MINNESOTA DEER MANAGEMENT

MINNESOTA DEER MANAGEMENT A study of huter opiios about deer populatios ad maagemet: Blocks H H5 Fial Report A cooperative study coducted by: Miesota Cooperative Fish ad Wildlife Research Uit Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources

MINNESOTA DEER MANAGEMENT A study of huter opiios about deer populatios ad maagemet: Blocks H H5 Prepared by: Leslie McIely,2 Lou Coricelli,2 Eric Walberg Miesota Cooperative Fish ad Wildlife Research Uit Departmet of Fisheries, Wildlife, ad Coservatio Biology Uiversity of Miesota 2 Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources ii

Ackowledgemets This study is a cooperative effort supported by the Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources, Divisio of Fish ad Wildlife (DNR), ad the U.S. Geological Survey through the Miesota Cooperative Fish ad Wildlife Research Uit (MNCFWRU) at the Uiversity of Miesota. David Fulto, Assistat Uit Leader i the MNCFWRU, provided techical assistace i survey desig ad stated choice modelig. We thak David Miller for his assistace i workig with the electroic licesig system. Fially, we thak the may deer huters who took the time to complete the survey ad helped to further our uderstadig of these importat stakeholders. Suggested Citatio McIely, L. E., Coricelli, L., ad Walberg, E. (207). Miesota Deer Maagemet: A Study of deer huter opiios about deer populatios ad maagemet: Blocks H-H5 Fial Report. Uiversity of Miesota, Miesota Cooperative Fish ad Wildlife Research Uit, Departmet of Fisheries, Wildlife, ad Coservatio Biology. Cotact Iformatio Leslie E. McIely Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 5555 (65)259-5235 (phoe) (62)625-5299 (fax) leslie.mciely@state.m.us iii

Table of Cotets Ackowledgemets... iii Suggested Citatio... iii Executive Summary... xii Itroductio... Study Purpose ad Objectives... Methods... 2 Sectio. Experiece, Backgroud, ad Huter Participatio... 5 Huter Backgroud ad Demographics... 5 Hutig Patters... 5 Hutig Ivolvemet... 6 Hutig Methods... 7 Kowledge of the Deer Program... 7 Sectio 2. Populatio treds ad perceptios about deer populatios... 36 Recet Populatio Treds... 36 Populatio Maagemet Desires... 36 Sectio 3: Populatio Maagemet Cosideratios... 45 Importat Cosideratios for Settig Deer Populatio Goals... 45 Iput ad Iformatio Used i Settig Deer Populatio Goals... 45 Sectio 4: Huter Satisfactio ad Success... 57 Satisfactio with Deer Numbers ad Quality... 57 Satisfactio with Deer Hutig Experiece... 58 Success... 58 Overall Satisfactio... 58 Sectio 5: Regulatory Prefereces for Deer Maagemet... 68 Scale of Regulatio... 68 Seaso Optios... 68 Alterative Regulatios... 68 Stated Choice Experimet... 69 Sectio 6: Public Participatio i Deer Maagemet... 86 Decisio-makig Process... 86 Preferred Commuicatio... 86 iv

Relatioship with DNR... 87 Feeligs about DNR... 87 Refereces Cited... 08 Appedix A. Example Huter Survey... 0 Appedix B. Weight Assiged by Proportios of Deer Huters Based o DPA Huted... 22 Appedix C. Actual DPA Huted Durig Most Recet Hutig Year (uweighted)... 25 List of Tables Table -: Proportio of respodets who huted deer durig recet deer seasos... 8 Table -2: Seaso Huted... 8 Table -3: Average umber of days spet scoutig or hutig, by seaso... 9 Table -4: Reported geder... 9 Table -5: Reported age... 9 Table -6: Years lived i MN... 0 Table -7: Mea umber of years hutig deer i Miesota ad i deer permit area (DPA)... 0 Table -8: Reported educatio... 0 Table -9: Iteret access at home or aother locatio... Table -0: Statemet that best characterizes where you hut... Table -: If hut private lad, size of lad huted... Table -2: Type of lad huted durig most recet deer hutig seaso... 2 Table -3: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota Level of agreemet... 3 Table -4: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Opportuity to be with frieds... 3 Table -5: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Deer hutig is oe of the most ejoyable thigs I do... 4 Table -6: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... I ejoy discussig deer hutig with my frieds... 4 Table -7: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Cotribute to deer maagemet through hutig... 5 Table -8: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Deer hutig is very importat to me 5 Table -9: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... To chage to aother activity would require major thikig... 6 Table -20: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Oe of the most satisfyig thigs I do 6 Table -2: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Whe deer hutig, I ca really be myself... 7 Table -22: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... I idetify with people ad images associated with deer hutig... 7 Table -23: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Whe hutig, others see me as I wat them to see me... 8 Table -24: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Most of my frieds are coected with hutig... 8 v

Table -25: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Says a lot about who I am... 9 Table -26: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... You ca tell a lot about a perso whe you see them deer hutig... 9 Table -27: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Whe deer hutig, I do t have to be cocered about what other people thik of me... 20 Table -28: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Deer hutig has a cetral role i my life... 20 Table -29: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... A lot of my life is orgaized aroud deer hutig... 2 Table -30: Average importace ratig of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... 2 Table -3: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Ejoyig ature ad the outdoors... 22 Table -32: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Hutig with family... 22 Table -33: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Ejoyig a preferred pastime... 23 Table -34: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Beig with hutig compaios... 23 Table -35: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Hutig with frieds... 24 Table -36: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Seeig a lot of deer... 24 Table -37: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Becomig a better deer huter... 25 Table -38: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Improvig my kowledge... 25 Table -39: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the most recet hutig seaso... Helpig maage deer populatios... 26 Table -40: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the most recet hutig seaso... Developig skills ad abilities... 26 Table -4: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Harvestig at least oe deer... 26 Table -42: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Gettig food for my family... 27 Table -43: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Provig my hutig skills ad kowledge... 28 Table -44: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Challeges of harvestig a trophy... 28 Table -45: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Seeig a lot of bucks... 29 Table -46: Importace of experiece to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Harvestig ay deer for meat... 29 vi

Table -47: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Ifluecig deer sex ratios or age structure... 30 Table -48: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Harvestig a large buck... 30 Table -49: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Harvestig ay buck... 3 Table -50: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Selectively harvestig a large buck... 3 Table -5: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Gettig a buck every year... 32 Table -52: Self-idetificatio with the activity of deer hutig... 32 Table -53: Membership... 32 Table -54: Hutig techiques used durig most recet year huted... 33 Table -55: Cooperatio with deer huters o earby properties with respect to harvest restrictios... 33 Table -56: Deer harvest restrictios followed o property huted most ofte (i additio to DNR regulatios)... 34 Table -57: Willigess to shoot atlerless deer if give the opportuity... 34 Table -58: Approach to deer hutig durig the recet firearms seaso... 35 Table -59: Kowledge about DNR's deer maagemet program: I kow a... 35 Table 2-: Over the past 5 years, what tred have you see i the deer populatio i the deer area you hut most ofte?... 37 Table 2-2: I thikig about the deer permit area you hut, would you say the deer populatio is... 37 Table 2-3: I thikig about the property you hut ad the surroudig area, at what level do you thik the deer populatio should be maaged?... 38 Table 2-4: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted (NW)... 39 Table 2-5: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted: 2 (EC)... 40 Table 2-6: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted: 3 (NE)... 4 Table 2-7: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted: 4 (SC)... 42 Table 2-8: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted: 5 (NC)... 43 Table 2-9: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted: STATE... 44 Table 3-: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... 46 Table 3-2: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Amout of deer mortality durig a severe witer... 46 Table 3-3: Importace of cosideratio whe settig deer populatio goals... Deer hutig heritage ad traditio... 47 Table 3-4: Importace of cosideratio whe settig deer populatio goals... Huter satisfactio with deer umbers... 47 Table 3-5: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Potetial health risks to the deer herd... 48 Table 3-6: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Amout of deer mortality durig a average witer... 48 vii

Table 3-7: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Impact of deer hutig o the local ecoomy... 49 Table 3-8: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Public health (such as huma-deer diseases from ticks)... 49 Table 3-9: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Public satisfactio with deer umbers... 50 Table 3-0: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Number of deervehicle collisios... 50 Table 3-: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Deer overbrowsig of forests... 5 Table 3-2: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Impacts of deer o other wildlife species... 5 Table 3-3: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals...amout of crop damage from deer... 52 Table 3-4: Agreemet with statemets about steps i settig deer populatio goals... 52 Table 3-5: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat that decisio makers explai differet optios ad why the fial optio was selected... 53 Table 3-6: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat that huters have opportuities to provide iput... 53 Table 3-7: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat that ladowers have opportuities to provide iput... 54 Table 3-8: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat to use the best available sciece 54 Table 3-9: Steps i settig deer populatio goals...importat follow cosistet decisio-makig procedures... 55 Table 3-20: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat that Miesotas have opportuities to provide iput... 55 Table 3-2: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat to cosider diverse iterests... 56 Table 4-: Overall satisfactio with curret deer umbers i the deer permit area you hut... 60 Table 4-2: Agreemet with statemet regardig most recet deer hut... I was satisfied with the umber of deer I saw while hutig... 60 Table 4-3: Agreemet with statemet regardig most recet deer hut... I heard about or saw legal bucks while hutig... 6 Table 4-4: Agreemet with statemet regardig most recet deer hut... I was satisfied with the umber of legal bucks... 6 Table 4-5: Satisfactio with umber of legal bucks based o reported relative importace of seeig a lot of bucks o seaso satisfactio... 62 Table 4-6: Agreemet with statemet regardig most recet deer hut... I was satisfied with the quality of legal bucks... 62 Table 4-7: Agreemet with statemet regardig most recet deer hut... I was satisfied with the umber of atlerless deer... 63 Table 4-8: Recet Miesota deer hutig seaso... Satisfactio with geeral deer hutig experiece... 63 Table 4-9: Recet Miesota deer hutig seaso... Satisfactio with deer hutig harvest... 64 viii

Table 4-0: Recet Miesota deer hutig seaso... Satisfactio with deer hutig regulatios... 64 Table 4-: Recet Miesota deer hutig seaso... Satisfactio with umber of other deer huters see... 65 Table 4-2: Durig the recet deer seaso, proportio of deer huters who.... 65 Table 4-3: Durig the recet deer seaso, proportio of huters who killed a deer for themselves or aother huter... 66 Table 4-4: Overall satisfactio with most recet deer hut... 66 Table 4-5: Overall satisfactio based o harvest success... 67 Table 5-: If the MN DNR were to adopt ew deer regulatios, preferece for scale of applicatio... 7 Table 5-2: Support for a statewide youth seaso... 7 Table 5-3: If a cosistet, statewide regular firearm seaso were implemeted, which legth would you prefer?... 72 Table 5-4: Support for a regulatio that would icrease the proportio of atlered bucks i the DPA huted most ofte... 72 Table 5-5: Support for potetial chages to deer hutig regulatios... Delay the firearm seaso oe week... 73 Table 5-6: Support for potetial chages to deer hutig regulatios... Delay the firearm seaso util late November... 73 Table 5-7: Support for potetial chages to deer hutig regulatios... Istitute a atler poit restrictio... 74 Table 5-8: Support for potetial chages to deer hutig regulatios... Elimiate buck crosstaggig... 74 Table 5-9: Support for potetial chages to deer hutig regulatios... Elimiate cross-taggig for bucks ad atlerless deer... 75 Table 5-0: Possible seaso choice characteristics i stated choice experimet... 75 Table 5-: (NW) - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities... 76 Table 5-2: 2 (EC) - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities... 76 Table 5-3: 3 (NE) - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities... 76 Table 5-4: 4 (SC) - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities... 77 Table 5-5: 5 (NC) - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities... 77 Table 5-6: Statewide - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities... 77 Table 5-7: (NW) - Results of the hierarchical Bayes model for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes... 78 Table 5-8: 2 (EC) - Results of the hierarchical Bayes mode for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilties of differet levels of seaso attributes... 79 ix

Table 5-9: 3 (NE) - Results of the hierarchical Bayes model for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes... 80 Table 5-20: 4 (SC) - Results of the hierarchical Bayes model for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes... 8 Table 5-2: 5 (NC) - Results of the hierarchical Bayes model for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes... 82 Table 5-22: Statewide - Results of the hierarchical Bayes model for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes... 83 Table 5-23: Simulated preferece shares comparig existig ad hypothetical deer seaso regulatory packages with varyig populatio levels 84 Table 5-24: Simulated preferece shares comparig hypothetical deer seaso regulatory packages with varyig regulatios to icrease the proportio of atlered bucks 85 Table 6-: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR provides eough opportuities for huters to provide iput... 89 Table 6-2: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... I trust DNR to establish appropriate deer populatio goals... 89 Table 6-3: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR provides eough opportuities for ladowers to provide iput... 90 Table 6-4: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR provides eough opportuities for Miesotas to provide iput... 90 Table 6-5: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR provides adequate iformatio for the public to provide iput... 9 Table 6-6: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR cosiders the best available sciece... 9 Table 6-7: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR follows cosistet decisiomakig procedures... 92 Table 6-8: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR explais differet optios cosidered ad why the fial optio was selected... 92 Table 6-9: Approach to settig deer hutig rules... MN DNR provides eough opportuities for huters to have iput... 93 Table 6-0: Approach to settig deer hutig rules... MN DNR cosiders the best available sciece... 93 Table 6-: Approach to settig deer hutig rules... MN DNR follows cosistet decisiomakig procedures... 94 Table 6-2: Approach to settig deer hutig rules... MN DNR explais differet optios cosidered ad why the fial optio was selected... 94 Table 6-3: Approach to settig deer hutig rules... I trust MN DNR to establish appropriate deer hutig rules... 95 Table 6-4: Preferred methods to provide iput (resposes iclude those who selected more tha oe optio)... 95 Table 6-5: I have adequate opportuities to commuicate with DNR staff... 97 Table 6-6: I kow who to cotact if I have questios or commets... 97 Table 6-7: I have commuicated with my local coservatio officer... 98 x

Table 6-8: I kow my local coservatio officer 98 Table 6-9: I have commuicated with my local wildlife maager 99 Table 6-20: I kow my local wildlife maager 99 Table 6-2: I have commuicated with deer maagemet staff 00 Table 6-22: I kow deer maagemet staff... 00 Table 6-23: Agreemet with statemet... I have adequate opportuities to commuicate with MN DNR, based o reported familiarity with area wildlife maager... 0 Table 6-24: MN DNR does a good job of maagig deer i Miesota... 02 Table 6-25: MN DNR will be ope ad hoest i the thigs they do ad say... 02 Table 6-26: MN DNR ca be trusted to make decisios about deer maagemet that are good for the resource... 03 Table 6-27: MN DNR listes to the cocers of deer huters... 03 Table 6-28: MN DNR will make decisios about deer maagemet i a way that is fair... 04 Table 6-29: MN DNR has deer maagers that are well traied for their jobs... 04 Table 6-30: Relatioship of huter age ad trust i MN DNR to establish appropriate deer populatio goals... 05 Table 6-3: Relatioship of huter educatio level ad trust i DNR to establish appropriate deer populatio goals... 05 Table 6-32: Trust i MN DNR to establish appropriate deer populatio goals based o membership i a orgaized deer group (MDHA, QDMA, MBI, MWA)... 05 Table 6-33: Trust i MN DNR to establish appropriate deer hutig rules based o membership i a orgaized deer group (MDHA, QDMA, MBI, MWA)... 06 Table 6-34: Preferred meas to provide iput, by age... 07 xi

Executive Summary The 205-207 Miesota deer hutig survey was coducted to assess huters : participatio ad activities, deer populatio perceptios ad prefereces, satisfactio, attitudes about deer maagemet, regulatory prefereces, relatioship with DNR, ad ivolvemet i agecy decisio-makig. Surveys were distributed to 25,39 deer huters i five regios of the state (,47 after the 204 deer seaso, 0,403 after the 205 seaso, ad 3,499 after the 206 seaso); 0,894 completed surveys were used for this aalysis. After adjustig for udeliverable surveys ad ivalid respodets, the respose rate was 44.8%. Survey timig after the 204 ad 205 seasos was coicidet with the two lowest aual harvests i over a decade, a maagemet respose to populatio declies followig two cosecutive years (203 ad 204) of moderate-to-severe witer coditios. Durig this time, Miesota DNR was also coordiatig a public process to revisit deer populatio goals for most of the deer permit areas (DPAs) i the state. Respodet Experiece, Backgroud, ad Participatio i Deer Hutig O average, survey respodets were about 50 years old; early 90% of respodets were male. Most respodets are ot members of a hutig or coservatio orgaizatio; reported membership was highest for local sportig clubs with smaller proportios of huters idicatig affiliatio with orgaized deer hutig groups. Respodets have huted deer i Miesota a average of 29 years ad 20 years i the deer permit area they huted most ofte. Almost all respodets (>98%) huted durig the previous deer seaso; less tha % idicated they had t huted durig the three previous years. Overall, 98% of huters i all survey areas huted durig the firearm seaso; less tha 20% reported participatig i the archery or muzzleloader seasos. As expected, fidelity to deer permit area was high; most respodets (>90%) reported they hut the same area every year. The percetage of time spet hutig private vs. public lad varied cosiderably by public lad availability. Overall, more tha half of huters did at least some of their hutig o private lad. With the exceptio of respodets i ortheaster ad orth cetral Miesota, slightly less tha half of huters idicated they did at least some of their hutig o public lad. Roughly three-quarters of ortheaster ad orth cetral huters huted at least a portio of the time o public lad. H ad H2 surveys were coducted after the 204 seaso; H3 ad H4 surveys after the 205 seaso, ad H5 after the 206 seaso. xii

With respect to statemets regardig their ivolvemet with deer hutig, huters idicated greatest agreemet with items related to social relatioships (e.g., opportuity to be with frieds) ad pleasure derived from the activity (e.g., oe of the most ejoyable thigs I do). Notably, items associated with exteral perceptios (e.g., you ca tell a lot about a perso whe you see them hutig) had some of the lowest levels of agreemet. Factors respodets reported as most importat to deer hutig satisfactio were also primarily experietial ad social, icludig ejoyig ature ad the outdoors, hutig with family, ejoyig a preferred pastime, beig with hutig compaios, ad hutig with frieds. Items associated with harvest success, ad particularly buck harvest success, were rated amog the least importat. Hutig techiques, persoal harvest restrictios, ad hutig approaches differed slightly across the areas. Most respodets reported usig a elevated stad for hutig with smaller percetages of respodets idicatig use of a groud stad, stalkig, or participatio i deer drives (Figure ). The majority of respodets also follow deer harvest restrictios that exceed state regulatios (e.g., additioal, persoal restrictios o atlerless or buck harvest) ad cooperate with other deer huters o earby properties so that there are similar strategies i place i the area they hut. While a majority of huters reported that they focus at least a portio of the firearm seaso o harvestig a large buck, most idicated they would shoot a atlerless deer if give the opportuity. Figure. Hutig techiques used durig most recet year huted, by survey area. Populatio Treds ad Perceptios about Deer Populatios A majority of huters i all areas idicated there were fewer deer i the deer permit area they hut most ofte tha 5 years ago ad a majority also idicated the populatio was too low. Substatial differeces i perceptios were observed amog survey areas. I ortheaster Miesota, 8.9% of respodets idicated deer populatios had declied whereas oly 5.7% reported a declie i south cetral Miesota. Respodets i ortheaster Miesota were most xiii

likely to idicate that populatios were too low (79.6%) whereas early half of the respodets i south cetral ad orth cetral Miesota reported that they felt the deer populatio had ot chaged (44.% ad 44.4% respectively) or was too high (5.3% ad 4.3 respectively). More tha two-thirds of respodets wated to see a icrease i deer desities at some level (Figure 2). Across areas, prefereces for future deer populatio maagemet also varied depedig o the type of lad huted, with greater proportios of huters who primarily hut public lad supportig deer populatio icreases tha those who primarily hut private lad. Figure 2. Future deer maagemet prefereces, relative to 204, 205, or 206 levels, by area. Populatio Maagemet Cosideratios To better uderstad the factors huters believe are most importat to cosider whe settig deer populatio goals, MN DNR asked respodets to rate the importace of 2 items that would lead to maagemet for either higher or lower deer populatios (Figure 3). Results provide mixed directio for deer populatio maagemet because cocers about deer mortality would suggest maagemet for lower populatios whereas cocer about deer hutig heritage ad huter satisfactio might suggest maagemet for higher populatios. Not surprisigly, huters i souther Miesota rated witer mortality as less importat tha did those i more orther portios of the state ad huters i ortheaster Miesota rated crop damage less importat that did those i more agricultural areas of the state. Respodets were asked about their level of agreemet with steps i settig deer populatio goals. Strogest agreemet was with the importace of havig decisio makers explai the differet optios cosidered whe deer populatio goals are set ad why the fial optio was selected, followed by opportuities for huters ad ladowers to provide iput. With respect to iput opportuities, more respodets felt it was importat that huters ad ladowers have opportuities to provide iput regardig deer populatio goals tha did those that felt it was importat for Miesotas, i geeral, to have iput opportuities. A majority of respodets xiv

also agreed that it is importat to use the best available sciece ad follow cosistet decisiomakig procedures. Less tha half of huters agreed that it is importat to cosider diverse iterests i settig deer populatio goals. This fidig is couter to the recommedatio made by the Miesota Office of the Legislative Auditor for MN DNR to ehace huma dimesio surveys i order to cosider more diverse perspectives (Miesota OLA 206). Although the state maages wildlife for public beefit, broadly, cotiued tesio relative to the weight give to various stakeholder perspectives should be aticipated. Figure 3. Mea huter rakigs for factors to cosider whe settig deer populatio goals. Meas reflect weighted averages for all deer permit areas. Huter Satisfactio ad Success Huters were asked to idicate their overall satisfactio with deer umbers as well as satisfactio specifically with the umber of legal bucks, quality of bucks, total umber of deer, ad total umber of atlerless deer. As evidet below, measures of huter satisfactio ca be difficult to iterpret because a umber of variables may ifluece a satisfactio ratig (see also Coricelli & McIely 206). Cotributig factors iclude persoal motivatios ad expectatios (may of which are o-cosumptive), the cotext of the experiece, ad harvest success. I geeral, reported huter satisfactio with deer umbers ad quality was low. Whe asked about curret (204, 205, or 206) deer umbers i the deer permit area they hut, most respodets i east cetral, orthwester, ad ortheaster Miesota reported they were dissatisfied. Notably, huters i areas with the lowest estimated deer desities (D Agelo & xv

Giudice 205) reported both the lowest (ortheaster Miesota) ad highest (south cetral Miesota) levels of satisfactio with deer umbers. Similar to reports of satisfactio with deer umbers i deer permit areas, a majority of huters i east cetral ad ortheaster Miesota idicated dissatisfactio with the umber of deer see while hutig. Of ote, larger proportios of huters i each survey area reported satisfactio with the umber of deer see while hutig tha reported satisfactio with deer umbers i the deer permit area they hut most ofte, suggestig greater satisfactio with deer umbers observed at more local levels. While the importace of seeig a lot of bucks (for persoal deer hutig satisfactio) received oly moderate ratigs from huters i these surveys, most huters reported dissatisfactio with the umber of legal bucks ad reported satisfactio was egatively correlated with the relative importace idividual huters placed o seeig bucks. Across all survey areas, more huters reported dissatisfactio tha satisfactio with the quality of legal bucks. Reported satisfactio with the umber of atlerless deer varied across the state, with huters idicatig greater satisfactio i orthwester, south cetral, ad orth cetral Miesota tha those i ortheaster or east cetral Miesota. Cotrary to resposes regardig deer umbers ad quality, a majority of huters idicated satisfactio with their geeral deer hutig experiece durig the recet seaso, reiforcig earlier results that suggest o-cosumptive motivatios ca have a greater ifluece o satisfactio with the deer hutig experiece tha do cosumptive motivatios. Overall satisfactio with the most recet deer hut, a ratig that likely icluded aspects of the deer populatio (umbers ad quality) ad the idividual experiece, varied across survey areas. Higher overall satisfactio levels were reported i orthwester, south cetral, ad orth cetral Miesota tha i ortheaster or east cetral Miesota. Of the huters reportig overall satisfactio with their deer seaso, satisfactio ratigs were sigificatly higher for those who reported killig a deer tha for those who did ot, ad this tred was evidet withi all survey areas (Figure 4). xvi

(a) (b) Figure 4. Overall deer hut satisfactio based o harvest success, by survey area. Resposes reflect satisfactio ratigs from huters who killed (a) or did ot kill (b) a deer durig the most recet deer seaso Deer seaso regulatios from 204 to 206 were desiged to limit harvest ad icrease populatios i most deer permit areas statewide. As a result, harvest was biased toward legal bucks ad atlerless permits were uavailable or limited i may areas. Overall, 26.8% to 44.3% of huters reported harvestig a deer for themselves or aother huter, depedig o the survey area. xvii

Regulatory Prefereces for Deer Maagemet Huters were asked about their prefereces regardig the scale of regulatio implemetatio, seaso optios, ad various potetial regulatory chages. Across all survey areas, a preferece for more local (DPA) or regioal (zoe) applicatio was evidet. A majority of huters supported the establishmet of a statewide youth seaso i mid-october (Figure 5). Figure 5. Support for a statewide youth seaso i mid-october, by area. Across all areas, huters idicated geeral support for a regulatio that would icrease the proportio of atlered bucks i the deer permit area they huted most ofte. Cosistet with previous surveys of Miesota deer huters, support for specific regulatory alteratives was lower tha that expressed for a uspecified regulatio (Figure 6). Figure 6. Support for specific regulatory alteratives, by area. Mea is based o the scale: = strogly oppose, 2 = slightly oppose, 3 = either, 4 = slightly support, 5 = strogly support xviii

Stated Choice Experimet: Regulatory Combiatios This study also icluded a stated choice experimet examiig the prefereces of deer huters cocerig differet potetial combiatios of deer seasos ad regulatios i Miesota. Stated choice models preset hypothetical scearios to respodets to derive idividuals prefereces for alteratives composed of multiple resource ad maagemet attributes (Adamowicz et al. 994; Oh et al. 2005). Alteratives preseted i this seaso choice experimet cosisted of five attributes: (a) crosstaggig of harvested deer, (b) whether or ot atler poit restrictios are i place, (c) timig of the firearm opeer durig or out of the rut, (d) the populatio level or umber of deer, ad (e) deer harvest limit. Scearios selected by respodets ca be used to idetify the relative importace, or ifluece, of each attribute o regulatory ad seaso combiatios. I additio, by aalyzig idividuals prefereces for differet levels of each attribute, we ca estimate the utility, or relative desirability, of each level amog respodets. Across all survey areas, timig of the opeer had the most ifluece o sceario choice followed closely by deer umbers i all but orth cetral Miesota. The third most importat attribute was cross-taggig i the majority of survey areas. Implemetatio of atler poit restrictios had the least ifluece o sceario choice i orthwester ad east cetral Miesota whereas harvest limit was least importat i ortheaster, south cetral, ad orth cetral Miesota. Across all survey areas, ad statewide (Figure 7), a hutig opeer i early November had the highest utility ad was preferred over a late- November opeer, legal cross-taggig for either sex was preferred over cross-taggig restrictios, o atler poit restrictio was preferred over a atler poit restrictio regulatio, deer umbers higher tha 204-206 levels were preferred over levels experieced durig that time period or lower populatio levels, ad the preferred seasoal harvest limit was a oe-deer, either sex regulatio (Huter Choice) rather tha a oe-deer limit with a atlerless lottery (Lottery) or a two-deer limit (Maaged). Market simulatios based o the stated choice experimet suggest that, bag limit prefereces are somewhat isesitive to populatio levels, i.e., the preferece for a higher populatio is ot drive by a desire to harvest more tha deer based o curret statewide huter prefereces, ad that statewide, commoly proposed DNR regulatory packages that could icrease the proportio of atlered bucks i the populatio are curretly less attractive tha existig DNR regulatios eve at higher populatio levels. xix

Figure 7. Average part-worth utilities of attribute levels i statewide stated choice experimet Public Participatio i Deer Maagemet With respect to statemets about the approach MN DNR uses to set deer populatio goals (e.g., provides eough opportuities for iput, provides adequate iformatio), resposes idicated eutral to slight disagreemet across all areas. For most areas, the greatest proportio of respodets disagreed that MN DNR provides eough opportuities for huters to provide iput ad do ot trust MN DNR to establish appropriate deer goals. O average, huter agreemet was eutral to egative with statemets that MN DNR will be ope ad hoest i the thigs they do ad say, ca be trusted to make decisios that are good for the resource, or will liste to the cocers of huters. I cotrast, huter agreemet was eutral to positive with statemets that MN DNR will make decisios about deer maagemet i a way that is fair ad that MN DNR has deer maagers ad biologists who are well traied for their jobs. Respodets were udecided about their level of agreemet with most other statemets related to agecy decisio makig about deer populatio goals, icludig iput opportuities for ladowers ad Miesotas, the adequacy of iformatio provided by MN DNR, cosideratio xx

of sciece, cosistecy of decisio-makig processes, ad explaatio of decisio alteratives. Huters were similarly udecided regardig their agreemet with statemets about the MN DNR approach to settig deer hutig rules, icludig opportuities for huters to provide iput. Overall, fewer respodets were eutral about their relatioship ad commuicatio with DNR tha they were with statemets about agecy decisio-makig procedures. Across all areas, huter agreemet was eutral to egative regardig havig adequate opportuities to commuicate with DNR staff. I cotrast, huter agreemet was eutral to positive regardig kowig who to cotact if they have questios or commets about deer maagemet. Resposes idicated greater ties to local coservatio officers tha with local wildlife maagers or deer maagemet staff (Figure 8). Across all areas, a majority of those familiar with their local area maager felt that they had adequate opportuities to commuicate with MN DNR whereas oly about a quarter of those who did ot kow their local area maager felt they had adequate opportuities to commuicate with MN DNR. Results suggest opportuities to ehace relatioships betwee staff ad huters should be explored. Figure 8. Commuicatio with MN DNR as it relates to deer maagemet Survey resposes idicated a preferece for direct rather tha represetative iput, with prefereces for olie questioaires, writte questioaires, ad public meetigs. The least preferred optio to provide iput was via advisory teams, followed by iformal commuicatio ad iput through a represetative orgaizatio (Figure 9). Notably, providig o iput rated higher tha all but the top three optios. Across all areas, greater proportios of huters over the age of 50 idicated a preferece to provide iput via public meetigs ad writte questioaires tha youger huters, whereas a greater proportio of youger huters reported a preferece to provide iput via olie questioaires. xxi

Figure 9. Preferred meas to provide iput to MN DNR Across all areas, age was egatively correlated with trust that MN DNR will establish appropriate deer populatio goals, suggestig that older deer huters are less trustig of MN DNR. O average, ad across all areas, members of orgaized deer groups (MDHA, QDMA, MBI, ad MWA) reported sigificatly lower levels of trust tha those who were ot members of a orgaized deer group. xxii

Itroductio The Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources (MN DNR) periodically coducts stakeholder surveys to collect iformatio about public desires ad opiios regardig specific atural resource maagemet issues. Survey recipiets are selected radomly ad provide a statistically represetative sample of stakeholder opiios. Over the past decade, MN DNR has coducted over a doze deer huter surveys to evaluate regulatory prefereces ad huter satisfactio (Miesota DNR 206). Most recetly, deer huters were surveyed i 204 to iform populatio goal settig discussios. This report provides a summary of exteded surveys coducted to support the aticipated goal settig process i 205 206 ad to better uderstad huter experieces ad attitudes about regulatios ad the deer maagemet program. Cocurretly, i 205, Miesota s deer populatio maagemet was evaluated by the Office of the Legislative Auditor (Miesota OLA 206). A key recommedatio of the OLA report was to cotiue ad expad the data collectio via stakeholder surveys to provide greater isights relative to stakeholder perspectives o deer maagemet. Results of these surveys are expected to support that goal. Study Purpose ad Objectives Begiig i 204, surveys of deer huters were coducted to iform discussio about deer populatio goals ad deer maagemet i Miesota (Walberg et al. 205). The purpose of this study was to gather iformatio at levels that adequately represet regioal stakeholder attitudes (e.g., ortheaster Miesota) ad provide a idicatio of prefereces at more local levels (e.g. deer permit areas). This report presets the results from a series of exteded surveys that iclude questios about deer populatio levels but also delve more deeply ito issues such as DNR trust, where people get their iformatio, prefereces for iput ito agecy decisio makig, ad stated choice of regulatory/maagemet optios. The 204-207 deer maagemet study was divided ito five strata coverig all but the southeaster ad southwester portios of the state. Deer huter attitude surveys were previously coducted i southeaster (Pradhaaga et al. 203) ad southwester (D Agelo & Grud 204) Miesota. I combiatio, MN DNR coducted attitude surveys of Miesota huters, statewide, betwee the 202 ad 206 deer seasos. Specific survey objectives were to: ) Evaluate the use of a mixed-mode (i.e. combiatio of olie ad writte surveys) approach to huter surveys (Walberg 206), 2) Cotiue to assess huter perspectives o regioal deer populatio treds ad maagemet, 3) Evaluate support for potetial regulatory chages commoly raised by stakeholders, as well as the ifluece of deer populatio maagemet decisios o regulatory prefereces, ad,

4) Better uderstad stakeholder relatioships with MN DNR ad prefereces for commuicatio/iput i agecy decisios to improve egagemet processes ad huter satisfactio. Methods Samplig Surveys were set to 25,39 huters i five differet regios of the state (Table I-) betwee fall 204 ad sprig 207, reflectig huters experieces ad opiios after the 204, 205, or 206 deer seasos. Survey blocks H, H3 ad H4 were further stratified by sub-regios i order to iform upcomig deer populatio goal settig discussios; the goal settig process i H2 ad H5 was already complete. The target respose size for each sub-regio was 900. Because survey blocks H2 ad H5 represeted two former goal settig regios, the target respose size for each of these regios was,200. For each survey block, radom samples were draw from the DNR electroic licesig system (ELS), selectig for adult huters that declared itet to hut a deer permit area (DPA) withi that regio durig the most recet deer seaso 2. Withi each survey block, huters were radomly assiged to te subsample groups. Each subsample group received oe of te survey versios; all surveys were idetical except for the order ad set of regulatory choice optios which were uique to each of the te survey versios. This desig provided the ability to coduct a discrete choice experimet withi each of the survey blocks (Louviere, Hesher & Swait 2000). Table I-. Overall sample size, returs, adjusted respose rates, ad survey timig for deer huter surveys, 204-207. Youth respodets (reported ages <8 years) removed from aalysis. Survey Block Regio N Udeliverable Retured Respose Survey Timig H Northwester MN 7,80 333 3,095 4.4% Sprig 205 H2 East Cetral MN 3,66 38,553 44.7% Sprig 205 H3 Northeaster MN 5,202 222 2,544 5.% Fall/Witer 205-6 H4 South Cetral MN 5,20 52 2,33 45.8% Fall/Witer 205-6 H5 North Cetral MN 3,499 28,389 4.2% Fall/Witer 206-7 Total 25,39 973 0,894 44.8% 2 At the time of licese purchase, huters declare a area they ited to hut. However, they are ot legally required to stay i that area ad although there is high site fidelity, some movemet across the state occurs. 2

Survey Istrumet Surveys were preseted olie or as a 2-page paper booklet, icludig a cover page with photo (Appedix A). Olie ad paper surveys preseted the same series of questios, tailored to the survey block of iterest. Each survey cotaied two sectios; a sectio focused o deer populatio observatios ad prefereces ad a sectio focused more broadly o hutig regulatios, ivolvemet with hutig, huter satisfactio, huter relatioships with DNR, prefereces related to DNR maagemet ad decisio-makig, ad huter demographics. Of ote, the secod sectio icluded a discrete choice experimet desiged to help DNR better uderstad idividuals prefereces for regulatory alteratives. Discrete choice surveys preset hypothetical scearios ad force respodets to choose a alterative amog a suite of optios. I Miesota, discrete choice surveys have bee used for deer, turkey, ad pike. The methods are rooted i the marketig literature ad the methods are icreasigly applied to atural resources problems. The experimet i this survey focused o a combiatio of () maagemet strategies that are ofte suggested by hutig stakeholders ad (2) maagemet desigatios that reflect both huter opportuity ad maagemet toward a specific populatio goal. Data Collectio Data were collected usig a web-first, mixed mode desig that icluded a combiatio of olie ad mail surveys followig the process outlied by Dillma ad others (Dillma, Smyth, & Christia, 204). The first two waves of letters requested survey completio olie through the iteret survey platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT); each olie survey code was uique ad could be used oly oce. The third ad fourth waves icluded a cover letter, a self-admiistered mail back survey booklet, ad a busiess reply evelope. Because the fourth wave oly icreased the overall respose rate by a small percet for surveys H H4 (rage = 8.0% - 9.0%), we opted to employ a three-wave survey (i.e., two letters requestig olie survey respose followed by oe mail-back paper survey packet) for the H5 study area. Cotact letters were set approximately 2 weeks apart; potetial survey respodets were cotacted up to four times betwee February ad May of 205 (H ad H2), November 205 ad April 206 (H3 ad H4), or Jauary ad February 207 (H5). Persoalized cover letters explaied the purpose of the study ad made a appeal for respodets to complete the survey olie; however, for survey recipiets that did ot have iteret access, letters idicated that a paper survey would be mailed at a later date. Data were collected through July, 205 for the H ad H2 surveys; through Jue, 206 for the H3 ad H4 surveys; ad through April, 207 for the H5 survey. Data Etry ad Aalysis Olie survey data were dowloaded as.csv files usig Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, 205), coverted to Excel 203 spreadsheets, ad provided the basic data etry template for hard-copy mail surveys. Data from mail surveys were maually etered i Excel 203 by Uiversity of Miesota studets. A subsample of paper surveys (50 per survey) were double-etered (i.e. the 3

iitial survey data were etered by oe idividual ad the etered a secod time by aother idividual) to assess data etry error rates. Data etry error rates raged from 0.39% to.44%. Basic descriptive summaries ad statistical aalyses were coducted usig the Statistical Program for the Social Scieces (SPSS Statistics for Widows, versio 24). Resposes across survey blocks were compared usig chi-squared tests ad oe-way aalysis of variace (ANOVA). Idepedet samples t-tests or Ma-Whitey U tests were used to test differeces i resposes betwee groups. We measured effect size for chi-squared tests, ANOVA, ad idepedet samples t-tests usig Cramer s V, eta, ad Cohe s d respectively. Commoly accepted values (Cohe 988, Vaske 2008) were used to iterpret effect sizes as small, medium, ad large (Cramer s V > 0., 0.3, 0.5; eta > 0., 0.24, 0.37; d > 0.2, 0.5, 0.8). The discrete choice portio of the survey was aalyzed usig Lighthouse Studio ad hierarchical Bayes aalysis. Survey Respose Rates, Norespose ad Error Overall, there were 973 udeliverable surveys; 0,894 completed huter surveys were retured, yieldig a 45% adjusted respose rate. Age ad geder of o-respodig survey recipiets, from the DNR electroic licesig system, was compared with that of survey respodets to assess potetial orespose bias. Media age of respodets was greater tha that of o-respodets (52 versus 4) ad Ma-Whitey U tests betwee these groups i each survey area idicate a substatial age differece (U = 922997.5 4874450.0, Z = 4.388 20.450, p < 0.00, effect size r = 0.237 0.28). No geder differeces were detected. Differeces i attitudes ad demographics betwee early respodets (mailig waves -3) ad late respodets (mailig wave 4) were also explored to assess potetial orespose bias. I geeral, o practical sigificace (effect size) was evidet for most attitude resposes. However, smaller proportios of late respodets i east cetral (survey area 2) ad ortheaster (survey area 3) Miesota idicated prefereces for populatio icreases tha did early respodets (V = 0.2 ad 0.29, respectively). Media age of wave 4 respodets did ot differ from earlier survey respodets. For all surveys, our error rate at the survey block level was approximately +/-3%. State-level data were aalyzed for all respodets, weighted by DPA to accout for the proportio of huters withi the H-H5 that purchased a 204 licese (Appedix B). I Miesota, huters are required to desigate the DPA they are most likely to hut withi durig the hutig seaso; this iformatio is used to estimate hutig pressure ad ca be assumed to reflect distributio of the hutig populatio. Regio-level aalyses were coducted by comparig resposes across surveys ad resposes were similarly weighted by DPA to reflect the hutig populatio. 4

Sectio. Experiece, Backgroud, ad Huter Participatio Huter Backgroud ad Demographics Nearly all respodets (98.7%) idicated they huted durig the previous 3 deer seaso ad less tha % idicated they had t huted durig the three previous years (Table -). Overall, over 98% of huters i all survey areas idicated they huted durig the firearm seaso; far fewer huters participated i the archery (7.3%) or muzzleloader (2.5%) seasos (Table -2). Firearm ad muzzleloader huters estimated spedig a average of 6 days afield each seaso, compared to a average of more tha 6 days for archery huters (Table -3). Huters estimated spedig a average of 8 days (archery), days (firearm seaso), ad 3 days (muzzleloader) scoutig. Of the estimated days spet scoutig ad hutig, oly days spet afield durig the firearm seaso substatially differed across survey areas, likely a result of the 6-day firearm seaso i the 00-series zoe (ortheaster, orth cetral, ad east cetral Miesota; survey area 3 ad portios of areas 2 ad 5). A small differece i archery hutig days was also oted, with bowhuters spedig less time afield i ortheaster ad orth cetral Miesota. Overall, 89% of respodets were male (Table -4) ad, o average, were approximately 52 years old (media age = 49-54 across all survey areas; Table -5). Idividuals reported livig i Miesota for over 45 years (Table -6), had huted a average of 29 years i Miesota, ad 20 years i the deer area they idicated they huted most ofte (Table -7). Over 75% of huters reported post-secodary educatio, with early a third holdig a advaced degree (Table -8). Almost all idividuals (>90%) had access to the iteret (Table -9). Hutig Patters Most respodets (>90%) reported hutig the same area every year ad oly 2% idicated they ever huted the same area (Table -0). Appedix C provides a breakdow of the actual DPA huted, if reported o the survey; the high percet of resposes comig from withi a survey area reflects high aual huter fidelity to deer permit areas. The average reported parcel size of private lad huted raged from 35 to 23 acres ( x = 62.; rage = 0 5,000) depedig o survey area, with the largest average parcel sizes reported i orthwester Miesota ad the smallest i east cetral Miesota. Average parcel sizes by regio ( x = 3 to 206; Table -) did t chage substatially whe exceptioally large reported values (values > 5000 acres, = 22) were removed from the aalysis. The percetage of time spet hutig private vs. public lad varied cosiderably by public lad availability (Table -2). As expected, i areas with a lower percetage of public lads, we observed a higher proportio of huters o private lads. Overall, slightly more tha half of huters did at least some of their hutig o their ow private lad (rage = 57% - 64%) or other private lad that they do ot ow or lease (rage = 5% - 80%). With the exceptio of survey areas 3 ad 5 (ortheaster ad orth cetral Miesota), slightly less tha half of huters idicated they did at least some of their hutig o public lad (rage = 4% - 46%). Most (rage = 72-77%) huters i ortheaster ad orth cetral Miesota idicated they did at least some of their hutig o public lad. Less tha % (rage = 5.4% - 0.5%) of huters reported 3 H ad H2 surveys were coducted after the 204 seaso; H3 ad H4 surveys were coducted after the 205 seaso; H5 was coducted after the 206 seaso. 5

that they leased lad for hutig, with - 4% hutig exclusively o lads they leased for hutig. Hutig Ivolvemet Respodets were asked to idicate agreemet, o a scale of to 5, with 6 statemets regardig their ivolvemet with deer hutig i Miesota (Tables -3 to -29). Statemets associated with persoal hutig ivolvemet (Kyle et al. 2007) that received the greatest agreemet from huters were the opportuity to be with frieds ( x = 4.3; Table -4), deer hutig is oe of the most ejoyable thigs I do ( x = 4.3; Table -5), I ejoy discussig deer hutig with frieds ( x = 4.3; Table -6), I cotribute to deer maagemet through hutig ( x = 4.2; Table -7), ad deer hutig is very importat to me ( x = 4.2; Table -8). Notably, items associated with exteral perceptios (e.g., You ca tell a lot about a perso whe you see them hutig ad I do t have to be cocered about what other people thik of me ) had some of the lowest levels of agreemet (Table -26 ad -27). Across the areas, huters differed to the greatest extet i agreemet with statemets suggestig that deer hutig has a cetral role i their life (Table -28) ad that a lot of their life is orgaized aroud deer hutig (Table -29), with huters i orther Miesota expressig greater levels of agreemet tha huters i souther Miesota. Respodets were also asked to rate, o a scale of to 5, the importace of 2 experieces to their deer hutig satisfactio durig the previous deer seaso (Tables -30 to -5). Huters idicated that the most importat experieces for satisfactio were ejoyig ature ad the outdoors ( x = 4.5; Table -3), hutig with family ( x = 4.2; Table -32), ejoyig a preferred pastime ( x = 4.; Table -33), beig with hutig compaios ( x = 3.9; Table - 34), ad hutig with frieds ( x = 3.9; Table -35). Items lowest o the list icluded harvestig a large buck, harvestig ay buck, selectively harvestig a large buck eve if it meas ot killig a deer, ad 'gettig a buck every year (Tables -48 to -5). Roughly 90% of huters i all areas idicated that ejoyig ature ad the outdoors was very or extremely importat to their deer hutig satisfactio. I cotrast, oly 8.5% of respodets statewide idicated that harvestig a buck every year was very or extremely importat to their deer hutig satisfactio. With respect to the activity of deer hutig, most respodets idetified themselves as recreatioal deer huters (34.8%), followed by social (22.9%), meat (22.7%), trophy (.5%), skills-orieted (3.8%), casual (2.2%) ad sciece-orieted (2.%) (Table -52). The majority of respodets (>60%) are ot affiliated with a hutig or coservatio orgaizatio (Table -53). Reported membership was highest for local sportig clubs (rage = 3.6%), followed by the Miesota Deer Huters Associatio (0.7%), Quality Deer Maagemet Associatio (.9%), Miesota Bowhuters, Ic. (.%), ad Miesota Whitetails Alliace (0.6%). Roughly te percet of respodets reported membership i some other hutig or coservatio associatio (e.g., Ducks Ulimited, Pheasats Forever). 6

Hutig Methods Hutig techiques differed regioally (Table -54). Most (rage = 70.8% 85.3%) respodets used a elevated stad for hutig durig the recet deer seaso. Smaller percetages of respodets idicated they used a groud stad or blid (rage = 34.2% 5.%), moved slowly or stalked deer (rage = 25.5% 35.9%), or participated i deer drives as a member of a party (rage = 0.5% 30.%). Respodets from east cetral Miesota reported the highest percetage of elevated stad usage while respodets from south cetral Miesota reported the greatest use of groud stads ad deer drives. The majority of respodets (53.5%) reported that they cooperate with other deer huters o earby properties with respect to deer harvest restrictios so that there are similar strategies i place i the area they hut (Table -55). Implemetatio of additioal deer harvest restrictios (besides DNR regulatios) o the property huted varied, with small differeces evidet across areas. Most commoly, respodets (rage = 33.% 57.8%) reported o restrictios o the type of deer that may be huted (Table -56). Similar proportios of huters (rage = 3.5% 58.5%) reported that atlerless harvest is restricted but huters ca take ay legal buck. Of ote, early 20% more huters i ortheaster Miesota, as compared to other regios, reported that atlerless harvest was restricted. The regioal differece is ot surprisig give the impact of recet severe witers withi the regio; however, this may also reflect some respodet cofusio regardig the itet of the questio (i.e., huter- or ladower-imposed harvest restrictios i additio to DNR regulatios). Small percetages of respodets reported restrictios o buck harvest (rage = 2.4% 4.%) or buck ad atlerless harvest (rage = 2.3% 3.3%). Various other restrictios were reported by similar percetages of respodets (rage = 3.0% 3.8%). Most (83.3%) huters would shoot a atlerless deer if give the opportuity (Table -57). I additio to hutig techiques ad harvest restrictios, approaches to hutig also differed by area. Whe asked to describe how they huted deer durig the most recet firearm deer seaso, the greatest proportio (rage = 37.3% - 49.9%) of respodets reported that they would focus o large bucks, with 7.9% 27.8% hutig for large atlered bucks early i the seaso ad ay legal deer later ad 7.9% 24.8% hutig for large atlered bucks durig the etire seaso. Roughly oe third of respodets (rage = 26.2% to 38.9%) would shoot the first legal deer that offered a good shot (Table -58). Small umbers of respodets chose ot to harvest a deer due to low populatio levels (rage =.8% to 4.7%) ad eve fewer (rage = 0.2% to.4%) idicated they would shoot oly atlerless deer. Kowledge of the Deer Program Over 95% of huters idicated a workig kowledge of DNR s deer maagemet program, with 2.0% reportig they kow a great deal about the program ad 3.3% reportig they kow othig about the program (Table -59). 7

Table -: Proportio of respodets who huted deer durig recet deer seasos Huted this year Huted last year Huted 2 years ago Did ot hut Survey Year % % % % (NW) 309 204 98.5% 93.2% 9.7% 0.0% 2 (EC) 553 204 98.% 92.8% 90.0% 0.% 3 (NE) 2536 205 98.7% 93.4% 92.5% 0.0% 4 (SC) 23 205 99.4% 92.6% 90.3% 0.0% 5 (NW) 389 206 99.3% 94.0% 92.7% 0.% TOTAL 0879 98.7% 93.2% 9.5% 0.% χ2=8.422, *** V = 0.04.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 χ2=3.062,.s. V = 0.07 χ2=4.933, *** V= 0.037 χ2=.959,.s. V = 0.03 Table -2: Seaso Huted Archery Firearm Muzzleloader (NW) 3090 7.% 98.% 6.4% 2 (EC) 553 8.9% 98.%.5% 3 (NE) 2535 3.7% 98.7% 8.2% 4 (SC) 23 8.2% 97.8% 8.0% 5 (NC) 390 7.8% 98.3% 0.9% TOTAL 0877 7.3% 98.3% 2.5% χ2=2.892, *** V = 0.072 χ2=8.500,.s. V = 0.020 χ2=259.298, *** V = 0.09.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 8

Table -3: Average umber of days spet scoutig or hutig, by seaso Days 2 3 4 5 Scoutig (NW) (EC) (NE) (SC) (NC) TOTAL F P η 2 Archery 653 0.4 0.6 9.7 2.7 9.4 0.0.658 0.058 0.00 Firearm 3649 3.4 4.0 5. 3.5 4. 4. 5.263 <0.00 0.06 Muzzleloader 479 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.3 3. 3.2 0.3 0.87 0.003 Days Hutig Archery 763 6.8 8.4 4.6 6.8 3.2 6. 5.726 <0.000 0.03 Firearm 9629 4.9 6. 7.5 4.6 5.7 5.7 336.52 <0.00 0.23 Muzzleloader 368 5.8 6.2 5.8 6.3 6. 6.0.30 0.268 0.004 Note: Extreme values (scoutig days >60 for archery, = 28;scoutig days >20 for firearm, = 27; ad scoutig days > 20 muzzleloader; = 46) excluded Table -4: Reported geder % Female % Male (NW) 2948 2.4% 87.6% 2 (EC) 47 2.2% 87.8% 3 (NE) 2435 8.3% 9.7% 4 (SC) 223 8.8% 9.2% 5 (NC) 38 0.6% 89.4% TOTAL 0369 0.7% 89.3% χ2=35.663***; V = 0.059.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -5: Reported age Mea age Media age (NW) 298 48.8 50 2 (EC) 46 49.9 5 3 (NE) 2425 5.8 53 4 (SC) 224 48.4 49 5 (NC) 37 52.3 54 TOTAL 03 50.4 52 F=27.05***, η 2 = 0.00.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 9

Table -6: Years lived i MN Mea years % of life (NW) 299 45.6 93.4 2 (EC) 463 46.9 94. 3 (NE) 2422 48.3 93.3 4 (SC) 2209 46. 95.3 5 (NC) 3 48.6 93.2 TOTAL 0302 47.2 93.7 F=4.326*** η 2 = 0.006 F=6.07*** η 2 = 0.002.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -7: Mea umber of years hutig deer i Miesota ad i deer permit area (DPA) I Miesota I the DPA huted most ofte (NW) 3056 26.8 9.8 2 (EC) 533 27. 8.2 3 (NE) 2509 30.9 22.9 4 (SC) 2302 25.9 9.4 5 (NC) 375 30.4 2. TOTAL 0763 28.5 20.2 F=48.368*** η 2 = 0.08 F=34.083*** η 2 = 0.03.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -8: Reported educatio Some Votech Votech degree Some HS Some 4 yr. Some Grad. GS HS degree college degree grad. degree (NW) 2946 0.7%.3% 9.9% 0.2% 20.5% 4.7% 22.5% 3.% 7.% 2 (EC) 469 0.7% 2.8% 2.2%.4% 2.5% 6.% 8.3% 2.3% 5.7% 3 (NE) 2432 0.4%.2% 5.6%.3% 9.% 8.% 22.9% 3.2% 8.2% 4 (SC) 2224 0.2%.4% 20.8% 0.0% 25.4% 4.3% 9.6% 2.3% 5.8% 5 (NC) 37 0.4%.2% 20.0% 9.7% 9.7% 3.% 23.6% 3.3% 8.8% TOTAL 0356 0.5%.6% 9.3% 0.8% 20.7% 5.3% 2.6% 2.9% 7.3% χ2=42.059***; V = 0.058.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 0

Table -9: Iteret access at home or aother locatio No Yes (NW) 3075 7.5% 92.5% 2 (EC) 545 6.8% 93.2% 3 (NE) 259 9.% 90.9% 4 (SC) 2294 6.6% 93.4% 5 (NC) 38 7.% 92.9% TOTAL 084 7.4% 92.6%.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 χ2=2.638*; V = 0.034 Table -0: Statemet that best characterizes where you hut Almost ever hut the same area Typically hut the same area every year Chage every Chage every 3 to 2 years to 5 years (NW) 303.9%.7% 2.0% 94.4% 2 (EC) 499.9% 2.8% 2.9% 92.4% 3 (NE) 2488 2.2% 2.5% 3.5% 9.8% 4 (SC) 2282.8% 2.7% 2.6% 92.9% 5 (NC) 348.5% 2.8% 4.0% 9.7% TOTAL 0594.9% 2.5% 3.% 92.6% χ2=30.80***; V = 0.03.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -: If hut private lad, size of lad huted Mea parcel size (acres) Media parcel size (acres) (NW) 2776 205.7 20.0 2 (EC) 328 30.6 80.0 3 (NE) 789 49.7 80.0 4 (SC) 208 5.5 80.0 5 (NC) 007 62.2 98.8 TOTAL 8796 62. 85.0 F=3.47***; η 2 = 0.04 Outliers (respose >5000) excluded..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00

Table -2: Type of lad huted durig most recet deer hutig seaso Type of lad huted (NW) 2 (EC) 3 (NE) 4 (SC) 5 (NC) TOTAL Sigificace Noe 36.0% 38.6% 40.8% 43.2% 40.7% 39.5% Private lad Some 0.0% 0.5% 8.0% 0.7% 5.2% 3.0% χ2=57.957*** that I ow Most 8.8% 5.7% 7.2% 6.2% 5.7% 6.8% V = 0.077 All 35.% 35.2% 24.0% 29.8% 28.4% 30.7% Noe 92.0% 94.6% 89.5% 9.% 92.2% 92.0% Private lad Some 3.4% 2.7% 4.% 3.8% 2.8% 3.4% χ2=26.472** that I lease V = 0.035 for hutig Most 2.2%.6% 2.8% 2.5% 2.6% 2.3% All 2.4%.% 3.6% 2.7% 2.3% 2.3% Noe 32.% 35.9% 49.4% 20.2% 4.8% 37.0% Private lad Some 8.4% 5.5% 2.5% 7.0% 9.% 8.4% χ2=54.89*** that I do ot V = 0.43 ow or lease Most 8.8% 4.7% 2.8% 22.% 3.6% 6.0% All 30.8% 33.9% 6.4% 40.7% 25.4% 28.6% Noe 59.0% 57.3% 22.8% 54.0% 28.5% 42.9% Public lad Some 29.2% 22.7% 27.5% 3.7% 25.3% 26.7% χ2=398.245*** Most 6.8% 9.0% 22.2% 7.9% 8.3% 3.7% V = 0.235 All 5.0%.0% 27.4% 6.4% 27.9% 6.6%.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 2

Table -3: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota Level of agreemet Statemet Mea Deer hutig provides me with the opportuity to be with frieds 045 4.3 Deer hutig is oe of the most ejoyable thigs I do 044 4.3 I ejoy discussig deer hutig with my frieds 0395 4.3 I cotribute to deer maagemet through hutig 0405 4.2 Deer hutig is very importat to me 043 4. To chage my preferece from deer hutig to aother activity would require major thikig 049 4.0 Deer hutig is oe of the most satisfyig thig I do 042 3.9 I ca really be by myself 043 3.8 I idetify with people ad images associated with deer hutig 0409 3.8 Whe I am deer hutig, others see me the way I wat them to see me 04 3.8 Most of my frieds are i some way coected with deer hutig 0425 3.7 Participatig i deer hutig says a lot about who I am 0405 3.6 You ca tell a lot about a perso whe you see them deer hutig 0392 3.5 Whe I am deer hutig, I do't have to be cocered about what other people thik of me 0409 3.4 Deer hutig has a cetral role i my life 0392 3.4 A lot of my life is orgaized aroud deer hutig 0436 3.4 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree. Note: Meas reflect weighted averages for a statewide respose. Table -4: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Opportuity to be with frieds Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2952 0.4%.9% 0.0% 40.3% 47.3% 4.3 2 (EC) 477 0.5% 2.9%.2% 39.9% 45.5% 4.3 3 (NE) 2444 0.5% 2.0% 8.0% 38.4% 5.% 4.4 4 (SC) 2244 0.7% 2.3% 4.3% 43.0% 39.7% 4.2 5 (NC) 328 0.7%.4% 7.6% 35.0% 55.3% 4.4 TOTAL 045 0.5% 2.% 9.8% 39.% 48.5% 4.3 χ2=37.575*** V = 0.057 F=27.3*** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 3

Table -5: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Deer hutig is oe of the most ejoyable thigs I do Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2959 0.6%.5% 2.4% 38.2% 47.2% 4.3 2 (EC) 480 0.3%.8%.% 40.4% 46.3% 4.3 3 (NE) 2448 0.7%.6% 0.0% 36.3% 5.3% 4.4 4 (SC) 2254 0.4% 2.0% 3.2% 39.3% 45.2% 4.3 5 (NC) 333 0.5% 2.0% 9.% 36.2% 52.3% 4.4 TOTAL 044 0.6%.7% 0.9% 38.2% 48.6% 4.3 χ2=48.407*** V = 0.034 F=6.343*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -6: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... I ejoy discussig deer hutig with my frieds Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2933 0.5%.4% 8.4% 54.2% 35.5% 4.2 2 (EC) 476 0.3%.4% 9.6% 5.9% 36.9% 4.2 3 (NE) 244 0.3% 0.7% 7.6% 53.7% 37.7% 4.3 4 (SC) 2249 0.4%.5% 9.2% 55.4% 33.6% 4.2 5 (NC) 326 0.5%.4% 6.9% 5.0% 40.2% 4.3 TOTAL 0395 0.4%.2% 8.3% 52.9% 37.2% 4.3 χ2=35.659** V = 0.029 F=5.337*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 4

Table -7: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Cotribute to deer maagemet through hutig Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2946 0.8%.7% 3.0% 50.% 34.5% 4.2 2 (EC) 475 0.5%.% 2.9% 5.% 34.5% 4.2 3 (NE) 2434 0.6% 0.9% 2.9% 50.3% 35.3% 4.2 4 (SC) 2249 0.4%.0% 5.0% 50.0% 33.7% 4.2 5 (NC) 332 0.5%.2%.6% 49.0% 37.8% 4.2 TOTAL 0405 0.5%.2% 2.7% 50.2% 35.4% 4.2 χ2=27.09* V = 0.026 F=2.466* η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -8: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Deer hutig is very importat to me Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2947 0.9% 3.7% 7.% 40.3% 37.9% 4. 2 (EC) 476 0.6% 3.5% 5.% 43.3% 37.5% 4. 3 (NE) 2437 0.8% 2.7% 4.% 4.0% 4.4% 4.2 4 (SC) 225 0.7% 4.0% 20.2% 4.7% 33.3% 4.0 5 (NC) 332 0.8% 3.0% 2.4% 4.4% 42.4% 4.2 TOTAL 043 0.8% 3.3% 5.2% 4.7% 39.% 4.2 χ2=82.563*** V = 0.045 F=5.283*** η 2 = 0.006 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 5

Table -9: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... To chage to aother activity would require major thikig Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2950 2.5% 8.3% 9.3% 32.5% 37.3% 3.9 2 (EC) 478 2.4% 9.3% 9.8% 30.6% 37.9% 3.9 3 (NE) 244 2.4% 6.% 6.4% 3.3% 43.8% 4. 4 (SC) 2248 2.3% 9.3% 2.9% 3.9% 34.6% 3.9 5 (NC) 33 2.8% 7.9% 6.6% 30.2% 42.5% 4.0 TOTAL 049 2.5% 8.% 8.4% 3.5% 39.6% 4.0 χ2=77.396*** V = 0.043 F=3.496*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -20: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Oe of the most satisfyig thigs I do Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2952.7% 7.6% 23.4% 37.2% 30.% 3.9 2 (EC) 478.4% 6.9% 24.2% 39.8% 27.7% 3.9 3 (NE) 2442.8% 7.4% 20.7% 38.8% 3.2% 3.9 4 (SC) 2248 2.% 7.6% 23.7% 39.9% 26.6% 3.8 5 (NC) 33.% 6.2% 20.8% 39.2% 32.7% 4.0 TOTAL 042.6% 7.2% 22.3% 39.% 29.9% 3.9 χ2=37.58** V = 0.030 F=5.644*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 6

Table -2: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Whe deer hutig, I ca really be myself Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2944.7% 4.0% 27.9% 43.6% 22.8% 3.8 2 (EC) 480.4% 4.3% 29.5% 4.9% 22.9% 3.8 3 (NE) 2439.% 3.5% 29.4% 40.8% 25.2% 3.9 4 (SC) 2247.5% 4.4% 28.4% 44.7% 2.0% 3.8 5 (NC) 330.4% 3.% 26.5% 42.6% 26.4% 3.9 TOTAL 043.4% 3.7% 28.4% 42.6% 23.9% 3.8 χ2=32.06* V = 0.028 F=3.865** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -22: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... I idetify with people ad images associated with deer hutig Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2948.8% 5.4% 24.3% 47.6% 2.0% 3.8 2 (EC) 477 2.0% 5.5% 24.9% 46.4% 2.2% 3.8 3 (NE) 2439.6% 5.8% 23.% 46.8% 22.7% 3.8 4 (SC) 2248 2.3% 6.7% 25.7% 46.8% 8.5% 3.7 5 (NC) 328.6% 6.3% 23.6% 44.9% 23.6% 3.8 TOTAL 0409.8% 5.8% 24.2% 46.6% 2.6% 3.8 χ2=27.648* V = 0.026 F=4.805** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 7

Table -23: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Whe hutig, others see me as I wat them to see me Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 295 2.% 4.9% 27.% 42.0% 23.9% 3.8 2 (EC) 477 2.8% 5.8% 29.6% 39.4% 22.4% 3.7 3 (NE) 2439.9% 4.5% 3.6% 39.0% 23.0% 3.8 4 (SC) 2249 2.0% 5.2% 29.6% 42.2% 2.0% 3.7 5 (NC) 328.9% 4.5% 26.9% 40.9% 25.8% 3.8 TOTAL 04 2.% 4.9% 29.0% 40.6% 23.4% 3.8 χ2=34.389** V = 0.029 F=3.893** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -24: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Most of my frieds are coected with hutig Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2952 2.8% 0.4% 9.9% 43.% 23.8% 3.7 2 (EC) 48 3.2% 4.7% 20.5% 39.7% 2.9% 3.6 3 (NE) 2444 2.3% 0.5% 8.% 43.0% 26.2% 3.8 4 (SC) 2246 2.9% 2.9% 23.4% 42.7% 8.0% 3.6 5 (NC) 330 2.8% 0.6% 8.2% 42.% 26.3% 3.8 TOTAL 0425 2.7%.8% 9.6% 42.% 23.8% 3.7 χ2=9.899*** V = 0.047 F=6.88*** η 2 = 0.006 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 8

Table -25: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Says a lot about who I am Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2948 3.0%.% 29.4% 34.5% 22.0% 3.6 2 (EC) 474 2.4% 9.9% 30.% 36.5% 2.% 3.6 3 (NE) 2440 2.3% 9.5% 29.3% 36.6% 22.3% 3.7 4 (SC) 2250 2.8%.5% 32.2% 34.2% 9.2% 3.6 5 (NC) 328 2.0% 9.0% 30.7% 34.8% 23.6% 3.7 TOTAL 0405 2.4% 0.0% 30.% 35.6% 2.9% 3.6 χ2=3.296* V = 0.027 F=5.6*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -26: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... You ca tell a lot about a perso whe you see them deer hutig Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2943 3.3% 2.4% 29.7% 35.6% 9.% 3.5 2 (EC) 475 3.7% 2.7% 34.% 32.4% 7.0% 3.5 3 (NE) 2434 4.5% 0.6% 35.0% 33.% 6.9% 3.5 4 (SC) 2249 4.7% 2.4% 32.3% 34.8% 5.8% 3.4 5 (NC) 325 3.6% 9.9% 3.4% 34.5% 20.6% 3.6 TOTAL 0392 3.8%.7% 32.5% 33.9% 8.2% 3.5 χ2=5.027*** V = 0.035 F=6.074*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 9

Table -27: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Whe deer hutig, I do t have to be cocered about what other people thik of me Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2947 8.9% 7.0% 23.5% 32.3% 8.4% 3.3 2 (EC) 477 7.0% 5.6% 25.9% 30.9% 20.6% 3.4 3 (NE) 244 6.5% 3.8% 26.4% 32.0% 2.3% 3.5 4 (SC) 2249 7.7% 5.4% 24.6% 32.6% 9.6% 3.4 5 (NC) 328 7.3% 3.6% 23.2% 3.8% 24.0% 3.5 TOTAL 0409 7.5% 4.8% 24.8% 3.9% 2.0% 3.4 χ2=46.49*** V = 0.033 F=6.697*** η 2 = 0.003 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -28: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... Deer hutig has a cetral role i my life Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 294 5.7% 7.8% 27.4% 29.7% 9.4% 3.4 2 (EC) 472 5.4% 7.4% 28.2% 29.4% 9.6% 3.4 3 (NE) 2437 5.0% 4.4% 29.3% 29.5% 2.9% 3.5 4 (SC) 2239 7.% 20.% 3.% 26.8% 5.0% 3.2 5 (NC) 33 4.9% 4.4% 29.6% 29.5% 2.6% 3.5 TOTAL 0392 5.5% 6.4% 28.7% 29.5% 9.9% 3.4 χ2=84.968*** V = 0.045 F=8.600*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 20

Table -29: Ivolvemet i deer hutig i Miesota... A lot of my life is orgaized aroud deer hutig Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2957 6.3% 20.% 27.9% 27.% 8.6% 3.3 2 (EC) 48 5.4% 8.8% 29.5% 27.4% 8.9% 3.4 3 (NE) 2445 4.3% 6.2% 28.4% 29.0% 22.0% 3.5 4 (SC) 2250 6.7% 22.4% 32.8% 23.3% 4.7% 3.2 5 (NC) 332 4.2% 7.9% 28.2% 28.4% 2.3% 3.4 TOTAL 0436 5.2% 8.7% 28.9% 27.5% 9.7% 3.4 χ2=0.944*** V = 0.052 F=25.053*** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = eutral, 4= agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -30: Average importace ratig of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso Experiece Mea Ejoyig ature ad the outdoors 0308 4.5 Hutig with family 0307 4.2 Ejoyig a preferred pastime 0300 4. Beig with hutig compaios 0353 3.9 Hutig with frieds 0326 3.9 Seeig a lot of deer 0309 3.6 Becomig a better deer huter 0340 3.5 Improvig my kowledge 0309 3.4 Helpig maage deer populatios 029 3.4 Developig skills ad abilities 034 3.3 Harvestig at least oe deer 0287 3.2 Gettig food for my family 033 3. Provig my hutig skills ad kowledge 0272 3.0 Challeges of harvestig a trophy 0296 3.0 Seeig a lot bucks 0298 3.0 Harvestig ay deer for meat 0305 2.9 Ifluecig deer sex ratios or age structure 0265 2.9 Harvestig a large buck 0277 2.7 Harvestig ay buck 0295 2.5 Selectively harvestig a large buck 0300 2.5 Gettig a buck every year 0305.9 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat. Note: Meas reflect weighted averages for a statewide respose. 2

Table -3: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Ejoyig ature ad the outdoors Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 294 0.5%.3% 7.7% 34.7% 55.8% 4.4 2 (EC) 455 0.4%.0% 7.% 34.5% 56.9% 4.5 3 (NE) 2426 0.5%.6% 7.0% 3.9% 59.% 4.5 4 (SC) 2227 0.4%.7% 7.9% 33.7% 56.3% 4.4 5 (NC) 320 0.2%.0% 5.% 30.0% 63.7% 4.6 TOTAL 0308 0.4%.3% 6.8% 32.9% 58.7% 4.5 χ2=37.976** V = 0.030 F=7.58*** η 2 = 0.003 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -32: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Hutig with family Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2900 2.2% 4.4% 2.2% 30.0% 5.2% 4.2 2 (EC) 453 4.3% 5.8% 0.4% 3.5% 48.0% 4. 3 (NE) 2429 4.7% 4.8% 9.5% 3.8% 49.2% 4.2 4 (SC) 2229 4.0% 6.3% 4.6% 30.4% 44.8% 4. 5 (NC) 325 4.0% 4.5% 9.% 28.5% 54.0% 4.2 TOTAL 0307 3.8% 5.0% 0.8% 30.4% 50.% 4.2 χ2=95.34*** V = 0.048 F=.048*** η 2 = 0.004 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 22

Table -33: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Ejoyig a preferred pastime Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 292.2% 4.8% 7.8% 43.% 33.% 4.0 2 (EC) 454.0% 3.4% 7.7% 44.% 33.8% 4. 3 (NE) 2425.5% 4.8% 6.2% 42.8% 34.7% 4.0 4 (SC) 2225.8% 6.% 8.7% 4.8% 3.6% 4.0 5 (NC) 38.% 3.6% 5.7% 4.8% 37.8% 4. TOTAL 0300.3% 4.4% 7.0% 42.9% 34.5% 4. χ2=42.749*** V = 0.032 F=7.86*** η 2 = 0.003 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -34: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Beig with hutig compaios Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2923 3.0% 4.% 8.8% 42.8% 3.3% 4.0 2 (EC) 459 5.4% 5.6% 8.% 4.3% 29.5% 3.8 3 (NE) 2442 4.3% 5.5% 5.0% 40.7% 34.5% 4.0 4 (SC) 2236 6.6% 7.5% 20.7% 37.5% 27.7% 3.7 5 (NC) 327 2.9% 3.5% 5.0% 42.0% 36.6% 4. TOTAL 0353 4.% 5.0% 7.% 4.4% 32.4% 3.9 χ2=52.522*** V = 0.06 F=29.09*** η 2 = 0.0 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 23

Table -35: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Hutig with frieds Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 296 3.8% 6.% 8.7% 40.6% 30.9% 3.9 2 (EC) 458 6.2% 7.% 7.4% 38.4% 30.9% 3.8 3 (NE) 2437 4.7% 5.7% 6.5% 39.9% 33.% 3.9 4 (SC) 2225 6.8% 8.9% 20.6% 36.0% 27.7% 3.7 5 (NC) 322 3.4% 5.4% 4.% 39.0% 38.% 4.0 TOTAL 0326 4.7% 6.3% 7.% 39.2% 32.7% 3.9 χ2=20.78*** V = 0.054 F=24.24*** η 2 = 0.009 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -36: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Seeig a lot of deer Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2906 2.4% 9.8% 30.5% 37.7% 9.4% 3.6 2 (EC) 455.9% 0.5% 3.% 35.6% 20.9% 3.6 3 (NE) 2432 2.6% 9.4% 28.2% 37.0% 22.8% 3.7 4 (SC) 2222 2.% 8.0% 29.2% 39.6% 2.2% 3.7 5 (NC) 323 2.9% 0.6% 32.4% 34.7% 9.4% 3.6 TOTAL 0309 2.4% 9.9% 30.4% 36.7% 20.6% 3.6 χ2=35.275** V = 0.029 F=4.753*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 24

Table -37: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Becomig a better deer huter Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 297 4.9%.% 26.4% 38.7% 8.9% 3.6 2 (EC) 460 4.7% 0.8% 27.5% 39.% 7.9% 3.5 3 (NE) 2438 6.2% 0.2% 29.3% 37.9% 6.4% 3.5 4 (SC) 2237 5.% 9.2% 27.8% 39.4% 8.6% 3.6 5 (NC) 326 6.0% 9.0% 26.4% 38.7% 9.9% 3.6 TOTAL 0340 5.4% 0.% 27.5% 38.7% 8.3% 3.5 χ2=27.402* V = 0.026 F=2.939* η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -38: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Improvig my kowledge Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2907 4.4% 2.8% 32.9% 34.2% 5.8% 3.4 2 (EC) 455 3.8% 2.6% 33.5% 35.9% 4.2% 3.4 3 (NE) 2424 4.3% 2.6% 34.2% 35.0% 3.9% 3.4 4 (SC) 2234 4.8% 3.% 33.% 35.3% 3.7% 3.4 5 (NC) 324 3.9% 2.% 34.4% 35.2% 4.5% 3.4 TOTAL 0309 4.% 2.7% 33.6% 35.2% 4.5% 3.4 χ2=0.663.s. V = 0.06 F=0.827.s. η 2 = 0.000 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 25

Table -39: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the most recet hutig seaso... Helpig maage deer populatios Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2902 3.8% 4.% 32.0% 34.4% 5.7% 3.4 2 (EC) 454 3.9% 3.6% 33.4% 34.4% 4.6% 3.4 3 (NE) 2422 4.7% 3.0% 33.7% 34.3% 4.3% 3.4 4 (SC) 2227 4.7% 3.% 33.4% 33.5% 5.3% 3.4 5 (NC) 38 4.% 3.6% 3.8% 34.9% 5.6% 3.4 TOTAL 029 4.2% 3.5% 32.8% 34.4% 5.% 3.4 χ2=9.763.s. V = 0.05 F=0.504.s. η 2 = 0.000 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -40: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the most recet hutig seaso... Developig skills ad abilities Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 297 7.9% 3.8% 30.9% 33.3% 4.% 3.3 2 (EC) 46 7.7% 3.5% 30.2% 35.3% 3.3% 3.3 3 (NE) 2435 9.% 5.2% 32.2% 3.4% 2.% 3.2 4 (SC) 2237 7.6% 3.% 3.2% 33.% 4.8% 3.3 5 (NC) 324 8.5% 2.5% 3.5% 34.0% 3.5% 3.3 TOTAL 034 8.% 3.8% 3.2% 33.5% 3.4% 3.3 χ2=23.839.s. V = 0.024 F=4.478** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 26

Table -4: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Harvestig at least oe deer Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2902 5.4% 8.0% 26.9% 23.9% 5.7% 3. 2 (EC) 455 2.2% 6.3% 26.2% 27.0% 8.4% 3.2 3 (NE) 2427 2.9% 8.4% 25.3% 23.8% 9.5% 3.2 4 (SC) 2222 7.% 8.0% 28.9% 23.6% 2.4% 3.0 5 (NC) 37 2.5% 6.5% 27.8% 25.2% 8.% 3.2 TOTAL 0287 3.5% 7.4% 26.9% 24.8% 7.4% 3.2 χ2=82.38*** V = 0.045 F=5.244*** η 2 = 0.006 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -42: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Gettig food for my family Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 292 7.0% 6.4% 26.8% 22.8% 7.0% 3. 2 (EC) 457 6.% 6.9% 22.9% 25.0% 9.% 3. 3 (NE) 2434 8.% 5.6% 24.9% 22.8% 8.7% 3. 4 (SC) 223 9.7% 7.3% 25.8% 2.% 6.% 3.0 5 (NC) 323 6.4% 5.7% 25.2% 23.8% 8.8% 3. TOTAL 033 7.% 6.2% 25.0% 23.4% 8.3% 3. χ2=32.843** V = 0.028 F=4.977** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 27

Table -43: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Provig my hutig skills ad kowledge Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2898 5.3% 5.8% 27.8% 27.3% 3.8% 3. 2 (EC) 453 6.4% 4.2% 3.% 23.9% 4.3% 3. 3 (NE) 242 6.5% 6.8% 30.8% 25.% 0.9% 3.0 4 (SC) 2232 4.6% 5.4% 30.6% 24.7% 4.7% 3. 5 (NC) 36 6.9% 4.5% 29.0% 26.2% 3.4% 3.0 TOTAL 0272 6.2% 5.3% 29.7% 25.5% 3.4% 3.0 χ2=37.065** V = 0.030 F=3.684** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -44: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Challeges of harvestig a trophy Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 292 5.8% 5.6% 27.9% 23.9% 6.8% 3. 2 (EC) 454 9.4% 6.9% 28.% 20.8% 4.8% 2.9 3 (NE) 2429 9.0% 5.3% 29.5% 2.6% 4.7% 3.0 4 (SC) 2225 5.2% 4.7% 29.0% 24.5% 6.7% 3. 5 (NC) 36 20.% 6.6% 27.2% 22.2% 3.8% 2.9 TOTAL 0296 8.2% 5.9% 28.3% 22.4% 5.2% 3.0 χ2=46.64*** V = 0.034 F=9.853*** η 2 = 0.004 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 28

Table -45: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Seeig a lot of bucks Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2897 0.6% 20.2% 36.3% 23.3% 9.6% 3.0 2 (EC) 45 3.2% 2.% 36.0% 2.4% 8.3% 2.9 3 (NE) 2427 9.4% 20.3% 36.2% 23.9% 0.% 3. 4 (SC) 2230 8.4% 6.5% 38.5% 24.9%.8% 3.2 5 (NC) 324 2.2% 20.5% 37.5% 9.9% 9.8% 2.9 TOTAL 0298.% 20.2% 36.5% 22.5% 9.6% 3.0 χ2=66.593*** V = 0.040 F=3.58*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -46: Importace of experiece to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Harvestig ay deer for meat Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2905 2.8% 9.% 25.6% 20.7% 2.8% 2.8 2 (EC) 453 9.9% 7.7% 25.0% 22.6% 4.9% 2.9 3 (NE) 2425 2.9% 7.9% 23.0% 2.0% 6.3% 2.9 4 (SC) 2228 25.6% 9.4% 23.5% 9.3% 2.% 2.7 5 (NC) 324 20.5% 8.% 25.7% 20.6% 5.% 2.9 TOTAL 0305 2.3% 8.3% 24.7% 2.2% 4.5% 2.9 χ2=50.20*** V = 0.035 F=8.834*** η 2 = 0.003 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 29

Table -47: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Ifluecig deer sex ratios or age structure Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2903 6.6% 8.% 32.7% 22.% 0.5% 2.9 2 (EC) 452 7.4% 8.% 34.0% 22.4% 8.% 2.9 3 (NE) 240 7.8% 8.5% 36.6% 8.5% 8.5% 2.8 4 (SC) 2228 6.6% 7.6% 33.% 2.6%.0% 2.9 5 (NC) 32 8.5% 8.% 34.% 20.5% 8.8% 2.8 TOTAL 0265 7.5% 8.3% 34.0% 2.2% 9.% 2.9 χ2=35.645** V = 0.029 F=4.245** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -48: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Harvestig a large buck Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2897 22.6% 22.4% 28.0% 5.3%.7% 2.7 2 (EC) 457 25.3% 22.0% 28.4% 4.2% 0.0% 2.6 3 (NE) 2420 23.8% 22.5% 29.0% 5.9% 9.0% 2.6 4 (SC) 223 2.3% 8.% 29.0% 7.3% 4.3% 2.9 5 (NC) 34 25.4% 22.5% 26.6% 4.5%.0% 2.6 TOTAL 0277 24.0% 2.9% 28.2% 5.2% 0.8% 2.7 χ2=66.439*** V = 0.040 F=.703*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 30

Table -49: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Harvestig ay buck Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2909 34.0% 2.6% 27.8% 2.2% 4.4% 2.3 2 (EC) 449 29.% 2.9% 29.3% 3.5% 6.% 2.5 3 (NE) 2429 20.9% 22.4% 30.6% 5.9% 0.2% 2.7 4 (SC) 2222 30.8% 22.2% 28.2% 3.7% 5.% 2.4 5 (NC) 320 29.6% 20.8% 29.5% 5.2% 4.9% 2.4 TOTAL 0295 28.7% 2.7% 29.2% 4.2% 6.2% 2.5 χ2=88.405*** V = 0.068 F=40.45*** η 2 = 0.05 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -50: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Selectively harvestig a large buck Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2903 33.6% 7.4% 20.4% 6.8%.7% 2.6 2 (EC) 454 38.3% 6.6% 2.9% 3.5% 9.6% 2.4 3 (NE) 2426 37.% 8.6% 2.3% 3.6% 9.4% 2.4 4 (SC) 2226 32.5% 6.4% 22.2% 5.4% 3.5% 2.6 5 (NC) 322 38.4% 8.2% 20.8%.9% 0.8% 2.4 TOTAL 0300 36.4% 7.4% 2.3% 4.2% 0.6% 2.5 χ2=65.242*** V = 0.040 F=2.26*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 3

Table -5: Importace of experieces to deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet hutig seaso... Gettig a buck every year Not at all importat Slightly importat Somewhat importat Very importat Extremely importat Mea (NW) 2905 52.9% 23.2% 7.0% 5.2%.6%.8 2 (EC) 456 50.3% 22.6% 8.7% 5.0% 3.3%.9 3 (NE) 242 42.% 23.2% 22.9% 8.4% 3.3% 2. 4 (SC) 2232 49.7% 22.5% 20.9% 4.9%.9%.9 5 (NC) 323 50.5% 23.0% 8.3% 5.3% 2.9%.9 TOTAL 0305 49.2% 23.0% 9.4% 5.8% 2.7%.9 χ2=9.54*** V = 0.054 F=24.900*** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = slightly importat, 3 = somewhat importat, 4= very importat, 5 = extremely importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -52: Self-idetificatio with the activity of deer hutig Recreatioal Meat Trophy Social Scieceorieted Skillorieted Casual (NW) 2843 34.0% 2.% 3.6% 23.2% 2.2% 3.2% 2.6% 2 (EC) 400 35.2% 24.0% 9.7% 2.2% 2.4% 4.4% 3.% 3 (NE) 2348 34.9% 23.6%.% 23.4%.7% 4.0%.2% 4 (SC) 24 38.3% 7.8% 4.2% 2.4% 2.0% 3.6% 2.7% 5 (NC) 36 34.% 23.7% 0.3% 25.%.5% 3.6%.7% TOTAL 0046 34.8% 22.7%.5% 22.9% 2.% 3.8% 2.2% χ2=95.582***; V = 0.048.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -53: Membership MDHA QDMA Local Club MWA MBI Not Affiliated Other (NW) 3090 0.7% 3.% 7.8% 0.4%.2% 6.% 9.4% 2 (EC) 553.% 2.0%.8% 0.7% 0.9% 62.3% 0.2% 3 (NE) 2535.7% 0.7%.8% 0.5% 0.7% 66.3% 8.5% 4 (SC) 230 7.%.3% 7.6% 0.7% 0.6% 64.7%.6% 5 (NC) 389.0%.5%.5% 0.5%.6% 65.8% 9.9% TOTAL 0877 0.7%.9% 3.6% 0.6%.% 64.7% 9.8% χ2=33.689 *** V = 0.056 χ2=49.29 *** V = 0.067 χ2=78.7 *** V =0.085 χ2=2.625.s. V = 0.06 χ2=2.594 * V = 0.034 χ2=3.943 ** V =0.036 NA Note: Percetages for "Not Affiliated" i areas ad 2 oly iclude results from olie surveys. The optio was accidetally excluded from H ad H2 paper surveys..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 32

Table -54: Hutig techiques used durig most recet year huted Groud stad Stalkig Elevated stad Deer drive (NW) 3090 46.3% 25.5% 74.% 27.7% 2 (EC) 553 34.2% 27.6% 85.3% 5.4% 3 (NE) 2535 38.9% 35.9% 83.0% 0.5% 4 (SC) 230 5.% 25.9% 70.8% 30.% 5 (NC) 389 34.2% 30.7% 82.7% 2.5% TOTAL 0877 39.6% 29.5% 80.4% 7.8% χ2=85.258*** V = 0.3 χ2=9.32*** V = 0.092 χ2=200.535*** V = 0.36 χ2=466.223*** V = 0.207 Note: Cumulative values for areas exceed 00% because more tha oe techique could be selected.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -55: Cooperatio with deer huters o earby properties with respect to harvest restrictios No Yes (NW) 2999 43.6% 56.4% 2 (EC) 488 46.0% 54.0% 3 (NE) 2443 48.0% 52.0% 4 (SC) 2267 45.6% 54.4% 5 (NC) 325 48.5% 5.5% TOTAL 0475 46.5% 53.5% χ2=4.20**; V = 0.037.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 33

Table -56: Deer harvest restrictios followed o property huted most ofte (i additio to DNR regulatios) Atlerless harvest is restricted, but huters ca take ay legal buck Buck harvest is restricted to oly large atlered bucks, but huters ca take ay atlerless deer Buck harvest restricted to oly large atlered bucks, ad atlerless harvest is also restricted No restrictios o the type of deer that ca be harvested Other (NW) 3049 40.0% 4.% 2.7% 50.2% 3.0% 2 (EC) 522 36.% 3.% 2.4% 55.0% 3.5% 3 (NE) 2398 58.5% 2.4% 2.3% 33.% 3.7% 4 (SC) 2237 3.5% 3.8% 3.3% 57.8% 3.6% 5 (NC) 34 39.4% 3.6% 2.8% 50.4% 3.8% TOTAL 0545 4.8% 3.3% 2.6% 48.7% 3.5% χ2=427.627***; V = 0.0.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -57: Willigess to shoot atlerless deer if give the opportuity No Yes (NW) 3064 4.5% 85.5% 2 (EC) 532 5.0% 85.0% 3 (NE) 2498 22.8% 77.2% 4 (SC) 2277 8.3% 8.7% 5 (NC) 366 4.5% 85.5% TOTAL 0728 6.7% 83.3% χ2=83.602***; V = 0.088.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 34

Table -58: Approach to deer hutig durig the recet firearms seaso Large bucks etire seaso Large bucks early, ay deer later Ay atlere d buck First legal deer Oly atlerless deer Chose ot to harvest due to low populatio (NW) 2997 22.% 27.8% 0.3% 34.8%.0% 4.0% 2 (EC) 497 7.9% 24.6% 3.0% 38.9%.4% 4.% 3 (NE) 2465 9.4% 7.9% 3.5% 26.2% 0.2% 4.7% 4 (SC) 2277 24.8% 24.% 4.2% 34.%.%.8% 5 (NC) 35 8.4% 24.9% 4.6% 38.0%.3% 3.0% TOTAL 0563 9.9% 23.9% 6.8% 34.6%.0% 3.8% χ2=64.6***; V = 0.20.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table -59: Kowledge about DNR's deer maagemet program: I kow a... A great deal A moderate amout A little Nothig (NW) 3025 9.8% 52.2% 23.9% 4.% 2 (EC) 54 20.% 53.5% 23.3% 3.0% 3 (NE) 2492 22.8% 53.9% 20.9% 2.4% 4 (SC) 2287 8.4% 50.% 27.6% 3.9% 5 (NC) 359 22.0% 5.6% 23.0% 3.4% TOTAL 0655 2.0% 52.4% 23.3% 3.3% χ2=53.924***; V = 0.04.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 35

Sectio 2. Populatio Treds ad Perceptios about Deer Populatios Recet Populatio Treds Respodets were asked to idicate their perceptios of deer populatio treds over the last 5 years (i.e. 200-204, 20-205, or 202-206, depedig o survey area). Overall, most (66.9%) respodets statewide idicated there were fewer deer tha 5 years ago,.4% idicated more, ad 2.6% believed populatios were about the same (Table 2-). We oted sigificat differeces amog survey areas, where 8.9% of huters idicated deer populatios had declied i ortheaster Miesota ad oly 5.7% reported a declie i south cetral Miesota. Respodets were also asked for their perceptios of total deer populatio size, as rated o a scale of to 5, with = much too low ad 5 = much too high. Statewide, a majority (rage = 6.8%) believed the populatio was too low, 34.% thought it was about right, ad 4.0% idicated the populatio was too high (Table 2-2). Agai, differeces were across areas were observed. Respodets i ortheaster Miesota were most likely to idicate that populatios were too low (79.6%) whereas early half of the respodets i south cetral ad orth cetral Miesota reported that they felt deer the deer populatio was about right (44.% ad 44.4%, respectively) or was too high (5.3% ad 4.3%, respectively). Populatio Maagemet Desires Respodets were also asked to idicate their desires for future deer populatio desities; more tha two-thirds of respodets (7.4%) wated to see a icrease i deer desities at some level (Table 2-3). Eve though most desired a icrease i deer umbers, recall results from Sectio i which most huters also idicated they would also shoot a atlerless deer if give the opportuity. Iterestigly, while 9.8% of idividuals who idicated deer desities should be reduced also said they would take a atlerless deer; a large majority, 8.%, of people who wated to see deer populatios icrease would also take a atlerless deer. This fidig is importat because restrictios o atlerless harvest are the primary regulatory tool used to icrease deer populatios. This fidig is also cosistet with fidigs i prior goal settig surveys ad idicates that the iterest i takig a atlerless deer is largely idepedet of populatio desires. Across all areas, prefereces for future deer populatio maagemet also varied depedig o the type of lad huted, with greater proportios of huters who primarily hut public lad supportig deer populatio icreases tha those who primarily hut private lad (Tables 2-4 to 2-9). 36

Table 2-: Over the past 5 years, what tred have you see i the deer populatio i the deer area you hut most ofte? Most recet hut Much fewer Slightly fewer About the same Slightly more May more Mea (NW) 204 3069 38.8% 25.3% 22.2% 9.9% 3.7% 2. 2 (EC) 204 532 49.9% 25.3% 8.7% 4.6%.6%.8 3 (NE) 205 252 62.9% 8.7%.9% 5.3%.2%.6 4 (SC) 205 2289 24.7% 27.0% 32.2% 2.3% 3.8% 2.4 5 (NC) 206 375 28.% 25.0% 28.8% 4.5% 3.6% 2.4 TOTAL 076 42.9% 24.0% 2.6% 8.8% 2.6% 2.0% χ2=09.27*** V = 0.54 F=227.42*** η 2 = 0.078 Mea is based o the scale: = much fewer deer, 2 = slightly fewer deer, 3 = about the same umber of deer, 4= slightly more deer, 5 = may more deer..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 2-2: I thikig about the deer permit area you hut, would you say the deer populatio is... Most recet hut Much too low Too low About right Too high Much too high Mea (NW) 204 303 4.% 4.6% 38.4% 4.7%.2% 2.4 2 (EC) 204 520 9.3% 46.7% 3.% 2.0%.0% 2.2 3 (NE) 205 2495 34.% 45.5% 7.8% 2.% 0.5%.9 4 (SC) 205 2288 9.2% 4.3% 44.% 4.6% 0.7% 2.5 5 (NC) 206 363.3% 40.0% 44.4% 3.5% 0.8% 2.4 TOTAL 0679 8.5% 43.3% 34.% 3.2% 0.8% 2.2 χ2=905.684*** V = 0.46 F=204.563*** η 2 = 0.07 Mea is based o the scale: = much too low, 2 = too low, 3 = about right, 4= too high, 5 = much too high..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 37

Table 2-3: I thikig about the property you hut ad the surroudig area, at what level do you thik the deer populatio should be maaged? Year Decr. 50% Decr. 25% Decr. 0% No Chage Icr. 0% Icr. 25% Icr. 50% Mea (NW) 204 3042.4% 3.8% 5.9% 23.4% 23.4% 28.4% 3.6% 5.0 2 (EC) 204 57.6% 3.2% 2.6% 20.3% 20.8% 32.6% 9.0% 5.3 3 (NE) 205 2489.3% 2.4% 3.% 9.5% 6.% 32.7% 35.0% 5.7 4 (SC) 205 2285.% 3.% 4.5% 25.0% 30.% 26.0% 0.3% 5.0 5 (NC) 206 362 0.9% 4.6% 4.2% 24.3% 27.2% 25.6% 3.3% 5.0 TOTAL 0672.2% 3.4% 3.9% 20.0% 22.8% 29.5% 9.% 5.2 χ2=905.358*** V = 0.46 F=39.233*** η 2 = 0.050 Mea is based o the scale: = decrease populatio 50% (sigificat), 2 = decrease populatio 25% (moderate), 3 = decrease populatio 0% (slight), 4= o chage, 5 = icrease populatio 0% (slight), 6 = icrease populatio 25% (moderate), 7 = icrease populatio 50% (sigificat)..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 38

Table 2-4: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted (NW) Type of lad huted Decrease No Chage Icrease Mea 93 Noe 8.4% 23.% 68.5% 2.6 Private lad that I ow Private lad that I lease for hutig Private lad that I do ot ow or lease Public lad 262 Some 7.2% 20.6% 62.2% 2.5 488 Most 3.5% 9.4% 67.% 2.5 906 All 3.5% 27.7% 58.8% 2.5 χ2=37.7*** V = 0.085 F=7.895*** η 2 = 0.009 2009 Noe.5% 24.9% 63.5% 2.5 75 Some 6.7% 29.3% 64.0% 2.6 48 Most 6.3% 6.3% 87.5% 2.8 54 All 3.8% 28.3% 67.9% 2.6 χ2=7.59* F=3.488* V = 0.063 η 2 = 0.005 842 Noe.4% 29.2% 59.4% 2.5 488 Some.% 7.6% 7.3% 2.6 497 Most.7% 8.8% 69.6% 2.6 86 All 9.3% 25.6% 65.0% 2.6 χ2=35.69*** F=4.038** V = 0.082 η 2 = 0.005 45 Noe 2.3% 29.5% 58.2% 2.5 70 Some 9.3% 8.5% 72.2% 2.6 62 Most 4.9% 9.3% 85.8% 2.8 20 All 5.0% 6.7% 78.3% 2.7 χ2=86.5*** F=22.703*** V = 0.34 η 2 = 0.028 Mea is based o the scale: = fewer deer, 2 = about the same umber of deer, 3 = more deer..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 39

Table 2-5: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted: 2 (EC) Type of lad huted Decrease No Chage Icrease Mea 493 Noe 7.% 2.7% 7.3% 2.6 Private lad that I ow Private lad that I lease for hutig Private lad that I do ot ow or lease Public lad 3 Some 4.6% 7.7% 77.7% 2.7 20 Most 8.5% 8.0% 73.5% 2.6 447 All 8.% 2.7% 70.2% 2.6 χ2=4.600,.s. V = 0.043 F=0.923,.s. η 2 = 0.002 934 Noe 7.7% 20.7% 7.6% 2.6 27 Some 0.0%.% 88.9% 2.9 6 Most 2.5% 6.3% 8.3% 2.7 All 9.% 36.4% 54.5% 2.5 χ2=8.476,.s. F=.638,.s. V = 0.066 η 2 = 0.005 450 Noe 8.5% 7.% 74.4% 2.7 95 Some 8.7% 5.4% 75.9% 2.7 82 Most 4.4% 23.0% 72.7% 2.7 425 All 8.0% 23.9% 68.% 2.6 χ2=2.932* F=.66,.s. V = 0.072 η 2 = 0.003 664 Noe 8.% 24.% 67.7% 2.6 268 Some 3.7% 8.7% 77.6% 2.7 05 Most 7.6% 8.6% 83.8% 2.8 28 All 7.0%.6% 8.4% 2.7 χ2=28.865*** V = 0. F=6.000*** η 2 = 0.05 Mea is based o the scale: = fewer deer, 2 = about the same umber of deer, 3 = more deer..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 40

Table 2-6: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted: 3 (NE) Type of lad huted Decrease No Chage Icrease Mea 82 Noe 5.4% 9.% 85.5% 2.8 364 Some 4.% 8.3% 87.6% 2.8 Private lad that I 344 Most 7.6% 9.0% 83.4% 2.8 ow 478 All 0.3% 3.2% 76.6% 2.7 χ2=25.720*** F=8.333*** V = 0.080 η 2 = 0.02 422 Noe 6.4% 9.9% 83.7% 2.8 66 Some 0.4% 9.0% 80.6% 2.7 Private lad that I 44 Most 0.0% 6.8% 93.2% 2.9 lease for hutig 58 All 6.9% 8.6% 84.5% 2.8 χ2=5.643,.s. F=.455,.s. V = 0.042 η 2 = 0.003 900 Noe 6.3% 9.% 84.6% 2.8 393 Some 6.6% 7.9% 85.5% 2.8 Private lad that I do 234 Most 6.8% 0.7% 82.5% 2.8 ot ow or lease 296 All.5%.8% 76.7% 2.7 χ2=3.862* F=4.445** V = 0.062 η 2 = 0.007 470 Noe 9.8%.% 79.% 2.7 576 Some 6.%.% 82.8% 2.8 Public lad 466 Most 4.7% 5.8% 89.5% 2.8 572 All 3.0% 7.5% 89.5% 2.9 χ2=38.35*** F=.457*** V = 0.096 η 2 = 0.06 Mea is based o the scale: = fewer deer, 2 = about the same umber of deer, 3 = more deer..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 4

Table 2-7: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted: 4 (SC) Type of lad huted Decrease No Chage Icrease Mea 794 Noe 6.4% 24.4% 69.2% 2.6 98 Some 8.5% 2.% 70.4% 2.6 Private lad that I 294 Most 9.9% 2.4% 68.7% 2.6 ow 549 All 2.2% 27.9% 59.9% 2.5 χ2=22.29*** F=6.375*** V = 0.078 η 2 = 0.00 35 Noe 8.% 24.7% 67.2% 2.6 55 Some 8.2% 2.7% 69.% 2.5 Private lad that I 37 Most 8.% 6.2% 75.7% 2.7 lease for hutig 40 All 0.0% 35.0% 55.0% 2.5 χ2=3.787* F=0.975,.s. V = 0.068 η 2 = 0.002 390 Noe.0% 24.4% 64.6% 2.5 327 Some 8.8% 20.% 7.0% 2.6 Private lad that I do 430 Most 9.% 8.8% 72.% 2.6 ot ow or lease 79 All 6.7% 29.7% 63.6% 2.6 χ2=27.226*** F=2.09,.s. V = 0.084 η 2 = 0.003 893 Noe 0.3% 26.3% 63.4% 2.5 522 Some 6.9% 8.4% 74.7% 2.7 Public lad 32 Most 6.0% 7.3% 76.7% 2.7 06 All 3.8% 5.% 8.% 2.8 χ2=32.654*** F=0.34*** V = 0.099 η 2 = 0.08 Mea is based o the scale: = fewer deer, 2 = about the same umber of deer, 3 = more deer..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 42

Table 2-8: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted: 5 (NC) Type of lad huted Decrease No Chage Icrease Mea 427 Noe 7.7% 20.0% 72.3% 2.6 58 Some.5% 9.7% 68.8% 2.6 Private lad that I 64 Most 8.5% 28.7% 62.8% 2.5 ow 297 All 3.5% 30.6% 55.9% 2.4 χ2=24.837*** F=6.34*** V = 0.09 η 2 = 0.08 734 Noe 9.5% 22.5% 68.0% 2.6 23 Some 9.% 27.3% 63.6% 2.5 Private lad that I 2 Most 9.5% 28.6% 6.9% 2.5 lease for hutig 9 All 5.3% 26.3% 68.4% 2.6 χ2=.62,.s. F=0.8,.s. V = 0.027 η 2 < 0.00 46 Noe 9.6% 2.0% 69.4% 2.6 93 Some 9.3% 8.% 72.5% 2.6 Private lad that I do 35 Most 0.3% 3.6% 58.% 2.5 ot ow or lease 255 All 8.6% 3.3% 60.2% 2.5 χ2=7.784** F=2.237,.s. V = 0.095 η 2 = 0.007 306 Noe 0.8% 30.7% 58.5% 2.5 269 Some 8.6% 25.3% 66.2% 2.6 Public lad 90 Most 9.5% 6.3% 74.2% 2.6 297 All 6.4% 3.9% 79.7% 2.7 χ2=37.85*** F=8.477*** V = 0.34 η 2 = 0.023 Mea is based o the scale: = fewer deer, 2 = about the same umber of deer, 3 = more deer..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 43

Table 2-9: Desired populatio tred by type of lad huted: STATE Type of lad huted Decrease No Chage Icrease Mea 3437 Noe 6.9% 9.6% 73.6% 2.7 29 Some 8.5% 6.0% 75.5% 2.7 Private lad that I 457 Most 9.7% 8.5% 7.9% 2.6 ow 266 All.% 24.2% 64.8% 2.5 χ2=85.848*** F=23.567*** V = 0.070 η 2 = 0.008 6369 Noe 8.6% 20.4% 7.0% 2.6 236 Some 7.7% 7.4% 74.9% 2.7 Private lad that I 59 Most 5.7% 3.2% 8.% 2.8 lease for hutig 64 All 6.7% 22.0% 7.3% 2.6 χ2=0.4,.s. F=2.52,.s. V = 0.027 η 2 = 0.00 345 Noe 8.9% 8.8% 72.4% 2.6 574 Some 8.6% 5.3% 76.2% 2.7 Private lad that I do 363 Most 8.2% 20.7% 7.0% 2.6 ot ow or lease 2439 All 8.4% 25.3% 66.2% 2.6 χ2=69.257*** F=8.42*** V = 0.064 η 2 = 0.003 3604 Noe 0.0% 25.4% 64.5% 2.5 2257 Some 6.7% 8.2% 75.% 2.7 Public lad 47 Most 6.6% 0.4% 83.0% 2.8 400 All 5.%.4% 83.5% 2.8 χ2=280.797*** F=72.800*** V = 0.29 η 2 = 0.025 Mea is based o the scale: = fewer deer, 2 = about the same umber of deer, 3 = more deer..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 44

Sectio 3: Populatio Maagemet Cosideratios Importat Cosideratios for Settig Deer Populatio Goals Respodets were asked to rate the importace of 2 deer populatio maagemet cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals (Table 3- to 3-3). Statemets were expressed o a scale of to 5 as factors that respodets could cosider relatively importat whe settig deer populatio goals. The respose scale raged from ot at all importat to very importat ad covered a array of cosideratios that would lead to maagemet for either higher or lower deer populatios. Overall, respodets idicated severe witer mortality ( x = 4.; Table 3-2), deer hutig heritage ( x = 3.9; Table 3-3), ad huter satisfactio ( x = 3.8; Table 3-4) as the three most importat items. Cocer about witer deer mortality would suggest maagemet for relatively lower populatios whereas cocers about deer hutig heritage ad huter satisfactio might suggest maagemet for relatively higher populatios. Deer over-browsig of forests ( x = 2.7; Table 3-), impacts of deer o other wildlife species ( x = 2.6; Table 3-2), ad the amout of crop damage ( x = 2.6; Table 3-3) were the three lowest variables. Not surprisigly, huters i souther Miesota rated witer mortality as less importat tha did those i more orther portios of the state (Tables 3-2 ad 3-6) ad huters i ortheaster Miesota rated crop damage less importat that did those i more agricultural areas of the state (Table 3-3). Iput ad Iformatio Used i Settig Deer Populatio Goals Respodets were asked about their level of agreemet with steps i settig deer populatio goals, usig the scale (strogly disagree) to 5 (strogly agree) (Tables 3-4 to 3-2). Strogest agreemet was with the importace of havig decisio makers explai the differet optios cosidered whe deer populatio goals are set ad why the fial optio was selected ( x = 4.4; Table 3-5) ad opportuities for huters ( x = 4.3; Table 3-6) ad ladowers to provide iput ( x = 4.2; Table 3-7). With respect to iput opportuities, more huters felt it was importat that huters (92.8%) ad ladowers (9.%) have opportuities to provide iput regardig deer populatio goals tha did those that felt it was importat for Miesotas (66.6%; Table 3-20) to have iput opportuities. A majority of respodets also agreed that it is importat to use the best available sciece (77.3%; Table 3-8) ad follow cosistet decisio-makig procedures (73.%; Table 3-9). Less tha half of huters (48.3%; Table 3-2) agreed that it is importat to cosider diverse iterests i settig deer populatio goals. This fidig is couter to the recommedatio made by the Miesota Office of the Legislative Auditor for MN DNR to ehace huma dimesio surveys i order to cosider more diverse perspectives (Miesota OLA, 206). 45

Table 3-: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals Cosideratio Mea Amout of deer mortality durig a severe witer 0670 4. Deer hutig heritage ad traditio 0643 3.9 Huter satisfactio with deer umbers 0636 3.8 Potetial health risks to the deer herd such as chroic wastig disease 069 3.8 Amout of deer mortality durig a average witer 0654 3.6 Impact of deer hutig o the local ecoomy 0632 3.5 Public health (such as huma-deer diseases from ticks) 0608 3.3 Public satisfactio with deer umbers 0636 3.0 The umber of deer-vehicle collisios 0644 3.0 Deer over-browsig of forests 0623 2.7 Impacts of deer o other wildlife species 0607 2.6 Amout of crop damage from deer 0624 2.6 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat. Meas reflect weighted averages across all deer permit areas to accout for uequal samplig effort. Table 3-2: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Amout of deer mortality durig a severe witer Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 3037 0.9% 5.8% 8.% 39.5% 35.8% 4.0 2 (EC) 522 0.6% 5.6% 4.2% 39.9% 39.6% 4. 3 (NE) 2488.% 4.% 2.7% 37.0% 45.% 4.2 4 (SC) 2280.2% 7.9% 20.% 40.2% 30.6% 3.9 5 (NC) 358.0% 5.% 6.% 39.0% 38.8% 4. TOTAL 0670 0.9% 5.4% 5.7% 39.0% 39.0% 4. χ2=6.052*** V = 0.06 F=33.864*** η 2 = 0.03 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 46

Table 3-3: Importace of cosideratio whe settig deer populatio goals... Deer hutig heritage ad traditio Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 3032 5.0% 7.8% 8.0% 34.5% 34.6% 3.9 2 (EC) 54 3.8% 8.3% 8.6% 3.3% 38.0% 3.9 3 (NE) 2486 4.4% 9.2% 8.8% 30.3% 37.3% 3.9 4 (SC) 2275 5.2% 0.9% 2.3% 3.7% 30.9% 3.7 5 (NC) 355 4.4% 9.2% 8.% 28.6% 39.7% 3.9 TOTAL 0643 4.4% 8.8% 8.7% 3.2% 36.8% 3.9 χ2=67.843*** V = 0.040 F=9.348*** η 2 = 0.003 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 3-4: Importace of cosideratio whe settig deer populatio goals... Huter satisfactio with deer umbers Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Very Importat Mea Importat (NW) 3025 2.6% 7.9% 22.7% 42.9% 23.9% 3.8 2 (EC) 56 2.7% 8.3% 24.3% 38.8% 26.0% 3.8 3 (NE) 2476 3.9% 7.5% 22.4% 38.8% 27.3% 3.8 4 (SC) 2274 3.2% 6.9% 26.2% 40.9% 22.8% 3.7 5 (NC) 358 2.7% 8.% 26.9% 39.% 23.3% 3.7 TOTAL 0636 2.9% 8.0% 24.3% 39.8% 25.0% 3.8 χ2=47.296*** F=.355,.s. V = 0.033 η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 47

Table 3-5: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Potetial health risks to the deer herd Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 3035 2.0% 0.5% 22.% 43.5% 2.8% 3.7 2 (EC) 50 2.0% 8.3% 22.% 42.6% 25.0% 3.8 3 (NE) 2473 2.9%.4% 26.5% 36.7% 22.4% 3.6 4 (SC) 2272 2.8% 0.3% 23.2% 4.8% 2.9% 3.7 5 (NC) 350 2.% 8.5% 9.% 42.0% 28.3% 3.9 TOTAL 069 2.3% 9.8% 22.4% 4.3% 24.2% 3.8 χ2=83.84*** V = 0.044 F=2.825*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 3-6: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Amout of deer mortality durig a average witer Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 3030 3.5%.7% 26.0% 43.% 5.7% 3.6 2 (EC) 55 2.8% 0.4% 28.% 42.0% 6.8% 3.6 3 (NE) 2486 3.7% 9.7% 25.8% 42.2% 8.7% 3.6 4 (SC) 2279 4.5% 3.9% 28.3% 4.2% 2.% 3.4 5 (NC) 359 3.5% 0.9% 29.6% 4.7% 4.3% 3.5 TOTAL 0654 3.4%.% 27.5% 42.0% 5.9% 3.6 χ2=75.72*** V = 0.042 F=3.475*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 48

Table 3-7: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Impact of deer hutig o the local ecoomy Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 3025 8.0% 3.4% 23.9% 33.6% 2.% 3.5 2 (EC) 5 6.2%.4% 26.% 33.0% 23.2% 3.6 3 (NE) 2484 5.3% 2.4% 23.9% 3.0% 27.4% 3.6 4 (SC) 228 9.3% 5.0% 27.8% 30.8% 7.% 3.3 5 (NC) 356 7.% 9.4% 24.9% 33.9% 24.6% 3.6 TOTAL 0632 6.8%.9% 25.0% 32.8% 23.5% 3.5 χ2=33.84*** V = 0.056 F=25.486*** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 3-8: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Public health (such as huma-deer diseases from ticks) Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 308.9% 8.% 20.7% 26.5% 22.8% 3.3 2 (EC) 508 0.5% 9.5% 8.0% 29.8% 22.2% 3.3 3 (NE) 2474 2.8% 22.% 22.3% 24.4% 8.4% 3. 4 (SC) 2272 2.8% 9.4% 2.0% 26.% 20.8% 3.2 5 (NC) 354 9.2% 6.% 20.3% 26.8% 27.6% 3.5 TOTAL 0608.2% 9.0% 20.4% 26.8% 22.6% 3.3 χ2=89.289*** V = 0.046 F=6.938*** η 2 = 0.006 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 49

Table 3-9: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Public satisfactio with deer umbers Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 3022.2% 2.% 29.3% 28.0% 0.4% 3. 2 (EC) 55.8% 2.9% 29.9% 24.7%.6% 3.0 3 (NE) 248 2.2% 9.7% 3.5% 24.3% 2.2% 3.0 4 (SC) 227 2.6% 9.9% 32.9% 25.7% 8.8% 3.0 5 (NC) 358 2.5% 9.6% 32.6% 25.4% 9.9% 3.0 TOTAL 0636.8% 20.6% 3.0% 25.7% 0.9% 3.0 χ2=37.90** V = 0.030 F=.492,.s. η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 3-0: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Number of deer-vehicle collisios Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 3030 9.9% 23.8% 27.% 27.5%.7% 3. 2 (EC) 53 9.7% 23.3% 28.9% 26.2%.8% 3. 3 (NE) 2480 2.6% 27.4% 29.% 2.3% 9.6% 2.9 4 (SC) 2276 9.% 20.7% 27.4% 26.6% 6.2% 3.2 5 (NC) 360.8% 24.0% 28.% 24.9%.2% 3.0 TOTAL 0644 0.7% 24.3% 28.2% 25.%.7% 3.0 χ2=4.034*** V = 0.052 F=23.706*** η 2 = 0.009 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 50

Table 3-: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Deer overbrowsig of forests Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 3029 9.0% 24.9% 28.5% 2.7% 5.9% 2.7 2 (EC) 54 5.9% 23.7% 30.% 23.0% 7.3% 2.8 3 (NE) 2476 2.2% 26.0% 28.0% 9.% 5.7% 2.6 4 (SC) 226 2.0% 26.0% 28.6% 8.4% 6.0% 2.6 5 (NC) 353 6.5% 23.5% 30.5% 2.9% 7.7% 2.8 TOTAL 0623 8.3% 24.6% 29.3% 2.2% 6.6% 2.7 χ2=53.976*** V = 0.036 F=2.8*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 3-2: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals... Impacts of deer o other wildlife species Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 309 20.3% 27.4% 28.0% 9.9% 4.4% 2.6 2 (EC) 52 7.6% 26.5% 30.% 2.0% 4.8% 2.7 3 (NE) 2470 20.9% 26.% 29.6% 7.3% 6.0% 2.6 4 (SC) 227 23.2% 26.0% 28.5% 8.0% 4.3% 2.5 5 (NC) 35 9.4% 25.7% 30.4% 8.5% 6.0% 2.7 TOTAL 0607 9.8% 26.4% 29.3% 9.3% 5.2% 2.6 χ2=4.4*** V = 0.03 F=4.347** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 5

Table 3-3: Importace of cosideratios whe settig deer populatio goals...amout of crop damage from deer Not at all Importat A little Importat Moderately Importat Importat Very Importat Mea (NW) 3025 6.8% 28.5% 29.2% 8.9% 6.7% 2.7 2 (EC) 53 7.5% 27.2% 30.% 9.4% 5.8% 2.7 3 (NE) 2479 28.% 32.0% 24.3% 2.3% 3.3% 2.3 4 (SC) 2275 2.0% 29.3% 26.0% 7.2% 6.5% 2.6 5 (NC) 352 2.0% 29.0% 28.8% 6.0% 5.2% 2.6 TOTAL 0624 20.7% 29.2% 28.% 6.7% 5.4% 2.6 χ2=99.639*** V = 0.069 F=46.79*** η 2 = 0.07 Mea is based o the scale: = ot at all importat, 2 = a little importat, 3 = moderately importat, 4 = importat, 5 = very importat..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 3-4: Agreemet with statemets about steps i settig deer populatio goals Statemet Mea Importat that decisio makers explai differet optios 065 4.4 Importat for huters to have opportuities to provide iput 0625 4.3 Importat for ladowers to have opportuities to provide iput 0620 4.2 Importat to use the best available sciece 0603 4.0 Importat to follow cosistet decisio makig procedures 0588 3.8 Importat for Miesotas to have opportuities to provide iput 0599 3.7 Importat to cosider diverse iterests 0599 3.3 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree Note: Meas reflect weighted averages across all survey areas to accout for uequal samplig effort. 52

Table 3-5: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat that decisio makers explai differet optios ad why the fial optio was selected Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 308 0.7%.0% 6.5% 46.8% 45.0% 4.3 2 (EC) 50 0.6%.3% 5.6% 44.8% 47.8% 4.4 3 (NE) 2474 0.8%.5% 5.2% 43.5% 49.% 4.4 4 (SC) 2282 0.5%.4% 7.5% 48.4% 42.3% 4.3 5 (NC) 357 0.5%.4% 6.0% 45.8% 47.3% 4.4 TOTAL 065 0.6%.% 5.9% 45.6% 46.8% 4.4 χ2=45.688*** V = 0.033 F=5.420*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 3-6: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat that huters have opportuities to provide iput Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 309 0.6%.8% 4.6% 52.2% 40.8% 4.3 2 (EC) 50 0.7%.6% 5.4% 52.5% 39.9% 4.3 3 (NE) 2484 0.6%.6% 4.6% 48.8% 44.4% 4.3 4 (SC) 228 0.7%.5% 6.3% 55.3% 36.3% 4.2 5 (NC) 355 0.4%.2% 5.2% 54.% 39.% 4.3 TOTAL 0625 0.6%.5% 5.% 52.3% 40.5% 4.3 χ2=43.204*** V = 0.032 F=5.929*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 53

Table 3-7: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat that ladowers have opportuities to provide iput Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 307 0.8%.8% 5.7% 54.2% 37.6% 4.3 2 (EC) 509 0.7% 2.4% 5.4% 53.6% 37.9% 4.3 3 (NE) 2482 0.9% 2.6% 6.4% 5.9% 38.2% 4.2 4 (SC) 2282 0.7% 2.5% 7.4% 57.2% 32.2% 4.2 5 (NC) 355 0.7%.5% 6.7% 55.0% 36.2% 4.2 TOTAL 0620 0.7% 2.% 6.% 54.% 37.0% 4.2 χ2=40.28*** V = 0.03 F=5.037*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 3-8: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat to use the best available sciece Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 308.% 4.7% 9.4% 47.% 27.8% 4.0 2 (EC) 50.4% 3.3% 8.5% 46.8% 30.0% 4.0 3 (NE) 247.9% 3.6% 6.0% 46.8% 32.8% 4. 4 (SC) 2275.2% 4.0% 9.5% 50.5% 24.7% 3.9 5 (NC) 353.3% 2.9% 7.0% 48.% 30.8% 4.0 TOTAL 0603.% 3.7% 7.9% 47.4% 29.9% 4.0 χ2=60.706*** V = 0.038 F=0.32*** η 2 = 0.004 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 54

Table 3-9: Steps i settig deer populatio goals...importat follow cosistet decisiomakig procedures Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 306.6% 5.4% 8.9% 55.% 9.0% 3.8 2 (EC) 506 2.0% 6.3% 9.8% 52.8% 9.% 3.8 3 (NE) 2472.3% 6.7% 9.% 53.6% 9.4% 3.8 4 (SC) 2276.2% 4.9% 9.4% 58.9% 5.6% 3.8 5 (NC) 348.6% 6.9% 8.6% 53.0% 9.9% 3.8 TOTAL 0588.6% 6.2% 9.% 54.0% 9.% 3.8 χ2=39.94** V = 0.030 F=0.534*** η 2 < 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 3-20: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat that Miesotas have opportuities to provide iput Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 3020 2.8% 0.9% 20.9% 46.9% 8.4% 3.7 2 (EC) 507 2.6% 0.4% 20.7% 47.6% 8.8% 3.7 3 (NE) 2473 2.9% 0.2% 7.5% 47.9% 2.5% 3.7 4 (SC) 2277 2.7% 0.7% 2.6% 49.8% 5.3% 3.6 5 (NC) 350 3.0% 9.5% 2.9% 46.3% 9.4% 3.7 TOTAL 0599 2.7% 0.4% 20.3% 47.5% 9.% 3.7 χ2=45.006*** V = 0.033 F=3.693** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 55

Table 3-2: Steps i settig deer populatio goals... Importat to cosider diverse iterests Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 302 4.8% 3.5% 3.9% 39.8% 0.0% 3.4 2 (EC) 508 4.7% 6.2% 32.4% 36.% 0.6% 3.3 3 (NE) 247 5.0% 5.6% 3.3% 36.3%.8% 3.3 4 (SC) 2278 4.6% 3.6% 33.4% 40.2% 8.3% 3.3 5 (NC) 354 4.5% 3.8% 33.0% 37.4%.2% 3.4 TOTAL 0599 4.7% 4.7% 32.3% 37.6% 0.7% 3.3 χ2=35.896** V = 0.029 F=0.85,.s. η 2 < 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 56

Sectio 4: Huter Satisfactio ad Success Satisfactio with Deer Numbers ad Quality Huters were asked to idicate their overall satisfactio with deer umbers, whether they heard about or saw legal bucks, their satisfactio with the umber of legal bucks, quality of bucks, total umber of deer, ad total umber of atlerless deer durig their most recet deer hut. Agreemet with satisfactio statemets relative to their most recet hut were rated o a scale from (strogly disagree) to 5 (strogly agree). Total Populatios Low percetages (rage = 2.3% - 35.8%) of respodets i all survey areas were satisfied with curret deer umbers i the deer permit area they hut (Table 4-). Usig a scale of (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), most respodets i east cetral, orthwester, ad ortheaster Miesota (rage = 53.% - 76.4%) reported they were slightly dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with curret (204, 205, or 206) deer umbers i the deer permit area they hut; less tha half of huters i south cetral (46.%) ad orth cetral Miesota (49.3%) reported dissatisfactio with deer umbers i 205 ad 206, respectively. Notably, huters i areas with the lowest estimated deer desities (D Agelo ad Giudice 205) reported both the lowest (ortheaster Miesota: x =.9) ad highest (south cetral Miesota: x = 2.8) levels of satisfactio with deer umbers. Similar to reports of satisfactio about deer umbers withi idividual deer permit areas, most huters i east cetral (59.7%) ad ortheaster (69.4%) Miesota idicated dissatisfactio with the umber of deer see while hutig (Table 4-2). Smaller proportios of huters i orthwester (47.8%), south cetral (46.%), ad orth cetral (49.3%) Miesota idicated dissatisfactio with the umber of deer see. Of ote, larger proportios of huters i each survey area reported satisfactio with the umber of deer see while hutig (rage = 2.4% - 45.%; Table 4-2) tha reported satisfactio with deer umbers i the deer permit area they hut most ofte (rage = 2.3% - 35.8%; Table 4-), suggestig greater satisfactio with deer umbers observed at more local levels. Mature Bucks Across the state, huters differed i reports of hearig about or seeig legal bucks while hutig (rage = 40.5% to 63.9%; Table 4-3), with majorities i orthwester (62.0%), south cetral (63.9%), ad orth cetral (59.3%) Miesota reportig observatios of legal bucks. Smaller proportios of huters i east cetral (48.7%) ad ortheaster Miesota (40.5%) reported observatios of legal bucks while hutig. Huters i most survey areas reported dissatisfactio with the umber of legal bucks (rage = 46.% to 70.9%; Table 4-4). Just uder half of respodets i south cetral ad orth cetral Miesota reported dissatisfactio with the umber of legal bucks. As reported i Sectio of this report, the importace of seeig a lot of bucks received oly moderate ratigs relative to ifluecig persoal deer hutig satisfactio durig the recet seaso (Table -45); however, satisfactio with the umber of legal bucks durig the recet seaso was egatively correlated 57

with the relative importace idividual huters placed o seeig bucks (r = -0.57, p <.05) ad the stregth of this relatioship varied by survey area (Table 4-5). Across all survey areas, more huters reported dissatisfactio (52.8%) tha satisfactio (28.9%) with the quality of legal bucks (Table 4-6); reported satisfactio with buck quality was lowest amog huters i ortheaster Miesota (8.5). Atlerless Deer Reported satisfactio with umber of atlerless deer varied across the state (Table 4-7), with huters idicatig greater satisfactio i orthwester ( x = 3.2), ad south cetral ( x = 3.4), ad orth cetral ( x = 3.3) Miesota tha those i ortheaster ( x = 2.5) or east cetral Miesota ( x = 2.8). Satisfactio with Deer Hutig Experiece Cotrary to resposes regardig deer umbers ad quality, most huters (70.5%) idicated satisfactio with their geeral deer hutig experiece durig the recet seaso (Table 4-8), reiforcig results reported i Sectio of this report that suggest o-cosumptive motivatios (Table -30) have a greater ifluece o overall satisfactio with the deer hutig experiece tha do cosumptive motivatios. Although smaller proportios of huters idicated satisfactio with the deer hutig harvest (rage = 25.4% - 52.9%; Table 4-9), deer hutig regulatios (rage = 39.5% - 53.7%; Table 4-0), ad the umber of other deer huters see (rage = 39.7% - 57.5%; Table 4-), reported dissatisfactio was lower for all factors, with the exceptio of hutig harvest (Table 4-9) i ortheaster ad east cetral Miesota. Success Deer seaso regulatios from 204 to 206 were coservative, or desiged to limit harvest, i most deer permit areas statewide; as a result, harvest was more limited. I geeral, harvest opportuity was biased toward legal bucks ad atlerless permits were uavailable or limited i may areas. Harvest success varied by area (Table 4-2), likely due to a combiatio of factors icludig seaso regulatios, local deer desities, ad harvest pressure. Roughly twice as may huters reported they killed ad tagged a legal buck (22.%) as compared to those who reported killig a atlerless deer (.9%). Not surprisigly, give the particularly coservative seaso regulatios i portios of the state, the proportio of huters killig a atlerless deer differed across the survey areas. Across all areas, a greater proportio of respodets reported killig a deer for aother huter (rage = 6.% - 0.4%) tha usig their ow tag o a deer killed by aother huter (rage = 3.4% - 7.6%). Overall, 26.8% to 44.3% of huters reported harvestig a deer for themselves or aother huter, depedig o the survey area (Table 4-3). Overall Satisfactio Fially, respodets were asked to rate their overall satisfactio with their most recet deer hut; a ratig that likely icluded aspects of the deer populatio (umbers ad quality) ad the idividual experiece. Overall satisfactio, rated o a scale of (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), varied across survey areas (Table 4-4), with higher levels reported i orthwester 58

( x = 3.2), south cetral ( x = 3.3), ad orth cetral ( x = 3.4) Miesota tha i ortheaster ( x = 2.8) or east cetral ( x = 2.9) Miesota. Of the huters reportig overall satisfactio with their deer seaso, satisfactio ratigs were sigificatly higher for those who reported killig a deer tha for those who did ot, ad this tred was evidet withi all survey areas (Table 4-5). 59

Table 4-: Overall satisfactio with curret deer umbers i the deer permit area you hut Year Very Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Neither Slightly Satisfied Very Satisfied Mea (NW) 3067 204 22.7% 30.4% 5.0% 9.4% 2.5% 2.7 2 (EC) 535 204 3.9% 30.9% 6.5% 2.7% 8.0% 2.3 3 (NE) 252 205 47.4% 29.0%.2% 8.2% 4.%.9 4 (SC) 2298 205 7.0% 29.% 8.% 24.5%.3% 2.8 5 (NC) 380 206 20.% 29.2% 6.7% 22.8%.2% 2.8 TOTAL 0789 29.% 29.9% 5.2% 6.6% 9.2% 2.5 χ2=90.244 *** V = 0.40 F=207.68 *** η 2 = 0.072 Mea is based o the scale: = very dissatisfied, 2 = slightly dissatisfied, 3 = either dissatisfied or satisfied, 4 = slightly satisfied, 5 = very satisfied..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 4-2: Agreemet with statemet regardig most recet deer hut... I was satisfied with the umber of deer I saw while hutig Year disagree Slightly disagree Neither Slightly agree agree Mea (NW) 3063 204 26.3% 20.7%.3% 2.5% 20.% 2.9 2 (EC) 529 204 39.0% 20.7% 0.5% 6.% 3.7% 2.5 3 (NE) 250 205 48.5% 20.9% 9.2% 3.% 8.3% 2. 4 (SC) 2285 205 20.% 2.5% 3.5% 24.7% 20.% 3.0 5 (NC) 368 206 23.8% 8.3% 2.7% 25.2% 9.9% 3.0 TOTAL 0735 33.% 20.2%.% 9.5% 6.0% 2.7 χ2=709.802 *** V = 0.29 F=68.350 *** η 2 = 0.059 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = slightly disagree, 3 = either, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 60

Table 4-3: Agreemet with statemet regardig most recet deer hut... I heard about or saw legal bucks while hutig Year disagree Slightly disagree Neither Slightly agree agree Mea (NW) 3027 204 4.6% 0.2% 3.2% 32.3% 29.7% 3.5 2 (EC) 56 204 25.7% 2.3% 2.3% 27.5% 22.2% 3. 3 (NE) 2487 205 35.% 4.4% 0.0% 23.4% 7.% 2.7 4 (SC) 2272 205 2.7% 0.6% 2.9% 30.8% 33.% 3.6 5 (NC) 358 206 8.4% 0.0% 2.4% 28.5% 30.8% 3.4 TOTAL 0642 22.5%.6% 2.0% 28.% 25.7% 3.2 χ2=624.674 *** V = 0.2 F=50.73 *** η 2 = 0.054 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = slightly disagree, 3 = either, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 4-4: Agreemet with statemet regardig most recet deer hut... I was satisfied with the umber of legal bucks Year disagree Slightly disagree Neither Slightly agree agree Mea (NW) 3045 204 26.5% 22.5% 6.% 2.2% 3.7% 2.7 2 (EC) 527 204 34.4% 20.6% 8.5% 5.0%.5% 2.5 3 (NE) 2509 205 50.4% 20.5% 2.2%.4% 5.5% 2.0 4 (SC) 2278 205 24.5% 2.6% 7.% 23.3% 3.5% 2.8 5 (NC) 362 206 25.8% 2.% 7.2% 22.2% 3.7% 2.8 TOTAL 0704 33.2% 2.4% 6.% 7.9%.4% 2.5 χ2=6.908 *** V = 0.20 F=39.9 *** η 2 = 0.049 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = slightly disagree, 3 = either, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 6

Table 4-5 Satisfactio with umber of legal bucks based o reported relative importace of seeig a lot of bucks o seaso satisfactio Mea satisfactio with umber of legal bucks Importace of seeig a lot of bucks NW EC NE SC NC TOTAL Sigificace Not at all importat 3.2 3. 2.2 3.0 3.3 3.0 F=26.26***; η 2 = 0.09 Slightly importat 2.8 2.6 2. 3.0 3.0 2.6 F=34.034***; η 2 = 0.064 Somewhat importat 2.8 2.4 2. 2.8 2.7 2.6 F=43.606***; η 2 = 0.044 Very importat 2.5 2.2.8 2.7 2.5 2.3 F=3.927***; η 2 = 0.05 Extremely importat 2.5 2..7 2.4 2.3 2.2 F=20.89 F=5.876 F=9.9 F=2.248 F=4.08 *** *** *** *** *** η 2 = 0.027 η 2 = 0.042 η 2 = 0.05 η 2 = 0.022 η 2 = 0.04 F=67.439 *** η 2 = 0.026 F=0.66***; η 2 = 0.040 Mea is based o the scale: = very dissatisfied, 2 = slightly dissatisfied, 3 = either dissatisfied or satisfied, 4 = slightly satisfied, 5 = very satisfied..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 4-6: Agreemet with statemet regardig most recet deer hut... I was satisfied with the quality of legal bucks Year disagree Slightly disagree Neither Slightly agree agree Mea (NW) 3037 204 25.8% 22.3% 8.% 22.4%.5% 2.7 2 (EC) 524 204 32.9% 9.5% 9.2% 9.0% 9.3% 2.5 3 (NE) 2495 205 44.6% 20.9% 6.% 3.3% 5.2% 2. 4 (SC) 2274 205 25.9% 23.4% 7.2% 22.2%.3% 2.7 5 (NC) 360 206 25.3% 2.6% 20.% 22.5% 0.5% 2.7 TOTAL 0674 3.6% 2.2% 8.3% 9.5% 9.4% 2.5 χ2=372.237 *** V = 0.093 F=83.08* ** η 2 = 0.030 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = slightly disagree, 3 = either, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 62

Table 4-7: Agreemet with statemet regardig most recet deer hut... I was satisfied with the umber of atlerless deer Year disagree Slightly disagree Neither Slightly agree agree Mea (NW) 3033 204 9.0% 7.5% 4.8% 24.0% 24.7% 3.2 2 (EC) 522 204 26.9% 20.7% 2.7% 22.% 7.5% 2.8 3 (NE) 2497 205 35.3% 2.3% 3.% 6.% 4.2% 2.5 4 (SC) 2278 205 3.4% 6.7% 4.4% 27.2% 28.3% 3.4 5 (NC) 363 206 6.4% 6.2% 3.9% 27.3% 26.2% 3.3 TOTAL 0680 23.4% 8.6% 3.6% 23.0% 2.4% 3.0 χ2=572.652 *** V = 0.6 F=4.982 *** η 2 = 0.050 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = slightly disagree, 3 = either, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = strogly agree..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 4-8: Recet Miesota deer hutig seaso... Satisfactio with geeral deer hutig experiece Year Very Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Neither Slightly Satisfied Very Satisfied Mea (NW) 2955 204 5.5% 3.3% 8.6% 4.4% 3.3% 3.8 2 (EC) 478 204 9.5% 7.0% 0.% 36.2% 27.2% 3.5 3 (NE) 2437 205 9.5% 6.3%.9% 36.8% 25.6% 3.5 4 (SC) 225 205 3.4%.6% 9.3% 43.0% 32.7% 3.9 5 (NC) 33 206 3.4% 8.3% 7.2% 40.9% 40.% 4. TOTAL 048 6.6% 3.6% 9.3% 39.4% 3.% 3.7 χ2=287.957 *** V = 0.083 F=65.688* ** η 2 = 0.025 Mea is based o the scale: = very dissatisfied, 2 = slightly dissatisfied, 3 = either dissatisfied or satisfied, 4 = slightly satisfied, 5 = very satisfied..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 63

Table 4-9: Recet Miesota deer hutig seaso... Satisfactio with deer hutig harvest Year Very Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Neither Slightly Satisfied Very Satisfied Mea (NW) 2944 204 6.% 23.0% 4.3% 28.4% 8.2% 3. 2 (EC) 48 204 26.% 27.% 2.0% 2.7% 3.2% 2.7 3 (NE) 2445 205 36.6% 25.2% 2.8% 7.% 8.3% 2.4 4 (SC) 2255 205.4% 23.0% 6.% 30.2% 9.4% 3.2 5 (NC) 329 206 3.2% 9.3% 4.5% 29.9% 23.0% 3.3 TOTAL 0420 2.8% 23.7% 3.5% 24.9% 6.0% 2.9 χ2=789.753 *** V = 0.37 F=86.955 *** η 2 = 0.067 Mea is based o the scale: = very dissatisfied, 2 = slightly dissatisfied, 3 = either dissatisfied or satisfied, 4 = slightly satisfied, 5 = very satisfied..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 4-0: Recet Miesota deer hutig seaso... Satisfactio with deer hutig regulatios Year Very Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Neither Slightly Satisfied Very Satisfied Mea (NW) 2946 204 6.7% 8.7% 28.% 34.2% 2.3% 3.3 2 (EC) 478 204 6.8% 8.2% 32.9% 30.5%.6% 3.2 3 (NE) 2440 205 7.0% 9.4% 34.3% 27.8%.4% 3.2 4 (SC) 2252 205 5.4% 2.6% 30.6% 35.3% 6.% 3.4 5 (NC) 328 206 3.8% 2.8% 29.6% 35.3% 8.4% 3.5 TOTAL 040 6.% 6.8% 3.2% 32.3% 3.7% 3.3 χ2=72.482 *** V = 0.064 F=33.838 *** η 2 = 0.03 Mea is based o the scale: = very dissatisfied, 2 = slightly dissatisfied, 3 = either dissatisfied or satisfied, 4 = slightly satisfied, 5 = very satisfied..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 64

Table 4-: Recet Miesota deer hutig seaso... Satisfactio with umber of other deer huters see Year Very Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Neither Slightly Satisfied Very Satisfied Mea (NW) 2948 204 6.% 5.% 37.% 27.2% 4.5% 3.3 2 (EC) 479 204 7.0% 2.3% 40.0% 25.8% 4.9% 3.3 3 (NE) 2443 205 2.9% 4.7% 32.8% 24.3% 5.4% 3. 4 (SC) 2254 205 8.2% 7.9% 33.% 27.6% 3.2% 3.2 5 (NC) 329 206 6.8% 3.% 32.7% 29.6% 7.9% 3.4 TOTAL 049 8.% 4.3% 35.3% 26.9% 5.4% 3.3 χ2=53.98 *** V = 0.06 F=2.683 *** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = very dissatisfied, 2 = slightly dissatisfied, 3 = either dissatisfied or satisfied, 4 = slightly satisfied, 5 = very satisfied..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 4-2: Durig the recet deer seaso, proportio of deer huters who... Year Killed ad tagged a atlerless deer Killed ad tagged a legal buck Killed a deer for aother huter Used tag o a deer killed by aother huter (NW) 204 287 4.3% 24.9% 8.8% 6.% 2 (EC) 204 387 2.2% 8.2% 6.% 5.0% 3 (NE) 205 2404 3.2% 20.4% 5.7% 3.4% 4 (SC) 205 229.5% 24.6% 8.0% 4.6% 5 (NC) 206 229 7.7% 24.6% 0.4% 7.6% TOTAL 9896.9% 22.% 7.8% 5.5% χ2=290.873*** χ2=.489*** V = 0.6 V = 0.072.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 χ2=00.43*** V = 0.070 χ2=05.268*** V = 0.070 65

Table 4-3: Durig the recet deer seaso, proportio of huters who killed a deer for themselves or aother huter % Harvest Success Adj. % Harvest Success (NW) 2948 44.% 42.% 2 (EC) 475 34.0% 32.3% 3 (NE) 2458 27.7% 26.8% 4 (SC) 2256 40.9% 39.9% 5 (NC) 330 46.3% 44.3% TOTAL 0430 38.3% 36.7% χ2=23.523*** V = 0.43 χ2=244.048*** V = 0.06 Note: Harvest success is likely iflated because it icludes oly resposes from huters who replied to the questio. Adjusted harvest icludes those surveys missig resposes to this questio..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 4-4: Overall satisfactio with most recet deer hut Year Very Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Neither Slightly Satisfied Very Satisfied Mea (NW) 299 204 3.2% 23.3% 4.9% 28.4% 20.3% 3.2 2 (EC) 455 204 8.9% 28.0% 3.5% 26.6% 2.9% 2.9 3 (NE) 246 205 20.8% 28.% 3.7% 25.3% 2.% 2.8 4 (SC) 2222 205 0.% 2.8% 3.3% 33.4% 2.3% 3.3 5 (NC) 322 206 0.0% 9.6% 3.8% 32.7% 23.9% 3.4 TOTAL 0302 5.2% 24.5% 3.9% 28.8% 7.7% 3. χ2=330.62 *** V = 0.089 F=8.62 *** η 2 = 0.03 Mea is based o the scale: = very dissatisfied, 2 = slightly dissatisfied, 3 = either dissatisfied or satisfied, 4 = slightly satisfied, 5 = very satisfied..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 66

Table 4-5: Overall satisfactio based o harvest success (NW) 2 (EC) 3 (NE) 4 (SC) 5 (NC) TOTAL Killed a deer for myself or other Slightly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Slightly Very Neither satisfied satisfied Sigificace Yes 26 3.6% 6.3% 3.8% 5.7% 4.7% χ2=400.447 *** No 599 9.4% 7.0%.0% 2.7% 5.7% V = 0.374 Yes 483 3.9% 5.4% 2.8% 2.9% 8.8% χ2=208.785 No 943 4.7% 22.9% 0.8% 3.7% 4.% *** V = 0.383 Yes 656 3.4% 4.6% 2.7% 9.5% 7.2% χ2=265.43 *** No 734 4.7% 22.9% 0.8% 3.7% 4.% V = 0333 Yes 904 3.6% 4.7% 2.0% 5.5% 5.3% χ2=352.669 *** No 292 6.5% 7.2%.2% 8.0% 5.9% V = 0.40 Yes 603 4.0% 5.6% 4.3% 6.4% 6.0% χ2=07.607 *** No 698 6.% 4.0% 9.6% 6.% 7.9% V = 0.288 Yes 3875 3.7% 5.4% 3.3% 3.9% 2.0% χ2=32.027 No 6256.4% 9.2% 0.7% 4.9% 5.7%.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 *** V = 0.360 67

Sectio 5: Regulatory Prefereces for Deer Maagemet Scale of Regulatio Whe cosiderig potetial chages to deer maagemet regulatios, respodets were asked to idicate their preferece regardig the level at which ew regulatios should be applied. Optios listed iclude implemetatio statewide, by zoe (e.g., 00-series), or by deer permit area. Across all surveys areas, a preferece for more local (DPA) or regioal (zoe) applicatio was evidet (Table 5-). Roughly equal proportios for huters idicated preferece for regulatios to be implemeted at the deer DPA- (43.8%) or zoe- (39.9%) levels. Seaso Optios Miesota curretly holds a mid-october youth deer seaso i portios of orthwester ad southeaster Miesota, with additioal special local huts for youth held durig the same period throughout the state. Regardless of survey area, a majority (rage = 5.2% - 53.2%) of huters supported the establishmet of a statewide youth seaso, with oly 20.9% to 25.% idicatig oppositio (Table 5-2). I cotrast, Miesota curretly employs differet firearm seaso legths statewide, with a 6- day seaso i the 00-series zoe ad a 9-day seaso i the 200-series zoe. Huter preferece regardig seaso legth varied across survey areas, with the majority of huters i orthwester (60.%) ad south cetral (57.5%) Miesota idicatig a preferece for a 9-day seaso ad huters i east cetral (65.5%), ortheaster (72.9%), ad orth cetral (57.9%) Miesota idicatig a preferece for a 6-day seaso, cosistet with the prevalet seaso legth offered i their respective areas (Table 5-3). Alterative Regulatios Respodets were asked to idicate their level of support, o a scale of (strogly oppose) to 5 (strogly support), for a variety of commoly suggested regulatory chages that could icrease the proportio of atlered bucks i the populatio, icludig delayig the firearm seaso, istitutio of atler poit restrictios, ad elimiatio of cross-taggig (also kow as party hutig). Across all areas, huters idicated support ( x = 3.6) for a regulatio that would icrease the proportio of atlered bucks i the deer permit area they huted most ofte (Table 5-4). Cosistet with previous surveys, support for specific regulatory chages was lower tha that expressed for regulatios that, i geeral, would icrease the proportio of atlered bucks (Tables 5-5 to 5-8). Support for delays i the deer seaso timig were eutral to egative, with eutral support o average for a oe-week delay ( x = 3.0; Table 5-5) ad fairly substatial oppositio to a start date i a late November ( x = 2.; Table 5-6). Similarly, support for the istitutio of a atler poit restrictio was, o average, eutral to egative ( x = 2.7; Table 5-7). 68

Whe asked about the potetial to elimiate cross-taggig, most respodets idicated oppositio to the elimiatio of buck cross-taggig (56.5%; Table 5-8) or cross-taggig for bucks ad atlerless deer (67.9%; Table 5-9). Stated Choice Experimet This study icluded a stated choice experimet examiig the prefereces of deer huters cocerig differet potetial combiatios of deer seasos ad regulatios i Miesota. Stated choice models preset hypothetical scearios to respodets to derive idividuals prefereces for alteratives composed of multiple resource ad maagemet attributes (Adamowicz et al. 994; Oh et al. 2005). The approach depeds o the imperfect relatioship betwee behavioral itetio ad behavior (Ajze & Fishbei 980), yet allows estimatio of the effects of all parameters of iterest idepedetly. Idividuals are assumed to be utility maximizers, ad respodets choices reflect the perceived utility of the alteratives preseted (McFadde 98). Idividual respodet choices reflect the persoal utility of attributes ad attribute levels, ad are aggregated to estimate the utility of attributes ad attribute levels i a populatio (McFadde 98). I a ecoomic sese, utility is simply a measure of the perceived usefuless of somethig to a idividual. The degree to which someoe chooses oe circumstace over aother provides the ability to measure its perceived usefuless, or utility, to that perso. I geeral, the utility of a attribute level may be cosidered a reflectio of relative desirability (Orme 204). Alteratives preseted i this seaso choice experimet cosisted of five attributes: (a) crosstaggig of harvested deer, (b) whether or ot atler poit restrictios are i place, (c) timig of the firearm opeer durig or out of the rut, (d) the populatio level or umber of deer, ad (e) deer harvest limit (Table 5-0). There were three possible levels for cross-taggig, deer umbers, ad harvest limits, ad two levels for atler poit restrictios ad timig of the opeer. I order to have adequate power to coduct this experimet, we developed 0 survey versios. I each, respodets were preseted with 8 deer seaso choice scearios ad asked to choose oe optio. Each sceario icluded two seaso structure choices plus a oe (i.e., I would ot hut deer i Miesota with these optios). Results for the hierarchical Bayes model (Tables 5- to 5-22), icludig average utilities, or usefuless, for each attribute level, summarize the preferece amog deer huters i each survey area as well as statewide. The attribute importaces reported i Tables 5- through 5-6 provide a summary of how importat each of the 5 attributes were i respodets choices. Across all survey areas, timig of the opeer had the most ifluece o choice followed closely by deer umbers. The third most importat attribute was cross-taggig i the majority of survey areas. The least importat attribute i survey orthwester ad east cetral Miesota were atler poit restrictios, whereas harvest limit was least importat i ortheaster, south cetral, ad east cetral Miesota. The utilities of each level for each attribute are summarized i Tables 5-7 through 5-22. The larger the rage i the part-worth utilities (i.e. the differece i average utilities across levels) for a attribute, the more ifluetial that attribute is o respodets choices ad the greater the importace of that attribute. For example, the timig of the opeer was the most ifluetial 69

attribute i the area experimet, as idicated by the largest rage i part-worth utilities (rage i timig of opeer utilities =.6; Table 5-7). The set of part-worth utilities for each attribute is scaled to sum to zero, so some part-worth utilities are ecessarily egative umbers for some levels. A egative part-worth utility does ot mea that the level has a egative utility; but the larger the umber, the higher the utility. This meas that a large positive umber has higher utility tha a large egative umber. Across all survey areas, ad statewide, a hutig opeer i early November was preferred over a late-november opeer. Legal cross-taggig for either sex was preferred over atlerless-oly cross-taggig or o cross-taggig ad o atler poit restrictio was preferred over a atler poit restrictio regulatio. Deer umbers higher tha 204-206 levels were preferred over levels experieced durig that time period or lower populatio levels. The preferred seasoal harvest (bag) limit was a oe-deer, either sex regulatio (Huter Choice) rather tha a oe-deer limit with a atlerless lottery (Lottery) or a two-deer limit (Maaged). Results of the stated choice experimet allow compariso of various regulatory packages via market simulatio to estimate the proportio of respodets that would choose a particular sceario. For example, statewide part-worth utilities ad attribute importaces were used to simulate huter prefereces for regulatory packages represetig (A) a likely 204-206 sceario with curret populatio levels, a early November opeer, legal cross-taggig, o atler poit restrictio, ad a oe-deer Huter Choice limit; (B) the same package but with a higher deer populatio; (C) the same package but with a higher populatio ad a two-deer Maaged harvest limit; or (D) I would t hut (Table 5-23). Simulatio results suggest that huters would prefer scearios with higher deer populatios (67.7%), ad of those most would prefer sceario B with a oe-deer limit (40.%). This fidig suggests bag limit prefereces are somewhat isesitive to populatio levels, i.e., the preferece for a higher populatio is ot drive by a desire to harvest more tha deer based o curret statewide huter prefereces. A secod choice simulatio was coducted to examie prefereces related to regulatory packages that could icrease the proportio of atlered bucks i the populatio. Specifically, we compared predicted prefereces for five scearios: (A) a likely 204-206 sceario with curret populatio levels, a early November opeer, legal cross-taggig, o atler poit restrictio, ad a oe-deer Huter Choice limit; (E) package A but with cross-taggig illegal oly for atlerless deer; (F) package A but with APR; (G) package A but with a late-november opeer; ad (H) I would t hut (Table 5-24). I this simulatio, package A was preferred (3.%), with other packages predicted to be chose by lower percetages of huters. Notably, ot hutig (2.6%; sceario H) was predicted to be preferred over the package icludig a late- November hut (0.4%; sceario G). If the same package were offered but with higher deer populatio levels, package A was predicted to receive a eve greater share of huter preferece (32.7%) ad a smaller proportio of huters (8.9%) were predicted to idicate they would ot hut give the optios provided. Results from these simulatios suggest that, statewide, commoly proposed DNR regulatory packages that could icrease the proportio of atlered bucks i the populatio are curretly less attractive tha existig DNR regulatios eve at higher populatio levels. 70

Table 5-: If the MN DNR were to adopt ew deer regulatios, preferece for scale of applicatio Statewide Zoe Deer permit area (NW) 293 8.0% 39.9% 42.% 2 (EC) 457 6.2% 39.9% 43.9% 3 (NE) 2437 3.% 42.% 44.7% 4 (SC) 2227 20.3% 4.4% 38.4% 5( NC) 34 6.% 37.5% 46.3% TOTAL 032 6.4% 39.9% 43.8% χ2=60.399*** V = 0.054.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 5-2: Support for a statewide youth seaso Oppose Oppose Neutral Support Support Mea (NW) 2932.4% 3.5% 22.6% 32.9% 9.6% 3.4 2 (EC) 462 0.9% 4.2% 23.7% 30.9% 20.3% 3.4 3 (NE) 2438 9.8%.% 26.0% 32.5% 20.7% 3.4 4 (SC) 2236 0.2% 3.3% 23.6% 33.6% 9.3% 3.4 5 (NC) 323 0.8%.6% 25.0% 32.3% 20.3% 3.4 TOTAL 0355 0.7% 2.7% 24.2% 32.3% 20.% 3.4 χ2=25.999*** V = 0.025 F=.529,.s. η 2 < 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly oppose, 2 = oppose, 3 = eutral, 4 = support, 5 = strogly support.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 7

Table 5-3: If a cosistet, statewide regular firearm seaso were implemeted, which legth would you prefer? 9 days 6 days (NW) 2932 60.% 39.9% 2 (EC) 464 34.5% 65.5% 3 (NE) 244 24.8% 75.2% 4 (SC) 2227 57.5% 42.5% 5 (NC) 322 42.% 57.9% TOTAL 035 42.0% 58.0% χ2=878.222*** V = 0.29.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 5-4: Support for a regulatio that would icrease the proportio of atlered bucks i the DPA huted most ofte Oppose Slightly Oppose Neither Slightly Support Support Mea (NW) 3036 8.3% 8.8% 29.% 25.7% 28.0% 3.6 2 (EC) 57 9.9% 8.9% 29.4% 25.5% 26.3% 3.5 3 (NE) 2487 8.6% 7.9% 26.% 25.5% 3.8% 3.6 4 (SC) 2288 8.3% 9.6% 25.9% 25.2% 3.0% 3.6 5 (NC) 362 8.7% 9.5% 27.7% 26.% 28.0% 3.6 TOTAL 0667 8.9% 8.8% 28.0% 25.6% 28.8% 3.6 χ2=3.846** V = 0.027 F=3.898** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly oppose, 2 = slightly oppose, 3 = either, 4 = slightly support, 5 = strogly support..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 72

Table 5-5: Support for potetial chages to deer hutig regulatios... Delay the firearm seaso oe week Oppose Slightly Oppose Neither Slightly Support Support Mea (NW) 2990 23.0% 7.7% 6.3% 23.8% 9.% 3.0 2 (EC) 492 25.9% 8.0% 7.9% 2.2% 6.9% 2.9 3 (NE) 2474 29.2% 6.4% 4.2% 2.6% 8.6% 2.8 4 (SC) 2266 7.6% 8.8% 7.5% 28.7% 7.3% 3. 5 (NC) 344 23.% 6.8% 3.2% 23.7% 23.% 3. TOTAL 0535 24.6% 7.4% 5.6% 23.3% 9.2% 3.0 χ2=44.843*** V = 0.059 F=3.235*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly oppose, 2 = slightly oppose, 3 = either, 4 = slightly support, 5 = strogly support..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 5-6: Support for potetial chages to deer hutig regulatios... Delay the firearm seaso util late November Oppose Slightly Oppose Neither Slightly Support Support Mea (NW) 298 46.7% 22.2% 3.% 0.7% 7.3% 2. 2 (EC) 482 50.5% 9.7% 3.6% 9.7% 6.4% 2.0 3 (NE) 2467 5.4% 20.9%.9% 0.% 5.7% 2.0 4 (SC) 2262 38.6% 22.4% 6.0%.5%.4% 2.3 5 (NC) 336 46.7% 22.5%.8%.2% 7.9% 2. TOTAL 0487 47.8% 2.4% 3.0% 0.5% 7.3% 2. χ2=3.223*** V = 0.56 F=26.852*** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly oppose, 2 = slightly oppose, 3 = either, 4 = slightly support, 5 = strogly support..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 73

Table 5-7: Support for potetial chages to deer hutig regulatios... Istitute a atler poit restrictio Oppose Slightly Oppose Neither Slightly Support Support Mea (NW) 2972 3.5% 7.6% 3.5% 8.3% 9.% 2.8 2 (EC) 486 33.8% 6.5% 4.9% 7.7% 7.% 2.7 3 (NE) 2465 37.9% 8.6% 3.0% 6.7% 3.7% 2.5 4 (SC) 2266 27.% 7.2%.8% 9.7% 24.3% 3.0 5 (NC) 340 37.9% 6.9% 2.8% 6.4% 6.% 2.6 TOTAL 0498 34.5% 7.3% 3.2% 7.6% 7.4% 2.7 χ2=50.32*** V = 0.060 F=32.86*** η 2 = 0.02 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly oppose, 2 = slightly oppose, 3 = either, 4 = slightly support, 5 = strogly support..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 5-8: Support for potetial chages to deer hutig regulatios... Elimiate buck cross-taggig Oppose Slightly Oppose Neither Slightly Support Support Mea (NW) 2957 35.6% 8.9% 3.9% 4.9% 6.5% 2.6 2 (EC) 467 36.5% 9.0% 3.5% 7.% 3.9% 2.5 3 (NE) 2468 40.3% 9.2% 5.3% 3.6%.6% 2.4 4 (SC) 226 33.5% 20.% 5.7% 4.8% 5.9% 2.6 5 (NC) 335 39.9% 7.8% 4.% 3.% 5.% 2.5 TOTAL 0443 37.8% 8.7% 4.2% 4.7% 4.6% 2.5 χ2=63.040*** V = 0.039 F=9.567*** η 2 = 0.004 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly oppose, 2 = slightly oppose, 3 = either, 4 = slightly support, 5 = strogly support..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 74

Table 5-9: Support for potetial chages to deer hutig regulatios... Elimiate crosstaggig for bucks ad atlerless deer Oppose Slightly Oppose Neither Slightly Support Support Mea (NW) 2980 48.8% 7.2% 6.7% 6.3%.0% 2. 2 (EC) 485 50.0% 6.0% 7.4% 8.4% 8.4% 2. 3 (NE) 2465 5.2% 7.5% 5.5% 7.% 8.7% 2.0 4 (SC) 2262 44.6% 8.0% 6.7% 8.8%.9% 2.3 5 (NC) 334 55.7% 7.2% 5.% 5.0% 7.0%.9 TOTAL 0489 50.8% 7.% 6.2% 6.9% 9.% 2. χ2=83.826*** V = 0.045 F=6.028*** η 2 = 0.006 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly oppose, 2 = slightly oppose, 3 = either, 4 = slightly support, 5 = strogly support..s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 5-0: Possible seaso choice characteristics i stated choice experimet Regulatory Attribute Cross-taggig Atler Poit Restrictios Timig of opeer Deer umbers Harvest limit Possible values - Cross-taggig illegal for both sexes. - Cross-taggig legal for atlerless oly - Cross-taggig legal for either sex - Atler poit restrictios - No atler poit restrictios - Early November opeer (durig the rut). - Late November opeer (out of the rut). - Deer umbers lower tha curret levels - Deer umbers at curret levels - Deer umbers higher tha curret levels - Oe deer limit, atlerless by permit oly (Lottery). - Oe deer limit, either sex (Huter Choice). - Two deer limit (Maaged). 75

Table 5-: (NW) - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities Seaso choice attribute Importaces SD Cross-taggig 8.7 9.4 Atler Poit Restrictios 5.7 0.9 Timig of opeer 26.5 4.9 Deer umbers 22.0 2.3 Harvest limit 7. 0.9 Notes: =,234 Table 5-2: 2 (EC) - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities Seaso choice attribute Importaces SD Cross-taggig 9.0 9.7 Atler Poit Restrictios 5. 0.3 Timig of opeer 26.5 4.5 Deer umbers 23.2.9 Harvest limit 6.3 9.9 Notes: =958 Table 5-3: 3 (NE) - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities Seaso choice attribute Importaces SD Cross-taggig 5. 8.4 Atler Poit Restrictios 5.8.0 Timig of opeer 30.2 5.4 Deer umbers 25.0 4. Harvest limit 3.9 9.0 Notes: =,098 76

Table 5-4: 4 (SC) - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities Seaso choice attribute Importaces SD Notes: Cross-taggig 9.. Atler Poit Restrictios 8.6 3.0 Timig of opeer 25.0 5.5 Deer umbers 22. 2.5 Harvest limit 5.2 9.4 =,597 Table 5-5: 5 (NC) - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities Seaso choice attribute Importaces SD Cross-taggig 2.9 0.6 Atler Poit Restrictios 5.6.2 Timig of opeer 27.8 5. Deer umbers 2.0 3.2 Harvest limit 3.6 9.4 Notes: =869 Table 5-6: Statewide - Relative attribute importace derived from hierarchical Bayes estimatio of utilities Seaso choice attribute Importaces SD Cross-taggig 8.5 9.8 Atler Poit Restrictios 5.9. Timig of opeer 28.0 5.6 Deer umbers 22.0 3. Harvest limit 5.5 0.3 Notes: =2,757 77

Table 5-7: (NW) - Results of the hierarchical Bayes model for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes Choice attribute Average - level utilities SD Cross-taggig - Cross-taggig legal for atlerless oly 9.9 2.6 - Cross-taggig illegal for both sexes -40.0 4.4 - Cross-taggig legal for either sex 30. 34.2 Atler Poit Restrictios - No atler poit restrictios 4. 45.8 - Atler poit restrictios -4. 45.8 Timig of opeer - Early November (durig rut) 55.8 5.8 - Late November (out of rut) -55.8 5.8 Deer umbers - Deer umbers lower tha curret levels -57.6 40. - Deer umbers at curret levels 4.5 8.8 - Deer umbers higher tha curret levels 43. 34. Harvest limits - Oe deer limit, atlerless by permit oly (lottery) -8. 37.9 - Oe deer limit, either sex (huter choice) 25.4 32.4 - Two deer limit (maaged) -7.3 45.8 Noe -28.5 236.8 Notes: =,234, attribute levels with highest utility i italics. 78

Table 5-8: 2 (EC) - Results of the hierarchical Bayes mode for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes Choice attribute Average - level utilities SD Cross-taggig - Cross-taggig legal for atlerless oly 9. 24.9 - Cross-taggig illegal for both sexes -38.7 42.7 - Cross-taggig legal for either sex 29.6 36. Atler Poit Restrictios - No atler poit restrictios 6.4 42.7 - Atler poit restrictios -6.4 42.7 Timig of opeer - Early November 57.0 49.6 - Late November -57.0 49.6 Deer umbers - Deer umbers lower tha curret levels -55. 34.5 - Deer umbers at curret levels 4.9 7.7 - Deer umbers higher tha curret levels 50.2 4.3 Harvest limits - Oe deer limit, atlerless by permit oly (lottery) -25.9 36.4 - Oe deer limit, either sex (huter choice) 26.2 25.9 - Two deer limit (maaged) -0.3 40.2 Noe -95.8 227.9 Notes: =,472, attribute levels with highest utility i italics. 79

Table 5-9: 3 (NE) - Results of the hierarchical Bayes model for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes Choice attribute Average - level utilities SD Cross-taggig - Cross-taggig legal for atlerless oly 3.8 8.4 - Cross-taggig illegal for both sexes -30.7 33.5 - Cross-taggig legal for either sex 26.9 33.5 Atler Poit Restrictios - No atler poit restrictios 25.5 40.8 - Atler poit restrictios -25.5 40.8 Timig of opeer - Early November 66.2 53. - Late November -66.2 53. Deer umbers - Deer umbers lower tha curret levels -6.9 43. - Deer umbers at curret levels 6.8 5.7 - Deer umbers higher tha curret levels 55. 40. Harvest limits - Oe deer limit, atlerless by permit oly (lottery) -0.9 27.8 - Oe deer limit, either sex (huter choice) 23.9 23.3 - Two deer limit (maaged) -22.9 36.7 Noe -76.8 200.0 Notes: =,098, attribute level with highest utility i italics. 80

Table 5-20: 4 (SC) - Results of the hierarchical Bayes model for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes Choice attribute Average - level utilities SD Cross-taggig - Cross-taggig legal for atlerless oly 8.3 7.9 - Cross-taggig illegal for both sexes -37.2 47.4 - Cross-taggig legal for either sex 28.8 40.7 Atler Poit Restrictios - No atler poit restrictios 8.2 56. - Atler poit restrictios -8.2 56. Timig of opeer - Early November 44.7 58.5 - Late November -44.7 58.5 Deer umbers - Deer umbers lower tha curret levels -57.8 38.2 - Deer umbers at curret levels 0.9.9 - Deer umbers higher tha curret levels 46.9 33.7 Harvest limits - Oe deer limit, atlerless by permit oly (lottery) -2. 32.5 - Oe deer limit, either sex (huter choice) 25. 23. - Two deer limit (maaged) -22.9 40.8 Noe -2.3 29.4 Notes: =,597, attribute level with highest utility i italic 8

Table 5-2: 5 (NC) - Results of the hierarchical Bayes model for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes Choice attribute Average - level utilities SD Cross-taggig - Cross-taggig legal for atlerless oly.4 7. - Cross-taggig illegal for both sexes -50.3 43.0 - Cross-taggig legal for either sex 38.9 39.4 Atler Poit Restrictios - No atler poit restrictios 22.3 42.7 - Atler poit restrictios -22.3 42.7 Timig of opeer - Early November 22.3 42.7 - Late November -22.3 42.7 Deer umbers - Deer umbers lower tha curret levels -52. 43.3 - Deer umbers at curret levels 8.8 5.5 - Deer umbers higher tha curret levels 33.3 43. Harvest limits - Oe deer limit, atlerless by permit oly (lottery) -0.3 35.3 - Oe deer limit, either sex (huter choice) 7.5 25.5 - Two deer limit (maaged) -7. 37. Noe -20.6 225.5 Notes: =869, attribute level with highest utility i italic 82

Table 5-22: Statewide - Results of the hierarchical Bayes model for regulatory choice for Miesota deer huters showig utilities of differet levels of seaso attributes Choice attribute Average - level utilities SD Cross-taggig - Cross-taggig legal for atlerless oly 8.4 2. - Cross-taggig illegal for both sexes -40.8 39.8 - Cross-taggig legal for either sex 32.3 33.9 Atler Poit Restrictios - No atler poit restrictios 7.4 45.3 - Atler poit restrictios -7.4 45.3 Timig of opeer - Early November 59.2 54. - Late November -59.2 54. Deer umbers - Deer umbers lower tha curret levels -55.7 40.2 - Deer umbers at curret levels.3 4. - Deer umbers higher tha curret levels 44.5 39. Harvest limits - Oe deer limit, atlerless by permit oly (lottery) -4.0 35.9 - Oe deer limit, either sex (huter choice) 23.8 26.3 - Two deer limit (maaged) -9.8 43.5 Noe -99.9 29.3 Notes: =2,757, attribute level with highest utility i italic 83

Table 5-23: Simulated preferece shares comparig existig ad hypothetical deer seaso regulatory packages with varyig populatio levels Sceario Regulatory or A B C D Populatio Attribute Cross-taggig Legal either sex Legal either sex Legal either sex Atler Poit Restrictios No No No Timig of opeer Early November Early November Early November Deer umbers Curret* Higher Higher Noe I would ot hut deer i MN with these optios Harvest limit deer (HC) deer (HC) 2 deer (M) Share of Preferece 25.47% (+/- 0.29%) 40.08% (+/- 0.26%) 27.57% (+/- 0.35%) 6.88% (+/- 0.3%) * Curret deer umbers relative to 204-206 deer seasos. HC = -deer limit, either sex; M = 2-deer limit. 84

Table 5-24: Simulated preferece shares comparig hypothetical deer seaso regulatory packages with varyig regulatios to icrease the proportio of atlered bucks Regulatory or Populatio Attribute Sceario A E F G H Cross-taggig Legal - either sex Buck crosstaggig illegal 204-206 Populatio Levels Legal - either sex Legal - either sex Atler Poit Restrictios No No Yes No Timig of opeer Early November Early November Early November Late November Noe I would ot hut deer i MN with these optios Deer umbers Curret Curret Curret Curret Harvest limit deer (HC) deer (HC) deer (HC) deer (HC) Share of 3.06% 22.35% 23.6% 0.42% Preferece (+/- 0.46%) (+/- 0.33%) (+/- 0.49%) (+/- 0.39%) 2.55% (+/- 0.4%) Cross-taggig Legal - either sex Buck crosstaggig illegal Higher Populatio Levels Legal - either sex Legal - either sex Atler Poit Restrictios No No Yes No Timig of opeer Early November Early November Early November Late November Noe I would ot hut deer i MN with these optios Deer umbers Higher Higher Higher Higher Harvest limit deer (HC) deer (HC) deer (HC) deer (HC) Share of Preferece 32.69% (+/- 0.47%) 22.98% (+/- 0.32%) 24.52% (+/- 0.50%) 0.88% (+/- 0.40%) 8.93% (+/- 0.33%) * Curret deer umbers relative to 204-206 deer seasos. HC = -deer limit, either sex; M = 2-deer limit. 85

Sectio 6: Public Participatio i Deer Maagemet Decisio-Makig Process Respodets were asked to idicate their agreemet with several statemets pertaiig to steps i agecy decisio-makig regardig deer populatio goals, icludig opportuities to provide iput o deer populatio goals ad deer hutig regulatios. With respect to statemets about the approach MN DNR uses to set deer populatio goals, resposes idicated eutral to slight disagreemet across all areas. The greatest proportio of respodets disagreed that MN DNR provides eough opportuities for huters to provide iput (40.2%; Table 6-) ad do ot trust MN DNR to establish appropriate deer goals (37.6%; Table 6-2). I geeral, the greatest proportio of respodets reported that they were ot sure whether MN DNR provides eough opportuities for ladowers to provide iput (45.4%; Table 6-3), provides eough opportuities for Miesotas to provide iput (47.%; Table 6-4), provides adequate iformatio for the public to provide iput (4.2%; Table 6-5), cosiders the best available sciece (52.9%; Table 6-6), follows cosistet decisio-makig processes (5.0%; Table 6-7), or explais differet optios cosidered ad why the fial optio was selected (42.3%; Table 6-8). Huters were similarly udecided regardig their agreemet with statemets about the MN DNR approach to settig deer hutig rules (Tables 6-9 to 6-3). I geeral, the greatest proportio of huters were ot sure that MN DNR provides eough opportuities for huters to provide iput (46.0%; Table 6-9), cosiders the best available sciece (54.3%; Table 6-0), follows cosistet decisio-makig procedures (5.8%; Table 6-), or explais differet optios cosidered (46.6%; Table 6-2). Fairly equal proportios of huters agreed with (36.3%), were udecided about (32.7%), or disagreed with (30.9%) a statemet idicatig trust i the MN DNR to establish appropriate deer hutig regulatios (Table 6-3). There were small differeces i trust reported by regio, with higher trust levels reported i south cetral ad orth cetral Miesota. Preferred Commuicatio Respodets were asked to idetify, from a list of 7 optios, a preferred meas to provide iput to MN DNR. Optios icluded iput via geeral public meetigs, issue-based public meetigs, a represetative orgaizatio, olie questioaires, writte questioaires, advisory teams, ad iformatio commuicatio. Because the writte questioaire did ot limit resposes to the selectio of oe preferred meas of iput, roughly 6% of all survey respodets selected more tha oe optio. The top ways i which huters wated to provide iput were through olie questioaires (39.6%; Table 6-4), writte questioaires (5.8%), ad geeral public meetigs (3.%), ad this relatioship held whether or ot the multiple respose aswers were excluded (Table 6-4a) or by evaluatig oly olie survey resposes (Table 6-4b). The least preferred optio to provide iput was via advisory teams (2.4%; Table 6-4), followed by iformal commuicatio (3.9%) ad iput through a represetative orgaizatio (4.%). Notably, providig o iput rated higher tha all but the top three optios ad iput via a represetative (e.g., through a orgaizatio or via advisory teams ) was ot well supported. 86

Relatioship with DNR To better uderstad huter attitudes about agecy decisio makig ad deer maagemet, respodets were asked to rate, o a scale of (strogly disagree) to 5 (strogly agree), their agreemet with several statemets about their relatioship with MN DNR as it relates to deer maagemet. Overall, fewer respodets were eutral about their relatioship ad commuicatio with DNR tha they were with statemets about agecy decisio-makig procedures. Across all areas, huter agreemet was eutral to egative regardig havig adequate opportuities to commuicate with DNR staff ( x = 2.9; Table 6-5) ad there were o sigificat differeces amog areas. I cotrast, huter agreemet was eutral to positive regardig kowig who to cotact if they have questios or commets about deer maagemet ( x = 3.; Table 6-6). Whe asked about familiarity ad commuicatio with DNR staff, resposes idicated greater ties to local coservatio officers (Tables 6-7 to 6-8) tha with local wildlife maagers (Tables 6-9 to 6-20) or deer maagemet staff (Table 6-2 to 6-22). I all cases, the greatest proportio of respodets disagreed that they had commuicated with or kew MN DNR staff. A large majority of huters reported that they have ot commuicated with (74.9%; Table 6-2) or did ot kow (76.3%; Table 6-22) deer maagemet staff. Similarly, high proportios of huters reported that they have ot commuicated with (68.9%; Table 6-9) or did ot kow (7.%; Table 6-20) local wildlife maagers. While ot as high, the greatest proportio of huters also reported that they have ot commuicated with (49.0%; Table 6-7) or did ot kow (5.9%; Table 6-8) local coservatio officers. Across all areas, a majority (6.4%) of those familiar with their local area maager felt that they had adequate opportuities to commuicate with MN DNR whereas oly about a quarter (26.2%) of those who did ot kow their local area maager felt they had adequate opportuities to commuicate with MN DNR (Table 6-23). Feeligs about DNR Respodets were asked to rate their agreemet with six items addressig their feeligs about the Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources usig the scale (strogly disagree) to 5 (strogly agree). O average, huter agreemet was eutral to egative with statemets that MN DNR does a good job of maagig deer i Miesota ( x = 2.9; Table 6-24), will be ope ad hoest i the thigs they do ad say ( x = 2.9; Table 6-25), ca be trusted to make decisios that are good for the resource ( x = 3.0; Table 6-26), or will liste to the cocers of huters ( x = 2.9; Table 6-27). I cotrast, huter agreemet was eutral to positive with statemets that MN DNR will make decisios about deer maagemet i a way that is fair ( x = 3.; Table 6-28) ad that MN DNR has deer maagers ad biologists who are well traied for their jobs ( x = 3.3; Table 6-29). Across all areas, age was egatively correlated with trust that DNR will establish appropriate deer populatio goals, suggestig that older deer huters are less trustig of MN DNR (Table 6-30) but this relatioship was weak. The same relatioship was expressed i trust resposes regardig establishmet of deer hutig rules although results were oly sigificat for resposes from huters i the east cetral (r = -0.072, p < 0.05), ortheaster (r = -0.043, p < 0.05), ad south cetral (r = -0.046, p < 0.05) Miesota survey areas. 87

It is importat to ote that educatio is egatively correlated with age (i.e. youger huters ted to have received higher levels of educatio tha older huters) ad this is reflected i a similarly weak but positive relatioship betwee educatio ad huter trust i the agecy (Table 6-3). O average, ad across all areas, members of orgaized deer groups (MDHA, QDMA, MBI, ad MWA) reported sigificatly lower levels of trust that the agecy would establish appropriate deer populatio goals ( x = 2.6; Table 6-32) or deer hutig rules ( x = 2.7; Table 6-33) tha those who were ot members of a orgaized deer group ( x = 2.9 ad x = 3.0, respectively). Weak, egative relatioships betwee huter age ad desire to provide iput were oly observed orthwester (r = -0.057, p < 0.05) ad south cetral Miesota (r = -0.082, p < 0.05). Across all areas, greater proportios of huters over the age of 50 idicated a preferece to provide iput via public meetigs ad writte questioaires tha youger huters, whereas a greater proportio of youger huters reported a preferece to provide iput via olie questioaires (Table 6-34). 88

Table 6-: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR provides eough opportuities for huters to provide iput Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 3006 0.3% 32.8% 35.9% 8.6% 2.4% 2.7 2 (EC) 500 0.7% 3.2% 36.7% 9.% 2.3% 2.7 3 (NE) 2464 0.3% 33.3% 37.4% 6.4% 2.6% 2.7 4 (SC) 2272 7.8% 28.7% 40.% 20.6% 2.9% 2.8 5 (NC 348 7.5% 25.5% 4.5% 2.7% 3.7% 2.9 TOTAL 0563 9.5% 30.7% 38.0% 9.% 2.7% 2.7 χ2=79.679*** V = 0.043 F=6.304*** η 2 = 0.006 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-2: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... I trust DNR to establish appropriate deer populatio goals Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 3006 6.0% 23.% 30.9% 26.6% 3.3% 2.8 2 (EC) 499 4.5% 22.6% 3.8% 25.8% 5.3% 2.8 3 (NE) 2467 8.0% 24.8% 28.8% 24.6% 3.8% 2.7 4 (SC) 2269.8% 9.6% 3.5% 3.2% 5.9% 3.0 5 (NC 34 2.8% 2.4% 28.0% 30.9% 6.9% 3.0 TOTAL 0546 4.9% 22.7% 30.2% 27.3% 4.9% 2.8 χ2=24.602*** V = 0.054 F=26.64*** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 89

Table 6-3: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR provides eough opportuities for ladowers to provide iput Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 3005 0.3% 29.5% 4.3% 6.2% 2.6% 2.7 2 (EC) 500 9.3% 27.5% 42.9% 7.3% 2.9% 2.8 3 (NE) 2460 9.3% 24.5% 47.9% 5.8% 2.5% 2.8 4 (SC) 227 7.4% 22.6% 49.0% 8.4% 2.6% 2.9 5 (NC 346 7.3% 2.4% 48.% 9.9% 3.3% 2.9 TOTAL 0555 8.9% 25.6% 45.4% 7.4% 2.8% 2.8 χ2=95.393*** V = 0.047 F=4.53*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-4: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR provides eough opportuities for Miesotas to provide iput Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 3008 7.2% 25.4% 45.9% 8.6% 2.9% 2.8 2 (EC) 500 8.% 23.2% 45.6% 20.4% 2.7% 2.9 3 (NE) 2458 7.3% 24.9% 47.2% 7.9% 2.7% 2.8 4 (SC) 2266 5.9% 2.6% 50.3% 9.5% 2.8% 2.9 5 (NC 344 6.3% 20.5% 48.7% 20.5% 3.9% 3.0 TOTAL 0547 7.% 23.4% 47.% 9.4% 2.9% 2.9 χ2=40.855** V = 0.03 F=5.624*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 90

Table 6-5: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR provides adequate iformatio for the public to provide iput Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2994 7.6% 29.9% 4.5% 9.0%.9% 2.8 2 (EC) 497 9.6% 29.5% 40.3% 8.6% 2.% 2.7 3 (NE) 2460 9.8% 30.9% 38.5% 8.4% 2.4% 2.7 4 (SC) 2269 7.0% 25.9% 45.4% 9.6% 2.2% 2.8 5 (NC) 346 7.4% 23.9% 43.2% 22.8% 2.7% 2.9 TOTAL 0538 8.4% 28.4% 4.2% 9.7% 2.3% 2.8 χ2=67.894*** V = 0.040 F=0.00*** η 2 = 0.004 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-6: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR cosiders the best available sciece Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 3004 6.5% 7.0% 52.6% 2.4% 2.5% 3.0 2 (EC) 500 7.3% 4.0% 54.0% 2.2% 3.5% 3.0 3 (NE) 2457 7.2% 7.0% 52.5% 20.8% 2.4% 2.9 4 (SC) 2264 4.7% 2.8% 56.3% 22.3% 3.9% 3. 5 (NC) 345 5.% 3.2% 5.2% 25.4% 5.% 3. TOTAL 0545 6.4% 5.2% 52.9% 22.2% 3.3% 3.0 χ2=85.382*** V = 0.045 F=4.955*** η 2 = 0.006 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 9

Table 6-7: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR follows cosistet decisio-makig procedures Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 3000 9.4% 23.4% 48.5% 7.0%.8% 2.8 2 (EC) 495 9.2% 9.6% 5.8% 7.5% 2.0% 2.8 3 (NE) 2457 8.8% 23.3% 50.9% 4.8% 2.2% 2.8 4 (SC) 2265 6.2% 8.3% 53.5% 9.8% 2.2% 2.9 5 (NC) 344 6.6% 8.5% 5.6% 20.4% 2.9% 2.9 TOTAL 053 8.2% 2.0% 5.0% 7.6% 2.2% 2.8 χ2=86.663*** V = 0.045 F=6.798*** η 2 = 0.006 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-8: Approach to settig deer populatio goals... MN DNR explais differet optios cosidered ad why the fial optio was selected Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 300 9.9% 30.7% 4.0% 6.6%.9% 2.7 2 (EC) 50.0% 28.6% 42.0% 6.2% 2.2% 2.7 3 (NE) 246 0.3% 29.9% 4.8% 5.8% 2.2% 2.7 4 (SC) 2258 7.9% 25.6% 44.5% 9.6% 2.4% 2.8 5 (NC) 344 8.7% 24.% 43.5% 20.0% 3.7% 2.9 TOTAL 0539 9.7% 28.2% 42.3% 7.3% 2.4% 2.7 χ2=70.2*** V = 0.04 F=4.025*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 92

Table 6-9: Approach to settig deer hutig rules... MN DNR provides eough opportuities for huters to have iput Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 299 9.8% 26.8% 43.8% 8.%.4% 2.7 2 (EC) 452 0.% 24.7% 45.9% 7.3% 2.% 2.8 3 (NE) 2424 9.8% 27.7% 43.9% 7.4%.2% 2.7 4 (SC) 22 7.7% 22.5% 47.9% 9.5% 2.4% 2.9 5 (NC) 32 6.7% 20.4% 49.% 2.0% 2.8% 2.9 TOTAL 0283 9.0% 24.7% 46.0% 8.4%.9% 2.8 χ2=8.72*** V = 0.044 F=6.28*** η 2 = 0.006 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-0: Approach to settig deer hutig rules... MN DNR cosiders the best available sciece Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 297 6.5% 4.4% 54.4% 22.9%.8% 3.0 2 (EC) 45 6.8% 2.6% 54.7% 23.% 2.9% 3.0 3 (NE) 2424 6.3% 5.5% 53.6% 22.8%.8% 3.0 4 (SC) 2208 4.8%.5% 54.3% 25.7% 3.7% 3. 5 (NC) 309 4.6% 9.9% 54.4% 27.0% 4.% 3.2 TOTAL 0277 5.9% 3.0% 54.3% 24.% 2.7% 3.0 χ2=86.779*** V = 0.046 F=7.087*** η 2 = 0.007 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 93

Table 6-: Approach to settig deer hutig rules... MN DNR follows cosistet decisio-makig procedures Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 294 7.5% 2.% 50.% 9.7%.6% 2.9 2 (EC) 448 7.7% 8.2% 52.7% 9.0% 2.4% 2.9 3 (NE) 248 7.% 20.8% 5.8% 9.3%.% 2.9 4 (SC) 2205 5.6% 5.4% 53.9% 22.5% 2.5% 3.0 5 (NC) 3 5.9% 5.6% 52.5% 24.3%.7% 3.0 TOTAL 0264 6.9% 8.7% 5.8% 20.8%.8% 2.9 χ2=82.279*** V = 0.045 F=4.05*** η 2 = 0.005 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-2: Approach to settig deer hutig rules... MN DNR explais differet optios cosidered ad why the fial optio was selected Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 295 9.2% 27.2% 44.5% 7.7%.3% 2.7 2 (EC) 450 9.8% 25.2% 47.% 5.9%.9% 2.7 3 (NE) 2423 8.4% 27.0% 46.8% 6.8%.% 2.8 4 (SC) 2204 6.8% 2.6% 48.9% 20.4% 2.3% 2.9 5 (NC) 307 8.5% 20.4% 47.7% 2.2% 2.3% 2.9 TOTAL 0265 8.8% 24.9% 46.6% 8.0%.7% 2.8 χ2=85.385*** V = 0.046 F=5.454*** η 2 = 0.006 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 94

Table 6-3: Approach to settig deer hutig rules... I trust MN DNR to establish appropriate deer hutig rules Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 298 3.6% 9.0% 34.8% 29.6% 3.% 2.9 2 (EC) 45 2.3% 9.6% 33.4% 30.5% 4.3% 2.9 3 (NE) 2426 3.% 22.3% 30.6% 30.8% 3.3% 2.9 4 (SC) 2206 9.% 6.4% 33.0% 35.5% 6.0% 3. 5 (NC) 30 9.0% 6.9% 32.4% 35.6% 6.0% 3. TOTAL 0275.7% 9.2% 32.7% 3.9% 4.4% 3.0 χ2=28.238*** V = 0.056 F=26.37*** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-4: Preferred methods to provide iput (resposes iclude those who selected more tha oe optio) Iput (NW) 2 (EC) 3 (NE) 4 (SC) 5 (NC) TOTAL Geeral public meetigs 5.3%.% 3.% 4.0% 3.% 3.% Issue-based public meetigs 6.4% 4.7% 6.3% 6.% 6.8% 6.% Through a orgaizatio 4.% 4.5% 4.0% 4.% 4.2% 4.% Olie questioaires 37.0% 4.5% 39.7% 36.3% 4.5% 39.6% Writte questioaires 6.% 5.8% 6.4% 5.6% 5.4% 5.8% Advisory teams 2.7% 2.0% 2.3% 3.% 2.4% 2.4% Iformal commuicatio 4.0% 4.9% 2.9% 3.8% 3.4% 3.9% Noe 7.3% 7.8% 6.4% 7.9% 5.9% 7.0% Other.% 2.% 2.5% 2.0% 2.% 2.0% Selected multiple meas 6.% 5.7% 6.5% 7.0% 5.2% 5.9% χ2=76.937***; V = 0.043.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 95

Table 6-4a: Preferred methods to provide iput (those who selected more tha oe optio removed) Iput (NW) 2 (EC) 3 (NE) 4 (SC) 5 (NC) TOTAL Geeral public meetigs 6.3%.7% 4.0% 5.0% 3.8% 3.9% Issue-based public meetigs 6.8% 5.0% 6.7% 6.6% 7.2% 6.5% Through a orgaizatio 4.3% 4.8% 4.2% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% Olie questioaires 39.4% 44.0% 42.4% 39.% 43.8% 42.% Writte questioaires 7.% 6.7% 7.5% 6.8% 6.2% 6.8% Advisory teams 2.9% 2.% 2.4% 3.4% 2.5% 2.5% Iformal commuicatio 4.2% 5.2% 3.% 4.% 3.6% 4.% Noe 7.7% 8.2% 6.9% 8.5% 6.2% 7.5% Other.2% 2.2% 2.7% 2.% 2.3% 2.% χ2=7.49***; V = 0.043.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-4b: Preferred methods to provide iput (oly olie respodets) Iput (NW) 2 (EC) 3 (NE) 4 (SC) 5 (NC) TOTAL Geeral public meetigs 4.0% 9.9% 0.7% 2.8% 2.0%.7% Issue-based public meetigs 7.6% 5.% 6.8% 7.% 6.7% 6.7% Through a orgaizatio 4.% 4.4% 3.7% 3.7% 4.2% 4.% Olie questioaires 50.6% 57.3% 56.% 52.5% 55.6% 54.6% Writte questioaires 8.9% 9.4% 8.6% 7.4% 8.7% 8.7% Advisory teams 3.2% 2.3% 2.7% 3.0% 2.3% 2.6% Iformal commuicatio 3.6% 4.% 2.7% 4.2% 3.% 3.6% Noe 6.9% 5.4% 5.7% 6.9% 5.% 5.9% Other.% 2.% 3.% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% χ2=62.590**; V = 0.049.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 96

Table 6-5: I have adequate opportuities to commuicate with DNR staff Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 296 7.9% 28.8% 35.0% 26.0% 2.3% 2.9 2 (EC) 453 8.3% 25.0% 36.7% 28.%.9% 2.9 3 (NE) 2409 8.% 26.9% 36.9% 26.4%.7% 2.9 4 (SC) 2204 7.8% 24.3% 38.2% 27.3% 2.5% 2.9 5 (NC) 30 6.% 23.2% 38.5% 29.2% 3.0% 3.0 TOTAL 0266 7.7% 25.9% 36.8% 27.4% 2.2% 2.9 χ2=39.35*** V = 0.03 F=5.550*** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-6: I kow who to cotact if I have questios or commets Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 296 9.6% 22.% 24.9% 38.8% 4.7% 3. 2 (EC) 454 8.4% 22.2% 26.0% 38.9% 4.5% 3. 3 (NE) 245 9.0% 2.8% 26.9% 38.4% 3.9% 3. 4 (SC) 2207 8.8% 20.0% 28.0% 38.7% 4.4% 3. 5 (NC) 3 8.9% 2.% 25.4% 39.% 5.6% 3. TOTAL 0273 8.8% 2.7% 26.0% 38.9% 4.6% 3. χ2=6.3,.s V = 0.020 F=0.750,.s. η 2 < 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 97

Table 6-7: I have commuicated with my local coservatio officer Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2899 5.9% 32.0% 5.% 3.8% 5.2% 2.8 2 (EC) 449 6.6% 34.6% 5.8% 28.4% 4.6% 2.7 3 (NE) 240 5.7% 33.8% 4.4% 3.0% 5.0% 2.8 4 (SC) 2202 7.2% 33.4% 8.5% 26.7% 4.% 2.7 5 (NC) 307 6.4% 30.9% 5.5% 3.9% 5.4% 2.8 TOTAL 0236 6.% 32.9% 5.6% 30.3% 5.0% 2.8 χ2=39.37** V = 0.03 F=3.934** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-8: I kow my local coservatio officer Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2900 7.4% 3.0% 5.9% 29.3% 6.5% 2.8 2 (EC) 453 9.2% 37.6% 7.% 2.2% 4.9% 2.5 3 (NE) 2408 8.9% 3.9% 6.6% 26.9% 5.7% 2.7 4 (SC) 2207 22.0% 33.7% 20.5% 9.6% 4.2% 2.5 5 (NC) 308 9.7% 30.7% 6.2% 26.7% 6.7% 2.7 TOTAL 0245 8.9% 33.0% 6.9% 25.3% 5.8% 2.7 χ2=24.289*** V = 0.055 F=8.668*** η 2 = 0.007 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 98

Table 6-9: I have commuicated with my local wildlife maager Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2903 22.3% 44.6% 2.2% 0.0%.9% 2.2 2 (EC) 448 24.6% 46.5% 8.5% 8.6%.8% 2.2 3 (NE) 2406 24.9% 45.8% 8.7% 8.8%.8% 2.2 4 (SC) 2203 25.4% 42.7% 2.8% 8.0% 2.0% 2.2 5 (NC) 305 25.9% 42.0% 9.2%.0%.9% 2.2 TOTAL 0228 24.3% 44.6% 9.8% 9.5%.9% 2.2 χ2=33.723** V = 0.029 F=2.755** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-20: I kow my local wildlife maager Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2904 23.9% 45.0% 20.2% 9.2%.7% 2.2 2 (EC) 445 26.% 47.% 8.2% 6.8%.9% 2. 3 (NE) 244 27.4% 44.7% 9.3% 6.6% 2.0% 2. 4 (SC) 2202 27.2% 42.4% 2.4% 6.9% 2.0% 2. 5 (NC) 304 28.% 42.9% 8.8% 8.% 2.% 2. TOTAL 023 26.3% 44.8% 9.4% 7.6%.9% 2. χ2=37.673** V = 0.030 F=3.443** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 99

Table 6-2: I have commuicated with deer maagemet staff Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2904 25.3% 47.8% 20.% 5.7%.% 2. 2 (EC) 447 28.0% 48.2% 7.4% 5.8% 0.6% 2.0 3 (NE) 244 28.2% 48.0% 7.6% 5.3%.0% 2.0 4 (SC) 2206 29.0% 45.% 20.5% 4.8% 0.6% 2.0 5 (NC) 307 29.8% 45.% 8.0% 6.4% 0.8% 2.0 TOTAL 0240 27.8% 47.% 8.5% 5.7% 0.8% 2.0 χ2=32.585** V = 0.028 F=2.957*** η 2 = 0.00 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-22: I kow deer maagemet staff Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2892 27.% 46.9% 20.2% 5.0% 0.7% 2. 2 (EC) 448 29.8% 48.4% 7.% 4.0% 0.7% 2.0 3 (NE) 2406 30.3% 46.7% 8.2% 3.7%.0% 2.0 4 (SC) 2205 30.8% 45.2% 20.3% 3.0% 0.7% 2.0 5 (NC) 304 3.% 45.% 7.9% 5.2% 0.7% 2.0 TOTAL 0222 29.5% 46.8% 8.6% 4.3% 0.8% 2.0 χ2=38.74** V = 0.03 F=3.852** η 2 = 0.002 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 00

Table 6-23 Agreemet with statemet... I have adequate opportuities to commuicate with MN DNR, based o reported familiarity with area wildlife maager Kow Maager Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Sigificace Effect Size (NW) No 2585 8.5% 30.3% 36.6% 22.9%.7% χ2=70.44*** V = 0.242 Yes 37 2.5% 7.4% 22.% 50.5% 7.6% 2 (EC) No 39 8.3% 26.2% 38.4% 25.6%.4% Yes 24 8.9%.3% 9.4% 53.2% 7.3% χ2=73.278*** V = 0.225 3 (NE) No 296 8.5% 27.6% 38.9% 24.2% 0.8% χ2=203.866*** V = 0.29 Yes 208 3.4% 9.7% 6.3% 49.5%.% 4 (SC) No 994 8.2% 25.7% 40.% 24.4%.5% Yes 98 3.0%.% 9.2% 55.6%.% χ2=76.833*** V = 0.284 5 (NC) No 68 6.4% 24.7% 40.8% 25.9% 2.% Yes 32 3.8% 0.6% 20.5% 53.8%.4% χ2=90.438*** V = 0.264 STATE No 9237 8.0% 27.% 38.7% 24.7%.5% Yes 973 4.3% 4.5% 9.8% 52.0% 9.4% χ2=638.559*** V = 0.250.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 0

Table 6-24: MN DNR does a good job of maagig deer i Miesota Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2937 4.6% 23.5% 30.% 27.3% 4.5% 2.8 2 (EC) 463 3.9% 24.% 28.8% 28.0% 5.2% 2.9 3 (NE) 24 6.2% 28.5% 26.7% 24.6% 3.9% 2.7 4 (SC) 220 9.7% 9.6% 32.0% 32.7% 5.9% 3. 5 (NC) 36 9.4% 20.0% 29.8% 33.5% 7.3% 3. TOTAL 03 3.2% 23.8% 29.0% 28.8% 5.3% 2.9 χ2=78.054*** V = 0.066 F=40.089*** η 2 = 0.05 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-25: MN DNR will be ope ad hoest i the thigs they do ad say Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2933.% 22.6% 39.2% 2.3% 5.9% 2.9 2 (EC) 46.3% 20.7% 39.3% 22.7% 6.0% 2.9 3 (NE) 2406 2.5% 23.3% 37.5% 22.2% 4.5% 2.8 4 (SC) 2204 7.8% 8.2% 4.3% 26.7% 5.9% 3.0 5 (NC) 37 7.9% 6.4% 4.5% 26.5% 7.7% 3. TOTAL 0297 0.4% 20.6% 39.4% 23.6% 6.0% 2.9 χ2=0.06*** V = 0.052 F=22.786*** η 2 = 0.009 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 02

Table 6-26: MN DNR ca be trusted to make decisios about deer maagemet that are good for the resource Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 293 2.4% 2.9% 34.3% 26.0% 5.5% 2.9 2 (EC) 464 2.3% 9.6% 33.9% 27.4% 6.8% 3.0 3 (NE) 2407 2.9% 24.6% 30.7% 26.5% 5.3% 2.9 4 (SC) 2206 8.9% 8.3% 32.% 33.4% 7.3% 3. 5 (NC) 35 8.5% 7.6% 34.8% 3.0% 8.0% 3. TOTAL 0304.2% 20.8% 33.4% 28.% 6.5% 3.0 χ2=7.353*** V = 0.053 F=24.488*** η 2 = 0.009 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-27: MN DNR listes to the cocers of deer huters Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2920 3.5% 20.8% 40.7% 2.0% 4.0% 2.8 2 (EC) 458 2.% 8.9% 4.2% 23.0% 4.7% 2.9 3 (NE) 2398 3.9% 22.% 37.4% 22.8% 3.8% 2.8 4 (SC) 2205 9.% 8.4% 43.4% 24.% 5.0% 3.0 5 (NC) 33 9.2% 6.% 4.9% 26.9% 5.9% 3.0 TOTAL 0272.8% 9.6% 40.6% 23.4% 4.7% 2.9 χ2=93.628*** V = 0.048 F=8.997*** η 2 = 0.007 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 03

Table 6-28: MN DNR will make decisios about deer maagemet i a way that is fair Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2927 8.5% 20.2% 39.% 26.6% 5.6% 3.0 2 (EC) 465 9.2% 7.3% 39.2% 28.2% 6.% 3.0 3 (NE) 2399 9.8% 9.9% 37.4% 27.6% 5.3% 3.0 4 (SC) 2205 6.4% 4.5% 38.4% 34.4% 6.3% 3.2 5 (NC) 36 6.5% 5.0% 39.% 3.4% 8.0% 3.2 TOTAL 029 8.3% 7.9% 38.7% 28.9% 6.2% 3. χ2=03.09*** V = 0.050 F=20.95*** η 2 = 0.008 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 Table 6-29: MN DNR has deer maagers that are well traied for their jobs Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Agree Mea (NW) 2924 6.2% 8.5% 48.9% 27.8% 8.7% 3.2 2 (EC) 46 5.9% 8.4% 50.2% 27.0% 8.5% 3.2 3 (NE) 240 6.2% 8.6% 52.4% 24.7% 8.% 3.2 4 (SC) 2206 4.6% 7.6% 50.2% 28.% 9.5% 3.3 5 (NC) 35 3.8% 7.0% 48.4% 28.4% 2.3% 3.4 TOTAL 0286 5.4% 8.2% 50.0% 27.0% 9.4% 3.3 χ2=49.878*** V = 0.035 F=0.29*** η 2 = 0.004 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 04

Table 6-30: Relatioship of huter age ad trust i MN DNR to establish appropriate deer populatio goals Correlatio of age ad trust P (NW) 2898-0.042 0.023 2 (EC) 450-0.099 < 0.00 3 (NE) 240-0.05 0.02 4 (SC) 2200-0.088 < 0.00 5 (NC) 305-0.004 0.887 TOTAL 0228-0.052 < 0.00 Table 6-3: Relatioship of huter educatio level ad trust i DNR to establish appropriate deer populatio goals Correlatio of educatio ad trust P (NW) 2925 0.078 < 0.00 2 (EC) 455 0.08 0.504 3 (NE) 2407 0.087 < 0.00 4 (SC) 2209 0.03 0.45 5 (NC) 306 0.36 < 0.00 TOTAL 0268 0.073 < 0.00 Table 6-32: Trust i MN DNR to establish appropriate deer populatio goals based o membership i a orgaized deer group (MDHA, QDMA, MBI, MWA) Mea agreemet Member No-member t P Cohe's d (NW) 3005 2.45 2.83 6.60 0.000.539 2 (EC) 498 2.56 2.89 3.79 0.000.466 3 (NE) 2466 2.57 2.74 2.370 0.08.235 4 (SC) 2268 2.85 3.0.990 0.048.258 5 (NC) 34 2.69 3.02 3.550 0.000.466 TOTAL 0546 2.58 2.88 9.004 0.000.429 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree 05

Table 6-33: Trust i MN DNR to establish appropriate deer hutig rules based o membership i a orgaized deer group (MDHA, QDMA, MBI, MWA) Mea agreemet Member No-member t P Cohe's d (NW) 297 2.57 2.95 6.268 0.000.550 2 (EC) 450 2.64 3.00 4.52 0.000.57 3 (NE) 2425 2.69 2.92 3.497 0.00.343 4 (SC) 2206 3.02 3.4.527 0.28.97 5 (NC) 309 2.87 3.7 3.440 0.00.450 TOTAL 0275 2.7 3.02 9.585 0.000.458 Mea is based o the scale: = strogly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = ot sure, 4 = agree, 5 = strogly agree 06

Table 6-34: Preferred meas to provide iput, by age Age Geeral public meetigs Issuebased public meetigs Through a orgaizatio Olie questioaires Writte questioaires Advisory teams Iformal commuicatio Noe Other Selected multiple meas <50 3.9% 5.% 3.5% 44.6% 3.3% 3.% 3.6% 6.8%.4% 4.6% 50+ 6.4% 7.7% 4.7% 30.% 8.4% 2.4% 4.4% 7.9% 0.8% 7.3% χ2=79.287***; V = 0.67 2 <50 8.6% 4.4% 3.8% 5.0%.% 2.7% 4.5% 7.2% 2.0% 4.7% 50+ 3.0% 5.% 5.2% 34.4% 9.5%.5% 5.3% 7.8% 2.0% 6.2% χ2=5.559***; V = 0.90 3 <50 0.4% 4.2% 3.0% 50.9%.6%.8% 2.7% 6.8%.9% 6.6% 50+ 4.8% 7.6% 4.6% 32.8% 9.7% 2.5% 2.8% 5.8% 3.0% 6.3% χ2=96.964***; V = 0.202 4 <50.5% 5.8% 3.% 44.% 2.7% 3.2% 4.0% 7.8%.9% 5.9% 50+ 6.3% 6.5% 5.0% 29.% 8.6% 3.2% 3.6% 7.5% 2.0% 8.% χ2=63.846***; V = 0.7 5 <50 9.% 6.2% 2.6% 52.5% 9.3%.6% 5.4% 6.2% 3.4% 3.8% 50+ 2.9% 6.8% 4.2% 4.7% 5.4% 2.5% 3.5% 5.8% 2.2% 5.% χ2=76.033***; V = 0.242 State <50 0.6% 5.% 3.% 48.8%.7% 2.4% 4.% 7.2% 2.0% 5.0% 50+ 4.9% 6.9% 5.0% 32.9% 9.0% 2.4% 3.7% 6.8%.9% 6.5%.s. = ot sigificat, *p < 0.05, **p< 0.0, ***p< 0.00 χ2=32.886***; V = 0.78 07

Refereces Cited Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, & M. Williams. (994). Combiig stated ad revealed preferece methods for valuig evirometal ameities. Joural of Evirometal Ecoomics ad Maagemet 26, 27-292. Ajze, I., & M. Fishbei. (980). Uderstadig attitudes ad predictig social behavior. Eglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pretice-Hall. Cohe, J. (988). Statistical power aalysis for the behavioral scieces (2d ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrece Earlbaum Associates. Coricelli, L. & McIely, L. (206). Miesota deer goal settig huter survey results 202-206. Divisio of Fish ad Wildlife, Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Miesota. D Agelo, G. J. & Giudice, J. H. (205). Moitorig populatio treds of white-tailed deer i Miesota 205. Divisio of Fish ad Wildlife, Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Miesota. D Agelo, G. J., & Grud, M. D. (204). Evaluatig prefereces of huters ad ladowers for maagig white-tailed deer i southwest Miesota. Divisio of Fish ad Wildlife, Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Miesota. Dillma, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christia, L. M. (204). Iteret, phoe, mail, ad mixed-mode surveys: the tailored desig method. Hoboke, NJ: Joh Wiley & Sos Kyle, G., Absher, J., Norma, W., Hammit, W., & Jodice, L. A modified ivolvemet scale. Leisure Studies 26, 399-427. Louviere, J. J., Hesher, D. A. & Swait, J. (2000). Stated choice methods: aalysis ad applicatio. Cambridge: Cambridge Uiversity Press. McFadde, D. (98). Ecoometric models of probabilistic choice. Pages 98-272 i C. F. Maski, ad D. McFadde, editors. Structural aalysis of discrete choice with ecoometric applicatios. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Miesota DNR. (206, December 27). Deer & deer maagemet surveys. Retrieved from http://www.dr.state.m.us/wildlife/research/surveys/deer/idex.html Miesota OLA. (206). Departmet of Natural Resources: Deer populatio maagemet. Evaluatio Report, Program Evaluatio Divisio, Office of the Legislative Auditor, St. Paul, Miesota. Oh, C.O., R.B. Ditto, B. Geter, & Riechers, R. (2005). A stated preferece choice approach to uderstadig agler prefereces for maagemet optios. Huma Dimesios of Wildlife 0, 73-86. 08

Orme, B.K. (204). Gettig started with cojoit aalysis: strategies for product desig ad pricig research. Mahatta Beach, CA: Research Publishers, LLC. Pradhaaga, A., M. Daveport, M., & Coricelli, L. (203). 203 survey of deer maagemet o private lads i southeast Miesota. Uiversity of Miesota, Miesota Cooperative Fish ad Wildlife Research Uit, Departmet of Fisheries, Wildlife, ad Coservatio Biology ad Departmet of Forest Resources. St. Paul, Miesota. Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research ad aalysis: Applicatio i parks, recreatio ad huma dimesios. State College, PA: Veture Publishig. Walberg, E. (206). Ladower ad huter surveys for white-tailed deer maagemet i Miesota: factors impactig huter access to private lads ad cell-by-cell correctio to reduce mixed-mode survey samplig effects (Master s thesis). Uiversity of Miesota, St. Paul, Miesota. Walberg, E., McIely, L. & Coricelli, L. (206). Miesota deer populatio goal settig surveys of huters ad ladowers. Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources ad Uiversity of Miesota, Miesota Cooperative Fish ad Wildlife Research Uit, Departmet of Fisheries, Wildlife, ad Coservatio Biology. St. Paul, Miesota. 09

Appedix A. Example Huter Survey 205 Survey of Miesota Deer Huters (H3): Huters Opiios ad Activities A cooperative study coducted by the Uiversity of Miesota for the Miesota Departmet of Natural Resources Your help o this study is greatly appreciated! Please retur your completed questioaire i the eclosed evelope. The evelope is self-addressed ad o postage is required. Thaks! Miesota Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Uit, 980 Folwell Ave., 200 Hodso Hall Departmet of Fisheries, Wildlife ad Coservatio Biology Uiversity of Miesota St. Paul, MN 5508 0