encouraging the use of veterinary services, and providing

necessary information to the commercial food industries for domestic animals (Downes et al.,

2009; Butler and Bingham, 2000; Nasssar et al., 1984; Leslie et al., 1994; Baldock et al., 2003;

Patronek & Rowan, 1995). The availability of such information regarding the domestic population

of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the Greater Las Vegas area (see Map A1 in Appendix

A), Nevada, however, is extremely limited, practically unavailable, or obsolete. We define the

geographical area of the Greater Las Vegas to include Boulder City, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas,

Henderson, Summerlin, and the Clark County unincorporated areas. This definition largely

captures metropolitan Las Vegas.

This study estimates the total domestic population of desert tortoises in the Greater Las

Vegas area by random stratified sampling. Such an estimate provides important information on the

demographic dynamics of the desert tortoise in Greater Las Vegas. The Tortoise Group and CBER

designed the questionnaire and the survey was distributed for CBER by Haines Direct, a nonprofit

direct marketing firm located in North Canton, Ohio, using regular mail. Mail responses were

collected, tabulated, and analyzed by CBER staff, using the STATA software described in the

STATA Survey Data Reference Manual (Release 10). The questionnaire was written in both

English and Spanish. The research design placed the questions about the ownership of a desert

tortoise into a larger context of a pet survey. As a sub-product of the research design, we also

obtained estimates of the total population of domestic cats and dogs and derived a relationship

between the ownership of domestic desert tortoises and the ownership of domestic cats and dogs.


cber.unlv.edu

4

The remainder of this study proceeds as follows. Section 2 discusses the process of data

collection, the methodology of the study, and the issues and problems related to non-response bias.

Section 3 provides the details on the questionnaire, the population of interest, and the sample

selection. Section 4 presents the results of the statistical analysis and the estimates of the domestic

desert tortoises in the Greater Las Vegas area. For robustness, we compare these estimates of desert

tortoises to the estimates of the total populations of domestic cats and dogs. That is, intuition

suggests that the populations of cats and dogs should exceed the population of desert tortoises. If

we find the reverse, then it raises concerns about our method of estimating the population of desert

tortoises. Finally, section 5 provides a brief summary.

II. DATA COLLECTION and METHOLOGICAL ISSUES Data collection We collect primary data to estimate pet populations in the Greater Las Vegas area. Primary data

can be collected from numerous data collection methods such as surveys, in-depth interviews,

focus groups, and observation. Selecting the most suitable method to gather data depends on the

objective of the study. For instance, in-depth interviews are most appropriate for a comprehensive

understanding of the issues. This method provides an opportunity to probe deeper from the

respondents’ answers. Similar to in-depth interviews, the focus group method also collects

comprehensive information about a particular program/project, such as how does it affect the

community and other stakeholders (Patton, 1990). These methods are expensive, resource

intensive, and time consuming, thus, only suitable when an in-depth understanding of the issues is

the main focus of the study. In contrast, surveys are suitable when the objective of the study is to

collect data from a large audience for a well-defined question. Thus, surveys are the most popular

data collection method for collecting descriptive data when an in-depth understanding is not the

main focus of the study (NSF, 2002).


cber.unlv.edu

5

Surveys can be categorized into two broader groups, questionnaires and interviews.

Questionnaires are filled out by respondents, whereas interviews are conducted by the researcher

to gather information. Both interviews and questionnaires consist of closed- and open-ended

questions. Open-ended questions, however, are more common in interviews while closed-ended

questions are more common in questionnaires. Among the survey methods, questionnaires are the

best approach to collecting descriptive information. Several methods for administering a

questionnaire survey. Mail surveys are a most popular method among the others, such as telephone

and web surveys, since mail surveys are relatively cheaper and can address a broader group. Low

response rates and self-reporting bias, however, are the disadvantages of mail surveys (NSF, 2002).

Web-based surveys are most efficient in data collection and data recording compared to

mail surveys, since in web-surveys, the responses get directly recorded in a database. Therefore,

we can eliminate the time required to record data in a data base. Further, other merits of web-based

surveys include the ability to screen data and delete irrelevant responses. Web-based

questionnaires, however, are highly resource intensive. Therefore, they may not be practical in

certain resource-constrained environments.

The household drop-off survey is another method to administer a questionnaire survey. In

this method, the researcher delivers surveys to households and asks respondents to mail the

completed questionnaire. This method can possibly yield a higher response rate, as the researcher

gets the opportunity to interact with respondents and, therefore, he/she may convince respondents

to complete the survey and/or clarify any of the issues respondents have about the survey.

Household drop-off surveys, however, are more expensive and time consuming than mail surveys.

The group administered questionnaire is another method to implement a survey. In this

method, a person who conducts the survey, probably the researcher, distributes the survey to a

group of respondents. As the respondents complete the questionnaire, they can ask follow-up


cber.unlv.edu

6

questions from the researcher so that the researcher can ensure that respondents understand the

questions correctly. Higher response rates are a major advantage of group administered

questionnaires compared to mail surveys. On the negative side, the group-administered

questionnaire method is more expensive than mail surveys. In addition, surveys can be

administered using telephones, either as an automated telephone survey or as a telephone interview

conducted by a trained resource person. In telephone interviews, respondents can ask follow-up

questions, whereas automated telephone interviews do not afford this option. Telephone interviews

must be extremely short as many telephone survey respondents do not like to be disturbed by a

telephone call. Thus, response rate could be lower, and the responses might not be reliable

(Trochim, 2006).

Weighing the costs and benefits of each aforementioned survey administration method, we

employed the mail survey method, which is the most popular, inexpensive, less resource intensive,

and the most accessible to a larger audience, to collect primary data on pet populations from

Southern Nevada households. As noted above, however, low-response rates are the major

drawback of this method.

Non-response bias As we just noted, low response rates are a major disadvantage of mail surveys. This can occur due

to either refusal, those who are in the sample do not like to respond, or non-contacts, sampled

individuals did not receive the survey for certain reasons (Merkle, 2011). Irrespective of the reason,

low-response rates engender a discrepancy between the characteristics of the respondents and the

characteristics of the non-respondents, which is technically known as the “non-response bias”

(Hager et al., 2003; Dilman, 2000). Non-response bias implies that certain groups of the population

are misrepresented during the data collection procedure. Thus, the collected sample cannot be

considered as random. Consequently, population estimates are erroneous (Berg, 2010).


cber.unlv.edu

7

In the survey literature, researchers use numerous remedial measures to address non-

response bias. One such method compares respondent and non-respondent distributions, for

subgroups of a control variable, such as age, race, gender, and so on. If the response rates are

similar across groups, then the researcher concludes that no evidence for no-response bias exists

in the sample (Brick et al., 2002). Nevertheless, this method assumes that control variables are the

only possible causes of response propensity, which is not true in most situations. Some other

research attempts matching each individual in the sample with some external database (Assael &

Keon, 1982; Lin & Schaeffer, 1995). This method, however, relies on the availability of an external

database. In addition, other studies conduct follow-up studies to tackle non-response bias. In this

method, a survey is administered in several phases, aiming to increase the response rate in each

phase, then they compare estimates of each phase (Groves & Couper, 1998). This is a highly

resource-intensive and time-consuming method (Groves, 2006).

Alternatively, corrective weighting, using a socio-demographic variable, which is known

as adjusting for non-response weight by post-stratification, is one of the most popular methods to

address non-response bias in the survey literature (Dawson et al., 2014). This method involves a

two-step process: Step one - identify a set of control totals of the survey population, and step two

- calculate weights to adjust the sample totals to control totals. Thus, the researcher uses weights

to match sample totals to population totals. Mainly, researchers use population characteristics,

such as age and sex, to adjust the weights in National Surveys. One major advantage of this method

is that a large set of alternative estimators can be estimated. Thus, different estimators can be

compared with each other and the researcher can be confident about a particular estimator, if all

these population estimators generate similar magnitudes (Grove, 2006). Considering the above

merits, we use the post-stratification technique to address non-response bias.


cber.unlv.edu

8

III. THE DATA Data Collection Tool Data collection tool, the survey questionnaire (see Appendix B for the questionnaire), is designed

in a short and concise manner to achieve a higher response rate. The questionnaire consists of four

main questions: (i) Does anyone in your house have pets? (ii) How many of the following pets do

you have? (iii) How many people live in the household, and (iv) In which ZIP Code do you live?

The second question asks respondents to state how many cats, dogs, birds, fish, horses, reptiles,

and desert tortoises that they have as pets. In addition to the above four questions, the first

paragraph of the questionnaire describes the purpose of the survey, and the last paragraph

acknowledges the respondent’s contribution and provides contact information to contact survey

administrators, if respondents have any questions. Since the Hispanic/Latino population exceeds

30 percent of the population in Greater Las Vegas, the survey questionnaire is printed two-sided,

one in English, and the other, the same questionnaire in Spanish.

Population and Sample The population of interest is the total number of households in the Greater Las Vegas area. We

select a sample of 38,202 households in The Greater Las Vegas area. The sample selection

procedure is as follows. First, we obtain the list of mailing addresses for Greater Las Vegas ZIP

Codes. Second, a 10-percent random sample of addresses are selected from the mailing list.

Consequently, the final sample adds up to a total of 38,202 households. According to Census 2016,

the total number of household units in the Greater Las Vegas area are 646,295, this implies, our

sample accounts for 5.9 percent of the total population in the Greater Las Vegas area.

Out of the total mailed surveys, we receive responses from 2,205 households. Thus, the

response rate of the survey is 5.8 percent. Out of the received responses, 57 questionnaires are

eliminated due to either not providing information for survey questions or providing unreliable


cber.unlv.edu

9

information. For instance, some respondents stated ZIP Codes that are not located in the region.

Thus, the final sample summed to a total of 2,148 responses, which equals a 5.6 percent adjusted

response rate.

IV. RESULTS and DISCUSSION Summary statistics We define a pet dog as a dog that the households feed and consider as a pet by the household. Pet

cats, and pet tortoise are defined in the same manner (Downes et al., 2009). According to the

results, 66.8 percent of households own pets, and only 33.2 percent of households report that they

do not own any pets during the survey period (see Figure 1). Further, more than 22 percent of

households report owning more than one type of pet, for instance, they had pet dogs and pet cats.

Domestic (desert tortoises, cats, dogs) populations in the Greater Las Vegas Area

We calculate three types of weighting schemes (WS), using household demographic

characteristics, to estimate the total population. WS1 is the standard survey weighting scheme that

does not adjust for the problem of non-response bias, while WS2 and WS3 adjust the standard

survey weights to address this non-response bias.

WS1 is computed as follows:

WS1 = total number of households in the population

total number of households in the sample

WS1 does not consider that certain groups of the population can be misrepresented due to non-

response bias. Table 1 reports the domestic populations of cats, dogs, and desert tortoises estimated

using WS1. According to the results, the total domestic desert tortoise population, as well as the

pet cat and pet dog populations are 137,173, 250,897, and 507,950, respectively. Clearly, residents

of the Greater Las Vegas area more likely own pet dogs than pet cats or domestic desert tortoises.

The approximate ratio for the entire region shows that 1 tortoise =1.83 cats = 3.70 dogs.


cber.unlv.edu

10

WS2 addresses the survey non-response bias. We use a post-stratification technique to

correct standard survey weights. Specifically, WS2 is used to correct for misrepresentation of

population by ZIP Codes and is computed as follows:

total number of households in a zipcode in the population

total number of households in a zipcode in the sample

WS2 = total number of households in the sample

total number of households in the population

Table 2 reports the results for the three populations estimated using WS2. The total

domestic populations for the domestic desert tortoises, pet cats, and pet dogs are 137,332, 270,474,

and 519,905, respectively. All three total population estimates obtained using WS2 are greater than

the estimates estimated using WS1. The percentage increase in estimator 2 compared to estimator

1, however, is extremely low, 0.1 percent, 7.2 percent, and 2.3 percent respectively for the

domestic desert tortoise, pet cat, and pet dog populations. The approximate ratio for the entire

region shows that 1 tortoise =1.97 cats = 3.79 dogs.

WS3 targets the misrepresentation of population both by ZIP Codes and household size. It

is well-known that domestic animals are an integral part of families. Thus, the household dynamics

may also influence the number of pets owned by a household. Considering this observation, we

use the following post-stratification weight to correct standard survey weights for ZIP Code and

household size:

total number of households with household size 1 in a zipcode in the populationtotal number of households with household size 1 in a zipcode in the sample

WS3 = total number of households with household size 1 in the sample

total number of households with household size 1 in the population

Table 3 reports the estimated results using WS3. Total number of desert tortoise, pet cat,

and pet dog populations are 153,784, 264,385, and 498,075, respectively. Surprisingly, the


cber.unlv.edu

11

domestic desert tortoise population is greater for WS3 compared to both WS1 and WS2. The

results from WS3 imply a 10.7 percent increase compared to WS2 and a 10.8 percent increase

compared to WS1. On the other hand, the pet cat population is lower by 2.3 percent compared to

WS2, but is 5.1 percent higher compared to WS1. The pet dog population decreases by 4.4 percent

compared to WS2 and 2.0 percent compared to WS1.

Population Analysis by ZIP Codes We extend the analysis to ZIP Code level to inquire whether alternative demographics are

apparent by ZIP Code. Table 4 reports the percent of households that own pets by ZIP Code.

Accordingly, more than 50 percent of households owned pets in all ZIP Codes, except for ZIP

Codes 89044 (38.2%), 89102 (36.8%), and 89145 (47.5%).

Table 5 presents the total domestic desert tortoise population estimates (population means

and population totals) by ZIP Code according to each of the three weighting schemes. According

to these estimates, the highest population of desert tortoises resides in ZIP Code 89123 (24,035

desert tortoises). According to WS1, the second highest population of desert tortoises resides in

ZIP Code 89015 (14,069), followed by ZIP Codes 89121 (6,741), 89129 (6,448), and 89110

(6,155). Results from WS2 suggest that the first and second highest population of desert tortoises

reside in ZIP Codes 89123 (22,715) and 89110 (12,526), respectively, followed by ZIP Codes

89121 (10,919), 89015 (9,104), and 89129 (5,192). According to WS3, the first and second highest

population of desert tortoises reside in ZIP Codes 89123 (48,986) and 89121 (9,923), respectively,

followed by ZIP Codes 89015 (7,396), 89110 (7,126), and 89117 (5,660). It, thus, appears that ZIP

Codes 89123, 89015, 89110, and 89121 contain the highest desert tortoise populations. On the

other hand, the desert tortoise pet population is the lowest in ZIP Codes 89179, 89044, 89081, and

89143. Further, households in ZIP Codes 89030, 89102, 89115, 89128, 89142, 89166, and 89169

do not own pet tortoise according to the sample responses. See MAPs A2 and A3 in Appendix A.


cber.unlv.edu

12

Table 6 reports the total pet cat population by ZIP Code. According to the WS1, the largest

cat population resides in ZIP Code 89117 (15,535) followed by 89108 (14,948). According to

WS2, however, the largest cat population resides in the ZIP Code 89108 (23,803) followed by

89117 (13,816).

Altogether, the cat population is higher in ZIP Codes 89117 and 89108. On the other hand,

ZIP Codes 89118, 89044, and 89179 were among the five ZIP Codes with the lowest cat population

according to the results obtained for all three weights. See MAPs A4 and A5 in Appendix A.

Table 7 reports the pet dog population by ZIP Code. According to WS1, the highest

population of pet dogs reside in ZIP Code 89131 (29,604) followed by tied 89123 (24,328) and

89129 (24,328) and then by 89031 (22,862) and 89015 (19,931). Both WS2 and WS3 suggest

that highest pet dog population resides in following five ZIP Codes, 89108, 89123, 89121,

89103, and 89031. Whereas, according to WS2 and WS3, the smallest pet dog populations reside

in ZIP Codes 89005, 89169, 89138, 89030, and 89179. WS1 suggests the smallest pet dog

population resides in ZIP Code 89169 followed by 89030, 89102, 89156, and 89142. See MAPs

A6 and A7 in Appendix A.

V. SUMMARY We estimate pet tortoise, pet cat, and pet dog populations in the Great Las Vegas area, Nevada,

adjusting for non-response bias. Specifically, we obtain three estimates for each pet tortoise, pet

cat, and pet dog population (i) using standard survey weights, (ii) using post-stratification weights

to address the sample mis-representation by ZIP Codes, and (iii) using post-stratification weights

to address the sample misrepresentation by ZIP Codes and household size.

The total pet tortoise population for WS1, WS2, and WS3 are 137,173, 137,332, and

153,784, respectively. The total pet cat population is 250,897, 270,474, and 264,385, respectively,


cber.unlv.edu

13

for estimators using WS1, WS2, and WS3. Lastly, the total dog population is 507,950, 515,905,

and 498,075, respectively, for estimators using WS1, WS2, and WS3. Overall, the standard survey

weight underestimates the pet population in both the pet desert tortoise and pet cat populations,

but overestimates the pet dog population. Corrective weights by ZIP Codes inflate the population

estimator in all three cases; but, corrective weights for ZIP Codes and household size turn over the

effect for pet cat and pet dog populations. Interestingly, adjusted weights for ZIP Code and

household size increased the pet tortoise population by more than 12 percent compared to standard

survey weights. Table 8 summarizes the findings by ZIP Code.


cber.unlv.edu

14

REFERENCES Assael, H., & Keon, J. (1982). Nonsampling vs. sampling errors in survey research. The Journal

of marketing, 114-123.

Berg, Nathan, Non-Response Bias (2005). ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL MEASUREMENT,

Vol. 2, pp. 865-873, Kempf-Leonard, K., ed., London, Academic Press. Available at

SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1691967

Brick, J.M., Ferraro, D., Strickler, T., & Rauch, C. (2002). 2002 NASF Response Rates. Urban

Institute, Washington DC.

Available at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/59776/900692---

NSAF-Response-Rates.PDF

Dawson, D. A., Goldstein, R. B., Pickering, R. P., & Grant, B. F. (2014). Nonresponse Bias in

Survey Estimates of Alcohol Consumption and Its Association with Harm. Journal of

Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75(4), 695–703.

Dillman, D. A. (2000) Introduction to tailored design. In Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored

Design Method, Dillman, D. A. ed., pp. 3–31. Wiley, New York.

Downes, M., Canty, M. J., & More, S. J. (2009). Demography of the pet dog and cat population

on the island of Ireland and human factors influencing pet ownership. Preventive

veterinary medicine, 92(1-2), 140-149.

Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public

opinion quarterly, 70(5), 646-675.

Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. P. (2012). Nonresponse in household interview surveys. John Wiley

& Sons.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=1691967


cber.unlv.edu

15

Hager, M. A., Wilson, S., Pollak, T. H., & Rooney, P. M. (2003). Response rates for mail surveys

of nonprofit organizations: A review and empirical test. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 32(2), 252-267.

Lin, I. F., & Schaeffer, N. C. (1995). Using survey participants to estimate the impact of

nonparticipation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(2), 236-258.

Merkle D.M., (2011). Nonresponse Bias. In Lavrakas, P.J.(Ed), In Encyclopedia of Survey

Research Methods, (pp 532-533), Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from

http://methods.sagepub.com/base/download/ReferenceEntry/encyclopedia-of-survey-

research-methods/n340.xml

Nassar, R., Mosier, J. E., & Williams, L. W. (1984). Study of the feline and canine populations in

the greater Las Vegas area. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 45(2), 282-287.

National Science Foundation. (2002) An overview of quantitative and qualitative data collection

methods. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02057/nsf02057_4.pdf

Patronek, G. J., & Rowan, A. N. (1995). Determining dog and cat numbers and population

dynamics.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Method, 2nd Ed. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Trochim, W.M.K, (2006, September 20). Web center for social research methods. Retrieved from

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/survaddi.php


cber.unlv.edu

16

Figure 1: Number of households that own any pets in the survey sample

Note: Number of observations = 2,148

67%

33%

Yes No


cber.unlv.edu

17

Table 1: Results of pet population using WS1

Survey Mean Survey Total

Mean St. Dev. Total St. Dev.

Tortoise 0.22 0.04 137,173 23,486

Cats 0.40 0.02 250,897 12,444

Dogs 0.81 0.02 507,950 13,839


Table 2: Results for pet population using WS2



Tortoise 0.21 0.03 137,332 22,424

Cats 0.42 0.02 270,474 15,907

Dogs 0.80 0.03 519,905 16,700


Table 3: Results for pet population using WS3



Tortoise 0.24 0.07 153,784 44,756

Cats 0.41 0.02 264,385 14,194

Dogs 0.78 0.03 498,075 16,822



cber.unlv.edu

18

Table 4: Percent of households owned pets by ZIP Code

ZIP Code No of observations Percent of households with pets

89002 64 79.7

89005 44 56.8

89011 51 64.7

89012 68 69.1

89014 40 65

89015 77 72.7

89030 14 57.1

89031 77 79.2

89032 41 70.7

89044 68 38.2

89052 105 57.1

89074 82 62.2

89081 21 61.9

89102 19 36.8

89103 22 54.6

89107 30 73.3

89108 55 72.7

89110 35 62.9

89113 43 67.4

89115 18 61.1

89117 86 65.1

89118 15 73.3

89120 35 80

89121 50 66

89122 49 73.5

89123 82 78.1

89128 29 62.1

89129 84 76.2

89130 44 65.9

89131 108 75.9

89134 51 76.5


cber.unlv.edu

19

Table 4: Percent of households owned pets by ZIP Code (continued)

ZIP Code No of observations Percent of households with pets

89135 43 76.7

89138 27 55.6

89139 32 56.3

89141 28 78.6

89142 20 55

89143 28 64.3

89144 34 76.5

89145 40 47.5

89146 15 86.7

89147 43 60.5

89148 42 57.1

89149 56 51.8

89156 18 66.7

89166 23 73.9

89169 3 100

89178 40 67.5

89179 13 84.6

89183 36 69.4 Note: Number of observations = 2,148


cber.unlv.edu

20

Table 5: Results for domestic desert tortoise population by ZIP Code

WS1 WS2 WS3

Survey mean Survey total Survey mean Survey total Survey mean Survey total

Mean SD Total SD Mean SD Total SD Mean SD Total SD

Southern Nevada 0.22 0.04 137,173 23,486 0.21 0.03 137,332 22,424 0.24 0.07 153,784 44,756

89002 0.28 0.09 5,276 1,695 0.28 0.09 3,215 1,033 0.29 0.09 3,299 1,048

89005 0.27 0.16 3,517 2,027 0.27 0.16 1,706 983 0.26 0.12 1,599 782

89011 0.08 0.05 1,172 706 0.08 0.05 650 391 0.06 0.04 538 314

89012 0.12 0.04 2,345 889 0.12 0.04 1,520 576 0.11 0.04 1,465 579

89014 0.13 0.06 1,466 749 0.13 0.06 1,939 992 0.1 0.05 1,622 791

89015 0.62 0.48 14,069 10,864 0.62 0.48 9,104 7,030 0.51 0.37 7,396 5,436

89030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

89031 0.19 0.07 4,397 1,507 0.19 0.07 3,878 1,329 0.13 0.05 2,667 904

89032 0.24 0.17 2,931 2,089 0.24 0.17 3,269 2,330 0.18 0.11 2,356 1,469

89044 0.01 0.01 293 293 0.01 0.01 119 119 0.01 0.01 88 88

89052 0.11 0.05 3,517 1,462 0.11 0.05 2,321 964 0.1 0.04 2,045 848

89074 0.13 0.07 3,224 1,758 0.13 0.07 2,548 1,389 0.12 0.06 2,209 1,148

89081 0.05 0.05 293 293 0.05 0.05 478 478 0.04 0.04 401 368

89102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

89103 0.09 0.09 586 586 0.09 0.09 1,940 1,940 0.08 0.07 1,806 1,510

89107 0.2 0.09 1,759 777 0.2 0.09 2,485 1,099 0.19 0.1 2,362 1,197

89108 0.18 0.08 2,931 1,261 0.18 0.08 4,667 2,008 0.22 0.1 5,519 2,681

89110 0.6 0.34 6,155 3,473 0.6 0.34 12,526 7,068 0.34 0.18 7,126 3,741

89113 0.16 0.09 2,052 1,104 0.16 0.09 1,679 903 0.15 0.08 1,578 870

89115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

89117 0.2 0.09 4,983 2,159 0.2 0.09 4,432 1,920 0.25 0.13 5,660 2,930

89118 0.4 0.27 1,759 1,198 0.4 0.27 3,252 2,216 0.36 0.2 2,952 1,643

89120 0.37 0.15 3,810 1,521 0.37 0.15 3,397 1,357 0.28 0.1 2,592 927

89121 0.46 0.19 6,741 2,752 0.46 0.19 10,919 4,458 0.42 0.15 9,923 3,638

89122 0.14 0.09 2,052 1,324 0.14 0.09 2,511 1,621 0.18 0.11 3,146 1,946

89123 1 0.78 24,035 18,796 1 0.78 22,715 17,764 2.16 1.91 48,986 43,314

89128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

89129 0.26 0.07 6,448 1,823 0.26 0.07 5,192 1,468 0.26 0.08 5,094 1,583


cber.unlv.edu

21

Table 5: Results for domestic desert tortoise population by ZIP Code (continued)

WS1 WS2 WS3



89130 0.27 0.18 3,517 2,272 0.27 0.18 3,426 2,213 0.32 0.22 3,986 2,734

89131 0.14 0.03 4,397 1,058 0.14 0.03 2,184 526 0.14 0.04 2,134 562

89134 0.14 0.06 2,052 839 0.14 0.06 1,603 656 0.15 0.06 1,771 746

89135 0.09 0.06 1,172 704 0.09 0.06 1,000 600 0.07 0.04 701 399

89138 0.19 0.13 1,466 1,038 0.19 0.13 927 657 0.23 0.14 891 566

89139 0.06 0.04 586 408 0.06 0.04 737 513 0.08 0.05 929 603

89141 0.25 0.14 2,052 1,166 0.25 0.14 2,407 1,367 0.27 0.16 2,638 1,542

89142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

89143 0.04 0.04 293 293 0.04 0.04 146 146 0.05 0.05 208 196

89144 0.18 0.08 1,759 784 0.18 0.08 1,259 561 0.13 0.06 892 448

89145 0.13 0.06 1,466 749 0.13 0.06 1,180 604 0.13 0.07 1,272 705

89146 0.47 0.4 2,052 1,762 0.47 0.4 2,992 2,569 0.37 0.3 1,638 1,333

89147 0.12 0.06 1,466 751 0.12 0.06 2,196 1,126 0.1 0.05 1,826 901

89148 0.21 0.17 2,638 2,120 0.21 0.17 3,466 2,785 0.19 0.14 3,023 2,325

89149 0.07 0.06 1,172 922 0.07 0.06 935 735 0.06 0.04 723 547

89156 0.17 0.12 879 640 0.17 0.12 1,509 1,098 0.24 0.15 1,847 1,116

89166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

89169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

89178 0.1 0.05 1,172 563 0.1 0.05 1,168 561 0.1 0.05 1,172 549

89179 0.15 0.1 586 397 0.15 0.1 261 176 0.14 0.08 209 126

89183 0.25 0.11 2,638 1,142 0.25 0.11 3,474 1,504 0.4 0.23 5,493 3,160 Note: Number of observations = 2,148


cber.unlv.edu

22

Table 6: Results for pet cat population by ZIP Code

WS1 WS2 WS3



Southern Nevada 0.4 0.02 250,897 12,444 0.42 0.02 270,474 15,907 0.41 0.02 264,385 14,194

89002 0.34 0.1 6,448 1,969 0.34 0.1 3,929 1,200 0.34 0.1 3,902 1,155

89005 0.2 0.1 2,638 1,228 0.2 0.1 1,280 596 0.25 0.13 1,535 836

89011 0.25 0.08 3,810 1,172 0.25 0.08 2,113 650 0.25 0.07 2,084 595

89012 0.25 0.07 4,983 1,345 0.25 0.07 3,230 872 0.28 0.07 3,672 917

89014 0.48 0.16 5,569 1,829 0.48 0.16 7,369 2,421 0.44 0.14 6,885 2,168

89015 0.44 0.09 9,966 2,107 0.44 0.09 6,449 1,363 0.52 0.11 7,626 1,648

89030 0.5 0.27 2,052 1,118 0.5 0.27 6,561 3,574 0.57 0.29 7,538 3,835

89031 0.39 0.09 8,793 2,051 0.39 0.09 7,755 1,809 0.43 0.11 8,587 2,179

89032 0.24 0.1 2,931 1,244 0.24 0.1 3,269 1,387 0.3 0.12 4,052 1,574

89044 0.04 0.03 879 651 0.04 0.03 357 264 0.09 0.05 611 367

89052 0.43 0.1 13,190 3,113 0.43 0.1 8,703 2,054 0.41 0.1 8,252 1,986

89074 0.29 0.07 7,035 1,693 0.29 0.07 5,559 1,338 0.37 0.08 7,119 1,493

89081 0.29 0.14 1,759 865 0.29 0.14 2,867 1,409 0.28 0.14 2,797 1,434

89102 0.58 0.31 3,224 1,720 0.58 0.31 8,117 4,331 0.53 0.23 7,426 3,163

89103 0.5 0.23 3,224 1,515 0.5 0.23 10,668 5,013 0.39 0.15 8,406 3,178

89107 0.4 0.14 3,517 1,236 0.4 0.14 4,970 1,747 0.44 0.16 5,500 1,956

89108 0.93 0.28 14,948 4,561 0.93 0.28 23,803 7,262 0.82 0.27 21,093 6,924

89110 0.17 0.09 1,759 891 0.17 0.09 3,579 1,813 0.11 0.06 2,382 1,248

89113 0.49 0.21 6,155 2,698 0.49 0.21 5,036 2,207 0.55 0.26 5,656 2,721

89115 0.22 0.13 1,172 682 0.22 0.13 3,873 2,252 0.21 0.1 3,681 1,807

89117 0.62 0.13 15,535 3,366 0.62 0.13 13,816 2,994 0.6 0.13 13,491 2,992

89118 0.2 0.11 879 470 0.2 0.11 1,626 869 0.21 0.11 1,706 896

89120 0.57 0.18 5,862 1,894 0.57 0.18 5,227 1,689 0.69 0.22 6,309 2,041

89121 0.58 0.14 8,500 2,097 0.58 0.14 13,767 3,397 0.55 0.12 13,159 2,947

89122 0.43 0.11 6,155 1,567 0.43 0.11 7,532 1,918 0.38 0.09 6,665 1,572

89123 0.44 0.1 10,552 2,506 0.44 0.1 9,972 2,368 0.36 0.08 8,127 1,867

89128 0.59 0.22 4,983 1,911 0.59 0.22 8,475 3,250 0.61 0.23 8,821 3,258

89129 0.36 0.09 8,793 2,232 0.36 0.09 7,080 1,797 0.36 0.09 7,185 1,801


cber.unlv.edu

23

Table 6: Results for pet cat population by ZIP Code (continued)

WS1 WS2 WS3



89130 0.48 0.13 6,155 1,703 0.48 0.13 5,996 1,659 0.46 0.12 5,757 1,462

89131 0.39 0.08 12,310 2,458 0.39 0.08 6,115 1,221 0.43 0.09 6,812 1,455

89134 0.35 0.12 5,276 1,816 0.35 0.12 4,122 1,419 0.36 0.13 4,177 1,544

89135 0.6 0.15 7,621 1,928 0.6 0.15 6,500 1,645 0.63 0.15 6,796 1,658

89138 0.37 0.15 2,931 1,206 0.37 0.15 1,854 763 0.39 0.16 1,535 631

89139 0.25 0.1 2,345 942 0.25 0.1 2,948 1,184 0.23 0.09 2,719 1,093

89141 0.32 0.14 2,638 1,121 0.32 0.14 3,094 1,315 0.29 0.12 2,749 1,120

89142 0.5 0.26 2,931 1,504 0.5 0.26 5,288 2,712 0.4 0.18 4,251 1,919

89143 0.39 0.16 3,224 1,290 0.39 0.16 1,608 644 0.44 0.17 1,814 711

89144 0.32 0.13 3,224 1,312 0.32 0.13 2,307 939 0.31 0.12 2,184 823

89145 0.3 0.13 3,517 1,525 0.3 0.13 2,833 1,228 0.29 0.12 2,781 1,157

89146 0.4 0.29 1,759 1,273 0.4 0.29 2,564 1,856 0.42 0.24 1,866 1,067

89147 0.42 0.14 5,276 1,741 0.42 0.14 7,907 2,609 0.39 0.12 7,392 2,322

89148 0.4 0.14 4,983 1,733 0.4 0.14 6,547 2,277 0.38 0.12 6,090 1,954

89149 0.36 0.1 5,862 1,643 0.36 0.1 4,675 1,310 0.35 0.09 4,549 1,190

89156 0.44 0.15 2,345 766 0.44 0.15 4,024 1,314 0.55 0.06 4,120 490

89166 0.48 0.23 3,224 1,520 0.48 0.23 2,436 1,149 0.46 0.14 2,359 737

89169 0.33 0.33 293 293 0.33 0.33 2,997 2,997 0.64 . 4,019 .

89178 0.48 0.13 5,569 1,570 0.48 0.13 5,548 1,564 0.45 0.12 5,213 1,393

89179 0.38 0.18 1,466 687 0.38 0.18 652 306 0.32 0.15 483 226

89183 0.25 0.09 2,638 975 0.25 0.09 3,474 1,284 0.18 0.07 2,453 1,013 Note: Number of observations = 2,148


cber.unlv.edu

24

Table 7: Results for pet dog population by ZIP Code

WS1 WS2 WS3



Southern Nevada 0.81 0.02 507,950 13,839 0.8 0.03 519,905 16,700 0.78 0.03 498,075 16,822

89002 0.94 0.12 17,586 2,321 0.94 0.12 10,717 1,415 0.9 0.12 10,236 1,321

89005 0.55 0.11 7,035 1,480 0.55 0.11 3,412 718 0.51 0.09 3,205 578

89011 0.76 0.14 11,431 2,118 0.76 0.14 6,339 1,174 0.66 0.12 5,448 1,009

89012 0.81 0.12 16,121 2,297 0.81 0.12 10,448 1,489 0.8 0.12 10,358 1,593

89014 0.63 0.13 7,328 1,495 0.63 0.13 9,696 1,979 0.6 0.13 9,294 2,059

89015 0.88 0.12 19,931 2,671 0.88 0.12 12,897 1,728 0.75 0.1 10,937 1,432

89030 0.14 0.14 586 586 0.14 0.14 1,875 1,875 0.12 0.11 1,568 1,409

89031 1.01 0.12 22,862 2,720 1.01 0.12 20,164 2,399 1.05 0.13 20,824 2,655

89032 1.1 0.22 13,190 2,681 1.1 0.22 14,712 2,990 0.98 0.21 13,201 2,805

89044 0.53 0.11 10,552 2,228 0.53 0.11 4,278 903 0.51 0.1 3,584 733

89052 0.45 0.07 13,776 2,123 0.45 0.07 9,090 1,401 0.41 0.06 8,385 1,311

89074 0.63 0.09 15,241 2,107 0.63 0.09 12,045 1,665 0.65 0.08 12,358 1,546

89081 0.71 0.21 4,397 1,284 0.71 0.21 7,168 2,094 0.61 0.16 6,136 1,603

89102 0.42 0.19 2,345 1,070 0.42 0.19 5,903 2,694 0.66 0.2 9,195 2,738

89103 0.95 0.26 6,155 1,669 0.95 0.26 20,366 5,523 0.98 0.37 20,936 7,816

89107 0.83 0.17 7,328 1,466 0.83 0.17 10,355 2,071 0.83 0.14 10,321 1,759

89108 0.96 0.13 15,535 2,172 0.96 0.13 24,737 3,459 0.99 0.15 25,485 3,822

89110 0.94 0.19 9,672 1,970 0.94 0.19 19,684 4,009 0.78 0.2 16,320 4,162

89113 0.6 0.13 7,621 1,577 0.6 0.13 6,235 1,290 0.52 0.11 5,412 1,175

89115 0.83 0.25 4,397 1,297 0.83 0.25 14,523 4,285 0.81 0.22 14,082 3,805

89117 0.74 0.11 18,759 2,772 0.74 0.11 16,684 2,465 0.68 0.1 15,213 2,337

89118 0.93 0.27 4,103 1,172 0.93 0.27 7,588 2,168 0.83 0.23 6,738 1,884

89120 1.37 0.35 14,069 3,620 1.37 0.35 12,544 3,228 1.25 0.24 11,391 2,177

89121 0.86 0.19 12,603 2,809 0.86 0.19 20,414 4,550 0.79 0.16 18,643 3,809

89122 0.84 0.14 12,017 2,067 0.84 0.14 14,706 2,529 0.83 0.14 14,615 2,521

89123 1.01 0.12 24,328 2,813 1.01 0.12 22,992 2,659 0.87 0.1 19,721 2,298

89128 1.07 0.26 9,086 2,189 1.07 0.26 15,455 3,724 1.16 0.33 16,733 4,784

89129 0.99 0.12 24,328 2,992 0.99 0.12 19,589 2,410 0.92 0.12 18,252 2,282


cber.unlv.edu

25

Table 7: Results for pet dog population by ZIP Code (continued)

WS1 WS2 WS3



89130 0.73 0.15 9,379 1,892 0.73 0.15 9,137 1,843 0.74 0.12 9,289 1,524

89131 0.94 0.09 29,604 2,953 0.94 0.09 14,706 1,467 0.93 0.11 14,574 1,731

89134 0.82 0.13 12,310 1,905 0.82 0.13 9,618 1,488 0.83 0.13 9,666 1,516

89135 0.74 0.13 9,379 1,629 0.74 0.13 8,000 1,390 0.74 0.12 8,008 1,340

89138 0.56 0.18 4,397 1,422 0.56 0.18 2,782 900 0.58 0.17 2,300 685

89139 0.56 0.13 5,276 1,259 0.56 0.13 6,634 1,583 0.5 0.1 5,870 1,235

89141 1.36 0.21 11,138 1,751 1.36 0.21 13,065 2,054 1.51 0.21 14,585 1,990

89142 0.55 0.22 3,224 1,309 0.55 0.22 5,816 2,362 0.4 0.15 4,198 1,568

89143 0.96 0.2 7,914 1,661 0.96 0.2 3,948 829 0.99 0.22 4,060 884

89144 0.85 0.13 8,500 1,339 0.85 0.13 6,083 958 1.03 0.13 7,348 952

89145 0.6 0.15 7,035 1,721 0.6 0.15 5,665 1,386 0.59 0.16 5,555 1,527

89146 1.2 0.34 5,276 1,499 1.2 0.34 7,693 2,185 1.03 0.28 4,610 1,258

89147 0.72 0.14 9,086 1,795 0.72 0.14 13,618 2,691 0.71 0.13 13,331 2,512

89148 0.74 0.16 9,086 1,970 0.74 0.16 11,938 2,589 0.71 0.15 11,438 2,476

89149 0.59 0.1 9,672 1,608 0.59 0.1 7,714 1,282 0.55 0.09 7,146 1,149

89156 0.61 0.23 3,224 1,217 0.61 0.23 5,534 2,088 0.83 0.42 6,293 3,207

89166 1.04 0.23 7,035 1,556 1.04 0.23 5,315 1,176 1.01 0.22 5,126 1,108

89169 0.33 0.33 293 293 0.33 0.33 2,997 2,997 0.18 0.15 1,110 962

89178 0.78 0.14 9,086 1,652 0.78 0.14 9,051 1,646 0.78 0.14 9,053 1,593

89179 1 0.34 3,810 1,294 1 0.34 1,694 575 1.04 0.28 1,552 412

89183 1.03 0.21 10,845 2,164 1.03 0.21 14,283 2,849 1.03 0.19 14,372 2,676 Note: Number of observations = 2,148


cber.unlv.edu

26

Table 8: Summary: Highest and Lowest Populations by ZIP Code and Communities

Domestic Desert Tortoise Population Pet Cat Population Pet Dog Population

Highest● Lowest● Highest● Lowest● Highest● Lowest●

89110 89143 89108 89118 89031 89030

89121 89081 89117 89179 89123 89169

89123 89179 89044

89015 89044


cber.unlv.edu

27

Appendix A: ZIP-Code Maps for Highest and Lowest Desert Tortoise/Cat/Dog Populations

MAP A1: The Greater Las Vegas region by ZIP Codes


cber.unlv.edu

28

MAP A2: ZIP Codes with the highest desert tortoise population


cber.unlv.edu

29

MAP A3: ZIP Codes with the lowest desert tortoise population


cber.unlv.edu

30

MAP A4: ZIP Codes with the highest cat population


cber.unlv.edu

31

MAP A5: ZIP Codes with the lowest cat population


cber.unlv.edu

32

MAP A6: ZIP Codes with the highest dog population


cber.unlv.edu

33

MAP A7: ZIP Codes with the lowest dog population


cber.unlv.edu

34

Appendix B: Questionnaire

(Voltea la página para español) Dear Clark County Resident, Pets are an important part of people’s homes and lives, Tortoise Group (a local non-profit organization) is attempting to understand the demographics of the pet population in order to better serve our state’s reptile, the desert tortoise. It is legal and lawful to have a desert tortoise as a pet (Nevada Administrative Code, NAC503.093); this survey is completely anonymous, and we encourage everyone to fill out the questionnaire and return it even if you don’t have a tortoise.

1. Does anyone in your house have any pets? Yes/No (if no, go to Question #3)

2. How many of the following pets do you have? a. Cat _____ b. Dog _____ c. Bird _____ d. Fish _____ e. Horse _____ f. Reptile _____ g. Tortoise (if no, go to Question #3) _____

A. How many desert tortoises (estimates are OK if total is unknown) live with you? _______

B. How much do you spend on tortoise food per month? _______ C. Have you ever taken your tortoise(s) to the vet? _______ D. Do you know anyone in Clark County

that has a tortoise as a pet? _______ 3. How many people live in your household? _______ 4. In which ZIP Code do you live? _______

Thank you for participating. This survey is anonymous. If you have tortoises as pets, we encourage you to register them at www.tortoisegroup.org – you can register your tortoises (even if you have more than one) anonymously as well. Registration of tortoises is encouraged and will keep your pets legal no matter what changes in the law occur in the future. Regards, Kobbe Shaw Executive Director, Tortoise Group

http://www.tortoisegroup.org/

Estimado Residente de Clark County, Las mascotas son partes importantes de nuestras casas y vidas, Tortoise Group (una organización sin fines de lucro) está intentando comprender los datos demográficos de la población de mascotas para servir mejor al reptil de nuestro estado, la tortuga de tierra. Es legal tener un tortuga de tierra como una mascota (Código Administrativo de Nevada, NAC503.093); esta encuesta es completamente anónima y los animamos a que completen la encuesta y la devuelvan, incluso si no tiene una tortuga.

1. ¿Alguién en su casa tiene una mascota? Sí/No (si no, vaya a Pregunta 3)

2. ¿Cuántas de estas mascotas tiene? a. Gato _____ b. Perro _____ c. Pájaro _____ d. Pez _____ e. Caballo _____ f. Reptil _____ g. Tortuga de tierra (si no, vaya a Pregunta 3)

A. ¿Cuántas tortugas viven con usted (estimados están bien si no sabe)? _____ B. ¿Cuánto paga cada mes por comida de tortuga? _____ C. ¿Ha llevado su tortuga al veterinario? _____

3. ¿Usted conoce a alguien en Clark County que tenga una tortuga como mascota? _____ 4. ¿Cuántas personas viven en su casa? _____ 5. ¿En que código postal vive usted? _____

Gracias por participar. Esta encuesta es anónima. Si usted tiene tortugas como mascotas, los animamos a que las registren en www.tortoisegroup.org - usted tambien puede registrar a sus tortugas anónimamente (incluso si tiene más de una). La registración de sus tortugas de tierra es importante para mantener sus mascotas legalmente aunque cambien las leyes en el futuro. Saludos, Kobbe Shaw Director Ejecutivo, Tortoise Group

http://www.tortoisegroup.org/

ESTIMATES OF THE DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus Agazzizii ... Project.pdf · tortoises to the estimates...

Documents

Transcript of ESTIMATES OF THE DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus Agazzizii ... Project.pdf · tortoises to the estimates...