Opinions of North Carolina hunters regarding hunting on Sunday … · 2020. 1. 21. · hunting on...
Transcript of Opinions of North Carolina hunters regarding hunting on Sunday … · 2020. 1. 21. · hunting on...
Opinions of North Carolina hunters regarding hunting on Sunday and satisfactions with, motivations for, and
constraints to hunting participation
Melissa K. Hooper
Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE In
FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE SCIENCES
Dr. Steve L. McMullin, Co-Chair Dr. James A. Parkhurst, Co-Chair
Dr. Michael R. Vaughan, Committee Member Dr. Eric M. Hallerman, Dept. Head
December 1, 2006
Blacksburg, Virginia
Keywords: Hunter, hunter survey, hunter effort
Copyright 2006, Melissa K. Hooper
Opinions of North Carolina hunters regarding hunting on Sunday and satisfactions with, motivations for, and constraints to hunting participation
Melissa K. Hooper
ABSTRACT
In 2005, the North Carolina General Assembly and North Carolina Governor Mike
Easley requested that the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) coordinate
a study to investigate issues related to hunting on Sunday in North Carolina. In particular,
NCWRC was most interested in identifying stakeholders and their views on hunting on Sunday,
and estimating the potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on hunter recruitment and retention.
I developed a 12-page questionnaire that was sent to a random sample of 2,400 licensed
resident hunters in North Carolina. The questionnaire was used to assess their views and
opinions about hunting on Sunday and to estimate the potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on
hunting participation. The final response rate was 41.6%. The issue of hunting on Sunday in
North Carolina was strongly polarized: 38% of respondents strongly supported hunting on
Sunday and 39% strongly opposed. Older hunters and those who frequently attended church or
another place of worship were most opposed to hunting on Sunday. Although many respondents
originally voiced support, many of these same individuals opposed hunting on Sunday if some
limitations were imposed.
The exact effect on hunter recruitment was not determined by this research effort;
however, I found evidence that the opportunity to hunt on Sunday may have some positive
impact on hunting participation. Hunters who previously had taken an adult friend, family
member, or youth hunting in North Carolina indicated they would do so again if presented with
an opportunity to hunt on Sunday. However, the opportunity to hunt on Sunday had little
influence on persuading hunters who had not previously taken an adult friend, family member, or
youth hunting on Sunday to do so. Most respondents (60%) indicated they would hunt at least
the same number of days or more days (37%) if hunting on Sunday was legalized. Specifically,
respondents indicated that they would hunt an average of 7 additional days that did not involve
an overnight stay and take an average of 1.9 more overnight hunting trips if hunting on Sunday
was legalized. Thus, legalization of hunting on Sunday likely would increase hunting
participation, but would have unknown effects on hunter recruitment and retention.
iii
In addition to assessing opinions about hunting on Sunday, I explored North Carolina
hunters� satisfaction with hunting experiences, motivations for hunting, and constraints to
hunting participation. Overall, North Carolina hunters were satisfied with both their hunting
experiences during the 2005-2006 season and the previous 5 seasons. Satisfaction with hunting
experiences in North Carolina was derived from many factors (e.g., see wildlife, spend time in
the field/woods). Hunters in North Carolina identified a diverse array of motivations for hunting
such as to experience natural surroundings, to enjoy the outdoors, and to enjoy solitude.
North Carolina hunters responding to my survey identified constraints associated with
time, not enough game animals, and confusing hunting regulations as major impediments to their
hunting activity in North Carolina. The question of whether removing the current ban on hunting
on Sunday in North Carolina would alleviate time constraints remains unanswered. Permitting
hunting on Sunday may provide an additional day of hunting opportunities for North Carolina
hunters; it also would provide a means to increase satisfaction with and motivations for hunting
in North Carolina for some hunters.
This research effort provided valuable information about hunting and hunters in North
Carolina. Careful consideration of this information is needed to encourage hunter recruitment
and retention, and to combat further declines in hunting participation; however, this information
should be integrated with biologically-based management goals and objectives.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to collectively thank everyone who contributed to this research project. I
also would like to thank everyone who influenced my growth as a person and as a natural
resources professional.
Mostly, I would like to thank my graduate research co-advisors: Drs. Steve McMullin
and James Parkhurst. Without their commitment to my graduate education, I would not have had
the opportunity to participate in this research effort. In addition, this project would not have
been possible without their helpful guidance, unwavering support, and endless encouragement.
Anyone who knows Steve and Jim also knows they possess two very different styles. I am
fortunate to have worked closely with the two of them as each contributed to my professional
development. Steve, I would like to thank you for your patience and encouragement. Jim, I
would like to thank you for your guidance as well as your contributions to my development as a
writer. I would like to thank Dr. Michael Vaughan for his guidance and flexibility with my ever
changing research project. I also would like to thank Julie McClafferty for her friendship,
advice, and careful attention to detail. Conversations during our research travels added to my
enjoyment of this project. I look forward to the growth of our friendship.
I also would like to thank Mark Duda of Responsive Management, Inc. Without his
willingness to work with the Virginia Tech research team, this project would have not been
possible. In addition, I would like to thank the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
for funding and contributing much information to this project. Special thanks to David Cobb,
Brad Gunn, and Dain Palmer for their helpfulness and expertise. This project would not have
been possible without the time and effort of many North Carolina hunters; a special thanks to
each and every one of them.
I also would like to thank my friends and fellow graduate students who assisted with my
research project, particularly my envelope stuffing parties. Special thanks go to Kerry Linehan
for her support and friendship. I also would like to thank Kim Bridges and Kristy Englert for
their friendship and support. I hope we continue to have many adventures.
My deepest appreciation goes to my family. Mom and Dad, thank you for encouraging
me to excel and to never settle for less. Special thanks go to my Uncle Charles for instilling a
passion for science and a love of the outdoors at an early age.
v
Finally, I would like to thank Joe. His love and support enabled me to complete this
project. In the words of the late Waylon Jennings, �Come with me.�
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ viii LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1: Introduction, Literature Review, Objectives, and Overview of Methods................1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
Hunting in North Carolina ...................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................4
Definition of Hunting and Associated Regulations...............................................................4 Hunting Participation...........................................................................................................6 Wildlife Management and Hunting Participation .................................................................9 Definitions of Wildlife Values, Attitudes, and Opinions ....................................................11 Values, Attitudes, and Opinions Associated with Support for Hunting...............................16
OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESES, AND OVERVIEW OF METHODS .......................................17 Objective 1: To assess and characterize the opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina. ............................................17 Objective 2: To determine the effects that hunter demographics and specific characteristics of hunting participation have on opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina........................................................................19 Objective 3: To assess and characterize the satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina........................................................................20
LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................21 CHAPTER 2: Opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina ..........................................................................................................26 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................26 METHODS...............................................................................................................................27
Questionnaire Development...............................................................................................27 Target Population and Sampling ........................................................................................28 Questionnaire Administration............................................................................................29 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................30 Data Weighting .................................................................................................................31
RESULTS.................................................................................................................................32 Response Rates..................................................................................................................32 Nonresponse Analysis .......................................................................................................32 Description of Respondents ...............................................................................................33 Opinions of Hunting on Sunday.........................................................................................34 Opinions of Hunting on Sunday with Some Limitations ....................................................36 Opinions of Hunting on Sunday under Different Scenarios ................................................37 Importance of Reasons in Shaping Opinions of Hunting on Sunday...................................38 Potential Impacts on Hunting Participation ........................................................................39
DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................................46 Opinions of Hunting on Sunday.........................................................................................46 Hunting Participation.........................................................................................................48
LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................51
vii
CHAPTER 3: Understanding North Carolina hunters: satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina ...........................................................................84 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................84 METHODS...............................................................................................................................85
Questionnaire Development...............................................................................................85 Sampling and Questionnaire Administration......................................................................86 Nonresponse Analysis .......................................................................................................86 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................86
RESULTS.................................................................................................................................88 Response Rate ...................................................................................................................88 Nonresponse Analysis .......................................................................................................88 Demographics ...................................................................................................................89 General Hunting Participation ...........................................................................................89 Satisfactions ......................................................................................................................90 Motivations .......................................................................................................................94 Constraints ........................................................................................................................97
DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................102 Satisfaction Among North Carolina Hunters....................................................................102 Motivations of North Carolina Hunters............................................................................104 Constraints to Hunting Participation in North Carolina ....................................................105
LITERATURE CITED ...........................................................................................................108 CHAPTER 4: Synthesis and Management Recommendations .................................................127
Hunting on Sunday � A Final Overview ..........................................................................128 Satisfactions, Motivations, and Constraints......................................................................130
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SURVEYS..............................................................132 APPENDIX A: Mail Questionnaire.........................................................................................134 APPENDIX B: Cover Letters and Postcard .............................................................................146 APPENDIX C: Nonresponse Questionnaire ............................................................................151 VITA ......................................................................................................................................154
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Status of hunting on Sunday in the United States. Map courtesy of the National Rifle
Association-Institute for Legislative Action...............................................................................25
Figure 2.1. Respondents� and nonrespondents� opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina,
based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ............52
Figure 2.2. Respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, based on a mail
survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. .....................................53
Figure 2.3. Effect of respondent age on opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, based
on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina conducted in summer 2006. .....54
Figure 2.4. Effect of community in which respondents lived on opinion of hunting on Sunday in
North Carolina, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina conducted
in summer 2006.........................................................................................................................55
Figure 2.5. Effect of church or other place of worship attendance on opinion of hunting on
Sunday in North Carolina, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina
conducted in summer 2006........................................................................................................56
Figure 2.6. Effect of respondent avidity level on opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina,
based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina conducted in summer
2006..........................................................................................................................................57
Figure 2.7. Effect of respondents� age on average numbers of days hunted in North Carolina that
did not involve an overnight stay, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North
Carolina in summer 2006. .........................................................................................................58
Figure 2.8. Effect of respondents� age on average number of additional days hunted in North
Carolina that did not involve an overnight stay if hunting on Sunday was legalized, based on a
mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. .............................59
ix
LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Number of respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident
hunters conducted during summer of 2006 in each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions
before and after weighting to reflect the licenses sales distribution in each region. ....................60
Table 2.2. Age distribution of respondents to a survey of North Carolina licensed hunters about
hunting on Sunday in North Carolina conducted during summer of 2006, before and after
weighting data to reflect age distribution of original sample. .....................................................61
Table 2.3. Nonresponse analysis comparing mail and telephone respondents to a survey of North
Carolina licensed hunters about hunting on Sunday in North Carolina conducted during summer
of 2006......................................................................................................................................62
Table 2.4. Support for and opposition to hunting on Sunday before and after adjusting for
nonresponse bias, based on mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer
2006..........................................................................................................................................63
Table 2.5. Significant relationships between opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina and
respondent demographics, based on mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in
summer 2006. ...........................................................................................................................64
Table 2.6. Relationships between opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina and hunter
characteristics, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer
2006..........................................................................................................................................65
Table 2.7. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and land ownership, as reported
by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted
during summer of 2006. ............................................................................................................66
Table 2.8. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and constraints to hunting
activity, as reported by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed
resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. ..................................................................67
Table 2.9. Significant relationships between opinion of hunting on Sunday with some limitations
in North Carolina and respondent demographics, based on a mail survey of licensed resident
hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ...............................................................................68
x
Table 2.10. Opinions of hunting on Sunday under different scenarios in North Carolina, as
reported by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters
conducted during summer of 2006.............................................................................................69
Table 2.11. Scenarios for limited hunting on Sunday that are most strongly opposed by
respondents who opposed hunting on Sunday with some limitations in a statewide mail survey of
North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. ............................70
Table 2.12. Scenarios of limited hunting on Sunday that were supported most strongly by
respondents who supported hunting on Sunday with some limitations in a statewide mail survey
of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. ........................71
Table 2.13. Most important reasons shaping respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday, as
reported by opponents of hunting on Sunday in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina
licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006......................................................72
Table 2.14. Most important reasons shaping respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday, as
reported by supporters of hunting on Sunday in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina
licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006......................................................73
Table 2.15. Significant relationships between respondent participation in hunting on Sunday in
North Carolina, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of licensed
resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ..................................................................74
Table 2.16. Relationship between opinions of hunting on Sunday and respondent participation in
hunting on Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, based on a mail survey of licensed resident
hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ...............................................................................75
Table 2.17. Significant relationships between level of respondent participation in hunting on
Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, and respondent demographics and hunter characteristics,
based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ............76
Table 2.18. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and respondent level of
participation in hunting on Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, based on a mail survey of
licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ....................................................77
Table 2.19. Significant relationships between average number of days hunted that did not involve
an overnight stay and demographics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in
summer 2006. ...........................................................................................................................78
xi
Table 2.20. Relationships between average number of days hunted that did not involve an
overnight stay and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in
summer 2006. ...........................................................................................................................79
Table 2.21. Significant relationships between average number of additional days hunted that
would not involve an overnight stay and respondent demographics, based on a mail survey of
North Carolina hunters in summer 2006. ...................................................................................80
Table 2.22. Relationships between average number of additional days hunted that would not
involve an overnight stay and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina
hunters in summer 2006. ...........................................................................................................81
Table 2.23. Relationships between average number of overnight trips taken to hunt in North
Carolina and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer
2006..........................................................................................................................................82
Table 2.24. Relationships between average number of additional overnight trips taken to hunt in
North Carolina if hunting on Sunday were legalized and hunter characteristics, based on a mail
survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.....................................................................83
Table 3.1. Importance of domains and individual factors in determining hunter satisfaction with
hunting experiences in North Carolina, as reported by hunters in a statewide mail survey of
North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. ..........................110
Table 3.2. Significant relationships between harvest satisfaction domain, and demographics and
hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ..111
Table 3.3. Significant relationships between solitude satisfaction domain, and demographics and
hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ..112
Table 3.4. Significant relationships between importance of hunting with dogs in determining
satisfaction, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in
North Carolina in summer 2006. .............................................................................................113
Table 3.5. Importance of motivations for hunting in North Carolina, as reported by hunters in a
statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of
2006........................................................................................................................................114
Table 3.6. Significant relationships between the resource/skill motivation domain, and
demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in
summer 2006. .........................................................................................................................115
xii
Table 3.7. Significant relationships between the social motivation domain, and demographics and
hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ..116
Table 3.8. Importance of statements in explaining constraints to hunting activity, as reported by
hunters in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during
summer of 2006. .....................................................................................................................117
Table 3.9. Significant relationships between constraints associated with costs and crowding, and
demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in
summer 2006. .........................................................................................................................118
Table 3.10. Significant relationships between constraints associated with access, and
demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in
summer 2006. .........................................................................................................................119
Table 3.11. Significant relationships between constraints associated with health and safety, and
demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in
summer 2006. .........................................................................................................................120
Table 3.12. Significant relationships between constraints associated with time, and demographics
and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
...............................................................................................................................................121
Table 3.13. Significant relationships between importance of not enough game animals in
explaining constraints to hunting activity, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on
a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ...................................................122
Table 3.14. Significant relationships between importance of the confusion of hunting regulations
in explaining constraints to hunting activity, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based
on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ..............................................123
Table 3.15. Significant relationships between importance of �my hunting companions no longer
hunt� in explaining constraints to hunting activity, and demographics and hunter characteristics,
based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006......................................124
Table 3.16. Significant relationships between importance of �I no longer have hunting dogs� in
explaining constraints to hunting activity, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on
a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ...................................................125
xiii
Table 3.17. Significant relationships between importance of �I prefer to participate in other
activities during my free time� in explaining constraints to hunting activity, and demographics
and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
...............................................................................................................................................126
1
CHAPTER 1: Introduction, Literature Review, Objectives, and Overview of Methods
INTRODUCTION
Hunting in North Carolina Historically, hunters have had a significant role in shaping wildlife management in the
United States. In many states, hunters today still provide the funding necessary to support
wildlife programs and to successfully manage wildlife populations (Peyton 2000). However,
declining participation in hunting could threaten this relationship in the future. Factors
contributing to the decline in hunting participation include demographic changes, such as
increases in urban development and competition between non-consumptive recreational activities
and hunting, and increasing mean age of the hunting population (Dann and Peyton 1996, Duda et
al. 1996). As demographics continue to change and conflicts between conservation and other
uses of our land base increase, wildlife management agencies have begun to focus greater
attention on hunter retention and recruitment. Heberlein (1991) questioned whether the
traditional relationship between hunters and wildlife management will survive today�s changing
demographics. He also examined the role wildlife professionals will play in preserving this
relationship, that of pawn or that of planner. With an uncertain future for both hunting (as an
institution) and the present structure of wildlife management, wildlife managers clearly need the
continuing support of hunters to help develop and implement successful wildlife management
programs (Peterson 2004).
Hunters and wildlife managers in many eastern states currently face the questions of
whether and how to provide opportunities to hunt on Sunday. This issue has been promoted as a
possible means to combat further declines in the hunting population and perhaps to enhance
recruitment of hunters. Currently, 43 states in the United States allow some form of hunting on
2
Sunday (Figure 1.1). Hunter organizations have identified access issues and a decrease in
opportunities to hunt as obstacles that influence hunting participation (National Rifle
Association-Institute for Legislative Action n.d.). Advocates claim that providing new
opportunities to hunt on Sundays will reverse or retard the declining trend in hunting
participation. However, opposition to hunting on Sunday is diverse and emanates from religious
groups, conservation groups, outdoor recreationists, and hunter organizations themselves.
North Carolina has not yet legalized all forms of hunting on Sunday; hunting on Sunday
currently is allowed on some federal military installations for certain military personnel.
Prohibition of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina dates back to 1869. The current regulation
that prohibits hunting on Sunday, General Statute 103-2, states, �If any person shall�hunt on
Sunday, having with him a shotgun, rifle, or pistol, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 Misdemeanor�
(North Carolina General Assembly n.d.:230). Seeing that hunters in other states are allowed to
hunt on Sunday, some hunters in North Carolina question why their weekend hunting
opportunities are limited only to Saturdays (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
2005b). However, other hunters strongly oppose the concept of hunting on Sunday. In 2005, the
North Carolina General Assembly and North Carolina Governor Mike Easley requested that the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) coordinate a study to investigate
issues related to hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, specifically to identify stakeholders and
explore their opinions and to estimate potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on hunter
recruitment and retention. Information gathered from the investigation will be used by the
Governor and the General Assembly to determine an appropriate course of action on whether to
adopt hunting on Sunday in North Carolina.
3
In response to the requests of Governor Easley and the North Carolina General
Assembly, NCWRC asked for proposals to assist with this investigation. NCWRC selected a
proposal submitted by Responsive Management, Inc., a public opinion and attitude survey
research firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues located in
Harrisonburg, VA. The proposal outlined a cooperative effort by Responsive Management,
Virginia Tech Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, and Southwick Associates, a
research firm specializing in fish & wildlife economics, to complete the study.
Responsive Management, Inc., determined the public�s opinion of hunting on Sunday
through public focus group and a telephone survey. They also determine the impacts of hunting
on Sunday on other outdoor recreation activities. The responsibilities of Virginia Tech included
determining hunters� opinion of hunting on Sunday through hunter focus groups and a mail
survey. Virginia Tech also determined the economic costs and benefits to the agency if hunting
on Sunday was legalized. Southwick Associates determined the impacts of legalizing hunting on
Sunday to North Carolina�s economy.
As part of this cooperative effort, I developed and implemented the mail survey of North
Carolina hunters to gather quantitative data about their views and opinions about hunting on
Sunday and to estimate the potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on hunting participation. The
completion of my statewide survey of hunters, plus the analysis conducted by Responsive
Management, Inc., of the general public�s views of hunting on Sunday, were designed to provide
useful information on the level of support for and opposition to hunting on Sunday, and the
reasons underlying that support and opposition. In addition to information on opinions about
hunting on Sunday, NCWRC also will gain valuable information about hunting and hunters in
4
North Carolina, especially perceived constraints to hunting participation in North Carolina and
relationships between measures of a successful hunt and such constraints.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Definition of Hunting and Associated Regulations
Hunting is considered a consumptive form of wildlife recreation because it �involves the
intentional killing of sentient wild animals, including popular, attractive animals such as white-
tailed deer [Odocoileus virginianus] anthropomorphized by the entertainment media� (Brown et
al. 2000:145). Cocheba (1987:275) further defined hunting as �the act of pursuing wildlife with
the intention of killing the quarry; if the primary purpose is recreational enjoyment, it is
recreational hunting.� However, recreational hunting is more than a form of recreation to some
hunting participants; it can be a way of life, part of a culture (Brown et al. 2000). It becomes
part of a culture by providing opportunities to participate in an activity from which participants
derive social, psychological, emotional, and physical benefits (Hrubes et al. 2001). Decker et al.
(2001:290) also supported the notion of hunting as part of a culture, defining it as �a set of
activities that weave people into the fabric of social life in traditional rural communities.� A
hunter can be defined as one who believes in and upholds the concept of fair chase, �seeks
knowledge of nature� and animal habits, reaps no financial gain from participation, �inflicts no
unnecessary pain �on game,� and does not waste game (Organ et al. 1998:529-30).
In addition to providing recreational opportunities, hunting is the primary method
employed by state wildlife agencies to manage game populations to reduce wildlife-vehicle
collisions (e.g., deer), reduce wildlife-caused damage to orchards and crops, and minimize noise
and fecal contamination from ducks and geese that crowd shorelines, ponds, and parks (Brown et
al. 2000).
5
Big game hunting typically includes �artiodactyls, or herbivorous hooved [sic] animals,
and certain carnivores-the bears and the largest cats� (Gray 1993:74). In North Carolina, big
game includes wild boar (Sus scrofa), white-tailed deer, black bear (Ursus americanus), and wild
turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) (NCWRC 2005a). Hunting methods for big game animals
commonly include an archery season and/or some form of a firearms season (e.g., muzzleloader,
or modern firearms), all of which are allowed in North Carolina for white-tailed deer and black
bear. Wild boar hunting occurs during a single season with the use of either a bow or a firearm.
Legal seasons in North Carolina for taking wild turkeys include a winter either-sex season and a
spring gobbler firearms season (NCWRC 2005a).
To ensure that hunting is not detrimental to the hunted species, regulatory restrictions or
stipulations have been established, such as specified seasons, season and daily bag limits, and
limitations on the types of hunting equipment that may be used legally while hunting,. Many
state wildlife agencies employ checking strategies to track harvest and monitor population
trends. Regulations also require participants to purchase and maintain a valid license or permit
to engage in certain hunting activities or to fulfill certain conditions. North Carolina utilizes
many of these regulations.
Small game hunting often is referred to as upland game hunting; the emphasis here is on
small mammals (e.g., squirrels, hares, rabbits), upland birds (e.g., pheasant, grouse, quail), and
migratory birds (e.g., doves, woodcock [Scolopax minor]) (Gray 1993). In North Carolina, small
game species include Eastern gray and fox squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis and S. niger), rabbits
(Sylvilagus floridanus), red and gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Vulpes vulpes),
bobcats (Lynx rufus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), ruffed grouse
(Bonasa umbellus), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), and ring-necked pheasants
6
(Phasianus cochicus) (NCWRC 2005a). Small game species typically are taken during an
established firearms season, the specifics of which are defined, by species, in the state wildlife
agency�s regulations. In North Carolina, the North Carolina Inland Fishing, Hunting and
Trapping Regulations Digest (NCWRC 2005a) defines the legal methods of take for small game,
which vary with species. In general, North Carolina�s small game regulations include an
established open season and a daily bag limit. However, quail and bobcats currently do not have
a season limit in North Carolina. Generally, hunters are not required to check or tag small game
animals, but participants are required to possess a license or permit to hunt small game species in
North Carolina (NCWRC 2005a).
Hunting Participation
Participation in the United States
Wildlife management agencies monitor hunting participation as one means to assess their
progress in meeting established management goals and objectives. Using a base definition for
�participation,� hunting participation involves the act of taking part or sharing in the activity of
hunting (Merriam-Webster Online 2006). Brown et al. (2000) identified 3 potential sources to
obtain useful information on hunting participation: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) national surveys, annual license sales, and annual hunter education course
registrations. The USFWS and the U.S. Census Bureau have teamed up to provide information
on several useful metrics of hunting participation, such as the number of hunters, number of days
spent afield, and hunting expenditures. Since 1955, this cooperative effort has produced a
comprehensive national survey report every 5 years and a 5-year comparative analysis that tracks
and assesses changes in hunting trends (USDI n.d.). In 1999, these agencies conducted a 15-year
(1980 to 1995) examination of trends associated with hunting and found an 8% decline in
7
hunting participation during the period. However, upon closer examination, investigators
believed this decline occurred between 1990 and 1995 and that hunting participation was stable
between 1980 and 1990 (USDI 1999). A subsequent re-examination of this data found that
hunting participation actually declined 1% from 1991 to 1996 and an additional 7% from 1996 to
2001 (USDI 2004).
In addition to monitoring trends in hunting participation, wildlife management agencies
also examine the number of hunters, the number of days spent afield, and hunting expenditures
to assess hunting pressure. Hunting pressure is defined as �a measure of the amount of hunting�
(State University System of Florida 2000). Hunter effort generally is used by state and federal
wildlife management agencies to measure the amount of hunting. For example, the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) uses hunter-days to measure hunter effort
(e.g., two individuals who hunt four days each equals eight hunter-days) (VDGIF 2002). Hunter
effort typically is determined by surveying hunters (using post-season questionnaires) to gather
information on the species hunted and number of days spent afield. Interviews also may be used
to gather hunter effort information. A new technique, Global Positioning Systems (GPS),
recently has been used to assess hunter effort directly in the field. GPS units issued to
participating hunters are turned on from morning departure time until the afternoon/evening
return time and thus collect the exact number of hours spent afield (Broseth and Pedersen 2000).
GPS tracking techniques are believed to be more accurate than hunter declarations (Broseth and
Pedersen 2000).
In 2001, hunters devoted 228 million days to hunting (USDI 2002). The average number
of days spent afield per hunter increased from 17 to 18 days during the period 1991 to 2001
(USDI 2004). In 2001, big game hunters spent 153 million days afield (an average of 14 days
8
afield per hunter) and small game hunters spent 60 million days afield (averaging 11 days per
hunter in the field). Hunters in pursuit of migratory birds totaled 29 million days, or an average
of 10 days per hunter, in 2001 (USDI 2002).
Monitoring trends in annual hunting license sales is another method used to determine
changes in hunting participation. While examining hunting license sales data gathered by the
USFWS from 1970 to 1997, Brown et al. (2000) determined that license sales peaked in 1983
and then fell continuously until, in 1997, sales reached the lowest point of the study. Although
hunting license sales nationally have been in decline, license sales at the state level exhibited
much variation. Sales in South Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Alaska reached record
highs in 1997, the period when other states were experiencing sharp declines. For example, in
1997, hunting license sales in California had declined 43% from their historic peak (Brown et al.
2000).
In 2002, approximately 15 million people purchased a hunting license in the United
States (Responsive Management 2003). From 1980 to 2002, the number of people who
purchased a license decreased slightly. However, it is important to note that the number of
people who purchase a license differs from the number of people who actually hunt (as reported
in national surveys) (Responsive Management 2004); furthermore, not all people who purchase a
license choose to hunt.
Another index of hunting participation and hunter recruitment is information gathered
from state hunter education programs. Although most hunter education programs were created
in the 1970s, some state programs arose much earlier. Evidence of having participated in a
hunter education certification program is required to purchase a hunting license in all states
except Alaska (Brown et al. 2000). From 1985 to 1997, the number of hunters graduating from
9
hunter education programs remained stable nationally. In the East (using Bureau of Census
regions), the number of graduates from hunter education programs declined 10% between 1991
and 1997, whereas the southern Atlantic states experienced a 15% decline in graduates during
the same period. In contrast, the number of hunter education program graduates in other regions
increased between 1991 and 1997. For example, the North Central states experienced a 30%
increase between 1985 and 1997 (Brown et al. 2000).
Participation in North Carolina
Hunters in North Carolina closely follow national hunting participation trends. In 1996,
there were 313,000 licensed resident hunters in North Carolina, but that number fell about 13%
by 2001 to 272,000 (USDI 2002). In 1996 and 2001, big game hunters accounted for 232,000 of
313,000 and 204,000 of 272,000 of North Carolina hunters, respectively. North Carolina
residents who hunt small game in-state totaled 206,000 and 120,000 in 1996 and 2001,
respectively (USDI 1997, USDI 2002). Sample sizes in the 1996 and 2001 national surveys
were too small to accurately estimate numbers of North Carolina residents who hunted migratory
birds or other animals in North Carolina. Fifteen percent of North Carolinians (based on a 407-
person sample size) considered themselves to be a hunter, yet 28% stated that, in the past 5 years,
either they or someone in their household had hunted in North Carolina (Responsive
Management 2004). In a more recent report, Responsive Management (2005) concluded license
sales increased 1% from 2003 to 2004.
Wildlife Management and Hunting Participation
Management issues involving hunting are important, but complex, issues. Complex
issues like declines in hunter participation must be examined carefully by wildlife management
10
agencies because of the inherent implications for funding for the agencies (Decker et al. 2001).
Declines in hunter participation will translate into declining revenue as fewer hunting licenses
are sold and less money is returned to the state from the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Fund (Miller and Vaske 2003). In addition, hunters are �the pool of strongest political support
from which agencies can rely on for the continuation of programs that provide recreational and
cultural benefits associated with hunting� (Enck et al. 2000:817-18). Wildlife managers who
successfully can monitor metrics of hunter effort will gain valuable information about areas of
heavy harvest and species of importance (Yukon Environment 2000). In addition, these metrics
of hunter effort can provide managers with data necessary to assess and monitor declines in
hunting participation. Miller and Vaske�s (2003) examination of hunter effort found that
perceived personal and situational constraints were possible explanations for observed declines
in hunting participation. Although managers have limited capacity to resolve hunters� personal
constraints, they may be able to rectify some situational constraints, such as �no land available
for hunting, not enough game, and too many regulations� (Miller and Vaske 2003:273). In these
examples, managers could investigate developing cooperative programs between hunters and
private landowners, design agency publications to address inaccurate perceptions about game
populations, or provide a means to seek hunter input on the issue of too many hunting
regulations (Miller and Vaske 2003).
In addition to providing insights into declining hunter participation, measures of hunter
effort provide information on hunter retention or �the number of people remaining in the hunter
population over time� (Enck et al. 2000:817). Wildlife managers can compare the number of
participants and the mean number of days afield or average hunter effort from year to year to
examine hunter retention (Enck et al. 2000). Miller and Vaske (2003) found that days afield the
11
previous year served as a predictor of hunter effort; hunters who spent more days afield the
previous year remained consistent in their hunting participation from year to year.
Most studies that attempted to measure hunter effort used mail surveys, relying
completely on the recall of responding hunters. Broseth and Pedersen (2000) used a new, GPS
technique to measure hunter effort. This new approach simultaneously collected information on
hunter effort and spatial data; it assessed effort and pressure within a specific management area.
In addition, such temporal and spatial data on hunters can be correlated with data from radio-
tagged wildlife to examine the potential effects of interactions between hunters and game
(Broseth and Pedersen 2000). Collecting data on hunter effort, and examining its relationship to
complex wildlife management issues, is not new. However, researchers, wildlife managers, and
wildlife biologists need to make greater efforts to correctly interpret this data and translate it into
sound management practices (Gilbert 1982).
Definitions of Wildlife Values, Attitudes, and Opinions
Knowledge of values, attitudes, and opinions helps to clarify some of the complex issues
that surround recreational hunting and can improve understanding of human dimensions of
wildlife management (Fulton et al. 1996). However, to understand values, attitudes, and
opinions toward wildlife, it is necessary to understand the basic concepts of values, attitudes, and
opinions.
Values
The definition of the term values varies across and within academic disciplines, and
produces numerous alternative definitions (Brown and Manfredo 1987). Fulton et al. (1996:25)
defined values as �the fundamental cognitions which serve as the foundations for attitudes and
12
beliefs.� Values also have been referred to as background factors that influence behavior
through attitudes and beliefs (Daigle et al. 2002). Pierce et al. (2001:40) described values as the
�most basic desires and goals.� To clarify further the term values, Brown (1984) subdivided the
term into two separate terms, held values and assigned values. He defined held values as �the
modes of conduct, end-states, or qualities which could be desirable� (Brown 1984:232). A
person�s value system evolves from their held values. Pierce et al. (2001:41) described value
systems or orientations as �the patterns of direction and intensity among basic beliefs.� Held
values occur at the feeling level and are difficult to observe (Brown 1984, Pierce et al. 2001).
However, held values, as feelings, often are expressed as assigned values. Brown (1984:233)
defined assigned values as �the expressed relative worth of an object to an individual or group in
a given context.� From the clarification of values, both held and assigned, Brown and Manfredo
(1987:13) proposed the following questions for wildlife managers and biologists: �(1) What
values form the basis for our attitudes toward wildlife, and (2) what wildlife types and numbers,
the settings in which they reside, and the opportunities they provide are most valued by people?�
To answer these questions, researchers have attempted to classify the values associated
with wildlife. Researchers also have used peoples� values about wildlife to explain differences
in attitudes toward controversial wildlife issues, assign priority to competing issues, identify
constituent groups, and determine the contributions of wildlife to the quality of peoples� lives
(Fulton et al. 1996). Over the years, several systems were developed to categorize and analyze
wildlife values. Wildlife values can be subdivided into two general categories: option values and
exercised values. Steinhoff et al. (1987:39) defined option values as a �willingness to pay a kind
of insurance premium to retain the opportunity of possible future use� and exercised values as
values with direct and indirect benefits. In this classification system, direct exercised values
13
result from a personal relationship with wildlife through consumptive or non-consumptive uses.
Indirect exercised values do not require direct contact and may result from activities such as
viewing photographs or reading about wildlife. Indirect exercised values often are referred to as
existence values (Steinhoff et al. 1987). Other classification systems of wildlife values are based
on uses of wildlife, motives or attitudes of wildlife value holders, and types of commodities
purchased. Social science researchers predominantly focus on classification systems that involve
motives or attitudes of wildlife value holders (Steinhoff et al. 1987). Another wildlife value
classification system proposed wildlife value orientations that range on a continuum from �a
strongly utilitarian value orientation (endorsing human use and manipulation of wildlife) to a
strongly protectionist value orientation (opposing human use and manipulation of wildlife and
endorsing human protection of wildlife)� (Zinn et al. 2002:148). Although a consensus on how
best to classify wildlife values does not yet exist, it is important to recognize that not only one set
of wildlife values exists. The goals and objectives of the specific wildlife research determine the
classification system used (Steinhoff et al. 1987). Results from the Western Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Human Dimensions Regional Survey Project [Pilot Phase]
(Teel et al. 2003) found that individual and societal characteristics influence wildlife value
orientations. The cooperative effort identified levels of urban residence, income, and education
as possible explanations for differences in wildlife value orientations across states.
Wildlife value categories with suggested importance to wildlife management, specifically
white-tailed deer management, include evolutionary, cultural, ecological, economic, social,
psychological, public service, and political values (Kellert and Applegate 1984). Given that
hunting is a wildlife management tool, these categories can be applied to hunting. Values
associated with the issue of hunting can be used to explain differences among attitudes toward
14
hunting, to assign priority to competing hunting issues, and to identify important constituent
groups (i.e., hunters and non-hunters) (Fulton et al. 1996).
Attitudes and Opinions
Attitudes are defined as �a person�s evaluation, favorable or unfavorable, of a person,
object, concept, or action� (Pierce et al. 2001:42). Thurston (1967:77) defined attitudes as �the
sum total of man�s inclinations and feelings, prejudices, or bias,�fears, ideas, and convictions
about any specific topic.� Duda et al. (1998:18) described opinions as measuring �beliefs or
ideas held with confidence but not substantiated by direct proof or knowledge.� Attitudes and
opinions are structured in terms of �like-dislike, good-bad, and positive-negative� (Pierce et al.
2001:42). They also are structured in terms of support and opposition (Duda et al. 1998).
Likert-type scales, which measure the strength of agreement, support, or opposition to a
particular issue, often are used to assess attitudes and opinions (Pollock et al. 1994). Two
characteristics, evaluative and cognitive, collectively construct a person�s attitude. The
evaluative characteristic of attitudes includes negative or positive views associated with an
object, concept, or action, whereas the cognitive characteristic of attitudes includes the
associated beliefs. For the purpose of understanding wildlife attitudes, it also is important to
consider the attitude characteristics of specificity, salience, and strength. Specificity refers to the
relationship of an attitude to a particular issue. Salience includes the ease with which thoughts
enter the mind when an attitude object, concept, or action is introduced. The strength of an
attitude allows managers to estimate the difficulty of changing that specific attitude. Given that
attitudes influence and predict behavior, an accurate prediction of behavior requires an
understanding of the specificity, salience, and strength of attitudes (Pierce et al. 2001).
15
Wildlife attitudes have evolved over time. Steinhoff et al. (1987) provided a
chronological approach to illustrate the evolution of wildlife attitudes; this approach included
information on the changes from attitudes of superiority over animals to attitudes of animal
equality. Kellert (1978:413) classified human attitudes about wildlife into the following
categories:
(1) Naturalistic � Primary interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors;
(2) Ecologistic � Primary concern for the environment as a system;
(3) Humanistic � Primary interest and strong affection for individual animals�focus
on�animals with strong anthropomorphic associations;
(4) Moralistic � Primary concern for wrong and right treatment of animals�strong
opposition to exploitation or cruelty toward animals;
(5) Scientistic � Primary interest in the physical attributes and biological functioning of
animals;
(6) Aesthetic � Primary interest in the artistic and symbolic characteristics of animals;
(7) Utilitarian � Primary concern for the practical and material value of animals;
(8) Dominionistic � Primary concern with mastering and controlling animals;
(9) Neutralistic � Primary orientation a passive avoidance of animals due either to
indifference or lack of concern;
(10) Negativistic � Primary orientation an active avoidance of animals due either to fear
or dislike.
In addition to applying this typology of attitudes to wildlife in general, Kellert (1978) applied the
typology to hunters and anti-hunters and confirmed that attitudes toward hunting are influenced
by the collection of values associated with hunting.
16
Values, Attitudes, and Opinions Associated with Support for Hunting
Values associated with hunting develop from the values associated with the treatment of
animals, hunting methods, and hunting traditions. These values, passed from one generation to
the next, are expressed in daily activities (Stedman et al. 1993). Values associated with hunting
also exist in reasons given for why people hunt (Lafon 2002). Kellert (1978) suggested the
primary reasons for hunting include hunting for meat, for sport, and for contact with nature.
Activities important to the hunting experience and also representative of values include �sharing
hunting stories, sharing meat harvested through hunting, participating in ceremonies, visiting
hunting areas in the off-season, preparing for hunting, and many others� (Stedman et al.
1993:11). From these important activities, reasons for hunting include participation in rituals,
enjoyment of nature, solitude, and companionship (Stedman et al. 1993).
In addition to examining the values held by hunters, it is equally important to investigate
the attitudes and opinions held by hunters. Attitudes and opinions associated with hunting issues
often indicate a lack of knowledge or information. However, attitudes and opinions still provide
valuable information on feelings toward a particular object or issue (Pollock et al. 1994).
Hunters� attitudes and opinions provide wildlife managers with information on hunter
satisfaction, approval of management programs, and associated importance of specific programs.
Survey instruments with attitude and opinion questions have been used to determine hunter
support and opposition to various issues (e.g., use of crossbows, muzzleloader season vs. general
firearms season) (Duda et al. 1998). Importance ranking statements also are used to determine
hunters� attitudes and evaluate reasons for hunting, measures of a successful hunt, and reasons
for increased and decreased hunter participation (Gilbert 1982).
17
OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESES, AND OVERVIEW OF METHODS
Below I present an overview of the organization of the thesis and the methods used in my
research (note: methods will be described in much greater depth in each applicable chapter).
Chapter 2 describes and characterizes the attitudes and opinions expressed by hunters on the
issue of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, as embodied in Objectives 1 and 2. Chapter 3
describes factors that determine one�s satisfaction with hunting experiences, motivations for
hunting, and constraints to hunting in North Carolina. Chapter 4 provides a synthesis of my
research findings and recommendations for future surveys.
Objective 1: To assess and characterize the opinions of hunting on Sunday in North
Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina.
I used a mail survey to assess and characterize attitudes and opinions about hunting on
Sunday held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina and to complete Objective 2. I
designed my questionnaire in consultation with other members of the Virginia Tech research
team, Responsive Management, Inc., and personnel with the NCWRC. The survey was
constructed using Survey Pro software (V.3.0, Apian Software) and included questions to gather
quantitative information on the attitudes and opinions about hunting on Sunday. I used
support/opposition scales to assess opinions of hunting on Sunday in general and under various
scenarios. I used importance scales to determine reasons that shape, either positively or
negatively, opinions of hunting on Sunday. I also used importance scales to rank factors that
determine one�s satisfaction with hunting experiences, motivations for hunting, and perceived
constraints to hunting participation. Participants were asked about hunting preferences (e.g.,
species, season, weapon, and land preferences), hunter effort (e.g., days afield), and measures of
18
a successful hunt. Finally, standard demographic questions completed the survey. After
development of a draft questionnaire, but prior to implementation of the survey, a focus group,
comprised of a sample (n = 10) of hunters from the North Carolina electronic hunter database,
reviewed the draft questionnaire to identify defects related to unclear questions or scales, or
formatting problems. Using comments received from the focus group, I revised the survey
instrument, which is included as Appendix A.
I used a modified version of Dillman�s (2000) Tailored Design Method to implement the
survey. Each participant in my survey effort potentially would receive a questionnaire, a
reminder postcard, a replacement questionnaire, and a final questionnaire, unless they responded
to and returned one of the earlier contact items. I obtained from the NCWRC a random sample
(n = 2,400) of hunters� names and addresses from the 2005 electronic database of resident
hunting licenses sold in North Carolina. The sample provided to me also included the
percentages of hunting license types corresponding to the percentage of each hunting license
type within the total North Carolina hunter population. I used a starting sample size of 2,400
surveys (800 in each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions).
I sent the initial questionnaire, a business reply envelope, and a cover letter that explained
the study and the importance of each person�s participation to all 2,400 participants on May 22,
2006. After one week, I sent a postcard to thank those participants who had completed the
survey and to urge nonrespondents to complete and return the survey. Two weeks after sending
the postcard, I sent a second questionnaire and a new cover letter to all nonrespondents to
encourage them to participate. After four more weeks, I sent a final questionnaire and a
personalized cover letter to remind nonrespondents to complete the survey and to inform them of
the closing date (July 31, 2006). The personalized cover letter in the final mailing also included
19
information on a $1,000 prize package sponsored by Bass Pro® and the NCWRC that was to be
awarded to one respondent drawn at random from the pool of all respondents. A copy of each
cover letter and the postcard reminder are included in Appendix B.
Because the final response rate was lower than desired for a study of this type (41.6%), I
conducted a nonresponse bias analysis. I interviewed by telephone 60 randomly selected
nonrespondents (20 in each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions) from the pool of 2,400
individuals who had been sent the initial questionnaire. Participants were contacted between
1800 and 2000 hours during September 2006 and asked 9 questions from the original mail
survey (Appendix C).
I entered the response data and the nonresponse data into Survey Pro and used the most
recent version of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 14.0, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) to
analyze these data. I constructed frequency distributions for nominal and ordinal data and used
summary statistics (mean, median, and measures of variability) for continuous data to present
descriptive results. I used cross-tabulations to examine relationships between variables.
Relationships between variables were explored further using the Chi-square test of homogeneity.
See Chapter 2 �Methods� for specific details.
Objective 2: To determine the effects that hunter demographics and specific
characteristics of hunting participation have on opinions of hunting on Sunday in North
Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina.
I used quantitative data gathered from the questionnaire to address this objective. Using
the most recent version of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 14.0, SPSS, Inc.,
Chicago, IL), I constructed contingency tables and cross tabulations to explore relationships
between demographic variables and opinions about hunting on Sunday, and to measure
20
relationships between hunter characteristics and opinions expressed about hunting on Sunday.
The Chi-square test of homogeneity was used to reveal differences among demographic
variables, hunter type (e.g., big game hunters v. small game hunters), North Carolina�s 3
administrative regions, and attitudes and opinions about hunting on Sunday. Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine significant differences in continuous variables among
demographic variables, and hunter characteristics. See Chapter 2 �Methods.�
Objective 3: To assess and characterize the satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of
licensed resident hunters in North Carolina.
I used quantitative data gathered from the questionnaire to address this objective. Using
the most recent version of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 14.0, SPSS, Inc.,
Chicago, IL), I constructed frequency distributions for nominal and ordinal data and used
summary statistics to describe hunting participation, satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of
licensed resident hunters in North Carolina. I constructed contingency tables and cross
tabulations to explore relationships between hunting participation and hunter characteristics. The
Chi-square test of homogeneity was used to reveal differences among demographic variables,
hunter type (e.g., big game hunters v. small game hunters), North Carolina�s 3 administrative
regions, and hunting participation. I used factor analysis (Principal Components Analysis
[PCA]) to detect structure and affirm the a priori structure among hunter satisfaction and
motivation indicator statements included within the questionnaire. I determined the reliability of
the identified structure using Cronbach�s alpha. I also used factor analysis to classify constraint
items into categories. Cronbach�s alpha also was used to determine reliability of constraint
categories and motivational scales. See Chapter 3 �Methods� for specific details.
21
LITERATURE CITED Broseth, H., and H.C. Pedersen. 2000. Hunting effort and game vulnerability studies on a small
scale: a new technique combining radio-telemetry, GPS and GIS. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:182-190.
Brown, T.C. 1984. The concept of values in resource allocation. Land Economics 60(3):231-
246. Brown, P.J., and M.J. Manfredo. 1987. Social values defined. Pages 12-23 in D.J. Decker and
G.R. Goff, editors. Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspectives. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado.
Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker, W.F. Siemer, and J.W. Enck. 2000. Trends in hunting participation
and implications for management of game species. Pages 145-154 in W.C. Gartner and D.W. Lime, editors. Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure, and tourism. CABI Publishing. New York, New York.
Cocheba, D.J. 1987. Opportunities for improving wildlife management: An economist�s view.
Pages 269-284 in D.J. Decker and G.R. Goff, editors. Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspectives. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Daigle, J.J., D. Hrubes, and I. Azjen. 2002. A comparative study of beliefs, attitudes, and values
among hunters, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor recreationists. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7(1):1-19.
Dann, S.L., and R.B. Peyton. 1996. Facing realities in recruiting, retaining, and training
consumptive fish and wildlife users. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 61:315-323.
Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, and W.F. Siemer. 2001. Understanding Hunting Participation. Pages
289-306 in D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer, editors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored design method. John Wiley and
Sons. New York, New York. Duda, M.D., S.J. Bissell, and K.C. Young. 1996. Factors related to hunting and fishing
participation in the United States. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 61:324-337.
Duda, M.D., S.J. Bissell, and K.C. Young. 1998. Wildlife and the American mind: public opinion on and attitudes toward fish and wildlife management. Responsive Management, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia.
22
Enck, J.W., D.J. Decker, and T.L. Brown. 2000. Status of hunter recruitment and retention in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):817-824.
Fulton, D.C., M.J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual
and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(2):24-47.
Gilbert, A.H. 1982. Influence of hunter attitudes and characteristics on wildlife management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 42:226-236.
Gray, G.G. 1993. Wildlife and people: The human dimensions of wildlife ecology. University of
Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois. Heberlein, T.A. 1991. Changing attitudes and funding for wildlife-Preserving the sport hunter.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:534-543. Hrubes, D., I. Azjen, and J.J. Daigle. 2001. Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An
application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences 23(3):165-178. Kellert, S.R. 1978. Attitudes and characteristics of hunter and antihunters. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 43:412-423. Kellert, S.R., and J.E. Applegate. 1984. Values in management. Pages 699-720 in L.K. Hall,
editor. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisonburg, PA, and Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.
Lafon, N.W. 2002. Evolution of stakeholder knowledge, attitudes, and opinions throughout a
participative process to develop a management plan for black bears in Virginia. Thesis. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Merriam-Webster Online. 2006. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m- w.com/dictionary/participation.
Miller, C.A., and J.J. Vaske. 2003. Individual and situational influences on declining hunter
effort in Illinois. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:263-276. National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action. n.d. The truth about Sunday hunting:
why hunters shouldn�t be treated as second-class citizens. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=174.
North Carolina General Assembly. n.d. Chapter 103. Sundays, Holidays and Special Days.
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_103.html.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005a. North Carolina Inland Fishing, Hunting
and Trapping Regulations Digest. Raleigh, North Carolina.
23
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005b. State of North Carolina Request for Proposals: Sunday Hunting Study. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Organ, J.F., R.M. Muth, J.E. Dizard, S.J. Williamson, and T.A. Decker. 1998. Fair chase and humane treatment: Balancing the ethics of hunting and trapping. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63:528-543.
Peterson, M.N. 2004. An approach for demonstrating the social legitimacy of hunting. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 32(2):310-321.
Peyton, R.B. 2000. Wildlife management: cropping to manage or managing to crop? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):774-779.
Pierce, C. L., M. J. Manfredo, and J. J. Vaske. 2001. Social Science Theories in Wildlife
Management. Pages 39-56 in D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer, editors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Polluck, K.H., C.M. Jones, and T.L. Brown. 1994. Angler survey methods and their applications
in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 25, Bethesda, Maryland.
Responsive Management. 2003. An inventory and assessment of state hunters. Responsive
Management, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia. Responsive Management. 2004. Public opinion on fish and wildlife management issues and the
reputation and credibility of fish and wildlife agencies in the northeast United States. Responsive Management, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia.
Responsive Management. 2005. Hunter retention and recruitment in North Carolina: analysis and implications from the �Maintaining the Heritage� 2005 workshop. Responsive Management, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia. State University System of Florida. 2000. Florida Environments Online Thesaurus.
http:// susdl.fcla.edu/lfnh/thesauri/feol2/00003088.htm. Stedman, R.C., D.J. Decker, and W.F. Siemer. 1993. Exploring the social world of hunting:
expanding the concepts of hunters and hunting. HDRU Series No. 93-7. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Steinhoff, H.W., R.G. Walsh, T.J. Peterle, and J.M. Petulla. 1987. Evolution of valuation of
wildlife. Pages 34-48 in D. Decker and G.G. Goff, editors. Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspectives Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
24
Teel, T.L., A.D. Bright, and M.J. Manfredo. 2003. Regional results from the pilot phase of the research project entitled �Wildlife Values in the West.� Project Rep. No. 55. Project Rep. for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Thurston, L.L. 1967. Attitudes can be measured. Pages 77-89 in M. Fishbein, editor. Readings
in attitude theory and measurement. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau. 1997. 1996 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife- associated recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. 1980-1995 Participation in fishing, hunting, and wildlife- watching: National and regional demographic trends. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2001 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife- associated recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Fishing and hunting 1991-2001: Avid, casual, and intermediate participation trends, Addendum to the 2001 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. http://fa.r9.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2002. Virginia Black Bear
Management Plan (2001-2010). Richmond, Virginia. Yukon Environment. 2000. Highlights from the results of 2000 hunter effort survey. Government
of Yukon, Department of Environment. Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. Zinn, H.C., M.J. Manfredo, and S.C. Barro. 2002. Patterns of wildlife value orientations in
hunters� families. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7:147-162.
25
Figure 1.1. Status of hunting on Sunday in the United States as of 2006. Map courtesy of the National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action.
26
CHAPTER 2: Opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
Hunters and wildlife managers in many eastern states currently face the issue of whether
and how to provide opportunities to hunt on Sunday. It has been promoted as a possible means
to combat further declines in the hunting population and perhaps to enhance recruitment of
hunters. Currently, 43 states in the United States allow some form of hunting on Sunday.
Advocates for hunting on Sunday claim that, by providing new opportunities to hunt on Sundays,
declines in hunting participation will be reversed or retarded. However, opposition to hunting on
Sunday remains diverse and emanates from religious groups, conservation groups, outdoor
recreationists, and even hunter organizations themselves.
North Carolina has not yet legalized all forms of hunting on Sunday; hunting on Sunday
currently is allowed on some federal military installations for certain military personnel. Some
hunters in North Carolina who are aware that hunters in other states are allowed to hunt on
Sunday question why their weekend hunting opportunities are limited only to Saturdays (North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2005). However, other hunters strongly oppose the
idea of hunting on Sunday.
As part of a cooperative effort (with North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), Responsive Management, Inc., and Southwick Associates) tasked with identifying
relevant stakeholders, exploring stakeholder views on hunting on Sunday, and estimating
potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on hunting participation in North Carolina, I developed
and implemented a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina. This statewide
survey was designed to provide quantitative information to the NCWRC on the opinions of
North Carolina hunters regarding hunting on Sunday and the reasons underlying those opinions.
27
My survey also was designed to gather information on the potential impacts of hunting on
Sunday on hunting participation in North Carolina. My specific objectives were:
• to assess and characterize the opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by
licensed resident hunters in North Carolina; and
• to determine the effects that hunter demographics and specific characteristics of hunting
participation have on opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by licensed
resident hunters in North Carolina.
METHODS
Questionnaire Development
In February and March 2006, the Virginia Tech research team conducted 6 focus groups
(2 in each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions: mountain, piedmont, coastal) to identify
key issues surrounding the legalization of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina. I used the
information gathered from these focus groups to design a questionnaire to assess and
characterize the opinions of hunting on Sunday held by licensed resident hunters in North
Carolina. I developed the questionnaire in coordination with other members of the Virginia Tech
research team, and with Responsive Management, Inc., Southwick Associates, and NCWRC.
The questionnaire focused on 2 areas: 1) opinions of hunting on Sunday and the reasons
expressed by hunters to uphold these opinions, and 2) potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on
hunting participation. The questionnaire utilized support/opposition (e.g., 1 = strongly support, 5
= strongly oppose) and importance scales (e.g., 1 = very important, 5 = very unimportant) to
assess strength of support for and opposition to hunting on Sunday in North Carolina. I also
assessed support and opposition to hunting on Sunday by gauging hunters� level of agreement or
28
disagreement with statements related to several hypothetical scenarios (e.g., �Hunting should be
allowed only on a few Sundays�). This assessment was used to determine the relative
importance of hunters� reasons that shaped their opinions.
To examine the potential impacts of legalizing hunting on Sunday on hunter participation
in North Carolina, I included questions that assessed the level of hunters� existing and projected
involvement with hunt clubs, adult friends and family members, and youth (under 16 years of
age). Standard demographic questions (e.g., gender, age, income, religious participation) were
included in the questionnaire to help characterize survey respondents.
After developing a draft questionnaire, I pre-tested it on a subpopulation of resident
licensed North Carolina hunters (n = 10) to identify potential structural defects, unclear questions
or scales, or formatting problems. Individuals invited to participate in the focus group were
selected randomly from the 2005 NCWRC electronic database of licensed hunters. I contacted
individuals by phone and asked those who agreed to participate in the pre-test to review the draft
questionnaire, formulate comments/suggestions, and participate in a focus group discussion one
week later. Information gathered from this focus group was used to revise the questionnaire
(Appendix A).
Target Population and Sampling
The target population of the survey was licensed resident hunters of North Carolina. In
May 2006, NCWRC licensing staff drew a random sample (n = 2,400) of hunters� names,
addresses, and telephone numbers from the 2005 electronic license database of resident hunting
licenses sold in North Carolina. The sample included 800 contacts from each of the NCWRC�s 3
administrative regions. The sample provided to me represented each hunting license type in
proportion to the total North Carolina licensed hunter population and the sample drawn.
29
Questionnaire Administration
I administered the questionnaire using a modified version of Dillman�s (2000) Tailored
Design Method, which included a series of 4 mailings. The contact sequence included an initial
questionnaire (mailed May 22, 2006), a reminder postcard (mailed May 31, 2006), a replacement
questionnaire (mailed June 13, 2006), and a final replacement questionnaire (mailed July 17,
2006). The outer envelopes used in the last 2 mailings included a brightly colored sticker to
inform recipients of the purpose of the mailing and to encourage their response. I included a
personalized cover letter in the final package in an attempt to increase response. This cover
letter differed from the previous cover letters; it included information about a $1,000 prize
package sponsored by Bass Pro® and the NCWRC, to be awarded to one respondent, the name of
whom would be drawn at random from the pool of all respondents.
After the survey closed (July 31, 2006), I conducted a nonresponse analysis because my
final response rate was <65% (Dolsen and Machlis 1991). During September 2006, I conducted
phone interviews with 60 randomly selected nonrespondents (20 in each of the 3 administrative
regions). The phone questionnaire included 6 questions from the original questionnaire
(questions 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 26a). I collapsed the original response options for question 22 in the
original questionnaire to simplify the query in the phone questionnaire (i.e., �strongly support�
and �somewhat support� now condensed to �support�). I also modified two other questions (3
and 26a) in the original questionnaire to facilitate their use in the phone survey. The modified
versions asked nonrespondents to simply estimate (a) the number of days they hunted the
previous year and (b) how many fewer/more days they would hunt as a result of legalizing
hunting on Sunday. I included an open-ended question to allow respondents to describe their
reasons for support of or opposition to hunting on Sunday. At the request of NCWRC, I
30
included one additional question to determine constraints that may have prevented
nonrespondents from completing and returning the original mail questionnaire (Appendix C).
Data Analysis
I entered questionnaire and nonresponse data using Survey Pro software (V.3.0, Apian
Software). I imported the Survey Pro database into SPSS 14.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) to
conduct data analysis. I categorized respondents into 4 hunter types using responses to questions
4-13 (number of days hunted for particular game species). Categories included: big game (deer,
turkey, and bear days hunted), small game (birds, small mammals, and furbearer days hunted),
waterfowl (waterfowl days hunted), and mixed. To be placed into a category, respondents must
have indicated that ≥80% of their total days hunted (i.e., the sum of days hunted from questions
4-13) were devoted to the species within only one category. I placed respondents into the mixed
category when the total days hunted were spread over multiple species (i.e., < 80% in all
categories).
I classified respondents into avidity categories, also using the total number of days hunted
(i.e., the sum of days hunted from questions 4-13). I placed respondents in the lower quartile in
the �low (≤15 days)� category (n = 183), respondents within the interquartile range in the
�intermediate (16-53 days)� category (n = 369), and respondents in the upper quartile in the
�high (≥54 days)� category (n = 205).
I collapsed participants� open-ended age responses into categories used by the U.S.
Census Bureau (i.e., 18-24 years old, 25-34 years old, 35-44 years old, 45-54 years old, 55-64
years old, and >65 years old). I also collapsed responses to question 44 (frequency of church
attendance) into 4 categories (0 days per month, 1-2 days per month, 3-5 days per month, and >6
days per month) for analysis.
31
I constructed frequency distributions for nominal and ordinal descriptive data on opinions
of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina. I constructed contingency tables to examine
relationships between one�s opinion and key demographics and hunter characteristics. I explored
relationships between nominal and ordinal variables using the Chi-square test of homogeneity. I
collapsed categories if >20% of cells in any given table had expected counts < 5. I used a
probability value (P-value) of 0.05 to indicate statistically significant relationships. When
analyses of 2 ordinal variables produced significant P-values, I used gamma to measure the
strength and direction of association. Gamma ranges from -1.00 (perfect negative association) to
1.00 (perfect positive association) with 0 indicating no association (Babbie et al. 2003). I report
gamma values ≤ -0.2 and values ≥ 0.2 as significant. I also used analyses of variance (ANOVA)
to explore differences in means of ratio variables among regions, demographics, and hunter
characteristics, and used a P-value of 0.05 to report statistically significant differences.
Nonresponse analysis consisted of examining potential differences between mail
questionnaire respondents and nonrespondents using the Chi-square test of homogeneity. I also
used Fisher�s exact test for analysis of 2 x 2 contingency tables. I used a P-value of 0.05 to
report statistically significant differences.
Data Weighting
Because significantly more nonrespondents than respondents opposed hunting on
Sunday, I imposed a weighting on the data prior to conducting my data analysis. First, I
weighted opinions of hunting on Sunday to account for nonresponse bias using the following
equations:
1) WEIGHTED SUPPORT = questionnaire response rate (.416) * respondent support (.493) +
questionnaire nonresponse rate (.584) * nonrespondent support (.297); and
32
2) WEIGHTED OPPOSITION = questionnaire response rate (.416) * respondent opposition (.447) +
questionnaire nonresponse rate (.584) * nonrespondent opposition (.589).
Because the distribution of hunting license sales was not equal across North Carolina�s 3
administrative regions, I also imposed a weighting to approximate the distribution of actual
licenses sales in each region (Table 2.1). Similarly, the age distribution of respondents
significantly differed from the age distribution of individuals in the original sample of licensed
hunters within each region (χ2 = 35.614, df = 5, P < 0.0001). Thus, I imposed a weighting to re-
adjust the age distribution of respondents with the original sample (Table 2.2).
RESULTS
Response Rates
Nine hundred seventeen respondents returned completed surveys. The sample was
adjusted to remove 183 surveys returned with undeliverable addresses, 12 returned from families
where the contact was deceased, and 1 hard refusal (n =196), resulting in a final response rate of
41.6%. Response rates within administrative regions mirrored the overall final response rate
(Coastal response rate = 42.0%; n = 308, Piedmont response rate = 42.4%; n = 313, and
Mountain response rate = 40.5%; n = 296).
Nonresponse Analysis
Due to the lower than anticipated response, I conducted a nonresponse analysis (Dolsen
and Machlis 1991). I contacted 445 nonrespondents before completing 60 interviews. I
concluded respondents� and nonrespondents� opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina
differed significantly (χ2 = 9.586, df = 2, P = 0.008) (Figure 2.1; Tables 2.3 and 2.4). More
nonrespondents opposed hunting on Sunday than did respondents.
33
Description of Respondents
Nearly all mail questionnaire respondents were male (95.6%, n = 855), and respondents
averaged 49.3 years old (n = 917). The largest age group included respondents between 45-54
years old (22.1%, n = 203), whereas the smallest age group included respondents between 18-24
years old (7.6%, n = 70).
More than half (53.9%, n = 475) of all respondents indicated they currently lived in a
rural area, either on a farm or not on a farm. Only a small percentage of respondents indicated
that they lived in a large city (>100,000 people) (9.1%, n = 80). Thirty-nine percent of
respondents (n = 349) had a high school education or less, whereas 40% of respondents (n = 355)
had completed some college (including Associate�s degree) or trade school; 21% (n = 183) held
college degrees (including advanced degrees). Forty-two percent of respondents (n = 365)
indicated that they typically attend church or another place of worship ≤2 days per month; 57%
of respondents (n = 488) attended 3-6 days per month. Income among respondents was diverse:
12.7% (n = 106) of respondents earned ≤$25,000 in total household income (before taxes) last
year, 15% (n = 130) earned $25,000-$34,999, 16.3% (n = 136) earned $35,000-$49,999, 25.4%
(n = 212) earned $50,000-$74,999, 14.9% (n = 124) earned $75,000-$99,999, and 15.1% (n =
126) made ≥$100,000.
Fifty percent of respondents (n = 379) were placed into the mixed hunter category (i.e.,
≥80% of their total days hunted did not fall into a single category). Forty-one percent of
respondents (n = 311) fell into the big game category. Very few respondents fell into the small
game (7.3%, n = 55) or the waterfowl categories (1.3%, n = 10). Regarding avidity, 49.1% (n =
371) of respondents were classified as intermediate (16-53 days spent afield). Equal percentages
34
of respondents were considered low (≤15 days) (25.3%, n = 191) or avid (≥54 days) (25.6%, n =
193).
Opinions of Hunting on Sunday
Respondents were polarized in their opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina
(Figure 2.2). However, after adjusting for nonresponse bias, fewer respondents expressed support
for the legalization of hunting on Sunday than those expressing opposition to it (Table 2.4). The
nonresponse analysis suggested respondents with an interest in the issue and respondents who
supported hunting on Sunday were more likely to complete and return the survey.
Opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina significantly differed among 4
demographic categories (age, community type, income, and church attendance) (Table 2.5). A
strong positive association between opinion of hunting on Sunday and respondents� age existed
(χ2 = 98.690, df = 20, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.254; Figure 2.3). Older respondents were more likely
than younger respondents to oppose hunting on Sunday, whereas younger respondents were
more likely than older respondents to support hunting on Sunday. No clear relationship existed
between opinion of hunting on Sunday and community type (pattern suggested by significant P-
value, but insignificant gamma value raises doubt) (χ2 = 51.179, df = 16, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.160;
Figure 2.4). However, respondents who reside in rural areas were more likely than respondents
in urban areas to oppose hunting on Sunday in North Carolina. No clear relationship existed
between opinion of hunting on Sunday and respondents� household income (χ2 = 32.559, df =
20, P = 0.038, γ = -0.059).
A significant relationship also existed between opinion of hunting on Sunday and church
attendance (χ2 = 159.026, df = 12, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.462) (Figure 2.5). More than 50% of
respondents (n = 210) who indicated they attend church or another place of worship ≤2 days per
35
month strongly supported hunting on Sunday. Forty-five percent of respondents (n = 138) who
typically attend church or another place of worship 3-5 days per month and 67.0% (n = 122) of
respondents who attend ≥6 days per month strongly opposed hunting on Sunday. Opinion of
hunting on Sunday did not differ significantly by region (χ2 = 2.335, df = 8, P = 0.969), gender
(χ2 = 5.414, df = 4, P = 0.247), or education (χ2 = 28.638, df = 20, P = 0.095).
Opinion of hunting on Sunday differed among hunter types (χ2 = 18.320, df = 8, P =
0.019) (Table 2.6). Only 18.4% (n = 9) of respondents categorized as small game hunters
strongly supported hunting on Sunday, whereas 41.6% (n = 131) of big game hunters and 45.9%
(n = 175) of mixed hunters strongly supported hunting on Sunday. Sixty-three percent of small
game hunters (n = 31) opposed hunting on Sunday.
Opinion of hunting on Sunday differed with hunter avidity (χ2 = 23.239, df = 8, P =
0.003, γ = -0.021). Avid hunters were more likely to strongly support hunting on Sunday,
whereas less avid hunters were more likely to oppose (Figure 2.6). More than one-half of avid
hunters (53.7%, n = 110) strongly supported hunting on Sunday. Almost half of respondents
(45.1%, n = 82) who indicated they hunted ≤15 days strongly opposed hunting on Sunday.
Opinion of hunting on Sunday significantly differed due to land ownership status (χ2 =
39.603, df = 8, P < 0.0001) (Table 2.7). Thirty-eight percent of landowners (n = 125) who
currently allow hunting on their land strongly supported hunting on Sunday, whereas 41.9% (n =
139) strongly opposed hunting on Sunday. About 23.0% of respondents (n = 31) who currently
do not allow hunting on their land strongly supported hunting on Sunday, whereas 54.1% (n =
73) strongly opposed hunting on Sunday. Forty-six percent of respondents (n = 189) who did not
own land in North Carolina strongly supported hunting on Sunday in North Carolina.
36
Sixty-eight percent of respondents (n = 212) who believed that work commitments were
very important in explaining constraints to their hunting activity supported hunting on Sunday,
compared to only 28% (n = 58) who opposed hunting on Sunday (χ2 = 66.726, df = 16, P <
0.0001, γ = 0.270; Table 2.8). Fifty-five percent of respondents (n = 22) who believed that work
commitments were a very unimportant constraint and 46% of respondents (n = 53) who believed
they were a somewhat unimportant constraint to their hunting activity strongly opposed hunting
on Sunday. Although almost half of the respondents (45.6%, n = 78) who indicated that family
commitments were a very important constraint to their hunting activity strongly supported
hunting on Sunday, the overall relationship between family commitments and support for
hunting on Sunday was not significant (χ2 = 23.246, df = 16, P = 0.107). No significant
differences existed between opinion of hunting on Sunday and satisfaction with hunting
experiences in North Carolina during the last year (χ2 = 24.677, df = 16, P = 0.076) or the last 5
years (χ2 = 13.247, df = 16, P = 0.655).
Opinions of Hunting on Sunday with Some Limitations
Hunter opinions of hunting on Sunday with some limitations were strongly polarized,
with 41% (n = 361) supporting and 51% (n = 453) opposing. Among respondents who
previously indicated strong support for hunting on Sunday, 19.1% (n = 62) opposed hunting on
Sunday with some limitations. Less than 4% (n = 7) of respondents who previously opposed
hunting on Sunday would support hunting on Sunday with some limitations.
Opinion of hunting on Sunday with some limitations significantly differed among 4
demographic categories (age, community type, income, and church attendance) (Table 2.9).
Seventy-seven percent of respondents (n = 113) ≥65 years old opposed hunting on Sunday with
some limitations (χ2 = 76.339, df = 20, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.205). Although opinion of hunting on
37
Sunday with some limitations significantly differed by the community in which a respondent
lived, no clear relationship between the two existed among respondents (χ2 = 39.695, df = 16, P
= 0.001, γ = 0.120). Nearly 58% of respondents (n = 105) who lived in rural areas and 43% of
respondents (n = 122) who lived in rural areas but not on farms strongly opposed hunting on
Sunday with some limitations. Similarly, the relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday
with some limitations and income, although significant, showed no clear pattern (χ2 = 36.223, df
= 20, P = 0.014, γ = -0.036). However, 53% of respondents (n = 55) who earned≤$24,999
strongly opposed hunting on Sunday with some limitations. A strong positive association
between church attendance and opinion of hunting on Sunday with some limitations existed (χ2
= 108.629, df = 12, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.347). Sixty-nine percent of respondents (n = 125) who
attended church or another place of worship ≥6 days per month strongly opposed hunting on
Sunday with some limitations. In contrast, 53.7% (n = 100) who attended church or another
place of worship ≤2 days per month strongly supported hunting on Sunday with some
limitations. Gender (χ2 = 4.740, df = 4, P = 0.315), education (χ2 = 26.527, df = 20, P =0.149),
hunter type (χ2 = 10.340, df = 8, P = 0.242), and hunter avidity (χ2 = 10.927, df = 8, P =0.206)
each had no significant effect on one�s opinion of hunting on Sunday with some limitations.
Opinions of Hunting on Sunday under Different Scenarios
A majority of respondents strongly opposed hunting on Sunday under all but 3 scenarios
(Table 2.10). Less than half of respondents (46.7%, n = 413) strongly opposed hunting on
Sunday only if pursuit dogs are not used, whereas about one-third of respondents (n = 294)
supported the issue under this scenario. Slightly fewer respondents (43.0%, n = 378) strongly
opposed hunting on Sunday only if safety zones are created around churches; only 39% (n = 340)
supported this scenario. An even smaller percentage of respondents (38.7%, n = 342) strongly
38
opposed hunting on Sunday if it is treated like any other day of the week, whereas 46.5% of
respondents (n = 409) supported hunting on Sunday under this scenario.
Most respondents who had voiced opposition to hunting on Sunday with some limitations
also strongly opposed each of the scenarios (Table 2.11). The following scenarios garnered
strong opposition: hunting on Sunday only on public lands (87.6%, n = 391); hunting on Sunday
only for youth hunters (under 16 years of age) (87.6%, n = 390). Although still receiving strong
opposition, the scenario deemed least objectionable was hunting on Sunday only if treated like
any other day of the week (69.3%, n = 308).
Respondents who supported hunting on Sunday with some limitations strongly supported
only 2 scenarios: hunting on Sunday if treated like any other day of the week (55.5%, n = 265)
and hunting on Sunday only if safety zones are created around churches (51.7%, n = 184) (Table
2.12). The scenario receiving least support advocated hunting on Sunday only for youth hunters
(under 16 years of age) (2.7%, n = 7).
Importance of Reasons in Shaping Opinions of Hunting on Sunday
Respondents who expressed opposition to hunting on Sunday cited 6 reasons as being
most important in shaping their opinion. The most frequently cited reasons were that hunting on
Sunday should not be allowed because Sunday is a holy day (67.7%, n = 262), followed by
Sunday provides a day that other recreationists, such as hikers, horseback riders, and wildlife
viewers, can enjoy the woods without worrying about hunters (61.8%, n = 239) (Table 2.13).
Respondents who expressed support for hunting on Sunday cited the following as being
the most frequent reason for their support: the decision to hunt on Sunday should be a personal
choice rather than a governmental decision (77.1%, n = 341). Seventy-five percent of supporters
39
(n = 290) believed that hunting on Sunday may provide additional hunting opportunities for
working people (Table 2.14).
Potential Impacts on Hunting Participation
General Impacts
Several questions evaluated potential impacts of legalizing hunting on Sunday in North
Carolina on hunting participation. Almost half of all respondents (47.1%, n = 415) indicated
they would hunt on Sunday if it were legalized, whereas 40.4% (n = 357) indicated they would
not. Only 4 respondents (6.1%) who had not hunted in North Carolina in the past 5 years
indicated they would hunt on Sunday if it were legalized in North Carolina. One-third of
respondents (n = 20) who had not hunted in North Carolina since July 1, 2005, indicated they
would hunt on Sunday in North Carolina, if legalized.
Younger respondents were more likely to hunt on Sunday if it were legalized in North
Carolina; older respondents were more likely not to hunt on Sunday (χ2 = 93.484, df = 10, P <
0.0001) (Table 2.15). Overall, the more days per month a respondent attended church or another
place of worship, the more likely they were not to hunt on Sunday (χ2 = 160.125, df = 6, P <
0.0001).
Avidity also influenced one�s decision to hunt on Sunday; avid hunters were more likely
to hunt on Sunday (χ2 = 27.722, df = 4, P < 0.0001). Community type (χ2 = 23.555, df = 8, P =
0.003) and income (χ2 = 25.897, df = 10, P = 0.004) both appeared to have a significant
influence on one�s decision to hunt on Sunday without a clear pattern (Table 2.15). However,
53% of respondents (n = 95) residing in rural areas not on farms said they would not hunt on
Sunday. Only 25% of respondents (n = 31) who earned ≥$100,000 indicated they would not
hunt on Sunday compared to 52% of respondents (n = 53) who earned ≤$24,999. Region (χ2
40
=6.818, df = 4, P = 0.146), gender (χ2 = 0.276, df = 2, P = 0.871), education (χ2 = 14.170, df =
10, P = 0.165), or hunter type (χ2 = 11.599, df = 6, P = 0.072) each had little influence in
shaping one�s opinion about participation on Sunday. Respondents who supported hunting on
Sunday were more likely to hunt on Sunday than opponents (χ2 = 821.125, df = 8, P < 0.0001)
(Table 2.16).
Level of Participation
Overall, 36.9% of respondents (n = 316) indicated they would hunt more days, 60.2% (n
= 515) indicated they would hunt about the same number of days, and 2.9% (n = 25) indicated
they would hunt fewer days if hunting on Sunday was legalized in North Carolina. Respondents
who indicated they would hunt fewer days said they would hunt an average of 10.3 fewer days
per year (n = 19, SD = 19.1).
Younger respondents were more likely to hunt more days if hunting on Sunday was
allowed (χ2 = 99.119, df = 10, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.358) (Table 2.17). Respondents (54.7%, n =
116) who typically do not attend church indicated they would hunt more days if hunting on
Sunday was legalized. In contrast, 76.9% (n = 133) of respondents who attend church or another
place of worship ≥6 days per month indicated they would hunt about the same of number of days
(χ2 = 76.119, df = 6, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.439). Avid hunters were more likely to hunt more days
(χ2 = 11.756, df = 4, P = 0.019, γ = -0.204). Although community type appeared to influence the
level of one�s participation, a clear pattern did not emerge (χ2 = 16.330, df = 8, P = 0.038, γ =
0.140). However, only 28% of respondents (n = 49) who reside in rural areas on farms would
hunt more days if hunting on Sunday was legalized. Region (χ2 = 1.431, df = 4, P = 0.839),
gender (χ2 = 2.345, df = 2, P = 0.310), education (χ2 = 13.289, df = 10, P = 0.208), income (χ2
= 17.271, df = 10, P = 0.069), and hunter type (χ2 = 8.788, df = 6, P = 0.186) had no detectable
41
influence on level of participation. Respondents who expressed support for hunting on Sunday
were more likely to hunt more days, whereas respondents who opposed were more likely to hunt
about the same number of days per year (χ2 = 407.911, df = 8, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.875) (Table
2.18).
Change in Hunter Days and Hunter Trips
Overall, respondents devoted 23.7 days (n = 768, SD = 29.4), on average, to hunting in
North Carolina that did not involve an overnight stay during the most recent season.
Respondents from the Mountain region averaged fewer days of hunting than respondents from
either the Coastal or Piedmont regions (F = 5.321, df = 2, P = 0.005; Table 2.19). Younger
respondents hunted more days than older respondents (F = 6.177, df = 5, P < 0.0001; Figure 2.7),
and males hunted more ( x = 24.4 days, n = 720, SD = 29.8) than females ( x = 11.7 days, n = 38,
SD = 18.0). Respondents who lived in rural areas hunted more days than those who lived in
urban areas (F = 6.229, df = 4, P < 0.0001). Respondents who completed less education hunted
more days than respondents with more education (F = 3.109, df = 5, P = 0.0009). In addition,
respondents who attended church ≤2 days per month hunted slightly more days, if it did not
involve an overnight stay, than those who attended more often (F = 3.438, df = 3, P = 0.017).
The average number of days hunted differed among avidity categories (F = 181.471, df = 2, P <
0.0001), but not among hunter types (F = 1.286, df = 3, P = 0.278; Table 2.20). Avid hunters
hunted substantially more days per year, where it did not involve an overnight stay in North
Carolina, than less avid hunters.
On average, respondents said they would hunt 7.0 more days (n = 772, SD = 12.8) per
year that would not involve an overnight stay if hunting on Sunday was legalized in North
Carolina. Respondents did not differ in the number of additional days they would hunt, if it did
42
not involve an overnight stay, when compared by region (F = 0.118, df = 2, P = 0.889), gender
(F = 2.981, df = 1, P = 0.085), or community type (F = 0.907, df = 4, P = 0.459).
The youngest age group of respondents (i.e., 18-24 years old) would hunt, on average,
almost twice as many additional days per year as any of the 3 older age groups if hunting on
Sunday was legalized in North Carolina (F = 2.929, df = 5, P = 0.013; Figure 2.8; Table 2.21).
Respondents who did not attend church or another place of worship said they would hunt about 3
- 4 more days than those who attended more often. As respondents� education increased, the
average number of additional days hunted that would not involve an overnight stay generally
decreased (F = 2.350, df = 5, P = 0.039). Respondents with lower incomes averaged several
additional days more than respondents with higher incomes (F = 4.469, df = 5, P = 0.001).
The number of additional days hunted did not differ among hunter types, but the most
avid hunters said they would hunt nearly 12 additional days (n = 187, SD = 18.4) per year,
compared to about 3 days (n = 155, SD = 7.1) per year for the least avid hunters (Table 2.22).
Overall, respondents averaged 2.2 overnight hunting trips (n = 775, SD = 5.4) per year in
North Carolina. The number of overnight trips taken did not differ among regions (F = 1.875, df
= 2, P = 0.154) or the other demographic parameters examined, except for a slight, but
indiscernible, difference among age groups (F = 2.267, df = 5, P = 0.046). The most avid
respondents said they took an average of 3.7 overnight hunting trips (n = 186, SD = 8.0) per year
in North Carolina, compared to 1.2 trips (n = 156, SD = 4.0) for the least avid hunters (Table
2.23).
Overall, respondents said they would take 1.9 additional overnight hunting trips (n = 772,
SD = 4.7) per year in North Carolina if hunting on Sunday was legalized. The number of
additional overnight trips did not differ among regions (F = 0.355, df = 2, P = 0.701). The
43
average number of additional overnight trips did not differ among demographic parameters,
except for a slight difference between age groups (F = 2.354, df = 5, P = 0.039). Younger
respondents said they would take more additional overnight trips than older respondents if
hunting on Sunday was legalized in North Carolina.
Hunter type did not influence the number of additional overnight trips respondents would
take if hunting on Sunday was legalized (F = 1.373, df = 3, P = 0.250) (Table 2.24). The most
avid respondents said they would take >3 additional overnight hunting trips (n = 185, SD = 7.5)
per year if hunting on Sunday was legalized in North Carolina, compared to 1 trip for the least
avid hunters (F = 10.494, df = 2, P < 0.0001).
Participation Outside of North Carolina
Since July 1, 2005, 20% of respondents (n = 175) hunted outside of North Carolina.
Participation in hunting outside of North Carolina differed among North Carolina�s 3
administrative regions (χ2 = 13.037, df = 2, P = 0.001). More respondents (26.5%, n = 75) in the
Mountain region hunted outside of North Carolina, whereas respondents in the Coastal region
(14.0%, n = 34) hunted the least outside of the state.
Of those who hunted outside of North Carolina, 28.7% (n = 50) agreed that the ability to
hunt on Sunday was very important to their decision to hunt outside of North Carolina.
However, 30.5% of respondents (n = 53) stated it was very unimportant to their decision. Only
16.2% (n = 28) were likely to take fewer trips to hunt outside of North Carolina if hunting on
Sunday was legalized; 47.6% (n = 82) were not at all likely to take fewer trips.
44
Landowner Participation
Of the respondents who owned land in North Carolina, 39.9% (n = 332) currently allow
hunting to occur on their property. Most of these (71.5%, n = 228) allow hunters other than
family members to hunt on their property. Nearly one-half of landowners who currently allow
hunting to occur (42.5%, n = 134) indicated they would allow hunting on Sunday on their
property. Forty-eight percent of respondents (47.6%, n = 150) indicated they would not allow
hunting on Sunday. Only 15.5% of respondents (n = 136) who owned land in North Carolina do
not allow hunting. Less than 10% of those landowners (n = 12) would allow hunting on Sunday
on their property if it was legalized in North Carolina. Most respondents who owned land, but
did not allow hunting (86.5%, n = 109), simply would not allow any hunting on Sunday. The
percentage of landowners who allow hunters other than family members to hunt on their land did
not differ among regions. Landowners, regardless of whether they currently allow hunting, did
not differ by region in terms of the percentage of who would or would not allow hunting on
Sunday on their land.
Hunt Club Participation
Only 27.8% of respondents (n = 241) were members of hunt clubs that hunt in North
Carolina. Significant differences occurred in hunt club participation among regions (χ2 =
35.201, df = 2, P < 0.0001). Nearly one-half of respondents (40.8%, n = 98) in the Coastal
region, 27.1% (n = 94) in the Piedmont, and 17.5% (n = 49) of respondents in the Mountain
region were members of hunt clubs that hunt in North Carolina. Only 6.0% of respondents (n =
35) who currently were not a member of a hunt club would join a hunt club in North Carolina
just to hunt on Sunday. Nearly one-half of respondents (49.6%, n = 118) who belonged to a hunt
45
club were very likely to participate in Sunday hunts in North Carolina with their hunt club if
hunting on Sunday was legalized in North Carolina.
Adult Participation
Seventy-six percent of respondents (n = 667) had taken a friend or a family member
hunting in North Carolina since July 1, 2005. Nearly one-half (47.1%, n = 313) who had taken a
friend or family member were very likely to take a friend or family member hunting on Sunday
in North Carolina if hunting on Sunday was legalized. Thirty-seven percent (n = 247) were not
at all likely to take a friend or family member hunting on Sunday. Less than 10% (n =17) of
those who had not taken a friend or family member hunting were very likely to take a friend or a
family member hunting on Sunday.
Youth Participation
Fifty-four percent of respondents (n = 477) had taken a youth (under 16 years of age)
hunting in North Carolina since July 1, 2005. Fifty-one percent of respondents (n = 248) who
had taken a youth hunting indicated they had taken a son or daughter, 18.4% (n = 88) a grandson
or granddaughter, 27.3% (n = 130) had taken another relative, and 32.0% (n = 153) indicated
they had taken a youth of no relation. Nearly one-half of respondents (49.3%, n = 235) who had
taken a youth hunting were very likely to take a youth hunting on Sunday if it was legalized in
North Carolina, whereas 37.9% (n = 181) were not at all likely to do so. Less than 10% (n = 33)
of respondents who had not taken a youth hunting in North Carolina were very likely to take a
youth hunting. Nearly 60% (n = 215) were not at all likely to take a youth hunting on Sunday.
46
DISCUSSION
Results from the initial phases of our research effort (i.e., focus groups and internet
comment forum) suggested that hunters were polarized in their opinions about hunting on
Sunday. Our survey of hunters confirmed this indication, as nearly equal percentages of
respondents supported or opposed hunting on Sunday in North Carolina and most respondents
either strongly supported or strongly opposed the legalization of hunting on Sunday. However,
our nonresponse bias analysis also suggested that respondents who had an interest in the issue
and those who supported hunting on Sunday were more likely to complete and return the survey.
Despite the low response rate and accounting for the respondent bias toward support, the issue
over hunting on Sunday in North Carolina remains contentious.
Opinions of Hunting on Sunday
Among the most significant findings relative to demographics were the differences of
opinion of hunting on Sunday due to respondents� age and frequency of church attendance. As
age increased, opposition to hunting on Sunday also increased. The current profile of North
Carolina hunters reveals that older hunters represent the majority of hunters in North Carolina.
Our results and the current profile suggest that the majority of North Carolina hunters oppose
hunting on Sunday. However, one must examine this relationship between opinion of hunting on
Sunday and age more closely. Will younger hunters retain their support as they age? If they do,
current perceptions on the issue likely will shift from opposition to support as older hunters, and
those more opposed, disappear from the ranks. However, we lack sufficient information to
determine whether opinion is influenced, refined, or muted by factors other than age alone.
Perhaps the most significant influence on opinion of hunting on Sunday was the
frequency of one�s church attendance. As the number of days per month a respondent attended
47
church or another place of worship increased, opposition to hunting on Sunday also increased.
The suggestion that hunting on Sunday is a religious issue also was corroborated by the finding
that the majority of respondents who opposed hunting on Sunday believed that �hunting on
Sunday should not be permitted because Sunday is a holy day.�
The apparent differences in opinion due to community type and income, though weak
(i.e., insignificant gamma values) suggest these factors may play a minor role in shaping hunters�
opinion on hunting on Sunday. Respondents who resided in rural areas, particularly those who
reside on farms, were more likely to oppose hunting on Sunday. There was no clear relationship
between age and community types (e.g., do rural areas generally have older populations?), so
something else must have been occurring. I believe this relationship could be attributed, in part,
to factors like hunter behavior in rural areas (e.g., trespassing). Duda et al. (1996) and Jagnow et
al.(2006) identified illegal hunting activities, safety concerns, and potential liability issues as
factors that increase the likelihood of landowners posting their property against hunting. In a
Pennsylvania study, landowners also expressed concerns with general disturbance of the peace
(Legislative and Budget Finance Committee 2005). Given that, I examined the relationship
between opinion and land ownership. The analysis revealed the largest group of landowners,
regardless of whether they currently allow hunting, strongly opposed hunting on Sunday.
However, without further research and analysis, it is difficult to ascertain if the observed
difference in opinion based on community type and land ownership is due to preconceived
notions about hunter behavior.
The relationships between opinion of hunting on Sunday and metrics of hunter
characterization were, for the most part, weak associations. Of the two I examined, avidity
demonstrated the strongest association. As hunter effort (e.g., total number of days hunted)
48
increased or as the level of avidity increased, respondents were more likely to support hunting on
Sunday. Given that Sunday would provide an additional day to hunt, I attributed the relationship
between opinion and avidity to be reflective of the definition of avidity: a keen eagerness or
enthusiasm for hunting (Merriam-Webster Online 2006).
The pattern of opposition to hunting on Sunday held fast regardless of whether any
limitations might be imposed. Opposition again was strongest among older respondents and
those who attended church frequently. However, I also found that respondents who originally
supported hunting on Sunday were more likely to oppose hunting on Sunday once some
limitations were imposed. This may be a reflection of hunters� perception that there already are
too many regulations or that regulations are too confusing, both of which often contribute to a
decline in hunter effort (Miller and Vaske 2003). Participants in our focus groups also voiced an
�all or nothing� approach to hunting on Sunday. Among the various scenarios that would place
some limitation on hunting on Sunday, the two least opposed scenarios by proponents of hunting
on Sunday were the least restrictive (i.e., treating hunting on Sunday like any other day of the
week, creating safety zones around churches).
Hunting Participation
Support for hunting on Sunday often stems from the view that hunting on Sunday could
enhance the recruitment and retention of hunters by providing additional opportunities to hunt.
Analysis of the relationship between opinion and constraints to hunting activity supported this
view. As the importance placed on �work commitments limit my time to hunt� in explaining
constraints to respondents� hunting activity increased, support for hunting on Sunday also
increased. In the view of supporters, hunting on Sunday may provide additional hunting
opportunities for working people, and this appeared to be very important in shaping their opinion
49
of hunting on Sunday. However, supporters of hunting on Sunday placed most importance on
the fact that this issue should be a personal choice rather than a governmental decision.
Although it appears that supporters of hunting on Sunday believe it may enhance recruitment and
retention, I suspect that legalizing hunting on Sunday will have a minimal effect on recruitment.
However, it may have a positive effect on hunter retention, based on my data pertaining to
additional days and trips that would result from the legalization of hunting on Sunday.
Hunter Recruitment
The potential effects of allowing hunting on Sunday on hunter recruitment were not clear
immediately; nonetheless, several indicators of such effects were detected. Overall, many
respondents (47.1%) indicated they would hunt on Sunday, but less than 10% who had not
hunted in the past 5 years indicated they would hunt on Sunday. This leads one to question the
effect that hunting on Sunday has on hunter recruitment. Further, allowing hunting on Sunday
appeared to have minimal influence in persuading hunters to take adult family members and
friends hunting. Respondents who had not taken a family member or friend hunting during the
previous year were not likely to do so simply because hunting on Sunday had been legalized in
North Carolina. The same pattern appeared to hold true in taking a youth (under 16 years of age)
into the field if hunting on Sunday was legalized. Hunting on Sunday also had little effect on
recruiting respondents into hunt clubs or influencing the likelihood of hunting outside North
Carolina. Less than 10% of respondents indicated they were very likely to join a hunt club as a
result of allowing one to hunt on Sunday. Respondents who indicated they hunted outside of
North Carolina the previous year were not likely to take fewer trips simply as a result of
legalizing hunting on Sunday. Together, these results suggest that legalizing hunting on Sunday
would have a minimal effect on hunter recruitment in North Carolina.
50
Hunter Retention
In contrast to the findings relative to hunter recruitment, hunting on Sunday may have a
positive effect on hunting participation or even hunter retention. Among my most significant
findings was the potential increase in the level of hunting participation as a result of legalizing
hunting on Sunday. Most respondents indicated they would hunt at least the same number of
days and more than one-third of respondents indicated they would hunt more days if hunting on
Sunday was legalized, providing evidence of a potential effect on hunter retention. The likely
increase in days hunting that did not involve an overnight stay and the likely increase in
overnight hunting trips also suggest that hunting on Sunday may be important to hunter
retention. Among respondents who indicated their hunting activity would increase or remain the
same, 7 additional days and almost 2 additional overnight trips, on average, would be added if
hunting on Sunday was legalized, suggesting that allowing hunting on Sunday, at the very least,
would affect hunter participation and possibly hunter retention.
The likelihood of respondents to involve adult friends, family members, or youth in
hunting on Sunday suggests some positive impact on hunter retention. Almost half of
respondents who had taken an adult friend or family member hunting the previous year were
likely to do so again on a Sunday. I found similar results for likelihood to take a youth hunting
on Sunday. I believe the likelihood to take adult friends, family members, or youth hunting on
Sunday demonstrates a potential positive impact of hunting on Sunday on hunter retention. This
increased likelihood also could be a form of hunter recruitment if the participant introduced a
friend, family member, or youth to hunting. However, the questionnaire did not ask specifically
about the likelihood of respondents to introduce a new friend, family member, or youth to
hunting as a direct result of legalizing hunting on Sunday.
51
LITERATURE CITED
Babbie, E., F. Halley, and J. Zaino. 2003. Adventures in social research: data analysis using SPSS 11.0/11.5 for Windows, 5th Edition. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, California.
Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored design method. John Wiley and
Sons. New York, New York. Dolsen, D.E., and G.E. Machlis. 1991. Response rates and mail recreation survey results: how
much is enough? Journal of Leisure Research 23:272-277. Duda, M.D., S.J. Bissell, and K.C. Young. 1996. Factors related to hunting and fishing
participation in the United States. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 61:324-337.
Jagnow, C.P., R.C. Stedman, A.E. Luloff, G.J. San Julian, J.C. Finley, and J. Steele. 2006. Why
landowners in Pennsylvania post their property against hunting. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11:15-26.
Legislative and Budget Finance Committee, Pennsylvania General Assembly. 2005. A Study of
potential economic, social, and other impacts of expanding Sunday hunting in Pennsylvania. Harrisonburg, Pennsylvania.
Merriam-Webster Online. 2006. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m-
w.com/dictionary/participation. Miller, C.A., and J.J. Vaske. 2003. Individual and situational influences on declining hunter
effort in Illinois. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:263-276.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. State of North Carolina Request for Proposals: Sunday Hunting Study. Raleigh, North Carolina.
52
Opinion of Hunting on SundayOpposeNeitherSupport
% o
f Res
pond
ents
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
NonrespondentsRespondents
n = 448
n = 18
n = 54n = 7
n = 406
n = 35
Figure 2.1. Respondents� and nonrespondents� opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006 (χ2 = 9.586, df = 2, P = 0.008).
53
Figure 2.2. Respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
Opinion of Hunting on Sunday
Strongly OpposeSomewhat OpposeNeither Support Nor Oppose
Somewhat SupportStrongly Support
% o
f Res
pond
ents
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
n = 349
n = 99n = 54 n = 50
n = 356
54
Figu
re 2
.3. E
ffec
t of r
espo
nden
t age
on
opin
ion
of h
untin
g on
Sun
day
in N
orth
Car
olin
a, b
ased
on
a m
ail s
urve
y of
lice
nsed
res
iden
t hun
ters
in N
orth
C
arol
ina
cond
ucte
d in
sum
mer
200
6 (χ
2 =
98.6
90, d
f = 2
0, P
< 0
.000
1, γ
= 0
.254
).
Opi
nion
of H
untin
g on
Sun
day
Stro
ngly
Opp
ose
Som
ewha
t Opp
ose
Nei
ther
Sup
port
Nor
O
ppos
eS
omew
hat S
uppo
rtS
trong
ly S
uppo
rt
% of Respondents100.
0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0 0.0
≥65
55-6
445
-54
35-4
425
-34
18-2
4A
ge
55
Figu
re 2
.4. E
ffec
t of c
omm
unity
in w
hich
res
pond
ents
live
d on
opi
nion
of h
untin
g on
Sun
day
in N
orth
Car
olin
a, b
ased
on
a m
ail s
urve
y of
lice
nsed
re
side
nt h
unte
rs in
Nor
th C
arol
ina
cond
ucte
d in
sum
mer
200
6 (χ
2 =
51.1
79, d
f = 1
6, P
< 0
.000
1, γ
= 0
.072
).
Stro
ngly
O
ppos
eSo
mew
hat
Opp
ose
Nei
ther
Su
ppor
t Nor
O
ppos
e
Som
ewha
t S
uppo
rtSt
rong
ly
Supp
ort
Opi
nion
of H
untin
g on
Sun
day
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0 0.0
% of Respondents
Rur
al a
rea
on a
farm
Rur
al a
rea
not o
n a
farm
Smal
l Tow
n (<
10,0
00
peop
le)
Smal
l City
(bet
wee
n 10
,000
and
100
,000
pe
ople
)
Larg
e C
ity (>
100,
000
peop
le)
Com
mun
ity
56
Figu
re 2
.5. E
ffec
t of c
hurc
h or
oth
er p
lace
of w
orsh
ip a
ttend
ance
on
opin
ion
of h
untin
g on
Sun
day
in N
orth
Car
olin
a, b
ased
on
a m
ail s
urve
y of
lice
nsed
re
side
nt h
unte
rs in
Nor
th C
arol
ina
cond
ucte
d in
sum
mer
200
6 (χ
2 =
159.
026,
df =
12,
P <
0.0
001,
γ =
0.4
62).
Opi
nion
of H
untin
g on
Sun
day
in N
orth
Car
olin
a
Stro
ngly
O
ppos
eS
omew
hat
Opp
ose
Nei
ther
S
uppo
rt N
or
Opp
ose
Som
ewha
t S
uppo
rtS
trong
ly
Sup
port
% of Respondents100.
0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0 0.0
≥6 d
ays
3-5
days
1-2
days
0 da
ys
Chu
rch
Atte
ndan
ce
(Day
s pe
r mon
th)
57
Opin
ion
of H
untin
g on
Sun
day
in N
orth
Car
olin
a
Stro
ngly
Oppo
seSo
mew
hat
Oppo
seNe
ither
Sup
port
Nor O
ppos
eSo
mew
hat
Supp
ort
Stro
ngly
Supp
ort
% of Respondents100.
0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0 0.0
HIGH
(≥54
DA
YS)
INTE
RMED
IATE
(1
6-53
DAY
S)
LOW
(≤15
DAY
S)
Avidi
ty Le
vel
Figu
re 2
.6. E
ffec
t of r
espo
nden
t avi
dity
leve
l on
opin
ion
of h
untin
g on
Sun
day
in N
orth
Car
olin
a, b
ased
on
a m
ail s
urve
y of
lice
nsed
res
iden
t hun
ters
in
Nor
th C
arol
ina
cond
ucte
d in
sum
mer
200
6 (χ
2 =
23.2
39, d
f = 8
, P =
0.0
03, γ
= -0
.021
).
58
Age (Years)≥6555-6445-5435-4425-3418-24
Ave
rage
# o
f Day
s40
30
20
10
0
n = 98
n = 149n = 172
n = 152 n = 121
n = 76
Figure 2.7. Effect of respondents� age on average numbers of days hunted in North Carolina that did not involve an overnight stay, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006 (F = 6.177, df = 5, P < 0.0001).
59
Figure 2.8. Effect of respondents� age on average number of additional days hunted in North Carolina that did not involve an overnight stay if hunting on Sunday was legalized, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006 (F = 2.929, df = 5, P = 0.013).
Age (Years)≥6555-6445-5435-4425-3418-24
Ave
rage
# o
f Add
ition
al D
ays
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 98
n = 149n = 173
n = 152 n = 123
n = 77
60
Table 2.1. Number of respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006 in each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions before and after weighting to reflect the licenses sales distribution in each region.
a Difference attributed to rounding during weighting process.
Region Respondents Unweighted Percent (%)
Respondents Weighted Percent (%)
Coastal 308 33.6 248 27.1 Piedmont 313 34.1 369 40.3 Mountain 296 32.3 299 32.6 Total 917a 100.0 916a 100.0
61
Table 2.2. Age distribution of respondents to a survey of North Carolina licensed hunters about hunting on Sunday in North Carolina conducted during summer of 2006, before and after weighting data to reflect age distribution of original sample.
Age Region N
(Unweighted)
% of Respondents (Unweighted)
N (Weighted)
% of Respondents
(Weighted) Overall 70 7.6 107 11.7 Coastal 28 9.1 31 12.5
Piedmont 26 8.3 46 12.4 18-24
Mountain 16 5.4 30 10.0 Overall 112 12.2 160 17.4 Coastal 40 13.0 47 19.0
Piedmont 37 11.8 67 18.1 25-34
Mountain 35 11.8 46 15.4 Overall 177 19.3 184 20.1 Coastal 59 19.2 47 19.0
Piedmont 56 17.9 76 20.5 35-44
Mountain 62 20.9 61 20.4 Overall 203 22.1 165 18.0 Coastal 66 21.4 45 18.1
Piedmont 77 24.6 70 18.9 45-54
Mountain 60 20.3 50 16.7 Overall 182 19.8 144 15.7 Coastal 55 17.9 39 15.7
Piedmont 61 19.5 54 14.6 55-64
Mountain 66 22.3 51 17.1 Overall 173 18.9 157 17.1 Coastal 60 19.5 39 20.4
Piedmont 56 17.9 57 15.4 ≥65
Mountain 57 19.3 61 15.7
62
Table 2.3. Nonresponse analysis comparing mail and telephone respondents to a survey of North Carolina licensed hunters about hunting on Sunday in North Carolina conducted during summer of 2006.
Question Mailed (N=917)
Phone (N=60) χ2 df P-value
Did you hunt in North Carolina at any time since July 1, 2001 (in the past 5 years)?a 91.6 88.3 0.748 1 0.387
Have you hunted in NC since July I, 2005?a 93.9 90.7 0.192 1 0.660d
For the most recent season, did you hunt more days, fewer days, or about the same number of days as you did during the previous four seasons?b 18.2 30.6 5.881 2 0.053
Do you support or oppose the legalization of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina?c 49.3 30.0 9.586 2 0.008
a Percent indicating �Yes�
b Percent indicating �Fewer Days�
c Percent indicating �Support�
d Fisher�s exact test used because >20% of cells had expected counts <5
63
Table 2.4. Support for and opposition to hunting on Sunday before and after adjusting for nonresponse bias, based on mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. Opinion Prior to Adjustment Opinion After Adjustment
Support for (%) 49.3 37.9 Opposition to (%) 44.7 53.0
64
Tab
le 2
.5. S
igni
fican
t rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
opin
ion
of h
untin
g on
Sun
day
in N
orth
Car
olin
a an
d re
spon
dent
dem
ogra
phic
s, ba
sed
on m
ail s
urve
y of
lic
ense
d re
siden
t hun
ters
in N
orth
Car
olin
a in
sum
mer
200
6. (N
umbe
rs u
nder
the
valu
e he
adin
g re
pres
ent t
he p
erce
nt o
f hun
ters
who
sele
cted
that
re
spon
se o
ptio
n).
Valu
esa
Dem
ogra
phic
Cha
ract
eris
tics
1 2
3 4
5 N
χ2
df
P-va
lue
Gam
ma
Age
910
98.6
90
20
<0.0
001
0.25
4
18-2
4
44.9
15
.9
8.4
3.7
27.1
25
-34
45
.3
15.7
4.
4 5.
7 28
.9
35-4
4 46
.7
10.3
2.
2 8.
7 32
.1
45-5
4 41
.7
8.6
5.5
5.5
38.7
55
-64
37.2
13
.1
7.6
2.8
39.3
≥6
5 13
.8
4.6
9.2
5.9
66.4
Com
mun
ity
88
1 51
.179
16
<0
.000
1 0.
160
La
rge
City
48
.1
6.2
7.4
12.3
25
.9
Smal
l City
42
.8
10.6
5.
6 7.
2 33
.9
Smal
l Tow
n 39
.5
13.2
9.
9 8.
6 28
.9
Rur
al a
rea
not o
n a
Farm
41
.5
11.3
5.
3 3.
2 38
.7
Rur
al a
rea
on a
farm
27
.2
12.0
3.
8 3.
3 53
.8
In
com
e
836
32.5
59
20
0.03
8 -0
.059
<$24
,999
35
.2
6.7
8.6
2.9
46.7
$2
5,00
0-$3
4,99
9 43
.5
14.5
1.
4 5.
8 34
.8
$35,
000-
$49,
999
41.4
9.
0 6.
0 5.
3 38
.3
$50,
000-
$74,
999
34.4
14
.6
8.0
6.1
36.8
$7
5,00
0-$9
9,99
9 36
.0
10.4
4.
0 8.
8 40
.8
≥$10
0,00
0 51
.2
9.8
7.3
4.9
26.8
Chu
rch
Atte
ndan
ce
85
7 15
9.02
6 12
<0
.000
1 0.
462
0
days
59
.8
13.7
6.
8 1.
8 17
.8
1-2
days
52
.0
13.2
7.
2 8.
6 19
.1
3-5
days
28
.6
12.2
6.
3 7.
6 45
.4
≥6 d
ays
22.0
4.
4 3.
3 3.
3 67
.0
a 1
= S
trong
ly S
uppo
rt, 2
= S
omew
hat S
uppo
rt, 3
= N
eith
er S
uppo
rt N
or O
ppos
e, 4
= S
omew
hat O
ppos
e, 5
= S
trong
ly O
ppos
e
65
Tab
le 2
.6. R
elat
ions
hips
bet
wee
n op
inio
n of
hun
ting
on S
unda
y in
Nor
th C
arol
ina
and
hunt
er c
hara
cter
istic
s, ba
sed
on a
mai
l sur
vey
of li
cens
ed r
esid
ent
hunt
ers i
n N
orth
Car
olin
a in
sum
mer
200
6. (N
umbe
rs u
nder
the
valu
e he
adin
g re
pres
ent t
he p
erce
nt o
f hun
ters
who
sele
cted
that
res
pons
e op
tion)
. Va
lues
a
Hun
ter C
hara
cter
istic
s 1
2 3
4 5
N
χ2 df
P-
valu
e G
amm
a H
unte
r Typ
eb
745
18.3
20
8 0.
019
NA
Big
gam
e
41.6
11
.4
4.1
5.4
37.5
Sm
all g
ame
18
.4
12.2
6.
1 12
.2
51.0
W
ater
fow
l 60
.0
10.0
10
.0
0.0
20.0
M
ixed
45
.9
9.7
5.5
3.9
34.9
Avid
ity
75
7 23
.239
8
0.00
3 -0
.201
Low
(≤ 1
5 da
ys)
31.9
9.
9 6.
6 6.
6 45
.1
Inte
rmed
iate
(16-
53 d
ays)
41
.6
12.7
4.
6 5.
4 35
.7
Hig
h (≥
54
days
) 53
.7
7.8
4.4
2.9
31.2
a 1
= St
rong
ly S
uppo
rt, 2
= S
omew
hat S
uppo
rt, 3
= N
eith
er S
uppo
rt N
or O
ppos
e, 4
= S
omew
hat O
ppos
e, 5
= S
trong
ly O
ppos
e b R
emov
ed w
ater
fow
l cat
egor
y fr
om a
naly
sis d
ue to
smal
l sam
ple
size
(n =
10)
.
66
Table 2.7. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and land ownership, as reported by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006 (χ2 = 39.603, df = 8, P < 0.0001). (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuesa
Land Ownership N 1 2 3 4 5 I own land on which I allow hunting to occur. 332 37.7 9.9 6.6 3.9 41.9 I am a landowner, but I do not allow hunting. 135 23.0 13.3 4.4 5.2 54.1 I am not a landowner. 405 46.7 11.6 4.9 7.4 29.4 a 1 = Strongly Support, 2 = Somewhat Support, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 5 = Strongly Oppose
67
Table 2.8. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and constraints to hunting activity, as reported by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuesa Importance of Statements in Explaining Constraints to
Hunting Activity N 1 2 3 4 5 Work commitments limit my time to hunt.b 816
Very Important 55.9 12.2 3.5 2.9 25.4
Somewhat Important 34.2 16.0 5.5 7.2 37.1
Neither Important Nor
Unimportant 29.2 7.1 8.0 9.7 46.0
Somewhat Unimportant 25.0 7.5 5.0 7.5 55.0
Very Unimportant 37.4 7.8 4.3 4.3 46.1 Family commitments limit my time to hunt.c 820
Very Important 45.6 11.7 4.1 3.5 35.1
Somewhat Important 35.1 16.3 4.3 8.0 36.2
Neither Important Nor
Unimportant 42.2 8.7 6.8 5.8 36.4
Somewhat Unimportant 46.9 10.2 8.2 4.1 30.6
Very Unimportant 42.4 7.6 4.2 2.5 43.2 a 1 = Strongly Support, 2 = Somewhat Support, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 5 = Strongly Oppose b χ2 = 66.726, df = 16, P < 0.0001 γ = 0.270 c χ2 = 23.246, df = 16, P = 0.107
68
Tab
le 2
.9. S
igni
fican
t rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
opin
ion
of h
untin
g on
Sun
day
with
som
e lim
itatio
ns in
Nor
th C
arol
ina
and
resp
onde
nt d
emog
raph
ics,
base
d on
a m
ail s
urve
y of
lice
nsed
res
iden
t hun
ters
in N
orth
Car
olin
a in
sum
mer
200
6. (N
umbe
rs u
nder
the
valu
e he
adin
g re
pres
ent t
he p
erce
nt o
f hu
nter
s who
sele
cted
that
res
pons
e op
tion)
. Va
lues
a
Dem
ogra
phic
Cha
ract
eris
tics
1 2
3 4
5 N
χ2
df
P-va
lue
Gam
ma
Age
891
76.3
39
20
<0.0
001
0.20
5
18-2
4 26
.9
19.2
12
.5
4.8
36.5
25
-34
20.8
29
.6
10.1
5.
0 34
.6
35-4
424
.9
23.2
4.
9 10
.8
36.2
45
-54
21.1
19
.9
6.2
7.5
45.3
55
-64
22.9
17
.9
10.7
5.
0 43
.6
≥65
4.9
9.2
9.2
10.6
66
.2
C
omm
unity
871
39.6
95
16
0.00
1 0.
120
La
rge
City
25.6
15
.4
10.3
14
.1
34.6
Sm
all C
ity21
.2
22.9
8.
9 8.
9 38
.0
Smal
l Tow
n20
.0
22.7
11
.3
12.0
34
.0
Rur
al a
rea
not o
n a
Farm
22.0
21
.6
7.8
5.3
43.3
R
ural
are
a on
a fa
rm15
.0
17.0
6.
6 2.
7 57
.7
In
com
e
831
36.2
23
20
0.01
4 -0
.036
≤$24
,999
17.5
13
.6
11.7
3.
9 53
.4
$25,
000-
$34,
999
30.4
20
.3
5.1
10.1
34
.1
$35,
000-
$49,
999
15.9
22
.7
10.6
4.
5 46
.2
$50,
000-
$74,
999
17.9
24
.1
9.4
9.0
39.6
$7
5,00
0-$9
9,99
916
.1
21.8
8.
9 5.
6 47
.6
≥$10
0,00
028
.7
19.7
9.
0 8.
2 34
.4
C
hurc
h A
ttend
ance
850
108.
629
12
<0.0
001
0.34
7
0 da
ys29
.0
28.6
9.
7 5.
5 27
.2
1-2
days
24.7
26
.7
13.3
11
.3
24.0
3-
5 da
ys16
.9
18.2
8.
6 8.
3 48
.0
≥6 d
ays
13.8
10
.5
2.8
3.9
69.1
a 1 =
Stro
ngly
Sup
port,
2 =
Som
ewha
t Sup
port,
3 =
Nei
ther
Sup
port
Nor
Opp
ose,
4 =
Som
ewha
t Opp
ose,
5 =
Stro
ngly
Opp
ose
69
Table 2.10. Opinions of hunting on Sunday under different scenarios in North Carolina, as reported by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuea Support for and Opposition to Hunting on Sunday N 1 2 3 4 5
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only if pursuit dogs are not used. 885 24.4 8.7 15.0 5.2 46.7
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only on a few Sundays. 879 4.3 7.5 14.0 11.0 63.1
Only bowhunting should be allowed on Sunday. 879 5.9 5.7 16.4 8.8 63.3
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only on private lands. 878 10.5 7.8 14.1 7.0 60.7
If hunting on Sunday is allowed, it should be treated like any other day of the week. 883 36.4 10.1 8.7 6.1 38.7
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only on public lands. 881 4.1 1.9 15.4 8.4 70.2
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only for small game. 877 2.2 2.0 15.4 7.8 72.6
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only if safety zones are created around churches. 879 29.5 9.3 13.3 4.9 43.0
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only for big game. 880 6.3 4.4 17.5 7.1 64.7
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only from a stand. 880 7.7 5.0 17.4 7.0 62.9
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only after a certain time (for example after 1:00 p.m.). 881 12.3 9.8 11.0 5.6 61.4
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only for youth hunters (under 16 years of age). 881 2.0 3.1 14.3 7.5 73.1
a 1 = Strongly Support, 2 = Somewhat Support, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 5 = Strongly Oppose
70
Table 2.11. Scenarios for limited hunting on Sunday that are most strongly opposed by respondents who opposed hunting on Sunday with some limitations in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuea
Scenario N 5 4 3 2 1
�only on public lands. 445 87.6 5.2 5.2 0.0 2.0
�only for youth hunters (under 16 years of age). 446 87.6 5.0 4.3 1.5 1.6
�only for small game. 446 86.8 5.9 5.9 0.0 1.4
�only for big game. 445 86.0 5.1 5.9 1.2 1.9
�only on a few Sundays. 445 85.2 7.7 3.4 1.0 2.7
�only from a stand. 445 84.2 5.7 5.2 1.4 3.5 �only after a certain time
(for example after 1:00 p.m.). 444 83.1 4.2 5.4 3.1 4.1
�only bowhunting. 445 82.2 7.7 5.2 1.5 3.3
�only on private lands. 442 81.9 6.3 4.4 4.0 3.3
�only if pursuit dogs are not used. 447 78.5 5.6 6.5 2.3 7.2
�only if safety zones are created around churches. 444 75.4 5.3 4.6 4.6 10.2
�only if treated like any other day of the week. 445 69.3 4.7 4.3 2.5 19.2
a 5 = Strongly Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 2 = Somewhat Support, 1 = Strongly Support
71
Table 2.12. Scenarios of limited hunting on Sunday that were supported most strongly by respondents who supported hunting on Sunday with some limitations in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuea
Scenario N 1 2 3 4 5
�only if treated like any other day of the week. 359 55.5 18.4 10.5 7.5 8.0
�only if safety zones are created around churches. 356 51.7 13.5 19.3 4.6 10.3
�only if pursuit dogs are not used. 360 44.8 17.4 20.0 4.3 13.6
�only after a certain time (for example after 1:00
p.m.). 358 23.0 16.3 12.7 7.3 40.7
�only on private lands. 358 18.7 10.8 20.4 8.1 42.0
�only from a stand. 357 14.2 9.6 25.1 8.9 42.2
�only for big game. 357 12.1 9.3 24.9 9.4 44.3
�only bowhunting. 355 8.5 10.7 23.9 10.5 46.4
�only on public lands. 357 7.3 3.9 21.4 12.4 54.8
�only on a few Sundays. 356 6.9 14.0 20.2 16.3 42.5
�only for small game. 353 3.5 4.7 20.0 10.0 61.7
�only for youth hunters (under 16 years of age). 357 2.7 4.5 19.6 9.9 63.3
a 1 = Strongly Support, 2 = Somewhat Support, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 5 = Strongly Oppose
72
Table 2.13. Most important reasons shaping respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday, as reported by opponents of hunting on Sunday in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuea
Reasons N 1 2 3 4 5
Hunting on Sunday should not be permitted because Sunday
is a holy day. 388 67.7 10.6 10.0 0.5 11.2
Sunday provides a day that other recreationists such as
hikers, horseback riders, and wildlife viewers, can enjoy the woods without worrying about
hunters. 386 61.8 14.8 8.1 2.2 13.0
Sunday provides a day of rest for animals. 380 57.6 11.6 15.0 2.7 13.1
Hunting on Sunday should not be permitted because Sunday
is a family day. 382 57.5 14.2 15.1 2.8 10.3
Sunday provides a day of rest for hunters. 376 55.2 11.4 15.7 1.9 15.8
Noise associated with hunting
activities may interfere with church activities. 381 52.1 19.1 12.8 1.9 14.0
Hunting on Sunday may strain
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission�s personnel
resources because of additional required time on-duty for enforcement staff. 386 47.9 17.9 16.3 4.0 14.0
Hunting on Sunday may
reduce church attendance. 382 44.3 12.2 20.7 2.7 20.2
Additional harvest caused by hunting on Sunday may require
wildlife managers to shorten hunting seasons for some
animals. 379 42.6 19.6 16.2 4.3 17.2
Without a day of rest for animals, my ability to find game may become more difficult later
in the season. 379 37.2 13.9 19.6 5.8 23.5 a 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Unimportant, 5 = Very Unimportant
73
Table 2.14. Most important reasons shaping respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday, as reported by supporters of hunting on Sunday in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuea
Reasons N 1 2 3 4 5
The decision to hunt on Sunday should be a personal choice rather
than a governmental decision. 442 77.1 13.1 7.1 1.3 1.4
Hunting on Sunday may provide additional hunting opportunities for
working people. 441 75.0 19.7 3.9 0.5 0.9
The hunting on Sunday ban limits opportunities for hunters who work
the rest of the week. 442 65.6 20.9 9.2 1.0 3.4
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed because most other activities are
allowed on Sunday. 441 59.8 18.0 17.1 1.0 4.1
Additional harvest caused by hunting on Sunday would help manage
populations of wildlife such as white-tailed deer. 442 59.6 27.3 9.4 1.2 2.6
Hunting on Sunday should be allowed because 42 other states allow
Sunday hunting. 442 51.5 18.7 22.4 1.6 5.8
Hunting on Sunday may increase revenue to NC Wildlife Resources
Commission by increasing sales of resident hunting licenses 442 48.8 27.0 16.3 2.2 5.7
Hunting on Sunday may provide benefits for local and state
economies. 442 48.1 32.6 13.2 1.0 5.1
Hunting on Sunday may increase hunting participation by youth in North
Carolina. 441 46.8 30.2 15.5 1.9 5.6
Hunting on Sunday may increase revenue to NC Wildlife Resources
Commission by increasing sales of non-resident hunting licenses. 442 37.6 29.1 23.9 3.9 5.5
a 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Unimportant, 5 = Very Unimportant
74
Table 2.15. Significant relationships between respondent participation in hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
Demographic Characteristics %a %b N Χ2 df P-value
Age 882 93.484 10 <0.0001 18-24 57.8 28.4 25-34 59.1 26.4 35-44 55.4 34.8 45-54 48.1 37.0 55-64 43.6 44.3 ≥65 15.6 74.1 Community 878 23.555 8 0.003 Large City 54.5 26.6 Small City 51.1 34.8 Small Town 50.0 35.3 Rural area not on a
Farm 48.2 41.1 Rural area on a farm 37.6 52.5 Income 827 25.897 10 0.004 ≤$24,999 40.2 52.0 $25,000-$34,999 52.9 36.8 $35,000-$49,999 49.6 38.9 $50,000-$74,999 42.9 40.1 $75,000-$99,999 49.2 42.7 ≥$100,000 58.2 25.4 Church Attendance 850 160.125 6 <0.0001 0 days 72.1 17.2 1-2 days 64.9 21.2 3-5 days 36.5 47.8 ≥6 days 22.4 69.4 Avidity 749 27.722 4 <0.0001
Low (≤ 15 days) 40.9 33.9
Intermediate (16-53
days) 52.2 46.4 High (≥ 54 days) 61.9 19.7
a Percentage of respondents indicating they would hunt on Sunday if it was legalized b Percentage of respondents indicating they would not hunt on Sunday if it was legalized
75
Table 2.16. Relationship between opinion on hunting on Sunday and respondent participation in hunting on Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006 (χ2 = 821.125, df = 8, P < 0.0001). (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuesa If hunting on Sunday were legalized, would you hunt on Sunday in North Carolina? N 1 2 3 4 5
Yes 415 78.8 15.4 3.1 0.5 2.2
No 354 2.0 1.7 4.2 7.3 84.7
Not Sure 111 10.8 25.2 19.8 19.8 24.3
a 1 = Strongly Support, 2 = Somewhat Support, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 5 = Strongly Oppose
76
Table 2.17. Significant relationships between level of respondent participation in hunting on Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, and respondent demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
Demographic Characteristics %a %b N χ2 df P-value Gamma
Age 857 99.119 10 <0.0001 0.358 18-24 51.5 47.5 25-34 46.3 53.1 35-44 41.5 58.5 45-54 41.5 56.1 55-64 28.5 68.6 ≥65 7.9 79.8 Community 843 16.330 8 0.038 0.140 Large City 39.7 57.7 Small City 38.9 60.0 Small Town 47.5 50.4 Rural area not on a
Farm 36.4 60.4 Rural area on a farm 27.8 67.6 Church Attendance 821 76.119 6 <0.0001 0.439 0 days 54.7 45.3 1-2 days 48.0 50.0 3-5 days 30.8 66.1 ≥6 days 17.3 76.9 Avidity 738 11.756 4 0.019 -0.204 Low (≤ 15 days) 31.8 66.5
Intermediate (16-53
days) 40.8 58.1 High (≥ 54 days) 49.0 49.5
a Percentage of respondents indicating they would hunt more days if it was legalized b Percentage of respondents indicated they would about the same number of days if it was legalized
77
Table 2.18. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and respondent level of participation in hunting on Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006 (χ2 = 407.911, df = 8, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.875). (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuesa
If hunting on Sunday were legalized, would you hunt more days, fewer days, or about the same number of days per year as you do now? N 1 2 3 4 5
More Days 316 79.7 15.5 2.2 0.6 1.9
About the Same 515 17.5 9.1 7.4 8.9 57.1
Fewer Days 24 8.3 0.0 8.3 8.3 75.0
a 1 = Strongly Support, 2 = Somewhat Support, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 5 = Strongly Oppose
78
Table 2.19. Significant relationships between average number of days hunted that did not involve an overnight stay and demographics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.
Demographics Meana Median N F df P-value Region 768 5.321 2 0.005
Coastal 25.5 (35.1) 20.0 Piedmont 26.5 (35.1) 15.0 Mountain 18.7 (21.4) 11.1
Age 767 6.177 5 <0.0001 18-24 34.8 (38.8) 25.0 25-34 27.1 (32.4) 18.2 35-44 25.6 (32.5) 15.3 45-54 19.3 (20.4) 14.0 55-64 19.3 (23.4) 14.4
65 14.7 (19.5) 5.0 Gender 766 6.687 1 0.010
Male 24.4 (29.8) 15.0 Female 11.7 (18.0) 3.0
Community 757 6.229 4 <0.0001
Large City 10.6 (13.1) 5.0 Small City 23.4 (31.7) 15.3
Small Town 19.6 (24.0) 10.0 Rural area not on a farm 26.4 (27.6) 18.2
Rural area on a farm 29.4 (36.7) 19.8 Education 763 3.109 5 0.009
Some high school or less 28.9 (36.5) 20.0
High school diploma or GED 28.1 (32.5) 16.0
Some college or trade school 21.5 (24.6) 15.0
Bachelor's degree 20.0 (29.7) 12.3 Master's degree 24.6 (35.8) 9.8 Phd., M.D., J.D.,
or equivalent 8.2 (12.7) 1.0 Church Attendance 742 3.438 3 0.017
0 days 28.0 (32.8) 20.0 1-2 days 25.7 (37.7) 10.8 3-5 days 19.4 (23.6) 11.4 >6 days 24.6 (25.6) 16.0
a Means reported with standard deviations in parentheses
79
Table 2.20. Relationships between average number of days hunted that did not involve an overnight stay and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.
Hunter Characteristics Meana Median N F df P-value Hunter Type 680 1.286 3 0.278
Big game 26.0 (28.3) 18.0 Small game 24.3 (44.8) 7.3
Waterfowl 10.3 (10.6) 7.6 Mixed 27.7 (29.4) 20.0
Avidity 681 181.471 2 <0.0001 Low (≤15 Days) 6.5 (7.5) 5.0
Intermediate (16-53 Days) 20.5 (14.5) 20.0 High (≥54 Days) 54.0 (41.6) 50.0
a Means reported with standard deviations in parentheses.
80
Table 2.21. Significant relationships between average number of additional days hunted that would not involve an overnight stay and respondent demographics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.
Demographics Meana Median N F df P-value Age 771 2.929 5 0.013
18-24 10.4 (17.7) 5.0 25-34 7.9 (11.6) 3.4 35-44 7.6 (13.2) 3.0 45-54 5.7 (9.7) 0.0 55-64 5.9 (11.8) 0.0 ≥65 4.1 (12.5) 0.0
Education 766 2.350 5 0.039 Some high school
or less 10.2 (17.2) 3.3 High school diploma
or GED 8.2 (13.0) 3.1 Some college
or trade school 6.7 (12.5) 0.0 Bachelor's degree 4.4 (29.7) 0.0
Master's degree 7.2 (18.3) 0.0 PhD., M.D., J.D.,
or equivalent 3.2 (5.0) 1.1 Income 731 4.469 5 0.001
≤$24,999 9.8 (17.3) 0.0 $25,000-$34,999 11.2 (19.3) 4.5 $35,000-$49,999 6.3 (9.5) 3.0 $50,000-$74,999 5.3 (10.8) 0.0 $75,000-$99,999 5.5 (8.3) 0.2
≥$100,000 6.6 (9.5) 4.4 Church Attendance 745 3.042 3 0.028
0 days 9.3 (11.7) 7.0 1-2 days 7.1 (9.6) 5.0 3-5 days 5.8 (14.2) 0.0 ≥6 days 6.2 (14.2) 0.0
a Means reported with standard deviations in parentheses.
81
Table 2.22. Relationships between average number of additional days hunted that would not involve an overnight stay and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.
Hunter Characteristics Meana Median N F df P-value Hunter Type 682 0.957 3 0.413
Big game 6.9 (11.2) 3.0 Small game 6.7 (12.6) 0.0
Waterfowl 3.7 (4.4) 1.7 Mixed 8.3 (14.8) 3.0
Avidity 684 21.091 2 <0.0001 Low (≤15 Days) 2.9 (7.1) 0.0
Intermediate (16-53 Days) 7.3 (11.0) 3.0 High (≥54 Days) 11.9 (18.4) 9.4
a Means reported with standard deviations in parentheses.
82
Table 2.23. Relationships between average number of overnight trips taken to hunt in North Carolina and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.
Hunter Characteristics Meana Median N F df P-value Hunter Type 685 2.056 3 0.105
Big game 2.5 (7.1) 0.0 Small game 0.5 (1.6) 0.0
Waterfowl 4.0 (7.2) 0.0 Mixed 2.1 (4.5) 0.0
Avidity 687 9.284 2 <0.0001 Low (≤15 Days) 1.2 (4.0) 0.0
Intermediate (16-53 Days) 1.9 (4.5) 0.0 High (≥54 Days) 3.7 (8.0) 0.0
a Means reported with standard deviations in parentheses.
83
Table 2.24. Relationships between average number of additional overnight trips taken to hunt in North Carolina if hunting on Sunday were legalized and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.
Hunter Characteristics Meana Median N F df P-value Hunter Type 682 1.373 3 0.250
Big game 1.9 (3.9) 0.0 Small game 0.8 (2.4) 0.0
Waterfowl 2.4 (4.1) 0.0 Mixed 2.3 (5.8) 0.0
Avidity 683 10.494 2 <0.0001 Low (≤15 Days) 1.0 (2.5) 0.0
Intermediate (16-53 Days) 1.8 (3.7) 0.0 High (≥54 Days) 3.3 (7.5) 0.0
a Means reported with standard deviations in parentheses.
84
CHAPTER 3: Understanding North Carolina hunters: satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina
INTRODUCTION Traditionally, hunters have had a significant role in shaping wildlife management in the
United States. Recent declines in hunting participation could threaten this relationship in the
future. As demographics of both hunters and the public continue to change, wildlife
management agencies have begun to focus greater attention on hunter retention and recruitment.
That focus includes developing programs to prevent further declines in hunting participation and
to recruit new hunters into the population (Enck et al. 2000). Change is inevitable, so, as
agencies shift their focus more to hunter retention and recruitment, they must understand the
factors that influence satisfaction with hunting experiences and motivations for hunting.
Manfredo et al. (1995) defined motivations as reasons for hunting and satisfaction as the
fulfillment of the expectations associated with motivations. Research (e.g., Hendee 1974,
Decker et al. 1980, Enck and Decker 1991, Grilliot and Armstrong 2005) confirms the notion
that a clear understanding of hunters� satisfaction with their hunting experiences and motivations
for hunting allows management agencies to maximize hunters� benefits derived from hunting.
Miller and Graefe (2001) also concluded that an understanding of hunters� satisfaction offers an
opportunity to evaluate agencies� ability to meet the needs of constituents. Wildlife management
agencies also need to identify and understand factors that decrease hunting participation or
constrain hunting activity. With better understanding of hunters� satisfaction with their hunting
experiences, the motivations for why they hunt, and the constraints that limit their hunting
activity, agencies may be able to maximize hunting opportunities and combat further declines in
hunting participation.
85
As part of a cooperative research effort (with North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), Responsive Management, Inc., and Southwick Associates), I developed
and implemented a mail survey of licensed North Carolina hunters. My specific objective was:
• to assess and characterize the satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of licensed
resident hunters in North Carolina.
METHODS
Questionnaire Development
My research was part of a larger survey conducted in summer 2006 to assess the opinions
about hunting on Sunday held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina. I also explored
particular characteristics of the licensed resident North Carolina hunter population. The
questionnaire I developed examined satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of North Carolina
hunters, and was constructed in coordination with other members of the Virginia Tech research
team, Responsive Management, Inc., and NCWRC. I utilized an importance scale (1 = very
important, 5 = very unimportant) to assess the importance of factors that influence satisfaction
with and motivations for hunting experiences in North Carolina. The questionnaire also used an
importance scale to gauge the relative importance that hunters place on reasons for how or why
their hunting activities may be constrained. Additional questions further characterized aspects of
hunting participation in North Carolina, such as hunters� distribution of effort among seasons and
species, region of the state hunted most often, use of hunting dogs, and use of private and/or
public lands for hunting. Finally, I asked participants to answer a number of questions used to
describe the demographics (e.g., gender, age) of the respondent pool.
86
Sampling and Questionnaire Administration
My sample population was comprised of a list of the names and addresses of 2,400
licensed resident hunters in North Carolina, drawn in May 2006 from the 2005 electronic license
database of resident hunting licenses sold between June 2005 and May 2006, such that 800
individuals were drawn from each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions. Each hunting
license type offered in North Carolina was represented proportionately in my sample population.
The distribution sequence I used to contact survey participants included an initial
questionnaire, a reminder postcard, a replacement questionnaire, and a final replacement
questionnaire. To increase my overall response rate, I included a personalized cover letter in the
final replacement package that also included information on the joint Bass Pro® and NCWRC
co-sponsorship of a $1,000 prize package to be awarded to one respondent.
Nonresponse Analysis
Because my final response rate was <65% (Dolsen and Machlis 1991), I conducted a
nonresponse analysis that consisted of telephone interviews conducted with 60 randomly
selected nonrespondents (20 from each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions). The
telephone questionnaire incorporated 6 questions from the original questionnaire; however, only
3 questions focused on hunting participation and level of participation.
Data Analysis
I used SPSS 14.0 (SPSS 14.0, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) to conduct my data analysis.
Because the age distribution of respondents significantly differed from that represented by the
original sample (χ2 = 35.614, df = 5, P < 0.0001), I weighted the data to re-align respondents�
age distribution with that of the original dataset and also within each of North Carolina�s 3
87
administrative regions. For analysis, I also filtered out respondents who indicated they no longer
considered themselves to be a hunter.
I categorized respondents into hunter types (i.e., big game [deer, turkey, and bear], small
game [birds, small mammals, and furbearer], waterfowl, and mixed) using responses they
provided to questions about the number of days they hunted for a particular species (i.e.,
questions 4-13). To be placed into a designated category, ≥80% of one�s total days hunted (the
sum of all days hunted in questions 4-13) must have been devoted to species in that category;
respondents were placed into the mixed category when no single category accounted for >80% of
total days hunted. I classified respondents into avidity categories using the total number of days
hunted (the sum of days hunted in questions 4-13). I placed respondents in the lower quartile
into the �low (≤15 days)� category, respondents within the interquartile range into the
�intermediate (16-53 days)� category, and respondents in the upper quartile into the �high (≥54
days)� category.
Frequency distributions provided descriptive findings for nominal and ordinal data. I
also constructed contingency tables to examine relationships between hunter characteristics (e.g.,
satisfaction), and region, demographics, and hunter characteristics. Further analysis of these
relationships required use of the Chi-square test of homogeneity. A probability value (P-value)
of 0.05 was used to identify statistically significant relationships. When analyses produced
significant P-values, I used gamma to measure the strength of association between 2 ordinal
variables and report gamma values ≤ -0.2 and values ≥ 0.2 as significant. Gamma ranges from -
1.00 (perfect negative association) to 1.00 (perfect positive association) with 0 indicating no
association (Babbie et al. 2003).
88
I conducted a factor analysis, using the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) method of
extraction in SPSS, to detect domains among satisfaction, motivational, and constraint indicator
statements (Garson 2006). Cronbach�s alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of
each domain. I examined relationships between satisfaction, motivational, and constraint
domains, and region, demographics, and hunter characteristics using both Chi-square test of
homogeneity and analysis of variance (ANOVA). I used Duncan�s range test to conduct post-
hoc analyses to determine which means differ. Again, I used a P-value of 0.05 to identify
statistically significant relationships.
RESULTS
Response Rate
Nine hundred and seventeen respondents returned completed surveys. The sample was
adjusted to remove 183 surveys returned with undeliverable addresses, 12 returned from families
where the contact was deceased, and 1 hard refusal (n =196), resulting in a final response rate of
41.6%. Response rates within administrative regions mirrored the overall final response rate
(Coastal response rate = 42.0%, n = 308; Piedmont response rate = 42.4%, n = 313; and
Mountain response rate = 40.5%, n = 296).
Nonresponse Analysis
Due to the lower than anticipated response, I conducted a nonresponse analysis (Dolsen
and Machlis 1991). I contacted 445 nonrespondents before completing 60 interviews. My
nonresponse analysis suggested a tendency for nonrespondents to have hunted fewer days during
the most recent season, although the difference was not statistically significant (χ2 = 5.881, df =
2, P = 0.053).
89
Demographics
Nearly all hunters were male (95.6%, n = 807), and respondents from this sample
population averaged 44.9 years old (n = 862). The largest group of responding hunters (21.4%, n
= 184) were 35-44 years old, whereas the fewest (11.9%, n = 103) were in the 18-24 year old age
group. More than half of all respondents (53.5%, n = 445) indicated that they currently lived in a
rural area either on a farm or not on a farm. Only a small percentage (9.0%, n = 75) of hunters
indicated that they lived in a large city (>100,000 people). Forty percent (n = 332) had attained a
high school education or less, whereas 40.7% (n = 341) had completed some college (including
Associate�s degree) or trade school; 19.1% (n = 163) held a college degree (including advanced
degrees).
Respondents spanned all annual household income (before taxes) levels: 12.2% (n = 97)
≤$25,000; 16% (n = 128) $25,000-$34,999; 15.8% (n = 125) $35,000-$49,999; 25.7% (n = 203)
$50,000-$74,999; 15.4% (n = 121) $75,000-$99,999; and 14.8% (n = 117) ≥$100,000. Fifty
percent of hunters (n = 380) were placed into the �mixed� hunter category (i.e., they did not
expend ≥80% of their total days hunted in one single category). I classified 42% (n = 315) of the
remaining respondents as big game hunters, 6.7% (n = 51) as small game hunters, and 1.3% (n =
10) as waterfowl hunters.
General Hunting Participation
Nearly all responding hunters (97%, n = 813) had hunted in North Carolina since July 1,
2001, and 93% (n = 752) had hunted in North Carolina since July 1, 2005. Among hunters who
had hunted during the most recent season, most (62.4%, n = 462) had not changed their level of
participation (i.e., number of days hunted) compared to the previous 5 years. Only 19% (n =144)
90
indicated that their hunting participation level had increased over previous years, but 18.2% (n =
135) said their participation had declined.
Hunters� participation during the most recent season differed significantly among North
Carolina�s 3 administrative regions (χ2 = 13.541, df = 4, P = 0.009); hunters in the Piedmont
region hunted more days than hunters from either the Coastal or Mountain regions. Older
hunters hunted fewer days during the most recent season (χ2 = 25.650, df = 10, P = 0.004, γ =
0.098). Income, though significant, produced no clear pattern (χ2 = 22.806, df = 10, P = 0.011, γ
= -0.023). However, 20-28% of hunters who reported incomes between $35,000 and $49,999,
and >$75,000 hunted more days during the most recent season, compared to 13-16 % of those
reporting other income levels. Twenty to twenty-five percent of hunters categorized as big game
hunters and mixed hunters hunted more days during the most recent season (χ2 = 15.668, df = 6,
P = 0.016), whereas only 9-15% of other hunter types reported hunting more days. Avid hunters
hunted more days during the most recent season as compared to the previous 5 seasons, whereas
less avid hunters hunted fewer days (χ2 = 81.902, df = 4, P < 0.0001, γ = -0.497). No significant
differences in participation were found based on gender (χ2 = 1.130, df = 2, P = 0.568),
community type (χ2 = 10.301, df = 8, P = 0.245), or education (χ2 = 17.600, df = 10, P = 0.062).
Satisfactions
Overall, 86.8% of hunters (n = 649) rated their satisfaction with hunting experiences in
North Carolina during the most recent season as adequate to excellent. Hunters in the Mountain
region expressed less satisfaction with their hunting experiences during the most recent season
than did hunters in either the Piedmont or Coastal regions (χ2 = 19.952, df = 8, P = 0.011).
Satisfaction with the most recent hunting experience appeared to differ with age of the
respondent, but the relationship was not uniformly linear (χ2 = 31.791, df = 20, P = 0.046, γ = -
91
0.058). Less avid hunters were less satisfied with their most recent hunting experience in North
Carolina, whereas avid hunters were more satisfied (χ2 = 40.794, df = 8, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.253).
I found no differences in satisfaction based on gender (χ2 = 3.200, df = 4, P = 0.525), community
type (χ2 = 17.471, df = 16, P = 0.356), education (χ2 = 17.474, df = 20, P = 0.622), income (χ2 =
30.518, df = 20, P =0.0625), or hunter type (χ2 = 8.490, df = 8, P = 0.387).
Most hunters (88%, n = 709) rated their satisfaction with hunting experiences in North
Carolina over the last 5 years as adequate to excellent. Hunters in the Piedmont region expressed
greater satisfaction with their hunting experiences over the last 5 years than did hunters in either
the Coastal or Mountain regions (χ2 = 30.662, df = 8, P < 0.0001). Satisfaction with hunting
experiences differed with hunter age, but, as before, no clear pattern emerged (χ2 = 36.428, df =
20, P = 0.014, γ = -0.105). However, 15-20% of hunters ≥55 years old rated their satisfaction as
less than adequate. Avid hunters were more satisfied with their hunting experiences over the last
5 years than were less avid hunters (χ2 = 33.177, df = 8, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.214).
The PCA analysis and reliability analysis using Cronbach�s alpha affirmed that my a
priori domain structure (4 satisfaction orientations: harvest orientation, natural environment
orientation, social orientation, and solitude orientation) for the satisfaction indicator statements
used to develop the questionnaire were appropriate, with the exception of 2 statements: having
the opportunity to take a safe and legal shot, and hunting with dogs (Table 3.1). Each of these 2
statements fell out into their own discrete category rather than clustering with the 4 identified
domains. Hunters identified spending time in the fields/woods (98.1%, n = 789), seeing wildlife
(97.9%, n = 785), seeing signs that game animals are present (97.3%, n = 780), or having the
opportunity to take a safe and legal shot (95.8%, n = 767) as being important factors in
determining satisfaction with their hunting experiences in North Carolina (Table 3.1).
92
Overall, the mean importance placed on factors within the harvest orientation domain
was 2.6 out of 5.0 (1 = Very Important, 5 = Very Unimportant) (n = 772, SE = 0.30). Hunters
≤44 years old placed more importance on factors within the harvest orientation domain than
hunters >45 years old (F = 4.500, df = 5, P < 0.0001) (Table 3.2). As respondents� level of
education (F = 11.495, df = 5, P < 0.0001) decreased, more importance was placed on harvest
orientation factors. Hunters who earned ≤$24,999 placed high importance on factors within the
harvest orientation domain (F = 6.539, df = 5, P < 0.0001). Big game hunters, waterfowl
hunters, and mixed hunters placed greater emphasis on these factors than did small game hunters
(F = 28.163, df = 3, P < 0.0001). Avid and intermediate hunters also placed high importance on
factors with this domain (F = 6.672, df = 2, P = 0.001). No differences existed between harvest
satisfaction factors and region (F = 2.614, df = 2, P = 0.074, gender (F = 1.423, df = 1, P =
0.233), or community type (F = 1.106, df = 4, P = 0.353).
Most respondents (n = 798, x = 1.2, SE = 0.01) believed factors within the natural
environment domain strongly influenced their satisfaction. That belief was not tempered by
region (F = 1.675, df = 2, P = 0.188), age (F = 0.544, df = 5, P = 0.743), gender (F = 2.470, df =
1, P = 0.116), community type (F = 0.255, df = 4, P = 0.907), education (F = 1.003, df = 5, P =
0.415), income (F = 0.211, df = 5, P = 0.958), hunter type (F = 1.189, df = 3, P = 0.313), or
avidity (F = 1.232, df = 2, P = 0.292).
Hunters also believed that factors within the social domain influenced their satisfaction
with hunting in North Carolina (n = 787, x = 1.7, SE = 0.03). A slight difference was detected in
the amount of importance placed on factors within the social domain due to community type (F =
2.388, df = 4, P = 0.050). Respondents who reside in rural areas on farms placed less importance
on factors within this domain than did those in other community types. I did not detect any
93
differences in satisfaction attributable to factors in the social domain when analyzing by region
(F = 0.834, df = 2, P = 0.435), age (F = 0.635, df = 5, P = 0.673), gender (F = 0.159, df = 1, P =
0.691), education (F = 2.148, df = 5, P = 0.058), income (F = 1.590, df = 5, P = 0.161), hunter
type (F = 0.399, df = 3, P = 0.754), or avidity (F = 2.863, df = 2, P = 0.058).
Overall, responding hunters placed less importance on factors within the solitude domain
(n = 779, x = 2.6, SE = 0.04) (Table 3.1). Hunters in the Piedmont and Mountain regions
identified these factors as being important more often than did those in the Coastal region (F =
6.101, df = 2, P = 0.002) (Table 3.3). Small game hunters believed these factors were less
important to their satisfaction than did other hunter types (F = 6.326, df = 3, P < 0.0001).
Expressions of satisfaction in this domain were unaffected by age (F = 1.350, df = 5, P = 0.241),
gender (F = 2.392, df = 1, P = 0.122), community type (F = 0.766, df = 4, P = 0.547), education
(F = 1.703, df = 5, P = 0.131), income (F = 0.178, df = 5, P = 0.971), or avidity (F = 0.018, df =
2, P = 0.983).
Nearly all North Carolina hunters (95.7%, n = 768) stated that having the opportunity to
take a safe and legal shot was important to their hunting satisfaction. Although I detected
significant differences in satisfaction across gender (χ2 = 13.425, df = 4, P = 0.009), income (χ2 =
34.805, df = 20, P = 0.021), and hunter type (χ2 = 15.595, df = 8, P = 0.049) categories, my
confidence in these results was low because >50% of my expected cell counts were <5. I found
no significant differences in satisfaction related to this factor by region (χ2 = 7.235, df = 8, P =
0.511), age (χ2 = 22.236, df = 20, P = 0.328), community type (χ2 = 23.359, df = 16, P = 0.104),
education (χ2 = 14.185, df = 8, P = 0.077), or avidity (χ2 = 7.391, df = 8, P = 0.495).
Approximately 28% of respondents (n = 222) stated their hunting satisfaction in North
Carolina was linked to or derived from hunting with dogs. Hunting with dogs noticeably was
94
important to hunters in the Coastal region (χ2 = 23.885, df = 8, P = 0.002) (Table 3.4). Further, a
greater percentage of hunters ≥55 years of age placed greater importance on hunting with dogs in
determining hunting satisfaction (χ2 = 57.241, df = 20, P < 0.0001, γ = -0.010). Small game
hunters believed that hunting with dogs was important to their hunting satisfaction than did other
hunter types (χ2 = 70.340, df = 8, P < 0.0001). Although suggested, I was not able to confirm
any clear relationship between satisfaction derived from hunting with dogs and community type
(χ2 = 30.050, df = 16, P =0.018, γ = -0.106), income (χ2 = 31.989, df = 20, P = 0.044, γ = 0.092),
and avidity (χ2 = 16.555, df = 8, P = 0.035, γ = -0.118). However, a greater percentage of rural
farm residents, hunters with lower incomes (i.e., <$25,000), and avid hunters considered hunting
with dogs to be an important satisfaction determinant. No relationship existed between this
factor and respondents� gender (χ2 = 1.631, df = 4, P = 0.803) or education (χ2 = 13.668, df = 8, P
= 0.091).
Motivations
The PCA analysis and reliability analysis using Cronbach�s alpha affirmed that my a
priori domain structure for grouping the motivation indicator statements used to develop the
questionnaire was appropriate, with 1 exception. The PCA analysis combined my previously
separate wildlife resources and skills/equipment domains into a single factor domain. Therefore,
my revised structure now included only 4 motivation domains: resource/skills, natural
environment, social, and psychological/physiological (Table 3.5).
Hunters clearly identified several factors as being important reasons why they hunt in
North Carolina (Table 3.5). Among the top motivations expressed were to enjoy the outdoors
(99.5%, n = 800), to relax (97.8%, n = 784), to experience natural surroundings (95.6%, n =
784), and to watch wildlife (95.2%, n = 761).
95
Overall, the mean importance placed on factors within the resource/skills domain was 2.1
(n = 788, SE = 0.03). Younger hunters found these factors to be slightly more important than did
older hunters (F = 3.407, df = 5, P = 0.005) (Table 3.6). As hunters� education level (F =
11.385, df = 5, P < 0.0001) and income (F = 5.241, df = 5, P < 0.0001) decreased, the
importance placed on factors within the resource/skills motivation domain increased. Big game
hunters and mixed hunters identified motivations in this domain as being more important than
small game hunters and waterfowl hunters did (F = 31.509, df = 3, P < 0.0001). Avid hunters
considered the motivations in this domain to be more important than did either intermediate or
low avidity hunters (F = 15.282, df = 2, P < 0.0001). I found no relationship between expression
of motivation and one�s region (F = 1.693, df = 2, P = 0.185), gender (F = 0.844, df = 1, P =
0.359), or community type (F = 1.448, df = 4, P = 0.216) within the resource/skills domain.
Hunters clearly identified with motivations in the natural environment domain (e.g., to
experience natural surroundings) and viewed them as important reasons for hunting in North
Carolina (n = 797, x = 1.3, SE = 0.02) (Table 3.5). I detected differences among hunter types (F
= 3.846, df = 3, P = 0.009) and avidity levels (F = 4.567, df = 2, P = 0.011). Small game hunters
(n = 49, x = 1.5, SE = 0.08) and waterfowl hunters (n = 10, x = 1.6, SE = 0.14) considered factors
within the natural environment motivation domain to be slightly less important than did big game
hunters (n = 309, x = 1.3, SE = 0.02) and mixed hunters (n = 369, x = 1.3, SE = 0.02). Avid
hunters (n = 203, x = 1.3, SE = 0.02) and intermediate hunters (n = 176, x = 1.4, SE = 0.03)
placed more importance on factors within the natural environment motivation domain than did
low avidity hunters (n = 309, x = 1.3, SE = 0.02). I found no other relationship between factors
within the natural environment domain and one�s region (F = 0.234, df = 2, P = 0.791), age (F =
96
1.109, df = 5, P = 0.354), gender (F = 1.114, df = 1, P = 0.291), community type (F = 0.656, df =
4, P = 0.623), education (F = 0.868, df = 5, P = 0.502), or income (F = 0.814, df = 5, P = 0.540).
Overall, elements of the social motivation domain (e.g., to take a youth hunting)
resonated with responding hunters (n = 779, x = 1.9, SE = 0.03). Hunters in the Coastal region
identified social motivations as being more important than did hunters in the Piedmont or
Mountain regions (F = 3.984, df = 2, P = 0.019) (Table 3.7). Hunters 35-44 years old placed the
most importance on factors within the social motivational domain (F = 2.661, df = 5, P = 0.021).
As respondents� education level decreased, respondents placed more importance on these factors
(F = 3.058, df = 5, P = 0.010). Small game hunters considered these factors to be less important
than did other hunter types (F = 4.264, df = 3, P = 0.005). Avid hunters considered social
motivations more important than did low or intermediate hunters (χ2 = 13.897, df = 2, P <
0.0001). One�s gender (F = 0.083, df = 1, P = 0.773), community type (F = 1.208, df = 4, P =
0.306), or income (F = 1.563, df = 5, P = 0.168) did not appear to influence the importance
hunters placed on reasons for hunting within the social motivation domain.
Overall, motivations in the psychological/physiological domain were viewed by most
hunters as being important reasons for why they hunt (n = 793, x = 1.4, SE = 0.02). Hunters <65
years old placed more importance on factors within the psychological/physiological domain than
did hunters ≥65 years old (F = 3.936, df = 5, P = 0.002). Other demographic factors did not
appear to influence hunters� motivational reasons within this domain for hunting (region [F =
0.076, df = 2, P = 0.926], gender [F = 0.067, df = 1, P = 0.796], community type [F = 0.935, df =
4, P = 0.443], education [F = 0.567, df = 5, P = 0.725], income [F = 1.118, df = 5, P = 0.349],
hunter type [F = 2.271, df = 3, P = 0.079], avidity [F = 0.470, df = 2, P = 0.625]).
97
Constraints
Work commitments were an important constraint on one�s hunting activity for many
hunters (67%, n = 548). Crowded public lands (57.0%, n = 469), high leasing costs on private
land (56.6%, n = 466), too few game animals (56.2%, n = 463), and family time commitments
(54.5%, n = 446) also were viewed as important limiting factors (Table 3.8).
My PCA analysis and reliability analysis using Cronbach�s alpha identified 4 distinct
constraint domains for grouping indicator statements used in the questionnaire: costs and
crowding, access, health and safety, and time. The analysis revealed a fifth domain of 5
indicator statements that did not appear to be related, but each of the indicator statements had
unique significance: not enough game animals, hunting regulations are too confusing, my
hunting companions no longer hunt, I no longer have hunting dogs, and I prefer to participate in
other activities during my free time.
Overall, mean importance placed on constraints associated with costs and crowding was
2.9 (n = 809, SE = 0.04). Female hunters considered these constraints to be less important than
did male hunters (F = 5.097, df = 1, P = 0.024) (Table 3.9). Hunters who possessed less
education found these constraints influenced their hunting activity more than did those with more
education (F = 5.764, df = 5, P < 0.0001). Hunters with incomes <$75,000 found these
constraints to be more important than did hunters with incomes ≥$75,000 (F = 6.033, df = 5, P <
0.0001). One�s perception of the importance of economic constraints was not influenced by
region (F = 2.713, df = 2, P = 0.067), age (F = 1.819, df = 5, P = 0.107), community type (F =
1.878, df = 4, P = 0.112), hunter type (F = 0.547, df = 3, P = 0.650), or avidity (F = 0.353, df = 2,
P = 0.703).
98
Overall, hunters identified access-related issues as being less important constraints to
their hunting activity (n = 799, x = 3.5, SE = 0.04). Hunters in the Piedmont and Mountain
regions placed greater importance on access issues than did those in the Coastal region (F =
3.867, df = 2, P = 0.021) (Table 3.10). Female hunters placed less importance on these
constraints than did male hunters (F = 5.641, df = 1, P = 0.018). As respondents� education level
decreased, respondents placed more importance on access-related constraints (F = 4.177, df = 5,
P = 0.001). Hunters with lower incomes (<$35,000) found access constraints were important
impediments to them, whereas those with higher incomes (>$50,000) did not (F = 4.338, df = 5,
P = 0.001). Views on access were not influenced by one�s age (F = 1.608, df = 5, P = 0.156),
community type (F = 1.829, df = 4, P = 0.121), hunter type (F = 1.539, df = 3, P = 0.203), or
avidity (F = 0.673, df = 2, P = 0.510).
Health and safety constraints (e.g., due to my health, I am unable to hunt as much as I
would like) were less important constraints to hunting activity compared to other constraints (n =
815, x = 3.4, SE = 0.04). Hunters in the Mountain region considered these constraints to be
more important than did hunters in the Coastal and Piedmont regions (F = 3.621, df = 2, P =
0.027) (Table 3.11). As the income of the respondent decreased, the amount of importance
placed on health or safety constraints increased (χ2 = 8.247, df = 5, P < 0.0001). In contrast, as
hunter age increased, the importance attributed to statements in this domain increased
dramatically (F = 48.496, df = 5, P < 0.0001). Respondents who reside in large cities considered
constraints associated with health and safety to be less important than did hunters who reside in
other community types (F = 4.033, df = 4, P = 0.003). Hunters who possessed less education
revealed greater concern for these constraints than did those with more education (F= 8.957, df =
5, P < 0.0001). Respondents� gender (F = 0.102, df = 1, P = 0.750), hunter type (F = 0.907, df =
99
3, P = 0.437), or avidity (F = 1.548, df = 2, P = 0.213) did not appear to influence opinion on the
importance of constraints described by this domain.
Hunters considered statements in the time commitment domain to be important
constraints to their hunting activity (n = 806, x = 2.4, SE = 0.04). Hunters between 25-44 years
old placed more importance on time constraints than did hunters <25 years old and hunters ≥45
years old (F = 21.141, df = 5, P < 0.0001) (Table 3.12). Hunters who reside in larges cities were
less concerned with time constraints than were hunters who reside in other community types (F =
2.423, df = 4, P = 0.047). Hunters who earned >$25,000 placed more importance on time
constraints than did hunters who earned ≤$24,999 (χ2 = 3.180, df = 5, P = 0.008). No significant
relationships were detect among the other demographics examined and one�s view on the
importance of time constraints (region [F = 1.627, df = 2, P = 0.197], gender [F = 0.383, df = 1,
P = 0.536], education [F = 0.471, df = 5, P = 0.798], hunter type [F = 2.572, df = 3, P = 0.053],
avidity [F = 0.632, df = 2, P = 0.532]).
Fifty-six percent of hunters (n = 461) believed a lack of enough game animals was an
important constraint to their hunting activity. Hunters in the Mountain region expressed this
view more than those in the other regions did (χ2 = 20.673, df = 8, P = 0.008) (Table 3.13).
Older hunters were more likely to consider this reason important than were younger hunters (χ2 =
36.271, df = 20, P = 0.014, γ = -0.152). As the income of the respondent decreased, the amount
of importance placed on a lack of enough game animals as a constraint to hunting activity
increased (χ2 = 38.975, df = 20, P = 0.007, γ = 0.150). Although opinion of importance about the
lack of game appeared to be influenced by a respondent�s education (χ2 = 24.445, df = 8, P =
0.002, γ = 0.137) and avidity (χ2 = 20.120, df = 8, P = 0.010, γ = 0.101), I did not discern any
clear trend. Respondents with more education found a lack of game animals to be less important.
100
Respondents� gender (χ2 = 8.283, df = 4, P = 0.082), community type (χ2 = 25.809, df = 20, P =
0.057), or hunter type (χ2 = 12.791, df = 8, P = 0.119) did not contribute to one�s rating of
importance on this issue.
Confusing hunting regulations were deemed an important constraint to hunting activity
by 36.6% (n = 298) of all respondents. Hunters who had completed less education found this
more constraining to their hunting than did those with greater education (χ2 = 38.266, df = 8, P <
0.0001, γ = 0.259) (Table 3.14). Differences were detected in respondents� view of importance
by region (χ2 = 16.762, df = 8, P = 0.033) and avidity (χ2 = 16.824, df = 8, P = 0.032, γ = 0.022),
but the strength of those differences was questionable. I found no relationship between
importance placed on clarity of regulations and one�s age (χ2 = 26.282, df = 4, P = 0.508), gender
(χ2 = 3.304, df = 4, P = 0.508), community type (χ2 = 13.387, df = 16, P = 0.644), income (χ2 =
26.786, df = 20, P = 0.141), or hunter type (χ2 = 1.732, df = 8, P = 0.988).
Only 19.3% of hunters (n = 156) identified the loss of hunting companions as an
important constraint to hunting activity. As hunters aged, the importance of this constraint
increased, especially among the oldest hunters (χ2 = 45.594, df = 20, P = 0.001, γ = -0.178)
(Table 3.15). The amount of education appeared to influence one�s view on this constraint, but it
was a weak relationship at best (χ2 = 19.407, df = 8, P = 0.013, γ = 0.094). Other demographics,
such as region (χ2 = 4.130, df = 8, P = 0.845), gender (χ2 = 1.575, df = 4, P = 0.813), community
type (χ2 = 8.022, df = 16, P = 0.948), income (χ2 = 23.244, df = 20, P = 0.278), hunter type (χ2 =
11.442, df = 8, P = 0.178), and avidity (χ2 = 13.854, df = 8, P = 0.086), did not appear to impart
any influence on this constraint.
The loss of hunting dogs was described as a constraint to hunting activity by only a
minority of hunters (13.4%, n = 109) and, among these individuals, this appeared to be more
101
important to hunters in the Coastal region than elsewhere (χ2 = 23.070, df = 8, P = 0.003) (Table
3.16). Older hunters also were more likely to consider this loss to be a constraint than were
younger hunters (χ2 = 53.806, df = 20, P < 0.0001, γ = -0.090). Community type (χ2 = 30.492, df
= 16, P = 0.016, γ = -0.032), education (χ2 = 16.791, df = 8, P = 0.032, γ = 0.153), and income (χ2
= 40.098, df = 20, P = 0.005, γ = 0.172) all appeared to exert some influence on one�s view of
this constraint, but they were weak relationships at best. Slightly more hunters who reside on
farms found this loss to be an important constraint to their hunting activity. Though weak trends,
as respondents� education and income increased, the likelihood of respondents finding a loss of
hunting dogs to be very unimportant increased. I found no similar relationships for hunters�
gender (χ2 = 23.070, df = 4, P = 0.849), hunter type (χ2 = 14.297, df = 8, P = 0.074), or avidity
(χ2 = 4.697, df = 8, P = 0.789).
Somewhat surprising in today�s busy world, only 16.1% of hunters (n = 131) found
competition for one�s free time by other activities to be an important constraint to their hunting.
As avidity rose, the importance of this constraint declined (χ2 = 26.683, df = 8, P < 0.0001, γ =
0.231) (Table 3.17). Small game hunters were more likely to consider this an important
constraint than were either big game or mixed hunters (χ2 = 16.470, df = 8, P = 0.036). A
respondent�s age (χ2 = 18.732, df = 20, P = 0.539), gender (χ2 = 2.540, df = 4, P = 0.637),
community type (χ2 = 15.967, df = 16, P = 0.455), education (χ2 = 13.612, df = 8, P = 0.092), and
income (χ2 = 25.697, df = 20, P = 0.176) appeared not to influence one�s view of importance
regarding time devoted to other activities.
102
DISCUSSION
Satisfaction Among North Carolina Hunters
A better understanding of hunters� satisfaction with hunting experiences, motivations for
hunting, and constraints to hunting participation in North Carolina is necessary if wildlife
management agencies effectively are to evaluate their ability to meet hunters� needs, to
maximize hunting opportunities, and to combat declines in hunting participation. Most hunters
in North Carolina rated both their hunting experiences during the 2005-2006 season and the
previous 5 seasons as adequate to excellent, indicating that North Carolina hunters are satisfied
overall.
Perhaps the most significant relationship between overall satisfaction, and demographic
and hunter characteristics occurred between satisfaction and avidity. Avid hunters expressed
greater overall satisfaction with their hunting experiences in North Carolina than did less avid
hunters. By definition, avid hunters spend more time in the field and, consequently, may be
more likely to achieve their primary objective or fulfill the expectations associated their
motivation for hunting that contributes to their overall satisfaction.
Many research studies have examined hunter satisfaction and found that multiple
determinants of hunter satisfaction exist (e.g., Vaske et al. 1986, Hammitt et al. 1990).
Additional studies focused on the relationship between hunters� satisfaction with hunting
experiences and their motivations for hunting (Heberlein and Kuentzel 2002). Wildlife
managers need to understand both satisfactions and motivations to manage successfully. My
research supports the concept that satisfaction with hunting experiences is derived from many
factors.
103
Most North Carolina hunters identified factors within the natural environment domain,
the social domain, and being able to take a safe and legal shot as important in determining
satisfaction with hunting experiences in North Carolina. Hunters also indicated they derived
some satisfaction from factors associated with harvest and solitude. Hunting with dogs appeared
to be an important determinant of satisfaction only to a relatively small component of the hunting
population.
The importance attached to these factors suggests that a multiple satisfaction approach to
wildlife management is needed in North Carolina if NCWRC managers are to maintain or
increase satisfaction among North Carolina hunters (Hendee 1974). Stankey et al. (1973:241)
recommended that a variety of management strategies are needed, including changing traditional
land management practices, varying hunting seasons, and controlling hunter density, if agencies
are to provide a �wide mix of satisfactions hunters attribute to quality hunting.�
In North Carolina, potential management strategies to maintain or increase satisfaction
among hunters who derive satisfaction from factors within the natural environment domain
might include increasing wildlife populations or directing hunters to areas with higher densities
of wildlife. Hunter perceptions that game animals are too scarce in North Carolina could be
altered through news releases or seasonal mailings. Such management strategies (e.g., increasing
wildlife populations) also may provide NCWRC managers with a means to maintain or increase
satisfaction derived from harvest associated factors (e.g., taking a game animal).
Additional management strategies (e.g., providing youth and family hunts on state
gamelands, providing hunter recruitment workshops) may allow managers to maintain or
increase hunter satisfaction related to the social aspects of hunting. Hayslette et al. (2001)
recommended developing a hunter mentoring program and providing youth hunts to increase
104
satisfaction derived from nonharvest characteristics of hunting experiences. If managers wish to
improve satisfaction related to solitude and/or being able to take a safe and legal shot, it may be
necessary to determine levels of hunter density that trigger perceptions of crowding among
different hunter types or under different circumstances. For example, a hunter who hikes far
from the nearest road probably would have a lower tolerance for crowding than a hunter
participating in an urban controlled hunt. Ultimately, strategies used by agencies to manage the
quality of hunting experiences should be designed for specific groups of hunters (e.g., provide
opportunities to hunt with dogs on state gamelands for small game hunters). Adoption of this
approach would expand traditional wildlife management focused on providing opportunities for
the hunter type (e.g., big game v. small game) and/or for the weapon preference (e.g., bow v.
muzzleloader) to focus on providing opportunities that target groups of hunters based how they
derive satisfaction from their hunting experience.
Motivations of North Carolina Hunters
Wildlife managers also must understand hunters� motivations if they are to provide
quality hunting experiences. Manfredo et al. (2004:1148) emphasized that hunter satisfaction
and motivations are related, defining motivations as the �specific force that directs behavior.�
They further emphasized that all hunters are driven to hunt by different sets of motivations
(Manfredo et al. 2004).
Nearly all hunters believed their strong motivation for hunting stemmed primarily from
factors described by the natural environment (e.g., to experience natural surroundings, to enjoy
the outdoors) and psychological and physiological (e.g., to enjoy solitude, to get away from my
everyday routine) domains. Fewer hunters identified reasons within the social (e.g., to take a
youth hunting, to maintain a family tradition) and/or the wildlife resource/skills equipment (e.g.,
105
to obtain meat, to help manage wildlife populations) domains as important motivations for
hunting; nevertheless, these factors still were important. As with managing to maintain and/or
increase hunter satisfaction, North Carolina wildlife managers will be challenged to provide
diverse hunting opportunities that will ensure motivational fulfillment. Targeted advertising
about unique opportunities available on public lands for hunters to fulfill expectations associated
with motivations or the incorporation of these factors with satisfaction factors identified earlier
may help to maintain hunters� motivations or encourage others to become more motivated.
Constraints to Hunting Participation in North Carolina
A preliminary assessment of potential impediments was obtained by the 2005 workshop
on hunter recruitment and retention in North Carolina, which identified the lack of hunting
opportunities as a prominent constraint both to hunter satisfaction, and to hunter recruitment and
retention (Responsive Management 2005). Workshop participants identified several contributing
subcomponents, a lack of quality land on which to hunt, lack of small game, and lack of access,
as contributing most to this lack of hunting opportunities (Responsive Management 2005).
Workshop participants also identified costs associated with hunting (e.g., the cost of leasing
private land is too expensive), time constraints, and the complexity of hunting regulations as
important constraints and possible barriers to hunter recruitment and retention (Responsive
Management 2005).
My survey results support the basic findings of that previous workshop, with one
exception. Unlike the workshop, my survey found relatively few hunters responding to the
survey considered access issues to be an important constraint to their hunting activity. Survey
respondents were more often concerned with other constraints (e.g., time). Older hunters and
hunters in the Mountain Region more frequently identified lack of game animals as an important
106
constraint. Hunters responding to the survey, particularly having completed less education,
agreed that complex hunting regulations constrained their hunting activity. Over half of
surveyed hunters believed factors associated with time (e.g., work commitments limit my time to
hunt) were important constraints to them, although time constraints were less important to
hunters >55 years old. Additional constraints identified by surveyed hunters included those
related to health and safety (e.g., decreased activity due to age, feeling unsafe while hunting),
particularly among older hunters.
Identifying and comprehending the consequences of the constraints that affect North
Carolina�s hunters and their continuing participation in hunting are crucial if managers are to
combat further declines in hunting participation. Miller and Vaske�s (2003) examination of
hunting participation in Illinois identified a number of perceived personal and situational
constraints as possible explanations for declines in hunting participation. Backman and Wright
(1993) defined personal constraints as one�s perception of barriers to participation (e.g., lack of
time, lack of interest). Wildlife managers often have limited ability to resolve hunters� personal
constraints (Miller and Vaske 2003). In North Carolina, where hunting opportunities are limited
to only 6 days a week, managers may have the ability to lessen the effects of certain personal
constraints (e.g. lack of time) to some extent (e.g., removal of the hunting on Sunday ban). In
addition, they may be able to resolve some of the situational constraints, such as lack of access,
not enough game, or confusing regulations (Miller and Vaske 2003).
Collectively, the workshop and my survey identified one personal constraint (i.e., time),
and two situational constraints (i.e., not enough game, confusing regulations) as major
impediments to hunting activity in North Carolina. Some have speculated that allowing hunting
on Sunday may alleviate time constraints for hunters. I discuss this further in Chapter 4. It is
107
uncertain if the situational constraints identified stem from false perceptions of wildlife
populations and hunting regulations. North Carolina wildlife managers may need to focus
outreach efforts to address inaccurate perceptions of wildlife populations. It may not be possible
to completely resolve issues with regulations as hunters often express dissatisfaction with the
complexity of regulations. In addition, wildlife managers must balance concern for complex
regulations with the often expressed desire for biologically-based management of wildlife
populations at the local level.
Hunters in North Carolina appear to be satisfied with their hunting experiences, remain
motivated for hunting, yet face serious constraints in their ability to continue hunting in North
Carolina. NCWRC needs to use the resources provided from this hunter survey to encourage
hunter recruitment and retention, and to combat further declines in hunting participation without
losing sight of biologically-based management goals and objectives. Giles (1978:4) defined
wildlife management as �the science and art of making decisions and taking actions to
manipulate �populations, habitats, and people to achieve specific human objectives by means of
the wildlife resource.� He further defined the role of wildlife manager as one that is measured in
the difference between what the wildlife system produces naturally and what it produces under
the guidance of the wildlife manager. However, most critical to the synthesis of my findings is
his definition of the wildlife resource. Giles (1978:14) defined the wildlife resource as a human
construct that �supplies specific benefits to people.� NCWRC managers as �wildlife managers�
are challenged with a responsibility to use the findings from my research to manage both hunters
and the wildlife resource. It is necessary for NCWRC managers to acknowledge the fragile
relationship between hunters (i.e., meeting specific human objectives, supplying specific benefits
108
to people) and the wildlife resource; if hunters no longer exist, the resource, by definition, ceases
to exist, and if the wildlife resource perishes, hunters no longer exist.
LITERATURE CITED
Babbie, E., F. Halley, and J. Zaino. 2003. Adventures in social research: data analysis using SPSS 11.0/11.5 for Windows, 5th Edition. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, California.
Backman, S.J. and B.A. Wright. 1993. An exploratory study of the relationship of attitude and the perception of constraints to hunting. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 11:1-16. Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, and R.J. Gutierrez. 1980. Further insights into the multiple satisfaction approach for hunter management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8:323-331. Enck, J.W., and D.J. Decker. 1991. Hunters� perspectives on satisfying and dissatisfying aspects of deer hunting experiences in New York State. Human Dimensions Research Unit publication 91-4. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Enck, J.W., D.J. Decker, and T.L. Brown. 2000. Status of hunter recruitment and retention in the
United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):817-824. Garson, D. 2006. Factor analysis. http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factor.htm#category. Giles, R.H. 1978. Wildlife management. W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco, CA. Grilliot, A.L., and J.B. Armstrong. 2005. A comparison of deer hunter with disabilities and nondisabled hunters in Alabama: motivations and satisfactions in deer hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):243-250. Hammitt, W.E., C.D. McDonald, and M.E. Patterson. 1990. Determinants of multiple satisfaction for deer hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:331-337. Hayslette, S.E., J.B. Armstrong, and R.E. Mirarchi. 2001. Mourning dove hunting in Alabama: motivations, satisfactions, and sociocultural influences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:81-95. Heberlein, T.A., and W.F. Kuentzel. 2002. Too many hunters or not enough deer? Human and biological determinants of hunter satisfaction and quality. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7:229-250.
109
Hendee, J.C. 1974. Multiple-satisfaction approach to game management. Journal of Wildlife Management 2:104-113. Manfredo, M.J., J.J. Vaske, and D.J. Decker. 1995. Human dimensions of wildlife management: basic concepts. Pages 17-31 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island, Washington, D.C. Manfredo, M.J., P.J. Fix, T.L. Teel, J. Smeltzer, and R. Kahn. 2004. Assessing demand for big- game hunting opportunities: applying the multiple-satisfaction concept. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4):1147-1155. Miller, C.A., and A.R. Graefe. 2001. Effect of harvest success on hunter attitudes toward white- tailed deer management in Pennsylvania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:189-203. Miller, C.A., and J.J. Vaske. 2003. Individual and situational influences on declining hunter effort in Illinois. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:263-276 Responsive Management. 2005. Hunter retention and recruitment in North Carolina: analysis and implications from the �Maintaining the Heritage� 2005 workshop. Responsive Management, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia. Stankey, G.H., R.C. Lucas, and R.R. Ream. 1973. Relationships between hunting success and satisfaction. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 38:235-242. Vaske, J. J., A. R. Graefe, B. Shelby, and T. Heberlein. 1986. Backcountry encounter norms: Theory, method and empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research 18(3):137-153.
110
Table 3.1. Importance of domains and individual factors in determining hunter satisfaction with hunting experiences in North Carolina, as reported by hunters in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
a 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Unimportant, 5 = Very Unimportant b Only 2 items within domain.
Valuea
A satisfying hunting experience is one where I� N 1 2 3 4 5
Cronbach�s Alpha
Cronbach�s Alpha if
Item Deleted
Harvest ( x = 2.6, SE = 0.30) 772 0.683
Take a game animal 795 27.2 38.1 24.2 5.4 5.2 0.552
Obtain meat 798 32.3 37.9 19.2 5.7 5.0 0.619
Take a full bag limit 786 6.4 14.9 42.0 14.7 21.9 0.636
Take a trophy animal 797 21.6 33.1 25.1 6.4 13.7 0.650 Natural Environment ( x = 1.2, SE = 0.01) 798 0.631
See wildlife 801 80.1 17.8 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.477 See signs that game animals are present 801 76.4 20.9 2.3 0.1 0.3 0.501 Spend time in the field/woods 803 80.6 17.5 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.608
Social ( x = 1.7, SE = 0.03) 787 0.620 Hunt with a preferred hunting companion 797 52.5 30.4 13.4 2.1 1.7 0.451 Spend time with other hunters 799 40.4 38.3 12.7 3.7 4.8 0.568 Hunt with members of my family 798 62.9 22.6 11.5 1.2 1.9 0.513
Solitude ( x = 2.6, SE = 0.04) 779 0.588
Do not see other hunters 789 15.6 23.8 36.3 11.0 13.2 NAb
Do not see other outdoor recreationists, such as hikers, horseback riders, or wildlife viewers 790 36.8 20.5 23.1 7.9 11.7 NAb
Other Factors
Have the opportunity to take a safe and legal shot 802 84.9 10.9 3.2 0.2 0.9
Hunt with dogs 797 14.7 13.1 25.4 10.0 36.8
111
Table 3.2. Significant relationships between harvest satisfaction domain, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Age 772 4.500 5 <0.0001 18-24 2.5 (0.07) A 25-34 2.4 (0.06) A 35-44 2.5 (0.06) A 45-54 2.6 (0.06) A,B 55-64 2.8 (0.09) C ≥65 2.7 (0.10) B,C Education 764 11.495 5 < 0.0001 Some high school
or less 2.2 (0.11) A High school diploma
or GED 2.4 (0.04) A,B Some college
Or trade school 2.7 (0.05) B,C Bachelor's degree 2.9 (0.08) C Master's degree 2.9 (0.15) C Phd., M.D., J.D.,
or equivalent 3.0 (0.28) C Income 721 6.539 5 < 0.0001 ≤$24,999 2.5 (0.10) B,C $25,000-$34,999 2.3 (0.07) A $35,000-$49,999 2.5 (0.06) A,B $50,000-$74,999 2.6 (0.06) B,C $75,000-$99,999 2.8 (0.08) C,D ≥$100,000 2.8 (0.09) D Hunter Type 711 28.163 3 <0.0001 Big game 2.4 (0.04) A Small game 3.5 (0.14) B Waterfowl 2.6 (0.25) A Mixed 2.6 (0.04) A Avidity 711 6.672 2 0.001 Low (≤ 15 days) 2.7 (0.07) B Intermediate (16-53 days) 2.5 (0.04) A High (≥ 54 days) 2.4 (0.05) A
a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.
112
Table 3.3. Significant relationships between solitude satisfaction domain, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Region 778 6.101 2 0.002 Coastal 2.8 (0.07) B Piedmont 2.6 (0.06) A Mountain 2.5 (0.07) A Hunter Type 720 6.326 3 < 0.0001 Big game 2.5 (0.06) A Small game 3.1 (0.18) B Waterfowl 2.9 (0.27) A,B Mixed 2.6 (0.06) A,B a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.
11
3
Tab
le 3
.4. S
igni
fican
t rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
impo
rtan
ce o
f hun
ting
with
dog
s in
dete
rmin
ing
satis
fact
ion,
and
dem
ogra
phic
s and
hun
ter
char
acte
rist
ics,
base
d on
a m
ail s
urve
y of
hun
ters
in N
orth
Car
olin
a in
sum
mer
200
6. (N
umbe
rs u
nder
the
valu
e he
adin
g re
pres
ent t
he p
erce
nt o
f hu
nter
s who
sele
cted
that
res
pons
e op
tion)
. Va
lues
a
Dem
ogra
phic
/Hun
ter C
hara
cter
istic
s 1
23
45
N
χ2 df
P-
valu
e G
amm
a R
egio
n79
723
.885
80.
002
NA
C
oast
al
21.6
16
.3
21.6
6.
6 33
.9
Pied
mon
t 12
.9
9.1
26.4
11
.3
40.3
M
ount
ain
11.1
15
.1
27.4
11
.5
34.9
Age
79
7 57
.241
20
<
0.00
01
-0.0
10
18
-24
10.6
11
.7
45.7
6.
4 25
.5
25-3
4 16
.5
9.5
24.1
16
.5
33.5
35
-44
9.9
16.0
21
.0
11.0
42
.0
45-5
4 14
.8
8.4
29.7
7.
1 40
.0
55-6
4 18
.8
13.3
18
.8
8.6
40.6
≥6
5 21
.0
22.2
17
.3
7.4
32.1
Com
mun
ity
78
3 30
.050
16
0.
018
-0.1
06
La
rge
City
5.
8 17
.4
24.6
5.
8 46
.4
Smal
l City
8.
8 12
.6
27.0
11
.9
39.6
Sm
all T
own
13.5
9.
0 24
.1
8.3
45.1
R
ural
are
a no
t on
a fa
rm
16.5
13
.0
25.6
9.
8 35
.0
Rur
al a
rea
on a
Far
m
22.6
14
.3
25.6
10
.7
26.8
Inco
me
74
5 31
.939
20
0.
044
0.09
2
≤$24
,999
25
.0
13.8
21
.3
8.8
31.3
$2
5,00
0-$3
4,99
9 16
.3
12.2
30
.9
8.1
32.5
$3
5,00
0-$4
9,99
9 14
.3
16.8
21
.8
7.6
39.5
$5
0,00
0-$7
4,99
9 15
.6
9.4
24.0
16
.1
34.9
$7
5,00
0-$9
9,99
9 11
.8
14.3
26
.9
5.9
41.2
≥$
100,
000
8.9
15.2
26
.8
6.3
42.9
Hun
ter T
ypeb
73
9 70
.340
8
< 0.
0001
N
A
Big
gam
e 11
.1
7.8
21.8
10
.4
48.9
Sm
all g
ame
42.9
12
.2
14.3
4.
1 26
.5
Wat
erfo
wl
10.0
0.
0 60
.0
0.0
30.0
M
ixed
15
.3
18.8
27
.9
9.7
28.4
Avid
ity
73
8 16
.555
8
0.03
5 -0
.118
Low
(≤ 1
5 da
ys)
7.4
13.1
30
.3
10.3
38
.9
Inte
rmed
iate
(16-
53 d
ays)
16
.7
11.9
23
.6
10.3
37
.5
Hig
h (≥
54
days
) 19
.7
16.3
23
.2
7.4
33.5
a 1 =
Ver
y Im
porta
nt, 2
= S
omew
hat I
mpo
rtant
, 3 =
Nei
ther
Impo
rtant
Nor
Uni
mpo
rtant
, 4 =
Som
ewha
t Im
porta
nt, 5
= V
ery
Uni
mpo
rtant
b R
emov
ed w
ater
fow
l cat
egor
y fr
om a
naly
sis d
ue to
sm
all s
ampl
e si
ze (n
= 1
0).
114
Table 3.5. Importance of motivations for hunting in North Carolina, as reported by hunters in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuea
I hunt� N 1 2 3 4 5 Cronbach�s
Alpha
Cronbach�s Alpha if
Item Deleted
Resource/Skills ( x = 2.1, SE = 0.03) 0.698
To obtain meat 798 30.5 36.5 20.9 5.2 6.9 0.660
To test my hunting skills 800 32.0 42.1 19.2 3.2 3.5 0.626
To harvest a trophy animal 793 21.5 33.5 26.9 7.5 10.5 0.685 To help manage wildlife populations 800 50.2 33.2 13.2 1.8 1.8 0.630 Natural Environment ( x = 1.3, SE = 0.02) 0.748 To experience natural surroundings 802 69.1 26.5 3.8 0.4 0.2 0.636
To watch wildlife 799 62.9 32.3 3.8 0.7 0.3 0.735
To enjoy the outdoors 804 84.2 15.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.702
Social ( x = 1.9, SE = 0.03) 0.824
To spend time with family 797 51.0 29.3 14.7 2.4 2.6 0.770 To spend time with friends 798 44.3 37.3 14.4 2.0 2.0 0.805 To share my knowledge of hunting with others 798 31.2 33.2 28.7 4.3 2.6 0.774
To take a youth hunting 790 45.8 31.0 17.0 2.9 3.4 0.792 To maintain a family tradition 798 40.6 24.2 25.4 3.5 6.3 0.804 Psychological/Physiological ( x = 1.4, SE = 0.02) 0.711 To get away from my everyday routine 798 65.5 28.4 4.8 0.6 0.6 0.552
To enjoy solitude 798 61.7 27.9 8.6 0.9 0.9 0.588
To relax 803 74.4 23.4 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.686 a 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Unimportant, 5 = Very Unimportant
115
Table 3.6. Significant relationships between the resource/skill motivation domain, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Age 787 3.407 5 0.005 18-24 2.0 (0.06) A 25-34 2.0 (0.05) A 35-44 2.1 (0.05) A,B 45-54 2.1 (0.06) A,B 55-64 2.3 (0.07) B,C ≥65 2.3 (0.10) C Education 780 11.385 5 < 0.0001 Some high school or less 1.8 (0.08) A High school diploma or GED 1.9 (0.04) A Some college or trade school 2.2 (0.04) B Bachelor's degree 2.3 (0.07) B,C Master's degree 2.4 (0.14) B,C Phd., M.D., J.D., or equivalent 2.5 (0.27) C Income 739 5.241 5 < 0.0001 ≤$24,999 2.0 (0.09) A,B $25,000-$34,999 2.0 (0.06) A $35,000-$49,999 2.0 (0.05) A,B $50,000-$74,999 2.2 (0.05) B,C $75,000-$99,999 2.2 (0.06) C ≥$100,000 2.3 (0.08) C Hunter Type 727 31.509 3 < 0.0001 Big game 1.9 (0.03) A Small game 3.0 (0.13) C Waterfowl 2.4 (0.17) B Mixed 2.1 (0.04) A,B Avidity 727 15.282 2 < 0.0001 Low (≤ 15 days) 2.3 (0.06) A Intermediate (16-53 days) 2.1 (0.04) B High (≥ 54 days) 1.9 (0.04) C a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.
116
Table 3.7. Significant relationships between the social motivation domain, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Region 778 3.984 2 0.019 Coastal 1.8 (0.04) A Piedmont 2.0 (0.05) B Mountain 2.0 (0.05) B Age 778 2.661 5 0.021 18-24 2.1 (0.08) B 25-34 1.9 (0.06) A,B 35-44 1.8 (0.05) A 45-54 1.9 (0.07) A,B 55-64 2.0 (0.08) B ≥65 2.0 (0.10) A,B Education 771 3.058 5 0.010 Some high school or less 1.7 (0.11) A High school diploma or GED 1.9 (0.05) A Some college or trade school 2.0 (0.04) A Bachelor's degree 2.0 (0.07) A Master's degree 2.0 (0.12) A Phd., M.D., J.D., or equivalent 2.5 (0.31) B Hunter Type 720 4.264 3 0.005 Big game 1.9 (0.04) A,B Small game 2.3 (0.12) B Waterfowl 1.9 (0.18) A,B Mixed 1.9 (0.04) A Avidity 720 13.897 2 < 0.0001 Low (≤ 15 days) 2.2 (0.06) B Intermediate (16-53 days) 1.9 (0.04) A High (≥ 54 days) 1.7 (0.05) A
a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.
117
Table 3.8. Importance of statements in explaining constraints to hunting activity, as reported by hunters in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).
Valuea
Constraints N 1 2 3 4 5 Cronbach�s
Alpha
Cronbach�s Alpha if
Item Deleted
Costs/Crowding ( x = 2.9, SE = 0.04) 809 0.871 Traveling to hunt is too expensive. 822 17.4 24.2 28.0 6.8 23.7 0.850 The cost of leasing private land for hunting is too expensive. 823 34.1 22.5 20.2 5.5 17.8 0.856 Public lands are too crowded. 823 32.4 24.6 23.5 3.5 16.0 0.861 Hunting licenses are too expensive. 819 8.1 16.4 37.4 6.7 31.3 0.855 Hunting equipment is too expensive. 818 9.8 20.3 33.2 10.6 26.1 0.855
Access ( x = 3.5, SE = 0.04) 0.861 I do not know where to hunt in North Carolina. 817 6.9 8.8 30.5 8.1 45.7 0.826 I do not have access to private land for hunting. 818 15.9 15.1 27.5 6.0 35.5 0.830 I moved away from the area where I used to hunt. 814 5.0 6.5 29.6 6.0 52.9 0.846 I do not have access to public land for hunting. 813 9.2 10.6 33.1 8.1 39.1 My favorite hunting spot is now posted. 821 17.6 11.1 26.1 4.8 40.4 0.846 I have to travel too far to hunt. 822 10.9 17.8 35.3 7.0 29.0 0.845 Health/Safety ( x = 3.4, SE = 0.04) 0.767 Due to my advanced age, I am unable to hunt as much as I would like. 825 9.8 10.5 25.3 7.1 47.3 0.662 Due to my health, I am unable to hunt as much as I would like. 824 10.7 8.6 25.5 6.3 48.9 0.670 I am concerned about my safety when hunting. 823 32.8 18.7 18.5 7.8 22.1 0.759
Time ( x = 2.4, SE = 0.04) 0.658 Work commitments limit my time to hunt. 815 38.0 29.1 13.8 5.0 14.1 0.488 Family commitments limit my time to hunt. 818 20.9 33.6 25.1 6.0 14.3 0.351
Other Factors Hunting regulations are too confusing. 813 13.1 23.6 36.3 9.7 17.3 There are not enough game animals. 824 23.2 33.0 27.3 6.9 9.6 My hunting companions no longer hunt. 810 6.2 12.9 43.0 10.6 27.3 I prefer to participate in other activities during my free time. 814 2.8 13.2 37.1 13.9 32.9 I no longer have hunting dogs. 813 7.5 5.9 28.1 7.0 51.6
a 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant
Table 3.9. Significant relationships between constraints associated with costs and crowding, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Gender 805 5.097 1 0.024 Male 2.9 (0.04) Female 3.3 (0.21) Education 801 5.764 5 < 0.0001 Some high school or less 2.6 (0.12) A High school diploma or GED 2.8 (0.07) A Some college or trade school 2.9 (0.06) A,B Bachelor's degree 3.3 (0.09) B,C Master's degree 3.1 (0.17) A,B Phd., M.D., J.D., or equivalent 3.6 (0.25) C Income 759 6.033 5 , 0.0001 ≤$24,999 2.8 (0.13) A $25,000-$34,999 2.7 (0.10) A $35,000-$49,999 2.8 (0.09) A $50,000-$74,999 2.8 (0.07) A $75,000-$99,999 3.2 (0.10) B ≥$100,000 3.2 (0.09) B
a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.
119
Table 3.10. Significant relationships between constraints associated with access, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Region 797 3.867 2 0.021 Coastal 3.7 (0.07) B Piedmont 3.5 (0.06) A Mountain 3.4 (0.06) A Gender 796 5.641 1 0.018 Male 3.5 (0.04) Female 4.0 (0.17) Education 793 4.177 5 0.001 Some high school or less 3.3 (0.13) A High school diploma or GED 3.4 (0.07) A,B Some college or trade school 3.5 (0.06) A,B Bachelor's degree 3.9 (0.09) B Master's degree 3.8 (0.19) B Phd., M.D., J.D., or equivalent 3.9 (0.20) B Income 750 4.338 5 0.001 ≤$24,999 3.3 (0.12) A $25,000-$34,999 3.3 (0.10) A $35,000-$49,999 3.5 (0.10) A,B $50,000-$74,999 3.5 (0.07) A,B $75,000-$99,999 3.8 (0.10) B ≥$100,000 3.8 (0.09) B
a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.
120
Table 3.11. Significant relationships between constraints associated with health and safety, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Region 814 3.621 2 0.027 Coastal 3.5 (0.08) B Piedmont 3.5 (0.06) B Mountain 3.2 (0.07) A Age 813 48.496 5 < 0.0001 18-24 4.1 (0.09) E 25-34 4.0 (0.07) E 35-44 3.6 (0.08) D 45-54 3.1 (0.09) C 55-64 2.8 (0.10) B ≥65 2.4 (0.12) A Community Type 799 4.033 4 0.003 Large City 3.8 (0.12) B Small City 3.4 (0.08) A Small Town 3.4 (0.10) A Rural area not on a Farm 3.5 (0.07) A Rural area on a farm 3.2 (0.09) A Education 806 8.957 5 < 0.0001 Some high school or less 2.7 (0.16) A High school diploma or GED 3.3 (0.07) B Some college or trade school 3.5 (0.06) B Bachelor's degree 3. 8 (0.10) B,C Master's degree 3.4 (0.18) B Phd., M.D., J.D., or equivalent 4.1 (0.23) B,C Income 763 8.247 5 < 0.0001 ≤$24,999 2.9 (0.14) A $25,000-$34,999 3.4 (0.11) B $35,000-$49,999 3.3 (0.11) B $50,000-$74,999 3.4 (0.08) B,C $75,000-$99,999 3.8 (0.09) D ≥$100,000 3.7 (0.09) C,D
a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.
121
Table 3.12. Significant relationships between constraints associated with time, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.
Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F Df P-value Age 804 21.141 5 < 0.0001 18-24 2.4 (0.11) B,C 25-34 2.2 (0.09) A,B 35-44 2.1 (0.08) A 45-54 2.2 (0.08) A,B 55-64 2.7 (0.11) C ≥65 3.5 (0.14) D Community Type 791 2.423 4 0.047 Large City 2.7 (0.14) B Small City 2.4 (0.09) A,B Small Town 2.3 (0.09) A Rural area not on a Farm 2.6 (0.08) A Rural area on a farm 2.4 (0.09) A,B Income 753 3.180 5 0.008 ≤$24,999 2.9 (0.16) B $25,000-$34,999 2.3 (0.10) A $35,000-$49,999 2.4 (0.11) A $50,000-$74,999 2.3 (0.08) A $75,000-$99,999 2.5 (0.12) A ≥$100,000 2.4 (0.10) A
a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.
Tab
le 3
.13.
Sig
nific
ant r
elat
ions
hips
bet
wee
n im
port
ance
of n
ot e
noug
h ga
me
anim
als i
n ex
plai
ning
con
stra
ints
to h
untin
g ac
tivity
, and
de
mog
raph
ics a
nd h
unte
r ch
arac
teri
stic
s, ba
sed
on a
mai
l sur
vey
of h
unte
rs in
Nor
th C
arol
ina
in su
mm
er 2
006.
(Num
bers
und
er th
e va
lue
head
ing
repr
esen
t the
per
cent
of h
unte
rs w
ho se
lect
ed th
at r
espo
nse
optio
n).
Valu
esa
Dem
ogra
phic
/Hun
ter C
hara
cter
istic
s 1
2 3
4 5
N
χ2 D
f P-
valu
e G
amm
a R
egio
n
822
20.6
73
8 0.
008
NA
Coa
stal
22
.8
31.6
28
.5
7.9
9.2
Pie
dmon
t 17
.4
34.8
27
.6
8.7
11.4
M
ount
ain
31.0
31
.8
26.1
3.
8 7.
3
Age
824
36.2
71
20
0.01
4 -0
.152
18-2
4 13
.0
32.0
33
.0
13.0
9.
0
25
-34
20.1
30
.2
30.2
8.
8 10
.7
35-4
4 23
.0
32.2
25
.7
9.8
9.3
45-5
4 20
.1
37.7
27
.9
3.2
11.0
55
-64
30.1
30
.8
27.1
3.
0 9.
0
≥6
5 33
.7
35.8
18
.9
3.2
8.4
E
duca
tionb
81
6 24
.445
8
0.00
2 0.
137
S
ome
high
sch
ool
or l
ess
30.2
34
.9
22.2
4.
8 7.
9
H
igh
scho
ol d
iplo
ma
or G
ED
29
.5
31.8
24
.0
6.2
8.5
S
ome
colle
ge
or t
rade
sch
ool
19.9
31
.3
31.0
8.
7 9.
0
B
ache
lor's
deg
ree
10.0
38
.2
35.5
2.
7 13
.6
Mas
ter's
deg
ree
26.3
42
.1
10.5
7.
9 13
.2
Ph
d., M
.D.,
J.D
., or
equ
ival
ent
26.7
33
.3
13.3
13
.3
13.3
Inco
me
76
9 38
.795
20
0.
007
0.15
0
≤$24
,999
30
.8
29.7
23
.1
4.4
12.1
$2
5,00
0-$3
4,99
9 27
.4
36.3
26
.6
2.4
7.3
$35,
000-
$49,
999
28.7
27
.0
31.1
7.
4 5.
7
$5
0,00
0-$7
4,99
9 21
.6
34.2
28
.6
8.0
7.5
$75,
000-
$99,
999
12.8
35
.0
29.1
6.
8 16
.2
≥$10
0,00
0 12
.9
36.2
28
.4
12.1
10
.3
A
vidi
ty
74
5 20
.120
8
0.01
0 0.
101
Lo
w (≤
15
days
) 23
.0
41.0
25
.3
2.2
8.4
Inte
rmed
iate
(16-
53 d
ays)
25
.3
32.4
26
.9
6.0
9.3
Hig
h (≥
54
days
) 22
.2
29.1
26
.1
12.3
10
.3
a 1
= V
ery
Impo
rtant
, 2 =
Som
ewha
t Im
porta
nt, 3
= N
eith
er Im
porta
nt N
or U
nim
porta
nt, 4
= S
omew
hat I
mpo
rtant
, 5 =
Ver
y U
nim
porta
nt
b C
olla
psed
edu
catio
n ca
tego
ries
for a
naly
sis:
≤ H
igh
scho
ol e
duca
tion,
Som
e co
llege
to B
ache
lor�
s deg
ree,
≥M
aste
r�s d
egre
e
12
3
Tab
le 3
.14.
Sig
nific
ant r
elat
ions
hips
bet
wee
n im
port
ance
of t
he c
onfu
sion
of h
untin
g re
gula
tions
in e
xpla
inin
g co
nstr
aint
s to
hunt
ing
activ
ity, a
nd
dem
ogra
phic
s and
hun
ter
char
acte
rist
ics,
base
d on
a m
ail s
urve
y of
hun
ters
in N
orth
Car
olin
a in
sum
mer
200
6. (N
umbe
rs u
nder
the
valu
e he
adin
g re
pres
ent t
he p
erce
nt o
f hun
ters
who
sele
cted
that
res
pons
e op
tion)
. Va
lues
a
Dem
ogra
phic
/Hun
ter C
hara
cter
istic
s 1
2 3
4 5
N
χ2 df
P-
valu
e G
amm
a R
egio
n
814
16.7
62
8 0.
033
NA
C
oast
al
15.0
27
.3
26.9
11
.0
19.8
Pi
edm
ont
10.7
23
.6
38.0
11
.0
16.6
M
ount
ain
14.2
20
.3
42.1
7.
3 16
.1
Ed
ucat
ionb
80
4 38
.266
8
< 0.
0001
0.
259
So
me
high
sch
ool
or l
ess
30.2
20
.6
36.5
1.
6 11
.1
H
igh
scho
ol d
iplo
ma
or G
ED
15.7
27
.5
37.3
7.
5 12
.2
So
me
colle
ge
or t
rade
sch
ool
9.2
23.6
38
.3
12.9
16
.0
Bach
elor
's de
gree
7.5
19.6
31
.8
9.3
31.8
M
aste
r's d
egre
e15
.8
10.5
34
.2
7.9
31.6
Ph
d., M
.D.,
J.D
., or
equ
ival
ent
13.3
6.
7 33
.3
26.7
20
.0
A
vidi
ty
73
7 16
.824
8
0.03
2 0.
022
Lo
w (≤
15
days
)12
.0
22.9
44
.0
6.3
14.9
In
term
edia
te (1
6-53
day
s)14
.4
22.9
35
.9
8.3
18.5
H
igh
(≥ 5
4 da
ys)
14.0
25
.5
27.5
14
.5
18.5
a 1 =
Ver
y Im
porta
nt, 2
= S
omew
hat I
mpo
rtant
, 3 =
Nei
ther
Impo
rtant
Nor
Uni
mpo
rtant
, 4 =
Som
ewha
t Im
porta
nt, 5
= V
ery
Uni
mpo
rtant
b C
olla
psed
edu
catio
n ca
tego
ries
for a
naly
sis:
≤ H
igh
scho
ol e
duca
tion,
Som
e co
llege
to B
ache
lor�
s deg
ree,
≥M
aste
r�s d
egre
e
12
4
Tab
le 3
.15.
Sig
nific
ant r
elat
ions
hips
bet
wee
n im
port
ance
of �
my
hunt
ing
com
pani
ons n
o lo
nger
hun
t� in
exp
lain
ing
cons
trai
nts t
o hu
ntin
g ac
tivity
, an
d de
mog
raph
ics a
nd h
unte
r ch
arac
teri
stic
s, ba
sed
on a
mai
l sur
vey
of h
unte
rs in
Nor
th C
arol
ina
in su
mm
er 2
006.
(Num
bers
und
er th
e va
lue
head
ing
repr
esen
t the
per
cent
of h
unte
rs w
ho se
lect
ed th
at r
espo
nse
optio
n).
Valu
esa
Dem
ogra
phic
/Hun
ter C
hara
cter
istic
s 1
23
45
N
χ2 df
P-
valu
e G
amm
a Ag
e
810
45.5
94
20
0.00
1 -0
.178
18-2
4 1.
0 11
.2
42.9
9.
2 35
.7
25-3
4 5.
1 6.
3 40
.5
13.3
34
.8
35-4
4 6.
0 10
.4
46.7
8.
8 28
.0
45-5
4 5.
3 18
.0
47.3
10
.7
18.7
55
-64
6.9
17.7
38
.5
10.8
26
.2
≥65
15.2
16
.3
38.0
10
.9
19.6
Educ
atio
nb
802
19.4
07
8 0.
013
0.09
4
Som
e hi
gh s
choo
l o
r les
s 12
.7
11.1
47
.6
4.8
23.8
H
igh
scho
ol d
iplo
ma
or G
ED
8.7
12.3
44
.7
8.7
25.7
So
me
colle
ge
or t
rade
sch
ool
3.1
13.5
44
.9
12.0
26
.5
Bach
elor
's de
gree
3.6
13.6
35
.5
14.5
32
.7
Mas
ter's
deg
ree
8.3
16.7
38
.9
8.3
27.8
Ph
d., M
.D.,
J.D
., O
r equ
ival
ent
13.3
13
.3
26.7
13
.3
33.3
a 1 =
Ver
y Im
porta
nt, 2
= S
omew
hat I
mpo
rtant
, 3 =
Nei
ther
Impo
rtant
Nor
Uni
mpo
rtant
, 4 =
Som
ewha
t Im
porta
nt, 5
= V
ery
Uni
mpo
rtant
b C
olla
psed
edu
catio
n ca
tego
ries
for a
naly
sis:
≤ H
igh
scho
ol e
duca
tion,
Som
e co
llege
to B
ache
lor�
s deg
ree,
≥M
aste
r�s d
egre
e
12
5
Tab
le 3
.16.
Sig
nific
ant r
elat
ions
hips
bet
wee
n im
port
ance
of �
I no
long
er h
ave
hunt
ing
dogs
� in
exp
lain
ing
cons
trai
nts t
o hu
ntin
g ac
tivity
, and
de
mog
raph
ics a
nd h
unte
r ch
arac
teri
stic
s, ba
sed
on a
mai
l sur
vey
of h
unte
rs in
Nor
th C
arol
ina
in su
mm
er 2
006.
(Num
bers
und
er th
e va
lue
head
ing
repr
esen
t the
per
cent
of h
unte
rs w
ho se
lect
ed th
at r
espo
nse
optio
n).
Valu
esa
Dem
ogra
phic
/Hun
ter C
hara
cter
istic
s 1
23
45
N
χ2 df
P-
valu
e G
amm
a R
egio
n81
323
.070
80.
003
NA
C
oast
al
9.7
9.7
24.2
5.
3 51
.1
Pied
mon
t 7.
3 2.
4 26
.9
9.2
54.1
M
ount
ain
5.8
6.9
32.8
5.
8 48
.6
Ag
e
812
18
-24
1.0
6.1
39.4
12
.1
41.4
53.8
06
20
< 0.
0001
-0
.090
25-3
4 6.
3 5.
7 22
.6
6.3
59.1
35
-44
2.2
4.9
30.2
7.
1 55
.5
45-5
4 9.
3 3.
3 25
.3
8.7
53.3
55
-64
12.2
9.
2 25
.2
4.6
48.9
≥6
5 16
.5
7.7
29.7
2.
2 44
.0
C
omm
unity
800
30.4
92
16
0.01
6 -0
.032
Larg
e C
ity
2.7
4.1
21.6
9.
5 62
.2
Smal
l City
5.
5 5.
5 30
.7
9.2
49.1
Sm
all T
own
9.5
5.1
22.6
7.
3 55
.5
Rur
al a
rea
not o
n a
Farm
3.
9 6.
3 29
.4
6.3
54.1
R
ural
are
a on
a fa
rm
13.5
7.
0 32
.2
4.7
42.7
Educ
atio
nb
806
16.7
91
8 0.
032
0.15
3
Som
e hi
gh s
choo
l o
r les
s 12
.5
4.7
32.8
3.
1 46
.9
Hig
h sc
hool
dip
lom
a o
r GED
8.
7 8.
7 30
.4
4.3
47.8
So
me
colle
ge
or t
rade
sch
ool
6.7
4.0
29.3
9.
5 50
.6
Bach
elor
's de
gree
3.7
6.5
22.2
6.
5 61
.1
Mas
ter's
deg
ree
5.1
7.7
20.5
10
.3
56.4
Ph
d., M
.D.,
J.D
., O
r equ
ival
ent
7.1
0.0
14.3
14
.3
64.3
Inco
me
76
3 40
.098
20
0.
002
0.17
2
≤$24
,999
15
.6
7.8
28.9
8.
9 38
.9
$25,
000-
$34,
999
7.3
8.9
32.3
4.
0 47
.6
$35,
000-
$49,
999
12.7
5.
1 27
.1
5.9
49.2
$5
0,00
0-$7
4,99
9 4.
5 6.
6 27
.3
11.1
50
.5
$75,
000-
$99,
999
3.4
4.3
28.2
5.
1 59
.0
≥$10
0,00
0 4.
3 5.
2 25
.0
3.4
62.1
a 1 =
Ver
y Im
porta
nt, 2
= S
omew
hat I
mpo
rtant
, 3 =
Nei
ther
Impo
rtant
Nor
Uni
mpo
rtant
, 4 =
Som
ewha
t Im
porta
nt, 5
= V
ery
Uni
mpo
rtant
b C
olla
psed
edu
catio
n ca
tego
ries
for a
naly
sis:
≤ H
igh
scho
ol e
duca
tion,
Som
e co
llege
to B
ache
lor�
s deg
ree,
≥M
aste
r�s d
egre
e
12
6
Tab
le 3
.17.
Sig
nific
ant r
elat
ions
hips
bet
wee
n im
port
ance
of �
I pre
fer
to p
artic
ipat
e in
oth
er a
ctiv
ities
dur
ing
my
free
tim
e� in
exp
lain
ing
cons
trai
nts
to h
untin
g ac
tivity
, and
dem
ogra
phic
s and
hun
ter
char
acte
rist
ics,
base
d on
a m
ail s
urve
y of
hun
ters
in N
orth
Car
olin
a in
sum
mer
200
6. (N
umbe
rs
unde
r th
e va
lue
head
ing
repr
esen
t the
per
cent
of h
unte
rs w
ho se
lect
ed th
at r
espo
nse
optio
n).
Valu
esa
Dem
ogra
phic
/Hun
ter C
hara
cter
istic
s 1
23
45
N
χ2 df
P-
valu
e G
amm
a H
unte
rTyp
eb 73
616
.470
80.
036
NA
Bi
g ga
me
1.6
12.0
37
.9
14.2
34
.3
Smal
l gam
e 4.
3 27
.7
29.8
6.
4 31
.9
Wat
erfo
wl
9.1
9.1
63.6
0.
0 18
.2
Mix
ed
1.9
9.8
36.9
16
.3
35.2
Avid
ity
73
8 26
.683
8
< 0.
0001
0.
231
Lo
w (≤
15
days
) 3.
5 18
.5
38.7
14
.5
24.9
In
term
edia
te (1
6-53
day
s)
1.4
13.0
38
.5
13.3
33
.8
Hig
h (≥
54
days
) 2.
0 4.
9 33
.3
16.7
43
.1
a 1
= V
ery
Impo
rtant
, 2 =
Som
ewha
t Im
porta
nt, 3
= N
eith
er Im
porta
nt N
or U
nim
porta
nt, 4
= S
omew
hat I
mpo
rtant
, 5 =
Ver
y U
nim
porta
nt
b Rem
oved
wat
erfo
wl c
ateg
ory
from
ana
lysi
s due
to s
mal
l sam
ple
size
(n =
10)
.
127
CHAPTER 4: Synthesis and Management Recommendations
The role of hunters in wildlife management has been significant in shaping wildlife
management and policy in the United States. Additionally, hunters provide much of the funding
necessary to support wildlife programs. However, current declines in hunting participation may
threaten this relationship in the future. As a result, wildlife management agencies have begun to
focus greater attention on hunter recruitment and retention. In 2005, at a hunter recruitment and
retention workshop sponsored by NCWRC and conducted by Responsive Management, Inc.,
participants identified North Carolina�s ban on hunting on Sunday as a possible impediment to
hunter recruitment and retention in North Carolina. A collaborative effort by the Virginia Tech
research team, Responsive Management, Inc., Southwick Associates, and the NCWRC was
designed to investigate the many issues associated with hunting on Sunday in North Carolina
(e.g., opinions of the public and hunters of hunting on Sunday, its potential impacts on hunter
recruitment and retention). The hunter survey assessed hunters� opinions of hunting on Sunday
and the potential impacts hunting on Sunday might have on hunting participation. Another
objective of that effort was to gain better understanding of North Carolina hunters, particularly
understanding the factors that influence their satisfaction with hunting, the motivations for why
they hunt, and the constraints that impede their hunting activities in North Carolina. The more
the NCWRC understands about the state�s hunters and their opinions, the better the agency can
meet both hunter expectations and achieve current and future management goals and objectives.
The purpose of this research effort was not to develop specific recommendations for the
North Carolina General Assembly and NCWRC regarding the issue of hunting on Sunday.
Instead, this research was designed to collect, analyze, and present data that would help these
entities understand constituents� opinions about hunting on Sunday and the impacts and
128
implications that hunting on Sunday may have on hunter recruitment and retention. In this
chapter, I review these important findings, discuss and evaluate some of the more significant
consequences related to the issue of hunting on Sunday, and formulate recommendations for
consideration should the NCWRC contemplate conducting future surveys.
Hunting on Sunday � A Final Overview
1) The issue of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina is strongly polarized. Thirty-eight percent
of respondents strongly supported hunting on Sunday, 39% strongly opposed, and only 6%
neither supported nor opposed hunting on Sunday.
2) Currently, older hunters represent both the majority of hunters in North Carolina and those
most opposed to hunting on Sunday. However, the relationship between opinion of hunting on
Sunday and age needs closer scrutiny. It is unknown if younger hunters, who currently display
strong support for hunting on Sunday, will retain their position as they age.
3) Opinion about hunting on Sunday was clearly influenced by the frequency with which one
attended church or another place of worship. As the number of days a person attended worship
per month rose, so did one�s opposition to hunting on Sunday, affirming the strong role that
religion currently plays in this issue.
4) Despite the fact that many respondents originally voiced support for hunting on Sunday, many
of these same individuals opposed hunting on Sunday if some limitations were imposed,
reaffirming the support for an �all or nothing� approach heard from participants in the hunter
focus groups. The exact reasons for this change in opinion are not clear, but may reflect hunters�
perception that regulations already are too numerous and/or confusing. The addition of more
129
restrictions related to hunting on Sunday could exacerbate that perception. Participants in the
hunter focus groups frequently expressed a strong desire to avoid dividing hunters by limiting
available opportunities on Sunday (e.g., allowing only bowhunting on Sunday).
5) As the importance respondents placed on believing that work and/or time constraints impeded
their opportunity to hunt increased, support for hunting on Sunday also increased. Such
supporters viewed hunting on Sunday as an opportunity to provide an additional hunting day for
working people, and this was very important in shaping their opinion about hunting on Sunday.
6) Although many respondents indicated that they likely would hunt on Sunday if it was
legalized, very few of those who stated that they had not hunted during the past 5 years indicated
that they would hunt on Sunday. This suggests that providing an additional day (Sunday) may
not be sufficient, by itself, to have a significant effect on bringing back hunters who have
abandoned hunting activities in North Carolina or bringing new hunters into the field.
7) The exact effect on hunter recruitment is unknown; however, the opportunity to hunt on
Sunday may affect hunting participation positively. Hunters, who previously had taken an adult
friend, family member, or youth hunting in North Carolina, indicated they would do so again if
presented with the opportunity to hunt on Sunday. However, the opportunity to hunt on Sunday
had little influence on persuading hunters to take an adult friend, family member, or youth
hunting on Sunday when they had not done so previously.
8) Although most respondents indicated they would hunt at least the same number of days if
hunting on Sunday was legalized, 1/3 of respondents claimed that they would hunt more days.
Respondents indicated that they would hunt 7 more days that did not involve an overnight stay
130
and take 1.9 more overnight hunting trips if hunting on Sunday was legalized. Thus, legalization
of hunting on Sunday may increase hunting participation, if not hunter retention.
Satisfactions, Motivations, and Constraints
9) Overall, hunters in North Carolina rated both their hunting experiences during the 2005-2006
season and the previous 5 seasons as adequate to excellent, indicating that North Carolina
hunters are satisfied with their hunting experiences.
10) Satisfaction with hunting experiences is derived from many factors. Because hunters
identified many factors, a multiple satisfactions approach to wildlife management would help to
maintain or increase satisfaction among North Carolina hunters. Ultimately, the challenge
managers face is the problem of how to target specific groups of hunters (e.g., provide
opportunities to hunt with dogs on state gamelands for small game hunters) and provide
opportunities to achieve satisfaction from their hunting experience without negatively affecting
the experiences of other hunter types.
11) The fulfillment of expectations associated with hunters� motivations for hunting is necessary
for a quality hunting experience to occur. Previous research found that hunters have many
different motivations for hunting. This is the case in North Carolina, where hunters identified a
diverse array of motivations such as to experience natural surroundings, to enjoy the outdoors, to
enjoy solitude, to get away from my everyday routine, to take a youth hunting, to maintain a
family tradition, to obtain meat, and to help manage wildlife populations. As with satisfaction,
North Carolina wildlife managers will be challenged to find viable ways to guarantee that the
hunting opportunities they provide will fulfill the expectations associated with hunters�
motivations in North Carolina. The blending of these factors with satisfaction factors may be the
131
best strategy to maintain hunters� motivations or to encourage other hunters to become more
motivated, and improve the quality of hunting experiences in North Carolina. For example,
emphasizing experiencing natural surroundings as a means to motivate North Carolina hunters,
and managing to increase wildlife populations in appropriate areas to increase the likelihood of
hunters seeing wildlife may be a method to successfully blend this information.
12) Collectively, participants in the 2005 hunter recruitment and retention workshop and hunters
responding to my survey identified constraints associated with time, not enough game animals,
and confusing hunting regulations as major impediments to their hunting activity in North
Carolina. The identification of time as a constraint suggests that removing the current ban on
hunting on Sunday in North Carolina would help to alleviate one major constraint to hunting in
the state. Permitting hunting on Sunday would provide an additional day of hunting
opportunities for North Carolina hunters; it also would provide a means to increase satisfaction
with and motivations for hunting in North Carolina for some hunters. The negative impacts on
hunting participation of permitting hunting on Sunday are minimal; <3% of respondents
indicated they would hunt fewer days as result of legalizing hunting on Sunday in North
Carolina. It is uncertain if the identification of not enough game and confusing regulations arise
from false perceptions. Possible strategies to resolve or lessen the effects of these constraints
might include focusing agency outreach efforts to address inaccurate perceptions, and providing
convenient opportunities to solicit and/or incorporate hunter input on hunting regulations. It may
not be possible to completely resolve issues with regulations as hunters often express
dissatisfaction with the complexity of regulations. That dissatisfaction often is countered by a
desire for biologically-based management of wildlife populations at the local level.
132
13) Ultimately, NCWRC may use the information provided from this hunter survey to
encourage hunter recruitment and retention, and to combat further declines in hunting
participation; however, management practices should balance this information with biologically-
based management goals and objectives. Wildlife management previously has been defined as
both a science and an art concentrating on populations, habitats, and people. The role of the
wildlife manager includes manipulating the natural production of the wildlife system
remembering that the wildlife resource is a human construct. NCWRC managers are challenged
with a responsibility to use this information to manage both hunters and the wildlife resource. It
is necessary for NCWRC managers to acknowledge the fragile relationship between the wildlife
resource and hunters; without one, the other ceases to exist.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SURVEYS
1) If hunting on Sunday is legalized in North Carolina, a follow-up survey should be conducted
to assess and determine the specific impacts on hunting participation. The assessment should
focus on estimating the number of hunters participating on Sunday and the number of hunters
taking another hunter (i.e., adult friend, adult family member, youth) hunting on Sunday. To
make useful comparisons with the 2006 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation, any such assessment should use similar methodologies. Key metrics
should include estimating the number of days hunted and the number of overnight trips. The
agency should examine license sales, and monitor enrollment in hunter education courses and
attendance at outdoor events (e.g., NCWRC sponsored youth hunts) to estimate impacts on
hunter recruitment and retention. Such an effort would provide valuable information to the
agency needed to develop future management goals and objectives associated with both hunters
133
and the wildlife resource. It also would present valuable information to the remaining states
considering modifying current hunting on Sunday regulations.
2) Use a shorter questionnaire than the one used in this research effort. Nonrespondents
identified time as a constraint to completing and returning my survey. Besides gathering useful
quantitative information, survey design and implementation should focus on developing an
instrument that is user-friendly. Do not try to evaluate multiple characteristics (e.g., satisfaction
with, motivations for, and constraints to hunting activity) in one survey. Instead, conduct smaller
surveys focusing on 1 or 2 specific hunter characteristics to ensure the needed response rate to
make population inferences. My PCA analysis also identified that 1 or 2 factors within a
satisfaction or motivation domain may be sufficient instead of using 3-5 indicator statements to
determine satisfaction with hunting experiences and/or motivations for hunting; using only 1 or 2
indicator statements is another way to shorten the questionnaire.
134
APPENDIX A: Mail Questionnaire
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
Note � Six version of this question were sent to random hunters: $1, $2, $5, $20, $20, and $50
145
146
APPENDIX B: Cover Letters and Postcard
147
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
A Land-Grant University The Commonwealth Is Our Campus An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Institution
College of Natural Resources Mail Code 0321, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 (540) 231-5573 Fax: (540) 231-7580
May 22, 2006 Dear North Carolina Hunter, We are writing to ask for your help in better understanding the opinions of North Carolina hunters on the issues surrounding Sunday hunting in North Carolina. We are conducting this survey at the request of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The North Carolina General Assembly has asked the Wildlife Resources Commission to explore the issues surrounding Sunday hunting in North Carolina. This survey is one step in that process. By exploring the views and opinions of North Carolina hunters, the Wildlife Resources Commission will have a better understanding of this important stakeholder group and be better able to make an appropriate recommendation to the legislature. Results from our survey will be provided in a summary report to the Wildlife Resources Commission. Your answers will remain completely confidential and any data collected will be released only as summaries in which no individual�s answers can be identified. The tracking number on the front cover of the survey is used by us only to ensure that survey respondents do not receive additional mailings. When you return your completed survey, your name will be deleted permanently from our mailing list and never connected to your answers in any way. This survey is voluntary. However, you can help us and NCWRC very much by taking a few minutes to share your thoughts about Sunday hunting. If you would like to receive a copy of the summary results (available in December, 2006), please indicate so in the comment section at the back of your completed survey. If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with you. Dr. McMullin�s phone number is 540-231-8847, or you can e-mail me at [email protected] you very much for helping with this important study. Sincerely, Melissa K. Hooper Graduate Research Assistant
148
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
A Land-Grant University The Commonwealth Is Our Campus An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Institution
College of Natural Resources Mail Code 0321, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 (540) 231-5573 Fax: (540) 231-7580
June 12, 2006 Dear North Carolina Hunter: About three weeks ago, we sent you a questionnaire that asked about your views and opinions regarding Sunday hunting in North Carolina. As of today, we have not yet received a reply from you. Your opinions are very important on this issue and will help ensure that we accurately represent the views of North Carolina hunters. You are an important member of this group! The results from this survey will provide the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission with a better understanding of the many issues related to Sunday hunting in North Carolina. We will prepare a final summary report for the Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina General Assembly prior to their deliberations on this issue. The tracking number you see on the front cover of the survey is used only to ensure that survey respondents do not receive additional mailings. When you return your completed survey, your name will be deleted permanently from the mailing list and never connected to your answers in any way. Again, this survey is voluntary. However, you can help us by sharing your thoughts about Sunday hunting. If you would like to receive a copy of the results, please indicate so in the comment section at the back of your completed survey. We encourage you to complete and return the survey as soon as possible. If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with you. Dr. McMullin, project investigator, can be reached at (540) 231-8847, or you can e-mail me at [email protected]. Thank you very much for helping with this important study. Sincerely, Melissa K. Hooper Graduate Research Assistant
149
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
A Land-Grant University The Commonwealth Is Our Campus An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Institution
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences Mail Code 0321, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 (540) 231-5573 Fax: (540) 231-7580
July 17, 2006 Dear [Insert First and Last Name],
Your response to the Sunday Hunting Survey could win a lifetime sportsman�s license and a Bass Pro Shops gift card! (see below)
Over the last several weeks, we sent you two copies of a survey asking about your views and opinions regarding Sunday hunting in North Carolina. We are writing again because your opinions are very important and to help ensure that our report to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission accurately represents the views of North Carolina hunters. You are part of a critical sample of North Carolina�s hunters who were asked to participate in this research effort. It is very important that we hear from as many hunters as possible, regardless of whether you support, oppose, or are neutral about Sunday hunting. The results of this research will help provide the Wildlife Resources Commission with a better understanding of the many issues related to Sunday hunting in North Carolina. If you would like to have your opinions included in this study, you must return your completed survey by July 31, 2006! If you have already returned it to us, please accept our sincere appreciation. The tracking number you see on the front cover of the survey is used only to ensure that survey respondents do not receive additional mailings. When you return your completed survey, your name will be removed from the mailing list and never connected to your answers in any way. Again, this survey is voluntary. However, all hunters who return a completed survey (regardless of their position on Sunday hunting) will be entered into a drawing for a Special Prize Package sponsored by Bass Pro Shops to be presented at a 2007 Wildlife Resources Commission meeting.
This package, worth $1,000, includes a never-before-available Unified Lifetime Sportsman�s License valued at $675 for you or a person you select (covers hunting plus fresh & saltwater fishing in NC for life!) plus a $325 Bass Pro Shops gift card.
If you would like to receive a copy of the survey results, please indicate so on the back of your completed survey. If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with you. Feel free to call Dr. Steve McMullin at 540-231-8847, or e-mail me at [email protected]. Thank you very much for helping with this important study. Sincerely, Melissa K. Hooper Graduate Research Assistant
150
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences
College of Natural Resources Mail Code 0321, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 (540) 231-5573 Fax: (540) 231-7580
May xx, 2006 Last week, we sent you a survey that asked about your views and opinions regarding Sunday hunting. This note is a quick reminder for you to please complete this questionnaire. If you already completed and returned it to us, please accept our sincere appreciation. If not, please do so today! If you did not receive the questionnaire or misplaced it, we�ll be sending you a second copy shortly. You are part of a critical sample of North Carolina�s hunters who were asked to participate in this research effort. It is very important that we hear from as many hunters as possible. Without your response, our results will not represent accurately the true opinions and views of North Carolina hunters. If you have any questions, please contact me at 540-231-8847 or email me at [email protected]. Thank you! Melissa K. Hooper Graduate Research Assistant
151
APPENDIX C: Nonresponse Questionnaire
152
Sunday Hunting in North Carolina: Hunter Survey Nonresponse Analysis Contact Telephone Script
Hello, my name is Melissa Hooper, and I�m calling from Virginia Tech. I�m a member of the Sunday hunting research team working with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Over the last couple of months, we sent you three copies of a survey asking about your views and opinions regarding Sunday hunting in North Carolina. I am calling because your opinions are very important and to help ensure that our report to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission accurately represents the views of North Carolina hunters. I have a few simple questions that I would like to ask you about the Sunday hunting issue, which should take less than five minutes to answer. Your responses will be confidential and you will not be contacted again. Do you have five minutes to answer a few questions? If yes, continue to Question #1. If no, thank you for your time and have a good evening. Question #1 Did you hunt in North Carolina at any time since July 1, 2001 (or in the past five years)? If yes, continue to Question #3. If no, continue to Question #2. Question #2 Are you a hunter? If yes, continue to Question #5. If no, continue to Question #5. Question #3 Have you hunted in North Carolina since July 1, 2005 (the most recent season)? If yes, continue to Question #4. If no, continue to Question #5. Question #4
For the most recent season, did you hunt more days, fewer days, or about the same number of days as you did during the previous four seasons? Continue to next Question #5. Question #5 For the most recent season (since July 1, 2005), how many days did you hunt? Continue to Question #6.
153
Question #6 Based on what you know today, do you support or oppose the legalization of hunting on
Sunday in North Carolina? Continue to Question #7.
Question #7 Why do you [support or oppose] the legalization of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina? Continue to Question #8. Question #8 If hunting on Sunday were legalized in North Carolina, would you hunt more days, fewer days, or about the same number of days per year as you do now?
If [ more or fewer] days, continue to Question #9 If about the same number of days, continue to Question #10..
Question #9 How many [more or fewer] days per year would you hunt in North Carolina? Question #10 To assist our research team in designing more efficient surveys of hunters in the future, we would like to know if there was any particular constraint that prevented you from completing and returning the original survey? Thank you very much for your help. If you have any questions about the study, please call us at (540) 231- 8847 or email us at [email protected].
154
VITA Melissa Kay Hooper was born to William H. and Linda A. Hooper on February 10, 1978
in Luray, Virginia. After living in Luray and Bedford, Virginia, her family settled in
Martinsville, Virginia. Melissa graduated as class salutatorian from Martinsville High School on
June 8, 1996. She was active in both athletics and academics in high school, serving as Captain
of the girls� softball team, Captain of the math academic, and co-editor of the school yearbook.
Melissa began her college career at Virginia Tech in August, 1996. She completed her
Bachelor of Science Degree in May, 2000 with a minor in Biology and emphasis in Sociology.
During her undergraduate experience, Melissa was a member of the Virginia Tech Corps of
Cadet, Block and Bridle Animal Husbandry Club, and Xi Sigma Pi National Natural Resources
Honor Society. She also gained valuable experience while working as a Research Technician
with the Conservation Management Institute�s Military Lands Division.
After graduation, Melissa worked as a Virginia Game Warden with the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in Lunenburg and Franklin Counties, Virginia. While
employed with the department, Melissa developed a keen appreciation and love of public
outreach and education, particularly in natural resources.
Melissa first began working on a Master of Science in Agriculture and Extension
Education in January, 2004. Melissa became a Master�s Degree candidate with the Virginia
Tech Fisheries and Wildlife Department in January, 2005. In collaboration with her advisors,
she completed a technical report summarizing the impacts of hunting at New River Gorge
National River, West Virginia, for the National Park Service. During this time, she also served
as the Fisheries and Wildlife Graduate Student Association representative to the Graduate
Student Assembly and as the College of Natural Resources representative to the Graduate
Student Budget Board. Melissa also continued her commitment to natural resources education
through volunteering as Hunter Education Instructor and facilitating Project WILD, Learning
Tree, and WET workshops. She completed her degree requirements in December, 2006. Upon
completing her degree requirements, Melissa accepted an Agriculture/Conservation Specialist
position with the John Marshall Soil and Water Conservation District in Fauquier County,
Virginia.