2007 Idaho Mule Deer Hunter Study Final Report

Transcription

1 2007 Idaho Mule Deer Hunter Study Final Report By: Nick Sanyal, PhD., Associate Professor Ed Krumpe, Ph.D., Professor Dana Coombs, Undergraduate Research Assistant Department of Conservation Social Sciences College of Natural Resources University of Idaho Prepared for: Idaho Department of Fish and Game March 2008

2 2007 IDAHO MULE DEER HUNTER STUDY FINAL REPORT Nick Sanyal, Ph.D., Associate Professor Ed Krumpe, Ph.D., Professor Dana Coombs, Undergraduate Research Assistant Department of Conservation Social Sciences College of Natural Resources University of Idaho Motivations for Hunting EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Compared to 1989, hunters in 2007 exhibit slightly weaker attachment to most motivations for hunting. Only two motivations, doing something with the family and developing close friendships, show greater importance in the 2007 study. In general, the relative ranking of motivations remains fairly stable. The social domains of Friends and Values are more important than the harvest related motivations. We identified four types of hunters: Type A hunters are equally distributed across the strata, making up about 17% of the hunter population. Type B hunters (about 30% statewide) are more common in Region 7, where they make up about a third of all hunters. Type C hunters (25% statewide) are less likely to be found in Regions 2 and among non-residents and are more likely in Region 4. Type D hunters are dominant among non-residents.

3 P a g e 2 Hunter Decision Making In all seven Regions, mule deer hunters rated social motivations for hunting as being more important than harvesting a large buck. Being with friends, doing something with the family and developing close friendships were scored moderately to quite important. Harvesting a large buck was scored lower as somewhat important to moderately important. Doing something with the family was the most important reason, followed by being with friends. Harvesting a large buck was not a major motivator for hunting. For example, while hunters in Regions 2, 5 and 7 rated harvesting a large buck the highest of all the Regions, it was rated only moderately important on the five point scale. It should be noted that the non-resident hunters scored Harvesting a large buck as more important than Idaho residents. Generally, harvesting any buck was not very important, but even less popular was getting a small buck. Mule deer hunters in Idaho do value hunting for meat. In six of the seven regions, hunters scored putting meat on the table either higher or the same as harvesting a large buck. Only in Region 2 was a large buck a more important motivation than putting meat on the table. Mule deer hunters take many things into consideration when choosing where, when and why to go hunting besides just the likelihood of harvesting a deer. Their two most important considerations were an area where they can hunt every year and an area they are familiar with. Both were rated as quite important on the five point scale.

4 P a g e 3 Moderately important were an area close to home and an area where they don t have to compete with ATVs or trail bikes. Hunters are also influenced by the motivations for experiencing nature, developing their skills, harvesting game, social interaction, and gaining recognition from their peers. For all hunters, social interaction was more important than harvest, and indeed experiencing nature and developing their skills were more important than just harvesting deer. Characteristics of the hunting are also influence the decision of where to hunt. Idaho mule deer hunters primarily choose their hunting area based upon available access to public lands, greatest chance of harvest success, and where they can also hunt elk during mule deer season. Access to private land and hunting in areas where they can hunt with any weapon had almost no effect on their decisions. Finally, an area with many mule deer but few mature bucks was generally considered to be negative. A variety of weapons are used for hunting Mule deer but over 90% of all hunters used rifles. Compound bows were used by a quarter of the hunters In Regions 1 and 5. The lowest compound bow use of was by hunters in Region 3 (12.5%). Muzzle loaders were most popular in Region 1, where 13% of the hunters use them. Many hunt with more than one weapon. Thirty six percent of the hunters in Region 1 used multiple weapons, followed by about 25% in Regions 5, 6 and 7. The least-used weapon was the crossbow (less than 1%), while the recurve or longbow and the inline muzzleloader were only slightly more popular. It should be noted that over two thirds of all hunters hunted with rifles only. Of those who hunted in special weapons seasons, between 66% and 86% hunted in one other special weapons season, while about one fifth hunted in two additional special weapons seasons.

5 P a g e 4 Archery-only was the most popular additional special weapon season, with over one fourth participating in it. Because it was important for most hunters to hunt when fewer others were a- field, most hunters had a preference for hunting during Deer archery season, Short-range weapons season, or Muzzleloader season. Overall 62% of all hunters would accept an advance setting of hunting seasons. Less than 7% said they would not accept the advance season setting. Support was highest in Region 2 at 73% acceptance. Quality of the Hunt Hunters find large mule deer bucks most desirable and smaller buck and antlerless deer less desirable. Non-residents have the highest desirability ratings large bucks. Satisfaction Level Hunters are most satisfied with the opportunity to hunt in They are also positive about the overall quality of the experience, the amount of access, and the length and timing of the season. Although the satisfaction with the 2006 mule deer hunting experience was higher for those hunters who harvested a deer in 2006, but it did not vary with the type of deer harvested. Non-residents were the most satisfied with the length of the season. Hunters in Region 5 were least satisfied with the amount of access, while non-resident hunters were most satisfied. Non-residents were the most satisfied with the length of the season.

6 P a g e 5 Hunters in Region 2 were most satisfied with the number of other hunters encountered. Satisfaction with the 2006 mule deer hunting experience did not vary with ATV ownership. Satisfaction with the 2006 mule deer hunting experience about the same for hunters willing to accept restrictions for large bucks, as it was for hunters unwilling to do so. Satisfaction with the 2006 mule deer hunting experience was higher for those hunters who harvested a mule deer in Hunters are neutral about the effects of the number of other hunters seen. Hunters in Region 2 were most satisfied with the number of other hunters encountered. Satisfaction with the hunting experience was lower for those hunters who reported that the quality of their hunting experience was seriously impacted by the numbers of other hunters. Hunters were most dissatisfied with the number of deer seen, the number of ATV s encountered, and the size and number of bucks seen. Hunters who use and ATV/trail bike while hunting reported higher satisfaction with the number of ATVs seen. Hunter Crowding Across all Regions there is a clear preference for lengthening the season to alleviate crowding. Choosing a species to reduce the numbers of hunters a-field at a time is not acceptable to all hunters. Hunters are split over controlled hunts and stratified hunts and they are not accepting of zone restrictions.

7 P a g e 6 Restrictions for large bucks Between 59 and 71 percent of Idaho residents, and almost 80% of non-resident hunters are willing to accept additional restrictions to manage for larger and/or more mule deer. In general hunters prefer restrictions that preserve (maximizes) hunting opportunity and harvest. Hunters were asked to choose between seven pairs of opposing choices which allowed us to examine whether they favored maintaining hunting opportunity versus the chance to harvest a large buck. Overall, in all seven choices, hunters favored the opportunity to hunt frequently over the size of the bucks available. There were some Regional differences: hunters in Region 2 and non-resident hunters both favored buck size over increased hunting opportunity. Nonresident hunters differed most from statewide and resident averages on 6 of the 7 choices by primarily favoring large bucks over increased opportunity. In 5 of the choices they favored size over opportunity, while in 2 choices they favored opportunity over size. Perceived competition between Elk and Mule Deer Hunters are not in favor or increasing mule deer hunting opportunities at the expense of elk hunting opportunities. Hunters will not accept reducing the production (management focus) on elk to favor mule deer.

8 P a g e 7 Antlerless Harvest Before hunters accept antlerless deer harvest as a management strategy they would like more information. A majority of hunters would welcome the added hunting opportunity that an antlerless hunt would provide. Hunter willingness to participate in antlerless hunts increases when they are offered an opportunity to harvest a buck in addition to an antlerless deer. Youth Hunts are the preferred method of conducting antlerless hunts. Motorized Access Foot travel is the most frequently used travel mode while hunting, followed by car/trucks. This pattern holds across all strata of the sample. ATVs are used more often than horse/pack animals, trailbikes or mountain bikes. About half of all mule deer hunters own an ATV or trailbike. Ownership is highest in Region 5, and lowest among nonresidents. On average, hunters travel 5 miles or less per day on an ATV/trailbike, except in Region 3, where the average distance is between 6 and 10 miles per day. Trail bikes have a longer history of use among Mule deer hunters, than do ATVs. On average ATVs have been used for about seven years, compared to over 11 years for trailbikes. Length of use is lowest among nonresidents and longest in Region 5. About half of all Mule Deer hunters are aware of the Motorized Vehicle Restriction Rule. However, this awareness does not necessarily mean familiarity with the rule.

9 P a g e 8 Familiarity is uneven across the states, being highest in the Regions 1 and 2, and dropping in Regions further south. Between 20% (Region 2) and about 62% (Regions 5 & 6) of all Mule Deer hunters are not familiar with the MVRR. Hunters are more inclined to believe the MVRR did not apply to their hunting unit than believing it did. Hunters were also slightly more sure that the rule applied/didn t apply than thinking it did/didn t apply. Though hunters generally support the MVRR, hunters are only slightly above neutral when it comes to support for the MVRR. Support is lowest in Region 1 and highest among nonresident hunters. Support for the MVRR is not linked to awareness of the rule, though support is slightly higher among those not aware of the rule. The two most important motivations for using an ATV/trailbike while hunting mule deer are to hunt with others who use ATVs and to retrieve big game. While this is a less complex set of motivations that found in earlier studies, it does signify a major social-desirability pressure to own and use an ATV while hunting mule deer. Between a quarter and a third of mule deer hunters self-report the presence of disabling conditions. Nonresidents are about half as likely to report being disabled. Hunters with physical limitations are almost twice as likely to own an ATV/trailbike as those who are not disabled. Despite the fact that hunters with physical limitations are almost twice as likely to own an ATV/trailbike as those who are not disabled, they are less likely to own one because it Makes up for physical limitations than able bodies hunters. There appears to be an inverse relationship between the motivation to make up for physical limitations and age older hunters are less like to subscribe to the motivation.

10 P a g e 9 It is very likely that mule deer hunters would continue to hunt in Idaho and would do so without an ATV or trailbike if restrictions on ATV use were applied to more units. Overall they would somewhat likely to enjoy hunting more. Evaluation of Conservation Officers Over half of Idaho residents did not get checked by a conservation officer. Hunters agree that the conservation officers were professional, friendly, and knowledgeable. Encounters with conservation officers receive a passing grade of a C (adequate). Hunting History Mule deer hunters in Idaho are experienced hunters and have hunted mule deer for an average of 20 years. Generally, hunters restrict their hunting to three or fewer units each year. About half of the mule deer hunters hunt in 2 or 3 units every year and over one third hunt in the same unit every year. Only a few percent hunt in different units each year or in more than 3 units each year. Hunters in Regions 5, 6 and 7 are more likely to hunt in more than 3 units. Low deer numbers (20%), work schedule (15%), and hunting for other game species (13%) were the most frequently mentioned reasons for not hunting deer every year. Low deer numbers scored highest in Regions 1, 5, and 6. In Regions 1 and 2, hunting other game was reported as the reason by 41% and 56% respectively.

11 P a g e 10 In order of desirability, the game species hunted every year are: Mule Deer, Elk, Upland Game, White-tailed deer, Waterfowl, Black bear, Mountain Lion, and Pronghorn. Hunter Profile Idaho resident hunters match the US Census Bureau reported median household income for 2004 of $40,509; nonresidents make about $20--$60,000 more. The average hunter has lived in Idaho for 32.9 years. Guides or outfitters were utilized mostly by non-residents (9%). Hunters in five of the regions did not report any use of guides or outfitters. The lowest proportions of Latinos who hunt are in Region 2 and 7, and the largest proportion of Latino hunters is in Region 3. Idaho s hunting population is 98.5% Caucasian. Native American/Alaska Natives are most commonly from Region 1 or out of state.

12 2007 IDAHO MULE DEER HUNTER STUDY FINAL REPORT BY: Nick Sanyal, Ph.D., Associate Professor Ed Krumpe, Ph.D., Professor Dana Coombs, Undergraduate Research Assistant Department of Conservation Social Sciences College of Natural Resources University of Idaho Prepared for: Idaho Department of Fish and Game Boise February 2008

13 P a g e 2 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 5 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS Introduction Sampling Approach Population, frames and sample size Assessing Management and Policy Preferences FINDINGS Motivations for Hunting Measuring Motivations (Desired Hunting Experiences). 19 Market Segmentation by Factor/Cluster Analysis Validating the Segmentation Hunter Decision Making Quality of the Hunt Satisfaction Level Hunter Crowding Restrictions for Large Bucks Perceived Competition Between Elk and Mule Deer Antlerless Harvests Motorized Access Evaluation of Conservation Officers Hunting Units... 81

14 P a g e 3 Hunting History Hunter Profile APPENDIX A LITERATURE CITED...103

15 P a g e 4 Acknowledgements We would like to thank Toby Boudreau, Brad Compton and Bruce Ackerman for their help with instrument design and sampling. Lilly Steinhorst and Julie Haarr provided logistical support for the project.

16 P a g e 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Motivations for Hunting Compared to 1989, hunters in 2007 exhibit slightly weaker attachment to most motivations for hunting. Only two motivations, doing something with the family and developing close friendships, show greater importance in the 2007 study. In general, the relative ranking of motivations remains fairly stable. The social domains of Friends and Values are more important than the harvest related motivations. We identified four types of hunters: Type A hunters are equally distributed across the strata, making up about 17% of the hunter population. Type B hunters (about 30% statewide) are more common in Region 7, where they make up about a third of all hunters. Type C hunters (25% statewide) are less likely to be found in Regions 2 and among non-residents and are more likely in Region 4. Type D hunters are dominant among non-residents. Hunter Decision Making In all seven Regions, mule deer hunters rated social motivations for hunting as being more important than harvesting a large buck. Being with friends, doing something with the family and developing close friendships were scored moderately to quite important. Harvesting a large buck was scored lower as somewhat important to moderately important.

17 P a g e 6 Doing something with the family was the most important reason, followed by being with friends. Harvesting a large buck was not a major motivator for hunting. For example, while hunters in Regions 2, 5 and 7 rated harvesting a large buck the highest of all the Regions, it was rated only moderately important on the five point scale. It should be noted that the non-resident hunters scored Harvesting a large buck as more important than Idaho residents. Generally, harvesting any buck was not very important, but even less popular was getting a small buck. Mule deer hunters in Idaho do value hunting for meat. In six of the seven regions, hunters scored putting meat on the table either higher or the same as harvesting a large buck. Only in Region 2 was a large buck a more important motivation than putting meat on the table. Mule deer hunters take many things into consideration when choosing where, when and why to go hunting besides just the likelihood of harvesting a deer. Their two most important considerations were an area where they can hunt every year and an area they are familiar with. Both were rated as quite important on the five point scale. Moderately important were an area close to home and an area where they don t have to compete with ATVs or trail bikes. Hunters are also influenced by the motivations for experiencing nature, developing their skills, harvesting game, social interaction, and gaining recognition from their peers. For all hunters, social interaction was more important than harvest, and indeed experiencing nature and developing their skills were more important than just harvesting deer. Characteristics of the hunting are also influence the decision of where to hunt. Idaho mule deer hunters primarily choose their hunting area based upon available access to public lands, greatest chance of harvest success, and where they can also hunt elk during mule deer season.

18 P a g e 7 Access to private land and hunting in areas where they can hunt with any weapon had almost no effect on their decisions. Finally, an area with many mule deer but few mature bucks was generally considered to be negative. A variety of weapons are used for hunting Mule deer but over 90% of all hunters used rifles. Compound bows were used by a quarter of the hunters In Regions 1 and 5. The lowest compound bow use of was by hunters in Region 3 (12.5%). Muzzle loaders were most popular in Region 1, where 13% of the hunters use them. Many hunt with more than one weapon. Thirty six percent of the hunters in Region 1 used multiple weapons, followed by about 25% in Regions 5, 6 and 7. The least-used weapon was the crossbow (less than 1%), while the recurve or longbow and the inline muzzleloader were only slightly more popular. It should be noted that over two thirds of all hunters hunted with rifles only. Of those who hunted in special weapons seasons, between 66% and 86% hunted in one other special weapons season, while about one fifth hunted in two additional special weapons seasons. Archery-only was the most popular additional special weapon season, with over one fourth participating in it. Because it was important for most hunters to hunt when fewer others were a- field, most hunters had a preference for hunting during Deer archery season, Short-range weapons season, or Muzzleloader season. Overall 62% of all hunters would accept an advance setting of hunting seasons. Less than 7% said they would not accept the advance season setting. Support was highest in Region 2 at 73% acceptance.

19 P a g e 8 Quality of the Hunt Hunters find large mule deer bucks most desirable and smaller buck and antlerless deer less desirable. Non-residents have the highest desirability ratings large bucks. Satisfaction Level Hunters are most satisfied with the opportunity to hunt in They are also positive about the overall quality of the experience, the amount of access, and the length and timing of the season. Although the satisfaction with the 2006 mule deer hunting experience was higher for those hunters who harvested a deer in 2006, but it did not vary with the type of deer harvested. Non-residents were the most satisfied with the length of the season. Hunters in Region 5 were least satisfied with the amount of access, while non-resident hunters were most satisfied. Non-residents were the most satisfied with the length of the season. Hunters in Region 2 were most satisfied with the number of other hunters encountered. Satisfaction with the 2006 mule deer hunting experience did not vary with ATV ownership. Satisfaction with the 2006 mule deer hunting experience about the same for hunters willing to accept restrictions for large bucks, as it was for hunters unwilling to do so. Satisfaction with the 2006 mule deer hunting experience was higher for those hunters who harvested a mule deer in Hunters are neutral about the effects of the number of other hunters seen. Hunters in Region 2 were most satisfied with the number of other hunters encountered.

20 P a g e 9 Satisfaction with the hunting experience was lower for those hunters who reported that the quality of their hunting experience was seriously impacted by the numbers of other hunters. Hunters were most dissatisfied with the number of deer seen, the number of ATV s encountered, and the size and number of bucks seen. Hunters who use and ATV/trail bike while hunting reported higher satisfaction with the number of ATVs seen. Hunter Crowding Across all Regions there is a clear preference for lengthening the season to alleviate crowding. Choosing a species to reduce the numbers of hunters a-field at a time is not acceptable to all hunters. Hunters are split over controlled hunts and stratified hunts and they are not accepting of zone restrictions. Restrictions for large bucks Between 59 and 71 percent of Idaho residents, and almost 80% of non-resident hunters are willing to accept additional restrictions to manage for larger and/or more mule deer. In general hunters prefer restrictions that preserve (maximizes) hunting opportunity and harvest. Hunters were asked to choose between seven pairs of opposing choices which allowed us to examine whether they favored maintaining hunting opportunity versus the chance to harvest a large buck. Overall, in all seven choices, hunters favored the opportunity to hunt frequently over the size of the bucks available. There were some Regional

21 P a g e 10 differences: hunters in Region 2 and non-resident hunters both favored buck size over increased hunting opportunity. Nonresident hunters differed most from statewide and resident averages on 6 of the 7 choices by primarily favoring large bucks over increased opportunity. In 5 of the choices they favored size over opportunity, while in 2 choices they favored opportunity over size. Perceived competition between Elk and Mule Deer Hunters are not in favor or increasing mule deer hunting opportunities at the expense of elk hunting opportunities. Hunters will not accept reducing the production (management focus) on elk to favor mule deer. Antlerless Harvest Before hunters accept antlerless deer harvest as a management strategy they would like more information. A majority of hunters would welcome the added hunting opportunity that an antlerless hunt would provide. Hunter willingness to participate in antlerless hunts increases when they are offered an opportunity to harvest a buck in addition to an antlerless deer. Youth Hunts are the preferred method of conducting antlerless hunts.

22 P a g e 11 Motorized Access Foot travel is the most frequently used travel mode while hunting, followed by car/trucks. This pattern holds across all strata of the sample. ATVs are used more often than horse/pack animals, trailbikes or mountain bikes. About half of all mule deer hunters own an ATV or trailbike. Ownership is highest in Region 5, and lowest among nonresidents. On average, hunters travel 5 miles or less per day on an ATV/trailbike, except in Region 3, where the average distance is between 6 and 10 miles per day. Trail bikes have a longer history of use among Mule deer hunters, than do ATVs. On average ATVs have been used for about seven years, compared to over 11 years for trailbikes. Length of use is lowest among nonresidents and longest in Region 5. About half of all Mule Deer hunters are aware of the Motorized Vehicle Restriction Rule. However, this awareness does not necessarily mean familiarity with the rule. Familiarity is uneven across the states, being highest in the Regions 1 and 2, and dropping in Regions further south. Between 20% (Region 2) and about 62% (Regions 5 & 6) of all Mule Deer hunters are not familiar with the MVRR. Hunters are more inclined to believe the MVRR did not apply to their hunting unit than believing it did. Hunters were also slightly more sure that the rule applied/didn t apply than thinking it did/didn t apply. Though hunters generally support the MVRR, hunters are only slightly above neutral when it comes to support for the MVRR. Support is lowest in Region 1 and highest among nonresident hunters. Support for the MVRR is not linked to awareness of the rule, though support is slightly higher among those not aware of the rule.

23 P a g e 12 The two most important motivations for using an ATV/trailbike while hunting mule deer are to hunt with others who use ATVs and to retrieve big game. While this is a less complex set of motivations that found in earlier studies, it does signify a major social-desirability pressure to own and use an ATV while hunting mule deer. Between a quarter and a third of mule deer hunters self-report the presence of disabling conditions. Nonresidents are about half as likely to report being disabled. Hunters with physical limitations are almost twice as likely to own an ATV/trailbike as those who are not disabled. Despite the fact that hunters with physical limitations are almost twice as likely to own an ATV/trailbike as those who are not disabled, they are less likely to own one because it Makes up for physical limitations than able bodies hunters. There appears to be an inverse relationship between the motivation to make up for physical limitations and age older hunters are less like to subscribe to the motivation. It is very likely that mule deer hunters would continue to hunt in Idaho and would do so without an ATV or trailbike if restrictions on ATV use were applied to more units. Overall they would somewhat likely to enjoy hunting more. Evaluation of Conservation Officers Over half of Idaho residents did not get checked by a conservation officer. Hunters agree that the conservation officers were professional, friendly, and knowledgeable. Encounters with conservation officers receive a passing grade of a C (adequate).

24 P a g e 13 Hunting History Mule deer hunters in Idaho are experienced hunters and have hunted mule deer for an average of 20 years. Generally, hunters restrict their hunting to three or fewer units each year. About half of the mule deer hunters hunt in 2 or 3 units every year and over one third hunt in the same unit every year. Only a few percent hunt in different units each year or in more than 3 units each year. Hunters in Regions 5, 6 and 7 are more likely to hunt in more than 3 units. Low deer numbers (20%), work schedule (15%), and hunting for other game species (13%) were the most frequently mentioned reasons for not hunting deer every year. Low deer numbers scored highest in Regions 1, 5, and 6. In Regions 1 and 2, hunting other game was reported as the reason by 41% and 56% respectively. In order of desirability, the game species hunted every year are: Mule Deer, Elk, Upland Game, White-tailed deer, Waterfowl, Black bear, Mountain Lion, and Pronghorn. Hunter Profile Idaho resident hunters match the US Census Bureau reported median household income for 2004 of $40,509; nonresidents make about $20--$60,000 more. The average hunter has lived in Idaho for 32.9 years. Guides or outfitters were utilized mostly by non-residents (9%). Hunters in five of the regions did not report any use of guides or outfitters.

25 P a g e 14 The lowest proportions of Latinos who hunt are in Region 2 and 7, and the largest proportion of Latino hunters is in Region 3. Idaho s hunting population is 98.5% Caucasian. Native American/Alaska Natives are most commonly from Region 1 or out of state.

26 P a g e 15 INTRODUCTION & METHODS Introduction The survey research method was used to collect data to develop the detailed analyses that portray Idaho s rifle mule deer hunters and their opinions about contemporary wildlife management issues. The stratified random sampling approach, mail and internet questionnaire design, administration and coding, response rates, and our strategy to evaluate non-response bias are presented in this chapter. Sampling Approach We essentially updated the administration and measurement approach we developed for the rifle deer hunter survey (Sanyal et al. 1989b), and have since refined. Additional questions, scales and analyses were utilized from our work on ATV-Hunter conflicts (Sanyal 2002) to address issues related to hunter access. This study employed a differential design (Graziano & Raulin 1997), seeking to understand selected characteristics of groups designated on the basis of preexisting variables. The questionnaire (survey instrument) was designed collaboratively during a series of meetings with representatives of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The questionnaire of was pre-tested on a convenience sample of hunters who had recreational propensities similar that required for the Idaho sample. Questionnaires were designed and administered essentially following the Tailored Design Method (Dillman 1978; Dillman 2000; Salant & Dillman 1984). Mailings began on 21 January 2006, and data collection concluded on 8 May Mailings included a cover letter on UI letterhead from the principal investigators that explains the survey and provided the internet address and access code to a web site where hunters could complete the questionnaire on-line. A post card reminder was mailed two weeks later to encourage people to respond. Finally, a printed questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope was mailed 2 weeks later to hunters who had not yet responded via mail or internet. This hybrid approach (Best 2005; Ellis, Krumpe & Sanyal 2005) to survey research, using a mail back instrument and a web-based instrument, combined the strengths of

27 P a g e 16 mail and internet surveys to reduce costs and give the sample population their choice of what they thought was the most convenient way to respond. The questionnaire included several different types of response formats (close-ended questions with ordered and unordered choices, partially closed ended, and open ended). Response formats for all interval scales were constructed using magnitude estimators (Bass, Cascio & O'Connor 1974). This ensured that all interval measures are true equal interval scales so that the data could be analyzed quantitatively, and the findings are comparable across sub-populations, and with the findings of other studies using similar scale development procedures. Human subject approval for this project was obtained from the University of Idaho Human Assurances Committee. Select data provided by IDFG allowed us to compare hunters who responded with hunters who did not complete or return their questionnaires (non-respondents). Statistical tests and comparison of age, gender, and region licensed, showed no significant difference between respondents and non-respondents on gender and region. The non-respondents were very slightly younger than the respondents. The difference was so small that we concluded there was no meaningful response bias between survey respondents and non-respondents. This allows us to conclude that our sample obtained a representative sample of the population of mule deer hunters in Populations, Frames and Sample Size The population of interest and the sampling frame was defined by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. They provided samples of the following sizes, that, using calculations provided by Dillman (2000, p.206) and assuming a worst-case binomial proportion (50%/50%), were deemed adequate to provide estimates that are accurate to at least ± 10% at the regional level and 5% at the state level, assuming 99% confidence level. Details by region are displayed in the table in Appendix A. Comrey, (1988); Hogarty et al. (2005); and MacCallum et al. (1999) provide compelling arguments that factor analysis of the size anticipated for this study should not be conducted on fewer than 200 cases per strata. Thus, we sought 220 returned instruments for each region, for a total of 1540 responses. This would place the statewide accuracy at 3.8%, and the regional samples would be accurate between 6.5 and 6.6%. All strata were over-sampled (to account for undeliverables and nonresponse) to ensure that the target sample sizes for each population would be reached. Mailings were sent to an initial sample of 350 questionnaires per region (we included

28 P a g e 17 out-of-state hunters as a strata). Thus, a sample of 2,800 mule deer hunters were contacted. Of these we had 9% returned as undeliverable by the post office. A total of 1,494 hunters responded for a response rate of 60%, while 40% (1,076) were nonrespondents. Of those who responded, some 60% chose to use the internet while 40% chose to respond by mail. In summary, the data obtained from employing the research methods used in this study should be considered to be representative of the population of licensed Mule Deer hunters and relatively free of any systematic error. Assessing Management and Policy Preferences The Acceptance scale that we used for assessing acceptance of managerial and policy alternatives was developed in the late 1980 s (McLaughlin et al., 1989a, 1989b; Sanyal, 1996; Sanyal et al., 1989) and has been used in several other studies where management options were evaluated, or policy alternatives were assessed. This approach uses a brief sentence that explains both a key advantage and key disadvantage of the management scenario, and each respondent is instructed to respond using a 4-point nominal scale that frames the individual reaction to the management option, not asking them to agree or disagree, but whether they would accept it or not. There is no neutral category, but rather a need more information response is provided. Measurement Scale: ACCEPTANCE CONCEPT FAVOR DO NOT FAVOR BUT WOULD NOT WOULD NEED MORE WOULD ACCEPT IT ACCEPT IT INFORMATION ACCEPT NOT SWING ACCEPT Acceptance Ratio: WORST ACTUAL BEST ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT + SWING NOT ACCEPT + SWING NOT ACCEPT NOT ACCEPT The Favor and Do not favor, but would accept responses are considered an Acceptance of the management option, while a Would need more information represent a swing vote; depending on their opinion after receiving the addition information they could accept or oppose the option. The size of the swing vote represents the potential for effecting future change in public acceptance via an

29 P a g e 18 information campaign. These responses are converted to acceptance scores and reported as ratios. INTERPRETING ACCEPTANCE RATIOS person accepts for every 1 not accepting Equal number accept as do not accept 10 people accept for every 1 not accepting We have found that in practice a 2.5: 1 ratio (accepting: not accepting) represents strong support.

30 P a g e 19 FINDINGS Motivations for hunting Measuring Motivations (Desired Hunting Experiences) A growing literature suggests that hunter motivation and satisfaction are objective constructs and influenced by more variables than harvest success and hunter characteristics. Our research explicitly recognizes that people are motivated to act by the desire to fulfill several needs-- tacit recognition of the multiple motivations/satisfactions notion. In terms of hunting, these motivations are best represented by multiple dimensions of motivations that have been widely reported in the literature. The degree to which people are motivated to seek and find specific elements of the experience/environment has been the underlying paradigm of much hunter behavior and market segmentation work. While it is tempting to isolate and focus on a single dimension, it is the unique packages made up of differing combinations of each dimension that best describes what motivates individual hunters, and what allows us to identify groups of hunters who share/seek similar needs. A synopsis of over 100 pertinent empirical works (Sanyal & McLaughlin 1992a, 1992c) highlighted the universal value of the need for escape (relaxation and change) and for nature (natural and wild settings) in motivating hunters and anglers. Not only have most studies included measures of these two dimensions, but most studies have also found these two to be the most important motivational factors for angling and hunting. The questionnaires for the 1989 rifle elk (McLaughlin et al. 1989a; Sanyal et al. 1989a) deer (Sanyal et al. 1989b, 1989c) and shotgun (McLaughlin et al. 1989b; Sanyal et al. 1989d) hunting studies contained an inventory of reasons why people might hunt in Idaho. We developed and perfected this inventory based on the Recreation Experience Preference (REP) Scales developed by Driver (1977) and adapted for consumptive wildlife experiences (Sanyal & McLaughlin 1992a, 1992b, 1992c; Sanyal & McLaughlin 1994a, 1994b; Wright & Sanyal 1998; Sanyal 2002). We have refined the measurement, analysis and interpretation of these scales through constant use in our research and classrooms since they were first used in Idaho in the 1980s, applying them to a wide variety of populations motorized and non-motorized boaters, ATV enthusiasts, wilderness hikers and campers, skiers and snowmobilers, guided hunters and anglers, horsemen, adventure and leisure travelers, to name a few. In all, our departmental colleagues, our graduate students and we have collected over 300,000 questionnaires using these and related recreational motivational scales.

31 P a g e 20 Market Segmentation by Factor/Cluster Analysis Factor analysis using Varimax was used to reduce the data from the original 30+ items to about 15 multidimensional factors. Our protocols required Eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and factor loadings greater than.50 for a single factor for an item to be retained. Items with loadings that are distributed across two or more factors will not be used. Reliability analysis using Cronbach alpha coefficients (Cronbach 1951) will be used to assess scale reliability. The 1989 study used the 1970 revision of Wolfe Normal Mixture Analysis Procedure NORMIX analysis (Wolfe 1970) to conduct the clustering and to test the hypotheses that there were a significant number of hunter types. However, NORMIX is no longer available in a format that is compatible with modern computers. Instead, we used the SPSS 2-stage clustering algorithm, in which the accepted cluster solution maximizes the between-group differences while minimizing the within-group differences, to develop the hunter types using the scales/dimensions identified by factor analysis. Validating the Segmentation Each of the four hunter types was validated against other survey data is described in Tables 1 to 8 and Figures 1 and 2 that describe and validate these types. The types did differ in meaningful and managerially-relevant ways when examined against other behavioral, demographic and psychographic data, and thus the typology is useful. Most Important Types of Hunters in Type A 2006 Type B 2006 Type C 2006 Type D Nature Skills Harvest Social Recognition Figure 1. Mean motivation scores (Importance of different aspects of hunting) for the four hunter types.

32 P a g e 21 Table 1. Distribution of hunter types. Hunter Type Percent A 16.6% B 29.6% B 25.0% D 28.9% Table 2. Mean motivation scores (Importance of different aspects of hunting) for the four hunter types. Hunter Types A B C D Sample Average Values Skills Harvest Friends Recognition = NOT IMPORTANT; 2 = SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT; 3 = MODERATELY IMPORTANT; 4 = QUITE IMPORTANT; 5 = EXTREMELY IMPORTANT Table 3. Hunting history by hunter types. Years hunted-all Years hunted-idaho Hunter Types A B C D Sample Average Years hunted Idaho Mule Deer

33 P a g e 22 Table 4. Motivations for hunting with an ATV or trailbike. Hunter Types A B C D Sample Average Scout for game Make up for physical limitations Travel to areas to hunt on foot Hunt with others who use ATVs Get to the best areas which are far from roads Go further in less time Get away from other hunters Retrieve big game Haul camping supplies and equipment For the added security and safety Haul people to or from hunting camps Hunt on roads/trails closed to full-sized vehicles = NOT IMPORTANT; 2 = SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT; 3 = FAIRLY IMPORTANT; 4 = EXTREMELY IMPORTANT

34 P a g e 23 Table 5. Comparison of importance of hunting motivations between 1989 and 2007 samples. Highlighted data show major (±5%) differences. Motivations Close to nature Bring back memories View scenery Doing something with the family See deer in a natural setting Motivations Testing my abilities Putting meat on the table Sharing with others Use deer stalking skills Being on my own Get away from usual demands Being with friends Harvest a large buck Develop spiritual values Getting to know the lay of Develop my hunting skills the land Test and using equipment Tranquility Tension release Developing close friendships Get any deer Keeping physically fit Getting any buck 11.8 NA Learn more about deer Show others I can do it Getting a good shot Get an antlerless deer Stimulation and excitement Getting a small buck Learning more about nature Compete against others Thinking about personal values Proportion of hunters who said the item was important or extremely important as a reason for Mule Deer hunting (2007) or hunting deer with a rifle (1989). Compared to 1989, hunters in 2007 exhibit slightly weaker attachment to many motivations. Only two motivations, doing something with the family and developing close friendships, show greater importance in the 2007 study. In general, the overall ranking of motivations remains fairly stable.

35 P a g e 24 Table 6. Means of motivation domains by region. Region Values Skills Harvest Friends Recognition A Non resident State Average A 1 = NOT IMPORTANT; 2 = SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT; 3 = MODERATELY IMPORTANT; 4 = QUITE IMPORTANT; 5 = EXTREMELY IMPORTANT The social domains of Friends and Values are more important than the harvest related motivations.

36 P a g e 25 Table 7. Hunter type composition by region. (percents show the distribution of the four types within each region) Region Hunter Type Non resident State Average % Type 1 hunters are equally distributed across the strata, making up about 17% of the hunter population. Type 2 hunters (about 30% statewide) are more common in region 7, where they make up about a third of all hunters. Type 3 hunters (25% statewide) are less likely to be found in regions 2 and among non-residents and are more likely in region 4. Type 4 hunters are dominant among non-residents. 100% 75% Percent Hunter Types A B C D Bars show percents 50% 25% 0% Region Figure 2. Hunter type composition by region.

37 P a g e 26 Hunter Decision Making Table 8. Means of selected motives for Mule Deer hunting, by region. Region Harvest a large buck Getting a small buck Getting any buck Putting meat on the table Being with friends Doing something with the family Developing close friendships a Non resident State Average a 1 = NOT IMPORTANT; 2 = SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT; 3 = MODERATELY IMPORTANT; 4 = QUITE IMPORTANT; 5 = EXTREMELY IMPORTANT In all seven regions, mule deer hunters scored social motivations as being more important than harvesting a large buck. Being with friends, doing something with the family, and developing close friendships were scored between moderately important to quite important, while harvesting a large buck was scored lower as somewhat important to moderately important. In fact, doing something with the family was the most important reason, followed by being with friends. Hunters in regions 2, 5 and 7 rated Harvesting a large buck the highest (moderately important) while hunters in regions 3, 4, and 6 scored it as somewhat important. It should be noted that the non-resident hunters scored Harvesting a large buck as more important than Idaho residents. Mule deer hunters in Idaho do value hunting for the meat as moderately important. In six of the seven regions, hunters scored putting meat on the table either higher or the same as harvesting a large buck. Only in region 2 was a large buck more important than putting meat on the table. Generally, just Harvesting any buck was not very important, but even less popular was Getting a small buck.

38 P a g e 27 Region Table 9. Means of selected motives for considering where to hunt Mule Deer, by region. Where I am able to use my ATV or trail bike Where I don't have to compete with ATVs and trail bikes An area where I can hunt every year An area close to home An area I am familiar with An area with lots of other hunters An area with many open roads a Non resident State Average a 1 = NOT IMPORTANT; 2 = SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT; 3 = MODERATELY IMPORTANT; 4 = QUITE IMPORTANT; 5 = EXTREMELY IMPORTANT Mule deer hunters in Idaho are experienced hunters and have hunted mule deer for an average of 20 years (Table 69 ) page 93. Not surprisingly, this is reflected in the factors they consider when choosing where to hunt. Their two most important considerations were an area where they can hunt every year and an area they are familiar with, both of which were scored as quite important. Moderately important were an area close to home and an area where they don t have to compete with ATVs or trail bikes. Hunters are also influenced by other motivations when considering where to hunt. These include experiencing nature, developing their skills, harvesting game, social interaction, and gaining recognition from their peers. Figure 1 shows that for all types of hunters, social interaction was more important than harvest, and indeed experiencing nature and developing their skills were more important than just harvesting deer. In summary, mule deer hunters take many things into consideration when choosing where, when, and why to go hunting besides just the likelihood of harvesting a deer.

39 P a g e 28 Region Table 10. Influence of selected hunting area characteristics on the decision where to hunt Mule Deer, by region. An area with many mule deer but few mature bucks An area where I can also hunt elk during mule deer season An area with access to public lands An area with access to private lands Where I have the greatest chance of mule deer harvest Where I can hunt with any weapon a Non resident State Average a 1 = Strongly Negative; 2 = Negative; 3 = No Affect; 4 = Positive; 5 = Strongly Positive Idaho mule deer hunters primarily choose their hunting area based upon available access to public lands, greatest chance of harvest success, and where they can also hunt elk during mule deer season. Access to private land and hunting in areas where they can hunt with any weapon had almost no effect on their decisions. Finally, an area with many mule deer but few mature bucks was generally considered to be negative.