opinions of north carolina hunters regarding hunting on sunday … · 2020. 1. 21. · hunting on...

Opinions of North Carolina hunters regarding hunting on Sunday and satisfactions with, motivations for, and

constraints to hunting participation

Melissa K. Hooper

Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE In

FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE SCIENCES

Dr. Steve L. McMullin, Co-Chair Dr. James A. Parkhurst, Co-Chair

Dr. Michael R. Vaughan, Committee Member Dr. Eric M. Hallerman, Dept. Head

December 1, 2006

Blacksburg, Virginia

Keywords: Hunter, hunter survey, hunter effort

Copyright 2006, Melissa K. Hooper

Opinions of North Carolina hunters regarding hunting on Sunday and satisfactions with, motivations for, and constraints to hunting participation

Melissa K. Hooper

ABSTRACT

In 2005, the North Carolina General Assembly and North Carolina Governor Mike

Easley requested that the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) coordinate

a study to investigate issues related to hunting on Sunday in North Carolina. In particular,

NCWRC was most interested in identifying stakeholders and their views on hunting on Sunday,

and estimating the potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on hunter recruitment and retention.

I developed a 12-page questionnaire that was sent to a random sample of 2,400 licensed

resident hunters in North Carolina. The questionnaire was used to assess their views and

opinions about hunting on Sunday and to estimate the potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on

hunting participation. The final response rate was 41.6%. The issue of hunting on Sunday in

North Carolina was strongly polarized: 38% of respondents strongly supported hunting on

Sunday and 39% strongly opposed. Older hunters and those who frequently attended church or

another place of worship were most opposed to hunting on Sunday. Although many respondents

originally voiced support, many of these same individuals opposed hunting on Sunday if some

limitations were imposed.

The exact effect on hunter recruitment was not determined by this research effort;

however, I found evidence that the opportunity to hunt on Sunday may have some positive

impact on hunting participation. Hunters who previously had taken an adult friend, family

member, or youth hunting in North Carolina indicated they would do so again if presented with

an opportunity to hunt on Sunday. However, the opportunity to hunt on Sunday had little

influence on persuading hunters who had not previously taken an adult friend, family member, or

youth hunting on Sunday to do so. Most respondents (60%) indicated they would hunt at least

the same number of days or more days (37%) if hunting on Sunday was legalized. Specifically,

respondents indicated that they would hunt an average of 7 additional days that did not involve

an overnight stay and take an average of 1.9 more overnight hunting trips if hunting on Sunday

was legalized. Thus, legalization of hunting on Sunday likely would increase hunting

participation, but would have unknown effects on hunter recruitment and retention.

iii

In addition to assessing opinions about hunting on Sunday, I explored North Carolina

hunters� satisfaction with hunting experiences, motivations for hunting, and constraints to

hunting participation. Overall, North Carolina hunters were satisfied with both their hunting

experiences during the 2005-2006 season and the previous 5 seasons. Satisfaction with hunting

experiences in North Carolina was derived from many factors (e.g., see wildlife, spend time in

the field/woods). Hunters in North Carolina identified a diverse array of motivations for hunting

such as to experience natural surroundings, to enjoy the outdoors, and to enjoy solitude.

North Carolina hunters responding to my survey identified constraints associated with

time, not enough game animals, and confusing hunting regulations as major impediments to their

hunting activity in North Carolina. The question of whether removing the current ban on hunting

on Sunday in North Carolina would alleviate time constraints remains unanswered. Permitting

hunting on Sunday may provide an additional day of hunting opportunities for North Carolina

hunters; it also would provide a means to increase satisfaction with and motivations for hunting

in North Carolina for some hunters.

This research effort provided valuable information about hunting and hunters in North

Carolina. Careful consideration of this information is needed to encourage hunter recruitment

and retention, and to combat further declines in hunting participation; however, this information

should be integrated with biologically-based management goals and objectives.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to collectively thank everyone who contributed to this research project. I

also would like to thank everyone who influenced my growth as a person and as a natural

resources professional.

Mostly, I would like to thank my graduate research co-advisors: Drs. Steve McMullin

and James Parkhurst. Without their commitment to my graduate education, I would not have had

the opportunity to participate in this research effort. In addition, this project would not have

been possible without their helpful guidance, unwavering support, and endless encouragement.

Anyone who knows Steve and Jim also knows they possess two very different styles. I am

fortunate to have worked closely with the two of them as each contributed to my professional

development. Steve, I would like to thank you for your patience and encouragement. Jim, I

would like to thank you for your guidance as well as your contributions to my development as a

writer. I would like to thank Dr. Michael Vaughan for his guidance and flexibility with my ever

changing research project. I also would like to thank Julie McClafferty for her friendship,

advice, and careful attention to detail. Conversations during our research travels added to my

enjoyment of this project. I look forward to the growth of our friendship.

I also would like to thank Mark Duda of Responsive Management, Inc. Without his

willingness to work with the Virginia Tech research team, this project would have not been

possible. In addition, I would like to thank the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

for funding and contributing much information to this project. Special thanks to David Cobb,

Brad Gunn, and Dain Palmer for their helpfulness and expertise. This project would not have

been possible without the time and effort of many North Carolina hunters; a special thanks to

each and every one of them.

I also would like to thank my friends and fellow graduate students who assisted with my

research project, particularly my envelope stuffing parties. Special thanks go to Kerry Linehan

for her support and friendship. I also would like to thank Kim Bridges and Kristy Englert for

their friendship and support. I hope we continue to have many adventures.

My deepest appreciation goes to my family. Mom and Dad, thank you for encouraging

me to excel and to never settle for less. Special thanks go to my Uncle Charles for instilling a

passion for science and a love of the outdoors at an early age.

v

Finally, I would like to thank Joe. His love and support enabled me to complete this

project. In the words of the late Waylon Jennings, �Come with me.�

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ viii LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1: Introduction, Literature Review, Objectives, and Overview of Methods................1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

Hunting in North Carolina ...................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................4

Definition of Hunting and Associated Regulations...............................................................4 Hunting Participation...........................................................................................................6 Wildlife Management and Hunting Participation .................................................................9 Definitions of Wildlife Values, Attitudes, and Opinions ....................................................11 Values, Attitudes, and Opinions Associated with Support for Hunting...............................16

OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESES, AND OVERVIEW OF METHODS .......................................17 Objective 1: To assess and characterize the opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina. ............................................17 Objective 2: To determine the effects that hunter demographics and specific characteristics of hunting participation have on opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina........................................................................19 Objective 3: To assess and characterize the satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina........................................................................20

LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................21 CHAPTER 2: Opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina ..........................................................................................................26 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................26 METHODS...............................................................................................................................27

Questionnaire Development...............................................................................................27 Target Population and Sampling ........................................................................................28 Questionnaire Administration............................................................................................29 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................30 Data Weighting .................................................................................................................31

RESULTS.................................................................................................................................32 Response Rates..................................................................................................................32 Nonresponse Analysis .......................................................................................................32 Description of Respondents ...............................................................................................33 Opinions of Hunting on Sunday.........................................................................................34 Opinions of Hunting on Sunday with Some Limitations ....................................................36 Opinions of Hunting on Sunday under Different Scenarios ................................................37 Importance of Reasons in Shaping Opinions of Hunting on Sunday...................................38 Potential Impacts on Hunting Participation ........................................................................39

DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................................46 Opinions of Hunting on Sunday.........................................................................................46 Hunting Participation.........................................................................................................48

LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................51

vii

CHAPTER 3: Understanding North Carolina hunters: satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina ...........................................................................84 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................84 METHODS...............................................................................................................................85

Questionnaire Development...............................................................................................85 Sampling and Questionnaire Administration......................................................................86 Nonresponse Analysis .......................................................................................................86 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................86

RESULTS.................................................................................................................................88 Response Rate ...................................................................................................................88 Nonresponse Analysis .......................................................................................................88 Demographics ...................................................................................................................89 General Hunting Participation ...........................................................................................89 Satisfactions ......................................................................................................................90 Motivations .......................................................................................................................94 Constraints ........................................................................................................................97

DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................102 Satisfaction Among North Carolina Hunters....................................................................102 Motivations of North Carolina Hunters............................................................................104 Constraints to Hunting Participation in North Carolina ....................................................105

LITERATURE CITED ...........................................................................................................108 CHAPTER 4: Synthesis and Management Recommendations .................................................127

Hunting on Sunday � A Final Overview ..........................................................................128 Satisfactions, Motivations, and Constraints......................................................................130

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SURVEYS..............................................................132 APPENDIX A: Mail Questionnaire.........................................................................................134 APPENDIX B: Cover Letters and Postcard .............................................................................146 APPENDIX C: Nonresponse Questionnaire ............................................................................151 VITA ......................................................................................................................................154

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Status of hunting on Sunday in the United States. Map courtesy of the National Rifle

Association-Institute for Legislative Action...............................................................................25

Figure 2.1. Respondents� and nonrespondents� opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina,

based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ............52

Figure 2.2. Respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, based on a mail

survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. .....................................53

Figure 2.3. Effect of respondent age on opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, based

on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina conducted in summer 2006. .....54

Figure 2.4. Effect of community in which respondents lived on opinion of hunting on Sunday in

North Carolina, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina conducted

in summer 2006.........................................................................................................................55

Figure 2.5. Effect of church or other place of worship attendance on opinion of hunting on

Sunday in North Carolina, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina

conducted in summer 2006........................................................................................................56

Figure 2.6. Effect of respondent avidity level on opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina,

based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina conducted in summer

2006..........................................................................................................................................57

Figure 2.7. Effect of respondents� age on average numbers of days hunted in North Carolina that

did not involve an overnight stay, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North

Carolina in summer 2006. .........................................................................................................58

Figure 2.8. Effect of respondents� age on average number of additional days hunted in North

Carolina that did not involve an overnight stay if hunting on Sunday was legalized, based on a

mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. .............................59

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Number of respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident

hunters conducted during summer of 2006 in each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions

before and after weighting to reflect the licenses sales distribution in each region. ....................60

Table 2.2. Age distribution of respondents to a survey of North Carolina licensed hunters about

hunting on Sunday in North Carolina conducted during summer of 2006, before and after

weighting data to reflect age distribution of original sample. .....................................................61

Table 2.3. Nonresponse analysis comparing mail and telephone respondents to a survey of North

Carolina licensed hunters about hunting on Sunday in North Carolina conducted during summer

of 2006......................................................................................................................................62

Table 2.4. Support for and opposition to hunting on Sunday before and after adjusting for

nonresponse bias, based on mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer

2006..........................................................................................................................................63

Table 2.5. Significant relationships between opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina and

respondent demographics, based on mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in

summer 2006. ...........................................................................................................................64

Table 2.6. Relationships between opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina and hunter

characteristics, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer

2006..........................................................................................................................................65

Table 2.7. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and land ownership, as reported

by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted

during summer of 2006. ............................................................................................................66

Table 2.8. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and constraints to hunting

activity, as reported by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed

resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. ..................................................................67

Table 2.9. Significant relationships between opinion of hunting on Sunday with some limitations

in North Carolina and respondent demographics, based on a mail survey of licensed resident

hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ...............................................................................68

x

Table 2.10. Opinions of hunting on Sunday under different scenarios in North Carolina, as

reported by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters

conducted during summer of 2006.............................................................................................69

Table 2.11. Scenarios for limited hunting on Sunday that are most strongly opposed by

respondents who opposed hunting on Sunday with some limitations in a statewide mail survey of

North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. ............................70

Table 2.12. Scenarios of limited hunting on Sunday that were supported most strongly by

respondents who supported hunting on Sunday with some limitations in a statewide mail survey

of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. ........................71

Table 2.13. Most important reasons shaping respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday, as

reported by opponents of hunting on Sunday in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina

licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006......................................................72

Table 2.14. Most important reasons shaping respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday, as

reported by supporters of hunting on Sunday in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina

licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006......................................................73

Table 2.15. Significant relationships between respondent participation in hunting on Sunday in

North Carolina, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of licensed

resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ..................................................................74

Table 2.16. Relationship between opinions of hunting on Sunday and respondent participation in

hunting on Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, based on a mail survey of licensed resident

hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ...............................................................................75

Table 2.17. Significant relationships between level of respondent participation in hunting on

Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, and respondent demographics and hunter characteristics,

based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ............76

Table 2.18. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and respondent level of

participation in hunting on Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, based on a mail survey of

licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ....................................................77

Table 2.19. Significant relationships between average number of days hunted that did not involve

an overnight stay and demographics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in

summer 2006. ...........................................................................................................................78

xi

Table 2.20. Relationships between average number of days hunted that did not involve an

overnight stay and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in

summer 2006. ...........................................................................................................................79

Table 2.21. Significant relationships between average number of additional days hunted that

would not involve an overnight stay and respondent demographics, based on a mail survey of

North Carolina hunters in summer 2006. ...................................................................................80

Table 2.22. Relationships between average number of additional days hunted that would not

involve an overnight stay and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina

hunters in summer 2006. ...........................................................................................................81

Table 2.23. Relationships between average number of overnight trips taken to hunt in North

Carolina and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer

2006..........................................................................................................................................82

Table 2.24. Relationships between average number of additional overnight trips taken to hunt in

North Carolina if hunting on Sunday were legalized and hunter characteristics, based on a mail

survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.....................................................................83

Table 3.1. Importance of domains and individual factors in determining hunter satisfaction with

hunting experiences in North Carolina, as reported by hunters in a statewide mail survey of

North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. ..........................110

Table 3.2. Significant relationships between harvest satisfaction domain, and demographics and

hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ..111

Table 3.3. Significant relationships between solitude satisfaction domain, and demographics and


Table 3.4. Significant relationships between importance of hunting with dogs in determining

satisfaction, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in

North Carolina in summer 2006. .............................................................................................113

Table 3.5. Importance of motivations for hunting in North Carolina, as reported by hunters in a

statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of

2006........................................................................................................................................114

Table 3.6. Significant relationships between the resource/skill motivation domain, and

demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in

summer 2006. .........................................................................................................................115

xii

Table 3.7. Significant relationships between the social motivation domain, and demographics and


Table 3.8. Importance of statements in explaining constraints to hunting activity, as reported by

hunters in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during

summer of 2006. .....................................................................................................................117

Table 3.9. Significant relationships between constraints associated with costs and crowding, and


summer 2006. .........................................................................................................................118

Table 3.10. Significant relationships between constraints associated with access, and


summer 2006. .........................................................................................................................119

Table 3.11. Significant relationships between constraints associated with health and safety, and


summer 2006. .........................................................................................................................120

Table 3.12. Significant relationships between constraints associated with time, and demographics

and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

...............................................................................................................................................121

Table 3.13. Significant relationships between importance of not enough game animals in

explaining constraints to hunting activity, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on

a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ...................................................122

Table 3.14. Significant relationships between importance of the confusion of hunting regulations

in explaining constraints to hunting activity, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based

on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ..............................................123

Table 3.15. Significant relationships between importance of �my hunting companions no longer

hunt� in explaining constraints to hunting activity, and demographics and hunter characteristics,

based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006......................................124

Table 3.16. Significant relationships between importance of �I no longer have hunting dogs� in

explaining constraints to hunting activity, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on

a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. ...................................................125

xiii

Table 3.17. Significant relationships between importance of �I prefer to participate in other

activities during my free time� in explaining constraints to hunting activity, and demographics

and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

...............................................................................................................................................126

1

CHAPTER 1: Introduction, Literature Review, Objectives, and Overview of Methods

INTRODUCTION

Hunting in North Carolina Historically, hunters have had a significant role in shaping wildlife management in the

United States. In many states, hunters today still provide the funding necessary to support

wildlife programs and to successfully manage wildlife populations (Peyton 2000). However,

declining participation in hunting could threaten this relationship in the future. Factors

contributing to the decline in hunting participation include demographic changes, such as

increases in urban development and competition between non-consumptive recreational activities

and hunting, and increasing mean age of the hunting population (Dann and Peyton 1996, Duda et

al. 1996). As demographics continue to change and conflicts between conservation and other

uses of our land base increase, wildlife management agencies have begun to focus greater

attention on hunter retention and recruitment. Heberlein (1991) questioned whether the

traditional relationship between hunters and wildlife management will survive today�s changing

demographics. He also examined the role wildlife professionals will play in preserving this

relationship, that of pawn or that of planner. With an uncertain future for both hunting (as an

institution) and the present structure of wildlife management, wildlife managers clearly need the

continuing support of hunters to help develop and implement successful wildlife management

programs (Peterson 2004).

Hunters and wildlife managers in many eastern states currently face the questions of

whether and how to provide opportunities to hunt on Sunday. This issue has been promoted as a

possible means to combat further declines in the hunting population and perhaps to enhance

recruitment of hunters. Currently, 43 states in the United States allow some form of hunting on

2

Sunday (Figure 1.1). Hunter organizations have identified access issues and a decrease in

opportunities to hunt as obstacles that influence hunting participation (National Rifle

Association-Institute for Legislative Action n.d.). Advocates claim that providing new

opportunities to hunt on Sundays will reverse or retard the declining trend in hunting

participation. However, opposition to hunting on Sunday is diverse and emanates from religious

groups, conservation groups, outdoor recreationists, and hunter organizations themselves.

North Carolina has not yet legalized all forms of hunting on Sunday; hunting on Sunday

currently is allowed on some federal military installations for certain military personnel.

Prohibition of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina dates back to 1869. The current regulation

that prohibits hunting on Sunday, General Statute 103-2, states, �If any person shall�hunt on

Sunday, having with him a shotgun, rifle, or pistol, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 Misdemeanor�

(North Carolina General Assembly n.d.:230). Seeing that hunters in other states are allowed to

hunt on Sunday, some hunters in North Carolina question why their weekend hunting

opportunities are limited only to Saturdays (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

2005b). However, other hunters strongly oppose the concept of hunting on Sunday. In 2005, the

North Carolina General Assembly and North Carolina Governor Mike Easley requested that the

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) coordinate a study to investigate

issues related to hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, specifically to identify stakeholders and

explore their opinions and to estimate potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on hunter

recruitment and retention. Information gathered from the investigation will be used by the

Governor and the General Assembly to determine an appropriate course of action on whether to

adopt hunting on Sunday in North Carolina.

3

In response to the requests of Governor Easley and the North Carolina General

Assembly, NCWRC asked for proposals to assist with this investigation. NCWRC selected a

proposal submitted by Responsive Management, Inc., a public opinion and attitude survey

research firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues located in

Harrisonburg, VA. The proposal outlined a cooperative effort by Responsive Management,

Virginia Tech Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, and Southwick Associates, a

research firm specializing in fish & wildlife economics, to complete the study.

Responsive Management, Inc., determined the public�s opinion of hunting on Sunday

through public focus group and a telephone survey. They also determine the impacts of hunting

on Sunday on other outdoor recreation activities. The responsibilities of Virginia Tech included

determining hunters� opinion of hunting on Sunday through hunter focus groups and a mail

survey. Virginia Tech also determined the economic costs and benefits to the agency if hunting

on Sunday was legalized. Southwick Associates determined the impacts of legalizing hunting on

Sunday to North Carolina�s economy.

As part of this cooperative effort, I developed and implemented the mail survey of North

Carolina hunters to gather quantitative data about their views and opinions about hunting on

Sunday and to estimate the potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on hunting participation. The

completion of my statewide survey of hunters, plus the analysis conducted by Responsive

Management, Inc., of the general public�s views of hunting on Sunday, were designed to provide

useful information on the level of support for and opposition to hunting on Sunday, and the

reasons underlying that support and opposition. In addition to information on opinions about

hunting on Sunday, NCWRC also will gain valuable information about hunting and hunters in

4

North Carolina, especially perceived constraints to hunting participation in North Carolina and

relationships between measures of a successful hunt and such constraints.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Definition of Hunting and Associated Regulations

Hunting is considered a consumptive form of wildlife recreation because it �involves the

intentional killing of sentient wild animals, including popular, attractive animals such as white-

tailed deer [Odocoileus virginianus] anthropomorphized by the entertainment media� (Brown et

al. 2000:145). Cocheba (1987:275) further defined hunting as �the act of pursuing wildlife with

the intention of killing the quarry; if the primary purpose is recreational enjoyment, it is

recreational hunting.� However, recreational hunting is more than a form of recreation to some

hunting participants; it can be a way of life, part of a culture (Brown et al. 2000). It becomes

part of a culture by providing opportunities to participate in an activity from which participants

derive social, psychological, emotional, and physical benefits (Hrubes et al. 2001). Decker et al.

(2001:290) also supported the notion of hunting as part of a culture, defining it as �a set of

activities that weave people into the fabric of social life in traditional rural communities.� A

hunter can be defined as one who believes in and upholds the concept of fair chase, �seeks

knowledge of nature� and animal habits, reaps no financial gain from participation, �inflicts no

unnecessary pain �on game,� and does not waste game (Organ et al. 1998:529-30).

In addition to providing recreational opportunities, hunting is the primary method

employed by state wildlife agencies to manage game populations to reduce wildlife-vehicle

collisions (e.g., deer), reduce wildlife-caused damage to orchards and crops, and minimize noise

and fecal contamination from ducks and geese that crowd shorelines, ponds, and parks (Brown et

al. 2000).

5

Big game hunting typically includes �artiodactyls, or herbivorous hooved [sic] animals,

and certain carnivores-the bears and the largest cats� (Gray 1993:74). In North Carolina, big

game includes wild boar (Sus scrofa), white-tailed deer, black bear (Ursus americanus), and wild

turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) (NCWRC 2005a). Hunting methods for big game animals

commonly include an archery season and/or some form of a firearms season (e.g., muzzleloader,

or modern firearms), all of which are allowed in North Carolina for white-tailed deer and black

bear. Wild boar hunting occurs during a single season with the use of either a bow or a firearm.

Legal seasons in North Carolina for taking wild turkeys include a winter either-sex season and a

spring gobbler firearms season (NCWRC 2005a).

To ensure that hunting is not detrimental to the hunted species, regulatory restrictions or

stipulations have been established, such as specified seasons, season and daily bag limits, and

limitations on the types of hunting equipment that may be used legally while hunting,. Many

state wildlife agencies employ checking strategies to track harvest and monitor population

trends. Regulations also require participants to purchase and maintain a valid license or permit

to engage in certain hunting activities or to fulfill certain conditions. North Carolina utilizes

many of these regulations.

Small game hunting often is referred to as upland game hunting; the emphasis here is on

small mammals (e.g., squirrels, hares, rabbits), upland birds (e.g., pheasant, grouse, quail), and

migratory birds (e.g., doves, woodcock [Scolopax minor]) (Gray 1993). In North Carolina, small

game species include Eastern gray and fox squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis and S. niger), rabbits

(Sylvilagus floridanus), red and gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Vulpes vulpes),

bobcats (Lynx rufus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), ruffed grouse

(Bonasa umbellus), northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), and ring-necked pheasants

6

(Phasianus cochicus) (NCWRC 2005a). Small game species typically are taken during an

established firearms season, the specifics of which are defined, by species, in the state wildlife

agency�s regulations. In North Carolina, the North Carolina Inland Fishing, Hunting and

Trapping Regulations Digest (NCWRC 2005a) defines the legal methods of take for small game,

which vary with species. In general, North Carolina�s small game regulations include an

established open season and a daily bag limit. However, quail and bobcats currently do not have

a season limit in North Carolina. Generally, hunters are not required to check or tag small game

animals, but participants are required to possess a license or permit to hunt small game species in

North Carolina (NCWRC 2005a).

Hunting Participation

Participation in the United States

Wildlife management agencies monitor hunting participation as one means to assess their

progress in meeting established management goals and objectives. Using a base definition for

�participation,� hunting participation involves the act of taking part or sharing in the activity of

hunting (Merriam-Webster Online 2006). Brown et al. (2000) identified 3 potential sources to

obtain useful information on hunting participation: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) national surveys, annual license sales, and annual hunter education course

registrations. The USFWS and the U.S. Census Bureau have teamed up to provide information

on several useful metrics of hunting participation, such as the number of hunters, number of days

spent afield, and hunting expenditures. Since 1955, this cooperative effort has produced a

comprehensive national survey report every 5 years and a 5-year comparative analysis that tracks

and assesses changes in hunting trends (USDI n.d.). In 1999, these agencies conducted a 15-year

(1980 to 1995) examination of trends associated with hunting and found an 8% decline in

7

hunting participation during the period. However, upon closer examination, investigators

believed this decline occurred between 1990 and 1995 and that hunting participation was stable

between 1980 and 1990 (USDI 1999). A subsequent re-examination of this data found that

hunting participation actually declined 1% from 1991 to 1996 and an additional 7% from 1996 to

2001 (USDI 2004).

In addition to monitoring trends in hunting participation, wildlife management agencies

also examine the number of hunters, the number of days spent afield, and hunting expenditures

to assess hunting pressure. Hunting pressure is defined as �a measure of the amount of hunting�

(State University System of Florida 2000). Hunter effort generally is used by state and federal

wildlife management agencies to measure the amount of hunting. For example, the Virginia

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) uses hunter-days to measure hunter effort

(e.g., two individuals who hunt four days each equals eight hunter-days) (VDGIF 2002). Hunter

effort typically is determined by surveying hunters (using post-season questionnaires) to gather

information on the species hunted and number of days spent afield. Interviews also may be used

to gather hunter effort information. A new technique, Global Positioning Systems (GPS),

recently has been used to assess hunter effort directly in the field. GPS units issued to

participating hunters are turned on from morning departure time until the afternoon/evening

return time and thus collect the exact number of hours spent afield (Broseth and Pedersen 2000).

GPS tracking techniques are believed to be more accurate than hunter declarations (Broseth and

Pedersen 2000).

In 2001, hunters devoted 228 million days to hunting (USDI 2002). The average number

of days spent afield per hunter increased from 17 to 18 days during the period 1991 to 2001

(USDI 2004). In 2001, big game hunters spent 153 million days afield (an average of 14 days

8

afield per hunter) and small game hunters spent 60 million days afield (averaging 11 days per

hunter in the field). Hunters in pursuit of migratory birds totaled 29 million days, or an average

of 10 days per hunter, in 2001 (USDI 2002).

Monitoring trends in annual hunting license sales is another method used to determine

changes in hunting participation. While examining hunting license sales data gathered by the

USFWS from 1970 to 1997, Brown et al. (2000) determined that license sales peaked in 1983

and then fell continuously until, in 1997, sales reached the lowest point of the study. Although

hunting license sales nationally have been in decline, license sales at the state level exhibited

much variation. Sales in South Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Alaska reached record

highs in 1997, the period when other states were experiencing sharp declines. For example, in

1997, hunting license sales in California had declined 43% from their historic peak (Brown et al.

2000).

In 2002, approximately 15 million people purchased a hunting license in the United

States (Responsive Management 2003). From 1980 to 2002, the number of people who

purchased a license decreased slightly. However, it is important to note that the number of

people who purchase a license differs from the number of people who actually hunt (as reported

in national surveys) (Responsive Management 2004); furthermore, not all people who purchase a

license choose to hunt.

Another index of hunting participation and hunter recruitment is information gathered

from state hunter education programs. Although most hunter education programs were created

in the 1970s, some state programs arose much earlier. Evidence of having participated in a

hunter education certification program is required to purchase a hunting license in all states

except Alaska (Brown et al. 2000). From 1985 to 1997, the number of hunters graduating from

9

hunter education programs remained stable nationally. In the East (using Bureau of Census

regions), the number of graduates from hunter education programs declined 10% between 1991

and 1997, whereas the southern Atlantic states experienced a 15% decline in graduates during

the same period. In contrast, the number of hunter education program graduates in other regions

increased between 1991 and 1997. For example, the North Central states experienced a 30%

increase between 1985 and 1997 (Brown et al. 2000).

Participation in North Carolina

Hunters in North Carolina closely follow national hunting participation trends. In 1996,

there were 313,000 licensed resident hunters in North Carolina, but that number fell about 13%

by 2001 to 272,000 (USDI 2002). In 1996 and 2001, big game hunters accounted for 232,000 of

313,000 and 204,000 of 272,000 of North Carolina hunters, respectively. North Carolina

residents who hunt small game in-state totaled 206,000 and 120,000 in 1996 and 2001,

respectively (USDI 1997, USDI 2002). Sample sizes in the 1996 and 2001 national surveys

were too small to accurately estimate numbers of North Carolina residents who hunted migratory

birds or other animals in North Carolina. Fifteen percent of North Carolinians (based on a 407-

person sample size) considered themselves to be a hunter, yet 28% stated that, in the past 5 years,

either they or someone in their household had hunted in North Carolina (Responsive

Management 2004). In a more recent report, Responsive Management (2005) concluded license

sales increased 1% from 2003 to 2004.

Wildlife Management and Hunting Participation

Management issues involving hunting are important, but complex, issues. Complex

issues like declines in hunter participation must be examined carefully by wildlife management

10

agencies because of the inherent implications for funding for the agencies (Decker et al. 2001).

Declines in hunter participation will translate into declining revenue as fewer hunting licenses

are sold and less money is returned to the state from the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

Fund (Miller and Vaske 2003). In addition, hunters are �the pool of strongest political support

from which agencies can rely on for the continuation of programs that provide recreational and

cultural benefits associated with hunting� (Enck et al. 2000:817-18). Wildlife managers who

successfully can monitor metrics of hunter effort will gain valuable information about areas of

heavy harvest and species of importance (Yukon Environment 2000). In addition, these metrics

of hunter effort can provide managers with data necessary to assess and monitor declines in

hunting participation. Miller and Vaske�s (2003) examination of hunter effort found that

perceived personal and situational constraints were possible explanations for observed declines

in hunting participation. Although managers have limited capacity to resolve hunters� personal

constraints, they may be able to rectify some situational constraints, such as �no land available

for hunting, not enough game, and too many regulations� (Miller and Vaske 2003:273). In these

examples, managers could investigate developing cooperative programs between hunters and

private landowners, design agency publications to address inaccurate perceptions about game

populations, or provide a means to seek hunter input on the issue of too many hunting

regulations (Miller and Vaske 2003).

In addition to providing insights into declining hunter participation, measures of hunter

effort provide information on hunter retention or �the number of people remaining in the hunter

population over time� (Enck et al. 2000:817). Wildlife managers can compare the number of

participants and the mean number of days afield or average hunter effort from year to year to

examine hunter retention (Enck et al. 2000). Miller and Vaske (2003) found that days afield the

11

previous year served as a predictor of hunter effort; hunters who spent more days afield the

previous year remained consistent in their hunting participation from year to year.

Most studies that attempted to measure hunter effort used mail surveys, relying

completely on the recall of responding hunters. Broseth and Pedersen (2000) used a new, GPS

technique to measure hunter effort. This new approach simultaneously collected information on

hunter effort and spatial data; it assessed effort and pressure within a specific management area.

In addition, such temporal and spatial data on hunters can be correlated with data from radio-

tagged wildlife to examine the potential effects of interactions between hunters and game

(Broseth and Pedersen 2000). Collecting data on hunter effort, and examining its relationship to

complex wildlife management issues, is not new. However, researchers, wildlife managers, and

wildlife biologists need to make greater efforts to correctly interpret this data and translate it into

sound management practices (Gilbert 1982).

Definitions of Wildlife Values, Attitudes, and Opinions

Knowledge of values, attitudes, and opinions helps to clarify some of the complex issues

that surround recreational hunting and can improve understanding of human dimensions of

wildlife management (Fulton et al. 1996). However, to understand values, attitudes, and

opinions toward wildlife, it is necessary to understand the basic concepts of values, attitudes, and

opinions.

Values

The definition of the term values varies across and within academic disciplines, and

produces numerous alternative definitions (Brown and Manfredo 1987). Fulton et al. (1996:25)

defined values as �the fundamental cognitions which serve as the foundations for attitudes and

12

beliefs.� Values also have been referred to as background factors that influence behavior

through attitudes and beliefs (Daigle et al. 2002). Pierce et al. (2001:40) described values as the

�most basic desires and goals.� To clarify further the term values, Brown (1984) subdivided the

term into two separate terms, held values and assigned values. He defined held values as �the

modes of conduct, end-states, or qualities which could be desirable� (Brown 1984:232). A

person�s value system evolves from their held values. Pierce et al. (2001:41) described value

systems or orientations as �the patterns of direction and intensity among basic beliefs.� Held

values occur at the feeling level and are difficult to observe (Brown 1984, Pierce et al. 2001).

However, held values, as feelings, often are expressed as assigned values. Brown (1984:233)

defined assigned values as �the expressed relative worth of an object to an individual or group in

a given context.� From the clarification of values, both held and assigned, Brown and Manfredo

(1987:13) proposed the following questions for wildlife managers and biologists: �(1) What

values form the basis for our attitudes toward wildlife, and (2) what wildlife types and numbers,

the settings in which they reside, and the opportunities they provide are most valued by people?�

To answer these questions, researchers have attempted to classify the values associated

with wildlife. Researchers also have used peoples� values about wildlife to explain differences

in attitudes toward controversial wildlife issues, assign priority to competing issues, identify

constituent groups, and determine the contributions of wildlife to the quality of peoples� lives

(Fulton et al. 1996). Over the years, several systems were developed to categorize and analyze

wildlife values. Wildlife values can be subdivided into two general categories: option values and

exercised values. Steinhoff et al. (1987:39) defined option values as a �willingness to pay a kind

of insurance premium to retain the opportunity of possible future use� and exercised values as

values with direct and indirect benefits. In this classification system, direct exercised values

13

result from a personal relationship with wildlife through consumptive or non-consumptive uses.

Indirect exercised values do not require direct contact and may result from activities such as

viewing photographs or reading about wildlife. Indirect exercised values often are referred to as

existence values (Steinhoff et al. 1987). Other classification systems of wildlife values are based

on uses of wildlife, motives or attitudes of wildlife value holders, and types of commodities

purchased. Social science researchers predominantly focus on classification systems that involve

motives or attitudes of wildlife value holders (Steinhoff et al. 1987). Another wildlife value

classification system proposed wildlife value orientations that range on a continuum from �a

strongly utilitarian value orientation (endorsing human use and manipulation of wildlife) to a

strongly protectionist value orientation (opposing human use and manipulation of wildlife and

endorsing human protection of wildlife)� (Zinn et al. 2002:148). Although a consensus on how

best to classify wildlife values does not yet exist, it is important to recognize that not only one set

of wildlife values exists. The goals and objectives of the specific wildlife research determine the

classification system used (Steinhoff et al. 1987). Results from the Western Association of Fish

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Human Dimensions Regional Survey Project [Pilot Phase]

(Teel et al. 2003) found that individual and societal characteristics influence wildlife value

orientations. The cooperative effort identified levels of urban residence, income, and education

as possible explanations for differences in wildlife value orientations across states.

Wildlife value categories with suggested importance to wildlife management, specifically

white-tailed deer management, include evolutionary, cultural, ecological, economic, social,

psychological, public service, and political values (Kellert and Applegate 1984). Given that

hunting is a wildlife management tool, these categories can be applied to hunting. Values

associated with the issue of hunting can be used to explain differences among attitudes toward

14

hunting, to assign priority to competing hunting issues, and to identify important constituent

groups (i.e., hunters and non-hunters) (Fulton et al. 1996).

Attitudes and Opinions

Attitudes are defined as �a person�s evaluation, favorable or unfavorable, of a person,

object, concept, or action� (Pierce et al. 2001:42). Thurston (1967:77) defined attitudes as �the

sum total of man�s inclinations and feelings, prejudices, or bias,�fears, ideas, and convictions

about any specific topic.� Duda et al. (1998:18) described opinions as measuring �beliefs or

ideas held with confidence but not substantiated by direct proof or knowledge.� Attitudes and

opinions are structured in terms of �like-dislike, good-bad, and positive-negative� (Pierce et al.

2001:42). They also are structured in terms of support and opposition (Duda et al. 1998).

Likert-type scales, which measure the strength of agreement, support, or opposition to a

particular issue, often are used to assess attitudes and opinions (Pollock et al. 1994). Two

characteristics, evaluative and cognitive, collectively construct a person�s attitude. The

evaluative characteristic of attitudes includes negative or positive views associated with an

object, concept, or action, whereas the cognitive characteristic of attitudes includes the

associated beliefs. For the purpose of understanding wildlife attitudes, it also is important to

consider the attitude characteristics of specificity, salience, and strength. Specificity refers to the

relationship of an attitude to a particular issue. Salience includes the ease with which thoughts

enter the mind when an attitude object, concept, or action is introduced. The strength of an

attitude allows managers to estimate the difficulty of changing that specific attitude. Given that

attitudes influence and predict behavior, an accurate prediction of behavior requires an

understanding of the specificity, salience, and strength of attitudes (Pierce et al. 2001).

15

Wildlife attitudes have evolved over time. Steinhoff et al. (1987) provided a

chronological approach to illustrate the evolution of wildlife attitudes; this approach included

information on the changes from attitudes of superiority over animals to attitudes of animal

equality. Kellert (1978:413) classified human attitudes about wildlife into the following

categories:

(1) Naturalistic � Primary interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors;

(2) Ecologistic � Primary concern for the environment as a system;

(3) Humanistic � Primary interest and strong affection for individual animals�focus

on�animals with strong anthropomorphic associations;

(4) Moralistic � Primary concern for wrong and right treatment of animals�strong

opposition to exploitation or cruelty toward animals;

(5) Scientistic � Primary interest in the physical attributes and biological functioning of

animals;

(6) Aesthetic � Primary interest in the artistic and symbolic characteristics of animals;

(7) Utilitarian � Primary concern for the practical and material value of animals;

(8) Dominionistic � Primary concern with mastering and controlling animals;

(9) Neutralistic � Primary orientation a passive avoidance of animals due either to

indifference or lack of concern;

(10) Negativistic � Primary orientation an active avoidance of animals due either to fear

or dislike.

In addition to applying this typology of attitudes to wildlife in general, Kellert (1978) applied the

typology to hunters and anti-hunters and confirmed that attitudes toward hunting are influenced

by the collection of values associated with hunting.

16

Values, Attitudes, and Opinions Associated with Support for Hunting

Values associated with hunting develop from the values associated with the treatment of

animals, hunting methods, and hunting traditions. These values, passed from one generation to

the next, are expressed in daily activities (Stedman et al. 1993). Values associated with hunting

also exist in reasons given for why people hunt (Lafon 2002). Kellert (1978) suggested the

primary reasons for hunting include hunting for meat, for sport, and for contact with nature.

Activities important to the hunting experience and also representative of values include �sharing

hunting stories, sharing meat harvested through hunting, participating in ceremonies, visiting

hunting areas in the off-season, preparing for hunting, and many others� (Stedman et al.

1993:11). From these important activities, reasons for hunting include participation in rituals,

enjoyment of nature, solitude, and companionship (Stedman et al. 1993).

In addition to examining the values held by hunters, it is equally important to investigate

the attitudes and opinions held by hunters. Attitudes and opinions associated with hunting issues

often indicate a lack of knowledge or information. However, attitudes and opinions still provide

valuable information on feelings toward a particular object or issue (Pollock et al. 1994).

Hunters� attitudes and opinions provide wildlife managers with information on hunter

satisfaction, approval of management programs, and associated importance of specific programs.

Survey instruments with attitude and opinion questions have been used to determine hunter

support and opposition to various issues (e.g., use of crossbows, muzzleloader season vs. general

firearms season) (Duda et al. 1998). Importance ranking statements also are used to determine

hunters� attitudes and evaluate reasons for hunting, measures of a successful hunt, and reasons

for increased and decreased hunter participation (Gilbert 1982).

17

OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESES, AND OVERVIEW OF METHODS

Below I present an overview of the organization of the thesis and the methods used in my

research (note: methods will be described in much greater depth in each applicable chapter).

Chapter 2 describes and characterizes the attitudes and opinions expressed by hunters on the

issue of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, as embodied in Objectives 1 and 2. Chapter 3

describes factors that determine one�s satisfaction with hunting experiences, motivations for

hunting, and constraints to hunting in North Carolina. Chapter 4 provides a synthesis of my

research findings and recommendations for future surveys.

Objective 1: To assess and characterize the opinions of hunting on Sunday in North

Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina.

I used a mail survey to assess and characterize attitudes and opinions about hunting on

Sunday held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina and to complete Objective 2. I

designed my questionnaire in consultation with other members of the Virginia Tech research

team, Responsive Management, Inc., and personnel with the NCWRC. The survey was

constructed using Survey Pro software (V.3.0, Apian Software) and included questions to gather

quantitative information on the attitudes and opinions about hunting on Sunday. I used

support/opposition scales to assess opinions of hunting on Sunday in general and under various

scenarios. I used importance scales to determine reasons that shape, either positively or

negatively, opinions of hunting on Sunday. I also used importance scales to rank factors that

determine one�s satisfaction with hunting experiences, motivations for hunting, and perceived

constraints to hunting participation. Participants were asked about hunting preferences (e.g.,

species, season, weapon, and land preferences), hunter effort (e.g., days afield), and measures of

18

a successful hunt. Finally, standard demographic questions completed the survey. After

development of a draft questionnaire, but prior to implementation of the survey, a focus group,

comprised of a sample (n = 10) of hunters from the North Carolina electronic hunter database,

reviewed the draft questionnaire to identify defects related to unclear questions or scales, or

formatting problems. Using comments received from the focus group, I revised the survey

instrument, which is included as Appendix A.

I used a modified version of Dillman�s (2000) Tailored Design Method to implement the

survey. Each participant in my survey effort potentially would receive a questionnaire, a

reminder postcard, a replacement questionnaire, and a final questionnaire, unless they responded

to and returned one of the earlier contact items. I obtained from the NCWRC a random sample

(n = 2,400) of hunters� names and addresses from the 2005 electronic database of resident

hunting licenses sold in North Carolina. The sample provided to me also included the

percentages of hunting license types corresponding to the percentage of each hunting license

type within the total North Carolina hunter population. I used a starting sample size of 2,400

surveys (800 in each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions).

I sent the initial questionnaire, a business reply envelope, and a cover letter that explained

the study and the importance of each person�s participation to all 2,400 participants on May 22,

2006. After one week, I sent a postcard to thank those participants who had completed the

survey and to urge nonrespondents to complete and return the survey. Two weeks after sending

the postcard, I sent a second questionnaire and a new cover letter to all nonrespondents to

encourage them to participate. After four more weeks, I sent a final questionnaire and a

personalized cover letter to remind nonrespondents to complete the survey and to inform them of

the closing date (July 31, 2006). The personalized cover letter in the final mailing also included

19

information on a $1,000 prize package sponsored by Bass Pro® and the NCWRC that was to be

awarded to one respondent drawn at random from the pool of all respondents. A copy of each

cover letter and the postcard reminder are included in Appendix B.

Because the final response rate was lower than desired for a study of this type (41.6%), I

conducted a nonresponse bias analysis. I interviewed by telephone 60 randomly selected

nonrespondents (20 in each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions) from the pool of 2,400

individuals who had been sent the initial questionnaire. Participants were contacted between

1800 and 2000 hours during September 2006 and asked 9 questions from the original mail

survey (Appendix C).

I entered the response data and the nonresponse data into Survey Pro and used the most

recent version of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 14.0, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) to

analyze these data. I constructed frequency distributions for nominal and ordinal data and used

summary statistics (mean, median, and measures of variability) for continuous data to present

descriptive results. I used cross-tabulations to examine relationships between variables.

Relationships between variables were explored further using the Chi-square test of homogeneity.

See Chapter 2 �Methods� for specific details.

Objective 2: To determine the effects that hunter demographics and specific

characteristics of hunting participation have on opinions of hunting on Sunday in North

Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina.

I used quantitative data gathered from the questionnaire to address this objective. Using

the most recent version of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 14.0, SPSS, Inc.,

Chicago, IL), I constructed contingency tables and cross tabulations to explore relationships

between demographic variables and opinions about hunting on Sunday, and to measure

20

relationships between hunter characteristics and opinions expressed about hunting on Sunday.

The Chi-square test of homogeneity was used to reveal differences among demographic

variables, hunter type (e.g., big game hunters v. small game hunters), North Carolina�s 3

administrative regions, and attitudes and opinions about hunting on Sunday. Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine significant differences in continuous variables among

demographic variables, and hunter characteristics. See Chapter 2 �Methods.�

Objective 3: To assess and characterize the satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of

licensed resident hunters in North Carolina.

I used quantitative data gathered from the questionnaire to address this objective. Using

the most recent version of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 14.0, SPSS, Inc.,

Chicago, IL), I constructed frequency distributions for nominal and ordinal data and used

summary statistics to describe hunting participation, satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of

licensed resident hunters in North Carolina. I constructed contingency tables and cross

tabulations to explore relationships between hunting participation and hunter characteristics. The

Chi-square test of homogeneity was used to reveal differences among demographic variables,

hunter type (e.g., big game hunters v. small game hunters), North Carolina�s 3 administrative

regions, and hunting participation. I used factor analysis (Principal Components Analysis

[PCA]) to detect structure and affirm the a priori structure among hunter satisfaction and

motivation indicator statements included within the questionnaire. I determined the reliability of

the identified structure using Cronbach�s alpha. I also used factor analysis to classify constraint

items into categories. Cronbach�s alpha also was used to determine reliability of constraint

categories and motivational scales. See Chapter 3 �Methods� for specific details.

21

LITERATURE CITED Broseth, H., and H.C. Pedersen. 2000. Hunting effort and game vulnerability studies on a small

scale: a new technique combining radio-telemetry, GPS and GIS. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:182-190.

Brown, T.C. 1984. The concept of values in resource allocation. Land Economics 60(3):231-

246. Brown, P.J., and M.J. Manfredo. 1987. Social values defined. Pages 12-23 in D.J. Decker and

G.R. Goff, editors. Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspectives. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado.

Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker, W.F. Siemer, and J.W. Enck. 2000. Trends in hunting participation

and implications for management of game species. Pages 145-154 in W.C. Gartner and D.W. Lime, editors. Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure, and tourism. CABI Publishing. New York, New York.

Cocheba, D.J. 1987. Opportunities for improving wildlife management: An economist�s view.

Pages 269-284 in D.J. Decker and G.R. Goff, editors. Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspectives. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Daigle, J.J., D. Hrubes, and I. Azjen. 2002. A comparative study of beliefs, attitudes, and values

among hunters, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor recreationists. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7(1):1-19.

Dann, S.L., and R.B. Peyton. 1996. Facing realities in recruiting, retaining, and training

consumptive fish and wildlife users. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 61:315-323.

Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, and W.F. Siemer. 2001. Understanding Hunting Participation. Pages

289-306 in D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer, editors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored design method. John Wiley and

Sons. New York, New York. Duda, M.D., S.J. Bissell, and K.C. Young. 1996. Factors related to hunting and fishing

participation in the United States. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 61:324-337.

Duda, M.D., S.J. Bissell, and K.C. Young. 1998. Wildlife and the American mind: public opinion on and attitudes toward fish and wildlife management. Responsive Management, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia.

22

Enck, J.W., D.J. Decker, and T.L. Brown. 2000. Status of hunter recruitment and retention in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):817-824.

Fulton, D.C., M.J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual

and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(2):24-47.

Gilbert, A.H. 1982. Influence of hunter attitudes and characteristics on wildlife management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 42:226-236.

Gray, G.G. 1993. Wildlife and people: The human dimensions of wildlife ecology. University of

Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois. Heberlein, T.A. 1991. Changing attitudes and funding for wildlife-Preserving the sport hunter.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:534-543. Hrubes, D., I. Azjen, and J.J. Daigle. 2001. Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An

application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences 23(3):165-178. Kellert, S.R. 1978. Attitudes and characteristics of hunter and antihunters. Transactions of the

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 43:412-423. Kellert, S.R., and J.E. Applegate. 1984. Values in management. Pages 699-720 in L.K. Hall,

editor. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisonburg, PA, and Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

Lafon, N.W. 2002. Evolution of stakeholder knowledge, attitudes, and opinions throughout a

participative process to develop a management plan for black bears in Virginia. Thesis. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Merriam-Webster Online. 2006. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m- w.com/dictionary/participation.

Miller, C.A., and J.J. Vaske. 2003. Individual and situational influences on declining hunter

effort in Illinois. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:263-276. National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action. n.d. The truth about Sunday hunting:

why hunters shouldn�t be treated as second-class citizens. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=174.

North Carolina General Assembly. n.d. Chapter 103. Sundays, Holidays and Special Days.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_103.html.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005a. North Carolina Inland Fishing, Hunting

and Trapping Regulations Digest. Raleigh, North Carolina.

23

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005b. State of North Carolina Request for Proposals: Sunday Hunting Study. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Organ, J.F., R.M. Muth, J.E. Dizard, S.J. Williamson, and T.A. Decker. 1998. Fair chase and humane treatment: Balancing the ethics of hunting and trapping. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63:528-543.

Peterson, M.N. 2004. An approach for demonstrating the social legitimacy of hunting. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 32(2):310-321.

Peyton, R.B. 2000. Wildlife management: cropping to manage or managing to crop? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):774-779.

Pierce, C. L., M. J. Manfredo, and J. J. Vaske. 2001. Social Science Theories in Wildlife

Management. Pages 39-56 in D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer, editors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Polluck, K.H., C.M. Jones, and T.L. Brown. 1994. Angler survey methods and their applications

in fisheries management. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 25, Bethesda, Maryland.

Responsive Management. 2003. An inventory and assessment of state hunters. Responsive

Management, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia. Responsive Management. 2004. Public opinion on fish and wildlife management issues and the

reputation and credibility of fish and wildlife agencies in the northeast United States. Responsive Management, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Responsive Management. 2005. Hunter retention and recruitment in North Carolina: analysis and implications from the �Maintaining the Heritage� 2005 workshop. Responsive Management, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia. State University System of Florida. 2000. Florida Environments Online Thesaurus.

http:// susdl.fcla.edu/lfnh/thesauri/feol2/00003088.htm. Stedman, R.C., D.J. Decker, and W.F. Siemer. 1993. Exploring the social world of hunting:

expanding the concepts of hunters and hunting. HDRU Series No. 93-7. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Steinhoff, H.W., R.G. Walsh, T.J. Peterle, and J.M. Petulla. 1987. Evolution of valuation of

wildlife. Pages 34-48 in D. Decker and G.G. Goff, editors. Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspectives Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

24

Teel, T.L., A.D. Bright, and M.J. Manfredo. 2003. Regional results from the pilot phase of the research project entitled �Wildlife Values in the West.� Project Rep. No. 55. Project Rep. for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Thurston, L.L. 1967. Attitudes can be measured. Pages 77-89 in M. Fishbein, editor. Readings

in attitude theory and measurement. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce,

U.S. Census Bureau. 1997. 1996 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife- associated recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce,

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. 1980-1995 Participation in fishing, hunting, and wildlife- watching: National and regional demographic trends. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce,

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2001 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife- associated recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce,

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Fishing and hunting 1991-2001: Avid, casual, and intermediate participation trends, Addendum to the 2001 national survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. http://fa.r9.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2002. Virginia Black Bear

Management Plan (2001-2010). Richmond, Virginia. Yukon Environment. 2000. Highlights from the results of 2000 hunter effort survey. Government

of Yukon, Department of Environment. Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. Zinn, H.C., M.J. Manfredo, and S.C. Barro. 2002. Patterns of wildlife value orientations in

hunters� families. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7:147-162.

25

Figure 1.1. Status of hunting on Sunday in the United States as of 2006. Map courtesy of the National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action.

26

CHAPTER 2: Opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina

INTRODUCTION

Hunters and wildlife managers in many eastern states currently face the issue of whether

and how to provide opportunities to hunt on Sunday. It has been promoted as a possible means

to combat further declines in the hunting population and perhaps to enhance recruitment of

hunters. Currently, 43 states in the United States allow some form of hunting on Sunday.

Advocates for hunting on Sunday claim that, by providing new opportunities to hunt on Sundays,

declines in hunting participation will be reversed or retarded. However, opposition to hunting on

Sunday remains diverse and emanates from religious groups, conservation groups, outdoor

recreationists, and even hunter organizations themselves.

North Carolina has not yet legalized all forms of hunting on Sunday; hunting on Sunday

currently is allowed on some federal military installations for certain military personnel. Some

hunters in North Carolina who are aware that hunters in other states are allowed to hunt on

Sunday question why their weekend hunting opportunities are limited only to Saturdays (North

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2005). However, other hunters strongly oppose the

idea of hunting on Sunday.

As part of a cooperative effort (with North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

(NCWRC), Responsive Management, Inc., and Southwick Associates) tasked with identifying

relevant stakeholders, exploring stakeholder views on hunting on Sunday, and estimating

potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on hunting participation in North Carolina, I developed

and implemented a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina. This statewide

survey was designed to provide quantitative information to the NCWRC on the opinions of

North Carolina hunters regarding hunting on Sunday and the reasons underlying those opinions.

27

My survey also was designed to gather information on the potential impacts of hunting on

Sunday on hunting participation in North Carolina. My specific objectives were:

• to assess and characterize the opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by

licensed resident hunters in North Carolina; and

• to determine the effects that hunter demographics and specific characteristics of hunting

participation have on opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina held by licensed

resident hunters in North Carolina.

METHODS

Questionnaire Development

In February and March 2006, the Virginia Tech research team conducted 6 focus groups

(2 in each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions: mountain, piedmont, coastal) to identify

key issues surrounding the legalization of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina. I used the

information gathered from these focus groups to design a questionnaire to assess and

characterize the opinions of hunting on Sunday held by licensed resident hunters in North

Carolina. I developed the questionnaire in coordination with other members of the Virginia Tech

research team, and with Responsive Management, Inc., Southwick Associates, and NCWRC.

The questionnaire focused on 2 areas: 1) opinions of hunting on Sunday and the reasons

expressed by hunters to uphold these opinions, and 2) potential impacts of hunting on Sunday on

hunting participation. The questionnaire utilized support/opposition (e.g., 1 = strongly support, 5

= strongly oppose) and importance scales (e.g., 1 = very important, 5 = very unimportant) to

assess strength of support for and opposition to hunting on Sunday in North Carolina. I also

assessed support and opposition to hunting on Sunday by gauging hunters� level of agreement or

28

disagreement with statements related to several hypothetical scenarios (e.g., �Hunting should be

allowed only on a few Sundays�). This assessment was used to determine the relative

importance of hunters� reasons that shaped their opinions.

To examine the potential impacts of legalizing hunting on Sunday on hunter participation

in North Carolina, I included questions that assessed the level of hunters� existing and projected

involvement with hunt clubs, adult friends and family members, and youth (under 16 years of

age). Standard demographic questions (e.g., gender, age, income, religious participation) were

included in the questionnaire to help characterize survey respondents.

After developing a draft questionnaire, I pre-tested it on a subpopulation of resident

licensed North Carolina hunters (n = 10) to identify potential structural defects, unclear questions

or scales, or formatting problems. Individuals invited to participate in the focus group were

selected randomly from the 2005 NCWRC electronic database of licensed hunters. I contacted

individuals by phone and asked those who agreed to participate in the pre-test to review the draft

questionnaire, formulate comments/suggestions, and participate in a focus group discussion one

week later. Information gathered from this focus group was used to revise the questionnaire

(Appendix A).

Target Population and Sampling

The target population of the survey was licensed resident hunters of North Carolina. In

May 2006, NCWRC licensing staff drew a random sample (n = 2,400) of hunters� names,

addresses, and telephone numbers from the 2005 electronic license database of resident hunting

licenses sold in North Carolina. The sample included 800 contacts from each of the NCWRC�s 3

administrative regions. The sample provided to me represented each hunting license type in

proportion to the total North Carolina licensed hunter population and the sample drawn.

29

Questionnaire Administration

I administered the questionnaire using a modified version of Dillman�s (2000) Tailored

Design Method, which included a series of 4 mailings. The contact sequence included an initial

questionnaire (mailed May 22, 2006), a reminder postcard (mailed May 31, 2006), a replacement

questionnaire (mailed June 13, 2006), and a final replacement questionnaire (mailed July 17,

2006). The outer envelopes used in the last 2 mailings included a brightly colored sticker to

inform recipients of the purpose of the mailing and to encourage their response. I included a

personalized cover letter in the final package in an attempt to increase response. This cover

letter differed from the previous cover letters; it included information about a $1,000 prize

package sponsored by Bass Pro® and the NCWRC, to be awarded to one respondent, the name of

whom would be drawn at random from the pool of all respondents.

After the survey closed (July 31, 2006), I conducted a nonresponse analysis because my

final response rate was <65% (Dolsen and Machlis 1991). During September 2006, I conducted

phone interviews with 60 randomly selected nonrespondents (20 in each of the 3 administrative

regions). The phone questionnaire included 6 questions from the original questionnaire

(questions 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 26a). I collapsed the original response options for question 22 in the

original questionnaire to simplify the query in the phone questionnaire (i.e., �strongly support�

and �somewhat support� now condensed to �support�). I also modified two other questions (3

and 26a) in the original questionnaire to facilitate their use in the phone survey. The modified

versions asked nonrespondents to simply estimate (a) the number of days they hunted the

previous year and (b) how many fewer/more days they would hunt as a result of legalizing

hunting on Sunday. I included an open-ended question to allow respondents to describe their

reasons for support of or opposition to hunting on Sunday. At the request of NCWRC, I

30

included one additional question to determine constraints that may have prevented

nonrespondents from completing and returning the original mail questionnaire (Appendix C).

Data Analysis

I entered questionnaire and nonresponse data using Survey Pro software (V.3.0, Apian

Software). I imported the Survey Pro database into SPSS 14.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) to

conduct data analysis. I categorized respondents into 4 hunter types using responses to questions

4-13 (number of days hunted for particular game species). Categories included: big game (deer,

turkey, and bear days hunted), small game (birds, small mammals, and furbearer days hunted),

waterfowl (waterfowl days hunted), and mixed. To be placed into a category, respondents must

have indicated that ≥80% of their total days hunted (i.e., the sum of days hunted from questions

4-13) were devoted to the species within only one category. I placed respondents into the mixed

category when the total days hunted were spread over multiple species (i.e., < 80% in all

categories).

I classified respondents into avidity categories, also using the total number of days hunted

(i.e., the sum of days hunted from questions 4-13). I placed respondents in the lower quartile in

the �low (≤15 days)� category (n = 183), respondents within the interquartile range in the

�intermediate (16-53 days)� category (n = 369), and respondents in the upper quartile in the

�high (≥54 days)� category (n = 205).

I collapsed participants� open-ended age responses into categories used by the U.S.

Census Bureau (i.e., 18-24 years old, 25-34 years old, 35-44 years old, 45-54 years old, 55-64

years old, and >65 years old). I also collapsed responses to question 44 (frequency of church

attendance) into 4 categories (0 days per month, 1-2 days per month, 3-5 days per month, and >6

days per month) for analysis.

31

I constructed frequency distributions for nominal and ordinal descriptive data on opinions

of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina. I constructed contingency tables to examine

relationships between one�s opinion and key demographics and hunter characteristics. I explored

relationships between nominal and ordinal variables using the Chi-square test of homogeneity. I

collapsed categories if >20% of cells in any given table had expected counts < 5. I used a

probability value (P-value) of 0.05 to indicate statistically significant relationships. When

analyses of 2 ordinal variables produced significant P-values, I used gamma to measure the

strength and direction of association. Gamma ranges from -1.00 (perfect negative association) to

1.00 (perfect positive association) with 0 indicating no association (Babbie et al. 2003). I report

gamma values ≤ -0.2 and values ≥ 0.2 as significant. I also used analyses of variance (ANOVA)

to explore differences in means of ratio variables among regions, demographics, and hunter

characteristics, and used a P-value of 0.05 to report statistically significant differences.

Nonresponse analysis consisted of examining potential differences between mail

questionnaire respondents and nonrespondents using the Chi-square test of homogeneity. I also

used Fisher�s exact test for analysis of 2 x 2 contingency tables. I used a P-value of 0.05 to

report statistically significant differences.

Data Weighting

Because significantly more nonrespondents than respondents opposed hunting on

Sunday, I imposed a weighting on the data prior to conducting my data analysis. First, I

weighted opinions of hunting on Sunday to account for nonresponse bias using the following

equations:

1) WEIGHTED SUPPORT = questionnaire response rate (.416) * respondent support (.493) +

questionnaire nonresponse rate (.584) * nonrespondent support (.297); and

32

2) WEIGHTED OPPOSITION = questionnaire response rate (.416) * respondent opposition (.447) +

questionnaire nonresponse rate (.584) * nonrespondent opposition (.589).

Because the distribution of hunting license sales was not equal across North Carolina�s 3

administrative regions, I also imposed a weighting to approximate the distribution of actual

licenses sales in each region (Table 2.1). Similarly, the age distribution of respondents

significantly differed from the age distribution of individuals in the original sample of licensed

hunters within each region (χ2 = 35.614, df = 5, P < 0.0001). Thus, I imposed a weighting to re-

adjust the age distribution of respondents with the original sample (Table 2.2).

RESULTS

Response Rates

Nine hundred seventeen respondents returned completed surveys. The sample was

adjusted to remove 183 surveys returned with undeliverable addresses, 12 returned from families

where the contact was deceased, and 1 hard refusal (n =196), resulting in a final response rate of

41.6%. Response rates within administrative regions mirrored the overall final response rate

(Coastal response rate = 42.0%; n = 308, Piedmont response rate = 42.4%; n = 313, and

Mountain response rate = 40.5%; n = 296).

Nonresponse Analysis

Due to the lower than anticipated response, I conducted a nonresponse analysis (Dolsen

and Machlis 1991). I contacted 445 nonrespondents before completing 60 interviews. I

concluded respondents� and nonrespondents� opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina

differed significantly (χ2 = 9.586, df = 2, P = 0.008) (Figure 2.1; Tables 2.3 and 2.4). More

nonrespondents opposed hunting on Sunday than did respondents.

33

Description of Respondents

Nearly all mail questionnaire respondents were male (95.6%, n = 855), and respondents

averaged 49.3 years old (n = 917). The largest age group included respondents between 45-54

years old (22.1%, n = 203), whereas the smallest age group included respondents between 18-24

years old (7.6%, n = 70).

More than half (53.9%, n = 475) of all respondents indicated they currently lived in a

rural area, either on a farm or not on a farm. Only a small percentage of respondents indicated

that they lived in a large city (>100,000 people) (9.1%, n = 80). Thirty-nine percent of

respondents (n = 349) had a high school education or less, whereas 40% of respondents (n = 355)

had completed some college (including Associate�s degree) or trade school; 21% (n = 183) held

college degrees (including advanced degrees). Forty-two percent of respondents (n = 365)

indicated that they typically attend church or another place of worship ≤2 days per month; 57%

of respondents (n = 488) attended 3-6 days per month. Income among respondents was diverse:

12.7% (n = 106) of respondents earned ≤$25,000 in total household income (before taxes) last

year, 15% (n = 130) earned $25,000-$34,999, 16.3% (n = 136) earned $35,000-$49,999, 25.4%

(n = 212) earned $50,000-$74,999, 14.9% (n = 124) earned $75,000-$99,999, and 15.1% (n =

126) made ≥$100,000.

Fifty percent of respondents (n = 379) were placed into the mixed hunter category (i.e.,

≥80% of their total days hunted did not fall into a single category). Forty-one percent of

respondents (n = 311) fell into the big game category. Very few respondents fell into the small

game (7.3%, n = 55) or the waterfowl categories (1.3%, n = 10). Regarding avidity, 49.1% (n =

371) of respondents were classified as intermediate (16-53 days spent afield). Equal percentages

34

of respondents were considered low (≤15 days) (25.3%, n = 191) or avid (≥54 days) (25.6%, n =

193).

Opinions of Hunting on Sunday

Respondents were polarized in their opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina

(Figure 2.2). However, after adjusting for nonresponse bias, fewer respondents expressed support

for the legalization of hunting on Sunday than those expressing opposition to it (Table 2.4). The

nonresponse analysis suggested respondents with an interest in the issue and respondents who

supported hunting on Sunday were more likely to complete and return the survey.

Opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina significantly differed among 4

demographic categories (age, community type, income, and church attendance) (Table 2.5). A

strong positive association between opinion of hunting on Sunday and respondents� age existed

(χ2 = 98.690, df = 20, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.254; Figure 2.3). Older respondents were more likely

than younger respondents to oppose hunting on Sunday, whereas younger respondents were

more likely than older respondents to support hunting on Sunday. No clear relationship existed

between opinion of hunting on Sunday and community type (pattern suggested by significant P-

value, but insignificant gamma value raises doubt) (χ2 = 51.179, df = 16, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.160;

Figure 2.4). However, respondents who reside in rural areas were more likely than respondents

in urban areas to oppose hunting on Sunday in North Carolina. No clear relationship existed

between opinion of hunting on Sunday and respondents� household income (χ2 = 32.559, df =

20, P = 0.038, γ = -0.059).

A significant relationship also existed between opinion of hunting on Sunday and church

attendance (χ2 = 159.026, df = 12, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.462) (Figure 2.5). More than 50% of

respondents (n = 210) who indicated they attend church or another place of worship ≤2 days per

35

month strongly supported hunting on Sunday. Forty-five percent of respondents (n = 138) who

typically attend church or another place of worship 3-5 days per month and 67.0% (n = 122) of

respondents who attend ≥6 days per month strongly opposed hunting on Sunday. Opinion of

hunting on Sunday did not differ significantly by region (χ2 = 2.335, df = 8, P = 0.969), gender

(χ2 = 5.414, df = 4, P = 0.247), or education (χ2 = 28.638, df = 20, P = 0.095).

Opinion of hunting on Sunday differed among hunter types (χ2 = 18.320, df = 8, P =

0.019) (Table 2.6). Only 18.4% (n = 9) of respondents categorized as small game hunters

strongly supported hunting on Sunday, whereas 41.6% (n = 131) of big game hunters and 45.9%

(n = 175) of mixed hunters strongly supported hunting on Sunday. Sixty-three percent of small

game hunters (n = 31) opposed hunting on Sunday.

Opinion of hunting on Sunday differed with hunter avidity (χ2 = 23.239, df = 8, P =

0.003, γ = -0.021). Avid hunters were more likely to strongly support hunting on Sunday,

whereas less avid hunters were more likely to oppose (Figure 2.6). More than one-half of avid

hunters (53.7%, n = 110) strongly supported hunting on Sunday. Almost half of respondents

(45.1%, n = 82) who indicated they hunted ≤15 days strongly opposed hunting on Sunday.

Opinion of hunting on Sunday significantly differed due to land ownership status (χ2 =

39.603, df = 8, P < 0.0001) (Table 2.7). Thirty-eight percent of landowners (n = 125) who

currently allow hunting on their land strongly supported hunting on Sunday, whereas 41.9% (n =

139) strongly opposed hunting on Sunday. About 23.0% of respondents (n = 31) who currently

do not allow hunting on their land strongly supported hunting on Sunday, whereas 54.1% (n =

73) strongly opposed hunting on Sunday. Forty-six percent of respondents (n = 189) who did not

own land in North Carolina strongly supported hunting on Sunday in North Carolina.

36

Sixty-eight percent of respondents (n = 212) who believed that work commitments were

very important in explaining constraints to their hunting activity supported hunting on Sunday,

compared to only 28% (n = 58) who opposed hunting on Sunday (χ2 = 66.726, df = 16, P <

0.0001, γ = 0.270; Table 2.8). Fifty-five percent of respondents (n = 22) who believed that work

commitments were a very unimportant constraint and 46% of respondents (n = 53) who believed

they were a somewhat unimportant constraint to their hunting activity strongly opposed hunting

on Sunday. Although almost half of the respondents (45.6%, n = 78) who indicated that family

commitments were a very important constraint to their hunting activity strongly supported

hunting on Sunday, the overall relationship between family commitments and support for

hunting on Sunday was not significant (χ2 = 23.246, df = 16, P = 0.107). No significant

differences existed between opinion of hunting on Sunday and satisfaction with hunting

experiences in North Carolina during the last year (χ2 = 24.677, df = 16, P = 0.076) or the last 5

years (χ2 = 13.247, df = 16, P = 0.655).

Opinions of Hunting on Sunday with Some Limitations

Hunter opinions of hunting on Sunday with some limitations were strongly polarized,

with 41% (n = 361) supporting and 51% (n = 453) opposing. Among respondents who

previously indicated strong support for hunting on Sunday, 19.1% (n = 62) opposed hunting on

Sunday with some limitations. Less than 4% (n = 7) of respondents who previously opposed

hunting on Sunday would support hunting on Sunday with some limitations.

Opinion of hunting on Sunday with some limitations significantly differed among 4

demographic categories (age, community type, income, and church attendance) (Table 2.9).

Seventy-seven percent of respondents (n = 113) ≥65 years old opposed hunting on Sunday with

some limitations (χ2 = 76.339, df = 20, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.205). Although opinion of hunting on

37

Sunday with some limitations significantly differed by the community in which a respondent

lived, no clear relationship between the two existed among respondents (χ2 = 39.695, df = 16, P

= 0.001, γ = 0.120). Nearly 58% of respondents (n = 105) who lived in rural areas and 43% of

respondents (n = 122) who lived in rural areas but not on farms strongly opposed hunting on

Sunday with some limitations. Similarly, the relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday

with some limitations and income, although significant, showed no clear pattern (χ2 = 36.223, df

= 20, P = 0.014, γ = -0.036). However, 53% of respondents (n = 55) who earned≤$24,999

strongly opposed hunting on Sunday with some limitations. A strong positive association

between church attendance and opinion of hunting on Sunday with some limitations existed (χ2

= 108.629, df = 12, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.347). Sixty-nine percent of respondents (n = 125) who

attended church or another place of worship ≥6 days per month strongly opposed hunting on

Sunday with some limitations. In contrast, 53.7% (n = 100) who attended church or another

place of worship ≤2 days per month strongly supported hunting on Sunday with some

limitations. Gender (χ2 = 4.740, df = 4, P = 0.315), education (χ2 = 26.527, df = 20, P =0.149),

hunter type (χ2 = 10.340, df = 8, P = 0.242), and hunter avidity (χ2 = 10.927, df = 8, P =0.206)

each had no significant effect on one�s opinion of hunting on Sunday with some limitations.

Opinions of Hunting on Sunday under Different Scenarios

A majority of respondents strongly opposed hunting on Sunday under all but 3 scenarios

(Table 2.10). Less than half of respondents (46.7%, n = 413) strongly opposed hunting on

Sunday only if pursuit dogs are not used, whereas about one-third of respondents (n = 294)

supported the issue under this scenario. Slightly fewer respondents (43.0%, n = 378) strongly

opposed hunting on Sunday only if safety zones are created around churches; only 39% (n = 340)

supported this scenario. An even smaller percentage of respondents (38.7%, n = 342) strongly

38

opposed hunting on Sunday if it is treated like any other day of the week, whereas 46.5% of

respondents (n = 409) supported hunting on Sunday under this scenario.

Most respondents who had voiced opposition to hunting on Sunday with some limitations

also strongly opposed each of the scenarios (Table 2.11). The following scenarios garnered

strong opposition: hunting on Sunday only on public lands (87.6%, n = 391); hunting on Sunday

only for youth hunters (under 16 years of age) (87.6%, n = 390). Although still receiving strong

opposition, the scenario deemed least objectionable was hunting on Sunday only if treated like

any other day of the week (69.3%, n = 308).

Respondents who supported hunting on Sunday with some limitations strongly supported

only 2 scenarios: hunting on Sunday if treated like any other day of the week (55.5%, n = 265)

and hunting on Sunday only if safety zones are created around churches (51.7%, n = 184) (Table

2.12). The scenario receiving least support advocated hunting on Sunday only for youth hunters

(under 16 years of age) (2.7%, n = 7).

Importance of Reasons in Shaping Opinions of Hunting on Sunday

Respondents who expressed opposition to hunting on Sunday cited 6 reasons as being

most important in shaping their opinion. The most frequently cited reasons were that hunting on

Sunday should not be allowed because Sunday is a holy day (67.7%, n = 262), followed by

Sunday provides a day that other recreationists, such as hikers, horseback riders, and wildlife

viewers, can enjoy the woods without worrying about hunters (61.8%, n = 239) (Table 2.13).

Respondents who expressed support for hunting on Sunday cited the following as being

the most frequent reason for their support: the decision to hunt on Sunday should be a personal

choice rather than a governmental decision (77.1%, n = 341). Seventy-five percent of supporters

39

(n = 290) believed that hunting on Sunday may provide additional hunting opportunities for

working people (Table 2.14).

Potential Impacts on Hunting Participation

General Impacts

Several questions evaluated potential impacts of legalizing hunting on Sunday in North

Carolina on hunting participation. Almost half of all respondents (47.1%, n = 415) indicated

they would hunt on Sunday if it were legalized, whereas 40.4% (n = 357) indicated they would

not. Only 4 respondents (6.1%) who had not hunted in North Carolina in the past 5 years

indicated they would hunt on Sunday if it were legalized in North Carolina. One-third of

respondents (n = 20) who had not hunted in North Carolina since July 1, 2005, indicated they

would hunt on Sunday in North Carolina, if legalized.

Younger respondents were more likely to hunt on Sunday if it were legalized in North

Carolina; older respondents were more likely not to hunt on Sunday (χ2 = 93.484, df = 10, P <

0.0001) (Table 2.15). Overall, the more days per month a respondent attended church or another

place of worship, the more likely they were not to hunt on Sunday (χ2 = 160.125, df = 6, P <

0.0001).

Avidity also influenced one�s decision to hunt on Sunday; avid hunters were more likely

to hunt on Sunday (χ2 = 27.722, df = 4, P < 0.0001). Community type (χ2 = 23.555, df = 8, P =

0.003) and income (χ2 = 25.897, df = 10, P = 0.004) both appeared to have a significant

influence on one�s decision to hunt on Sunday without a clear pattern (Table 2.15). However,

53% of respondents (n = 95) residing in rural areas not on farms said they would not hunt on

Sunday. Only 25% of respondents (n = 31) who earned ≥$100,000 indicated they would not

hunt on Sunday compared to 52% of respondents (n = 53) who earned ≤$24,999. Region (χ2

40

=6.818, df = 4, P = 0.146), gender (χ2 = 0.276, df = 2, P = 0.871), education (χ2 = 14.170, df =

10, P = 0.165), or hunter type (χ2 = 11.599, df = 6, P = 0.072) each had little influence in

shaping one�s opinion about participation on Sunday. Respondents who supported hunting on

Sunday were more likely to hunt on Sunday than opponents (χ2 = 821.125, df = 8, P < 0.0001)

(Table 2.16).

Level of Participation

Overall, 36.9% of respondents (n = 316) indicated they would hunt more days, 60.2% (n

= 515) indicated they would hunt about the same number of days, and 2.9% (n = 25) indicated

they would hunt fewer days if hunting on Sunday was legalized in North Carolina. Respondents

who indicated they would hunt fewer days said they would hunt an average of 10.3 fewer days

per year (n = 19, SD = 19.1).

Younger respondents were more likely to hunt more days if hunting on Sunday was

allowed (χ2 = 99.119, df = 10, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.358) (Table 2.17). Respondents (54.7%, n =

116) who typically do not attend church indicated they would hunt more days if hunting on

Sunday was legalized. In contrast, 76.9% (n = 133) of respondents who attend church or another

place of worship ≥6 days per month indicated they would hunt about the same of number of days

(χ2 = 76.119, df = 6, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.439). Avid hunters were more likely to hunt more days

(χ2 = 11.756, df = 4, P = 0.019, γ = -0.204). Although community type appeared to influence the

level of one�s participation, a clear pattern did not emerge (χ2 = 16.330, df = 8, P = 0.038, γ =

0.140). However, only 28% of respondents (n = 49) who reside in rural areas on farms would

hunt more days if hunting on Sunday was legalized. Region (χ2 = 1.431, df = 4, P = 0.839),

gender (χ2 = 2.345, df = 2, P = 0.310), education (χ2 = 13.289, df = 10, P = 0.208), income (χ2

= 17.271, df = 10, P = 0.069), and hunter type (χ2 = 8.788, df = 6, P = 0.186) had no detectable

41

influence on level of participation. Respondents who expressed support for hunting on Sunday

were more likely to hunt more days, whereas respondents who opposed were more likely to hunt

about the same number of days per year (χ2 = 407.911, df = 8, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.875) (Table

2.18).

Change in Hunter Days and Hunter Trips

Overall, respondents devoted 23.7 days (n = 768, SD = 29.4), on average, to hunting in

North Carolina that did not involve an overnight stay during the most recent season.

Respondents from the Mountain region averaged fewer days of hunting than respondents from

either the Coastal or Piedmont regions (F = 5.321, df = 2, P = 0.005; Table 2.19). Younger

respondents hunted more days than older respondents (F = 6.177, df = 5, P < 0.0001; Figure 2.7),

and males hunted more ( x = 24.4 days, n = 720, SD = 29.8) than females ( x = 11.7 days, n = 38,

SD = 18.0). Respondents who lived in rural areas hunted more days than those who lived in

urban areas (F = 6.229, df = 4, P < 0.0001). Respondents who completed less education hunted

more days than respondents with more education (F = 3.109, df = 5, P = 0.0009). In addition,

respondents who attended church ≤2 days per month hunted slightly more days, if it did not

involve an overnight stay, than those who attended more often (F = 3.438, df = 3, P = 0.017).

The average number of days hunted differed among avidity categories (F = 181.471, df = 2, P <

0.0001), but not among hunter types (F = 1.286, df = 3, P = 0.278; Table 2.20). Avid hunters

hunted substantially more days per year, where it did not involve an overnight stay in North

Carolina, than less avid hunters.

On average, respondents said they would hunt 7.0 more days (n = 772, SD = 12.8) per

year that would not involve an overnight stay if hunting on Sunday was legalized in North

Carolina. Respondents did not differ in the number of additional days they would hunt, if it did

42

not involve an overnight stay, when compared by region (F = 0.118, df = 2, P = 0.889), gender

(F = 2.981, df = 1, P = 0.085), or community type (F = 0.907, df = 4, P = 0.459).

The youngest age group of respondents (i.e., 18-24 years old) would hunt, on average,

almost twice as many additional days per year as any of the 3 older age groups if hunting on

Sunday was legalized in North Carolina (F = 2.929, df = 5, P = 0.013; Figure 2.8; Table 2.21).

Respondents who did not attend church or another place of worship said they would hunt about 3

- 4 more days than those who attended more often. As respondents� education increased, the

average number of additional days hunted that would not involve an overnight stay generally

decreased (F = 2.350, df = 5, P = 0.039). Respondents with lower incomes averaged several

additional days more than respondents with higher incomes (F = 4.469, df = 5, P = 0.001).

The number of additional days hunted did not differ among hunter types, but the most

avid hunters said they would hunt nearly 12 additional days (n = 187, SD = 18.4) per year,

compared to about 3 days (n = 155, SD = 7.1) per year for the least avid hunters (Table 2.22).

Overall, respondents averaged 2.2 overnight hunting trips (n = 775, SD = 5.4) per year in

North Carolina. The number of overnight trips taken did not differ among regions (F = 1.875, df

= 2, P = 0.154) or the other demographic parameters examined, except for a slight, but

indiscernible, difference among age groups (F = 2.267, df = 5, P = 0.046). The most avid

respondents said they took an average of 3.7 overnight hunting trips (n = 186, SD = 8.0) per year

in North Carolina, compared to 1.2 trips (n = 156, SD = 4.0) for the least avid hunters (Table

2.23).

Overall, respondents said they would take 1.9 additional overnight hunting trips (n = 772,

SD = 4.7) per year in North Carolina if hunting on Sunday was legalized. The number of

additional overnight trips did not differ among regions (F = 0.355, df = 2, P = 0.701). The

43

average number of additional overnight trips did not differ among demographic parameters,

except for a slight difference between age groups (F = 2.354, df = 5, P = 0.039). Younger

respondents said they would take more additional overnight trips than older respondents if

hunting on Sunday was legalized in North Carolina.

Hunter type did not influence the number of additional overnight trips respondents would

take if hunting on Sunday was legalized (F = 1.373, df = 3, P = 0.250) (Table 2.24). The most

avid respondents said they would take >3 additional overnight hunting trips (n = 185, SD = 7.5)

per year if hunting on Sunday was legalized in North Carolina, compared to 1 trip for the least

avid hunters (F = 10.494, df = 2, P < 0.0001).

Participation Outside of North Carolina

Since July 1, 2005, 20% of respondents (n = 175) hunted outside of North Carolina.

Participation in hunting outside of North Carolina differed among North Carolina�s 3

administrative regions (χ2 = 13.037, df = 2, P = 0.001). More respondents (26.5%, n = 75) in the

Mountain region hunted outside of North Carolina, whereas respondents in the Coastal region

(14.0%, n = 34) hunted the least outside of the state.

Of those who hunted outside of North Carolina, 28.7% (n = 50) agreed that the ability to

hunt on Sunday was very important to their decision to hunt outside of North Carolina.

However, 30.5% of respondents (n = 53) stated it was very unimportant to their decision. Only

16.2% (n = 28) were likely to take fewer trips to hunt outside of North Carolina if hunting on

Sunday was legalized; 47.6% (n = 82) were not at all likely to take fewer trips.

44

Landowner Participation

Of the respondents who owned land in North Carolina, 39.9% (n = 332) currently allow

hunting to occur on their property. Most of these (71.5%, n = 228) allow hunters other than

family members to hunt on their property. Nearly one-half of landowners who currently allow

hunting to occur (42.5%, n = 134) indicated they would allow hunting on Sunday on their

property. Forty-eight percent of respondents (47.6%, n = 150) indicated they would not allow

hunting on Sunday. Only 15.5% of respondents (n = 136) who owned land in North Carolina do

not allow hunting. Less than 10% of those landowners (n = 12) would allow hunting on Sunday

on their property if it was legalized in North Carolina. Most respondents who owned land, but

did not allow hunting (86.5%, n = 109), simply would not allow any hunting on Sunday. The

percentage of landowners who allow hunters other than family members to hunt on their land did

not differ among regions. Landowners, regardless of whether they currently allow hunting, did

not differ by region in terms of the percentage of who would or would not allow hunting on

Sunday on their land.

Hunt Club Participation

Only 27.8% of respondents (n = 241) were members of hunt clubs that hunt in North

Carolina. Significant differences occurred in hunt club participation among regions (χ2 =

35.201, df = 2, P < 0.0001). Nearly one-half of respondents (40.8%, n = 98) in the Coastal

region, 27.1% (n = 94) in the Piedmont, and 17.5% (n = 49) of respondents in the Mountain

region were members of hunt clubs that hunt in North Carolina. Only 6.0% of respondents (n =

35) who currently were not a member of a hunt club would join a hunt club in North Carolina

just to hunt on Sunday. Nearly one-half of respondents (49.6%, n = 118) who belonged to a hunt

45

club were very likely to participate in Sunday hunts in North Carolina with their hunt club if

hunting on Sunday was legalized in North Carolina.

Adult Participation

Seventy-six percent of respondents (n = 667) had taken a friend or a family member

hunting in North Carolina since July 1, 2005. Nearly one-half (47.1%, n = 313) who had taken a

friend or family member were very likely to take a friend or family member hunting on Sunday

in North Carolina if hunting on Sunday was legalized. Thirty-seven percent (n = 247) were not

at all likely to take a friend or family member hunting on Sunday. Less than 10% (n =17) of

those who had not taken a friend or family member hunting were very likely to take a friend or a

family member hunting on Sunday.

Youth Participation

Fifty-four percent of respondents (n = 477) had taken a youth (under 16 years of age)

hunting in North Carolina since July 1, 2005. Fifty-one percent of respondents (n = 248) who

had taken a youth hunting indicated they had taken a son or daughter, 18.4% (n = 88) a grandson

or granddaughter, 27.3% (n = 130) had taken another relative, and 32.0% (n = 153) indicated

they had taken a youth of no relation. Nearly one-half of respondents (49.3%, n = 235) who had

taken a youth hunting were very likely to take a youth hunting on Sunday if it was legalized in

North Carolina, whereas 37.9% (n = 181) were not at all likely to do so. Less than 10% (n = 33)

of respondents who had not taken a youth hunting in North Carolina were very likely to take a

youth hunting. Nearly 60% (n = 215) were not at all likely to take a youth hunting on Sunday.

46

DISCUSSION

Results from the initial phases of our research effort (i.e., focus groups and internet

comment forum) suggested that hunters were polarized in their opinions about hunting on

Sunday. Our survey of hunters confirmed this indication, as nearly equal percentages of

respondents supported or opposed hunting on Sunday in North Carolina and most respondents

either strongly supported or strongly opposed the legalization of hunting on Sunday. However,

our nonresponse bias analysis also suggested that respondents who had an interest in the issue

and those who supported hunting on Sunday were more likely to complete and return the survey.

Despite the low response rate and accounting for the respondent bias toward support, the issue

over hunting on Sunday in North Carolina remains contentious.

Opinions of Hunting on Sunday

Among the most significant findings relative to demographics were the differences of

opinion of hunting on Sunday due to respondents� age and frequency of church attendance. As

age increased, opposition to hunting on Sunday also increased. The current profile of North

Carolina hunters reveals that older hunters represent the majority of hunters in North Carolina.

Our results and the current profile suggest that the majority of North Carolina hunters oppose

hunting on Sunday. However, one must examine this relationship between opinion of hunting on

Sunday and age more closely. Will younger hunters retain their support as they age? If they do,

current perceptions on the issue likely will shift from opposition to support as older hunters, and

those more opposed, disappear from the ranks. However, we lack sufficient information to

determine whether opinion is influenced, refined, or muted by factors other than age alone.

Perhaps the most significant influence on opinion of hunting on Sunday was the

frequency of one�s church attendance. As the number of days per month a respondent attended

47

church or another place of worship increased, opposition to hunting on Sunday also increased.

The suggestion that hunting on Sunday is a religious issue also was corroborated by the finding

that the majority of respondents who opposed hunting on Sunday believed that �hunting on

Sunday should not be permitted because Sunday is a holy day.�

The apparent differences in opinion due to community type and income, though weak

(i.e., insignificant gamma values) suggest these factors may play a minor role in shaping hunters�

opinion on hunting on Sunday. Respondents who resided in rural areas, particularly those who

reside on farms, were more likely to oppose hunting on Sunday. There was no clear relationship

between age and community types (e.g., do rural areas generally have older populations?), so

something else must have been occurring. I believe this relationship could be attributed, in part,

to factors like hunter behavior in rural areas (e.g., trespassing). Duda et al. (1996) and Jagnow et

al.(2006) identified illegal hunting activities, safety concerns, and potential liability issues as

factors that increase the likelihood of landowners posting their property against hunting. In a

Pennsylvania study, landowners also expressed concerns with general disturbance of the peace

(Legislative and Budget Finance Committee 2005). Given that, I examined the relationship

between opinion and land ownership. The analysis revealed the largest group of landowners,

regardless of whether they currently allow hunting, strongly opposed hunting on Sunday.

However, without further research and analysis, it is difficult to ascertain if the observed

difference in opinion based on community type and land ownership is due to preconceived

notions about hunter behavior.

The relationships between opinion of hunting on Sunday and metrics of hunter

characterization were, for the most part, weak associations. Of the two I examined, avidity

demonstrated the strongest association. As hunter effort (e.g., total number of days hunted)

48

increased or as the level of avidity increased, respondents were more likely to support hunting on

Sunday. Given that Sunday would provide an additional day to hunt, I attributed the relationship

between opinion and avidity to be reflective of the definition of avidity: a keen eagerness or

enthusiasm for hunting (Merriam-Webster Online 2006).

The pattern of opposition to hunting on Sunday held fast regardless of whether any

limitations might be imposed. Opposition again was strongest among older respondents and

those who attended church frequently. However, I also found that respondents who originally

supported hunting on Sunday were more likely to oppose hunting on Sunday once some

limitations were imposed. This may be a reflection of hunters� perception that there already are

too many regulations or that regulations are too confusing, both of which often contribute to a

decline in hunter effort (Miller and Vaske 2003). Participants in our focus groups also voiced an

�all or nothing� approach to hunting on Sunday. Among the various scenarios that would place

some limitation on hunting on Sunday, the two least opposed scenarios by proponents of hunting

on Sunday were the least restrictive (i.e., treating hunting on Sunday like any other day of the

week, creating safety zones around churches).

Hunting Participation

Support for hunting on Sunday often stems from the view that hunting on Sunday could

enhance the recruitment and retention of hunters by providing additional opportunities to hunt.

Analysis of the relationship between opinion and constraints to hunting activity supported this

view. As the importance placed on �work commitments limit my time to hunt� in explaining

constraints to respondents� hunting activity increased, support for hunting on Sunday also

increased. In the view of supporters, hunting on Sunday may provide additional hunting

opportunities for working people, and this appeared to be very important in shaping their opinion

49

of hunting on Sunday. However, supporters of hunting on Sunday placed most importance on

the fact that this issue should be a personal choice rather than a governmental decision.

Although it appears that supporters of hunting on Sunday believe it may enhance recruitment and

retention, I suspect that legalizing hunting on Sunday will have a minimal effect on recruitment.

However, it may have a positive effect on hunter retention, based on my data pertaining to

additional days and trips that would result from the legalization of hunting on Sunday.

Hunter Recruitment

The potential effects of allowing hunting on Sunday on hunter recruitment were not clear

immediately; nonetheless, several indicators of such effects were detected. Overall, many

respondents (47.1%) indicated they would hunt on Sunday, but less than 10% who had not

hunted in the past 5 years indicated they would hunt on Sunday. This leads one to question the

effect that hunting on Sunday has on hunter recruitment. Further, allowing hunting on Sunday

appeared to have minimal influence in persuading hunters to take adult family members and

friends hunting. Respondents who had not taken a family member or friend hunting during the

previous year were not likely to do so simply because hunting on Sunday had been legalized in

North Carolina. The same pattern appeared to hold true in taking a youth (under 16 years of age)

into the field if hunting on Sunday was legalized. Hunting on Sunday also had little effect on

recruiting respondents into hunt clubs or influencing the likelihood of hunting outside North

Carolina. Less than 10% of respondents indicated they were very likely to join a hunt club as a

result of allowing one to hunt on Sunday. Respondents who indicated they hunted outside of

North Carolina the previous year were not likely to take fewer trips simply as a result of

legalizing hunting on Sunday. Together, these results suggest that legalizing hunting on Sunday

would have a minimal effect on hunter recruitment in North Carolina.

50

Hunter Retention

In contrast to the findings relative to hunter recruitment, hunting on Sunday may have a

positive effect on hunting participation or even hunter retention. Among my most significant

findings was the potential increase in the level of hunting participation as a result of legalizing

hunting on Sunday. Most respondents indicated they would hunt at least the same number of

days and more than one-third of respondents indicated they would hunt more days if hunting on

Sunday was legalized, providing evidence of a potential effect on hunter retention. The likely

increase in days hunting that did not involve an overnight stay and the likely increase in

overnight hunting trips also suggest that hunting on Sunday may be important to hunter

retention. Among respondents who indicated their hunting activity would increase or remain the

same, 7 additional days and almost 2 additional overnight trips, on average, would be added if

hunting on Sunday was legalized, suggesting that allowing hunting on Sunday, at the very least,

would affect hunter participation and possibly hunter retention.

The likelihood of respondents to involve adult friends, family members, or youth in

hunting on Sunday suggests some positive impact on hunter retention. Almost half of

respondents who had taken an adult friend or family member hunting the previous year were

likely to do so again on a Sunday. I found similar results for likelihood to take a youth hunting

on Sunday. I believe the likelihood to take adult friends, family members, or youth hunting on

Sunday demonstrates a potential positive impact of hunting on Sunday on hunter retention. This

increased likelihood also could be a form of hunter recruitment if the participant introduced a

friend, family member, or youth to hunting. However, the questionnaire did not ask specifically

about the likelihood of respondents to introduce a new friend, family member, or youth to

hunting as a direct result of legalizing hunting on Sunday.

51

LITERATURE CITED

Babbie, E., F. Halley, and J. Zaino. 2003. Adventures in social research: data analysis using SPSS 11.0/11.5 for Windows, 5th Edition. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, California.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored design method. John Wiley and

Sons. New York, New York. Dolsen, D.E., and G.E. Machlis. 1991. Response rates and mail recreation survey results: how

much is enough? Journal of Leisure Research 23:272-277. Duda, M.D., S.J. Bissell, and K.C. Young. 1996. Factors related to hunting and fishing

participation in the United States. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 61:324-337.

Jagnow, C.P., R.C. Stedman, A.E. Luloff, G.J. San Julian, J.C. Finley, and J. Steele. 2006. Why

landowners in Pennsylvania post their property against hunting. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11:15-26.

Legislative and Budget Finance Committee, Pennsylvania General Assembly. 2005. A Study of

potential economic, social, and other impacts of expanding Sunday hunting in Pennsylvania. Harrisonburg, Pennsylvania.

Merriam-Webster Online. 2006. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m-

w.com/dictionary/participation. Miller, C.A., and J.J. Vaske. 2003. Individual and situational influences on declining hunter

effort in Illinois. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:263-276.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. State of North Carolina Request for Proposals: Sunday Hunting Study. Raleigh, North Carolina.

52

Opinion of Hunting on SundayOpposeNeitherSupport

% o

f Res

pond

ents

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0

NonrespondentsRespondents

n = 448

n = 18

n = 54n = 7

n = 406

n = 35

Figure 2.1. Respondents� and nonrespondents� opinions of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006 (χ2 = 9.586, df = 2, P = 0.008).

53

Figure 2.2. Respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

Opinion of Hunting on Sunday

Strongly OpposeSomewhat OpposeNeither Support Nor Oppose

Somewhat SupportStrongly Support

% o

f Res

pond

ents

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0

n = 349

n = 99n = 54 n = 50

n = 356

54

Figu

re 2

.3. E

ffec

t of r

espo

nden

t age

on

opin

ion

of h

untin

g on

Sun

day

in N

orth

Car

olin

a, b

ased

on

a m

ail s

urve

y of

lice

nsed

res

iden

t hun

ters

in N

orth

C

arol

ina

cond

ucte

d in

sum

mer

200

6 (χ

2 =

98.6

90, d

f = 2

0, P

< 0

.000

1, γ

= 0

.254

).

Opi

nion

of H

untin

g on

Sun

day

Stro

ngly

Opp

ose

Som

ewha

t Opp

ose

Nei

ther

Sup

port

Nor

O

ppos

eS

omew

hat S

uppo

rtS

trong

ly S

uppo

rt

% of Respondents100.

0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0 0.0

≥65

55-6

445

-54

35-4

425

-34

18-2

4A

ge

55

Figu

re 2

.4. E

ffec

t of c

omm

unity

in w

hich

res

pond

ents

live

d on

opi

nion

of h

untin

g on

Sun

day

in N

orth

Car

olin

a, b

ased

on

a m

ail s

urve

y of

lice

nsed

re

side

nt h

unte

rs in

Nor

th C

arol

ina

cond

ucte

d in

sum

mer

200

6 (χ

2 =

51.1

79, d

f = 1

6, P

< 0

.000

1, γ

= 0

.072

).

Stro

ngly

O

ppos

eSo

mew

hat

Opp

ose

Nei

ther

Su

ppor

t Nor

O

ppos

e

Som

ewha

t S

uppo

rtSt

rong

ly

Supp

ort

Opi

nion

of H

untin

g on

Sun

day

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0 0.0

% of Respondents

Rur

al a

rea

on a

farm

Rur

al a

rea

not o

n a

farm

Smal

l Tow

n (<

10,0

00

peop

le)

Smal

l City

(bet

wee

n 10

,000

and

100

,000

pe

ople

)

Larg

e C

ity (>

100,

000

peop

le)

Com

mun

ity

56

Figu

re 2

.5. E

ffec

t of c

hurc

h or

oth

er p

lace

of w

orsh

ip a

ttend

ance

on

opin

ion

of h

untin

g on

Sun

day

in N

orth

Car

olin

a, b

ased

on

a m

ail s

urve

y of

lice

nsed

re

side

nt h

unte

rs in

Nor

th C

arol

ina

cond

ucte

d in

sum

mer

200

6 (χ

2 =

159.

026,

df =

12,

P <

0.0

001,

γ =

0.4

62).

Opi

nion

of H

untin

g on

Sun

day

in N

orth

Car

olin

a

Stro

ngly

O

ppos

eS

omew

hat

Opp

ose

Nei

ther

S

uppo

rt N

or

Opp

ose

Som

ewha

t S

uppo

rtS

trong

ly

Sup

port


0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0 0.0

≥6 d

ays

3-5

days

1-2

days

0 da

ys

Chu

rch

Atte

ndan

ce

(Day

s pe

r mon

th)

57

Opin

ion

of H

untin

g on

Sun

day

in N

orth

Car

olin

a

Stro

ngly

Oppo

seSo

mew

hat

Oppo

seNe

ither

Sup

port

Nor O

ppos

eSo

mew

hat

Supp

ort

Stro

ngly

Supp

ort


0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0 0.0

HIGH

(≥54

DA

YS)

INTE

RMED

IATE

(1

6-53

DAY

S)

LOW

(≤15

DAY

S)

Avidi

ty Le

vel

Figu

re 2

.6. E

ffec

t of r

espo

nden

t avi

dity

leve

l on

opin

ion

of h

untin

g on

Sun

day

in N

orth

Car

olin

a, b

ased

on

a m

ail s

urve

y of

lice

nsed

res

iden

t hun

ters

in

Nor

th C

arol

ina

cond

ucte

d in

sum

mer

200

6 (χ

2 =

23.2

39, d

f = 8

, P =

0.0

03, γ

= -0

.021

).

58

Age (Years)≥6555-6445-5435-4425-3418-24

Ave

rage

# o

f Day

s40

30

20

10

0

n = 98

n = 149n = 172

n = 152 n = 121

n = 76

Figure 2.7. Effect of respondents� age on average numbers of days hunted in North Carolina that did not involve an overnight stay, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006 (F = 6.177, df = 5, P < 0.0001).

59

Figure 2.8. Effect of respondents� age on average number of additional days hunted in North Carolina that did not involve an overnight stay if hunting on Sunday was legalized, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006 (F = 2.929, df = 5, P = 0.013).

Age (Years)≥6555-6445-5435-4425-3418-24

Ave

rage

# o

f Add

ition

al D

ays

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

n = 98

n = 149n = 173

n = 152 n = 123

n = 77

60

Table 2.1. Number of respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006 in each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions before and after weighting to reflect the licenses sales distribution in each region.

a Difference attributed to rounding during weighting process.

Region Respondents Unweighted Percent (%)

Respondents Weighted Percent (%)

Coastal 308 33.6 248 27.1 Piedmont 313 34.1 369 40.3 Mountain 296 32.3 299 32.6 Total 917a 100.0 916a 100.0

61

Table 2.2. Age distribution of respondents to a survey of North Carolina licensed hunters about hunting on Sunday in North Carolina conducted during summer of 2006, before and after weighting data to reflect age distribution of original sample.

Age Region N

(Unweighted)

% of Respondents (Unweighted)

N (Weighted)

% of Respondents

(Weighted) Overall 70 7.6 107 11.7 Coastal 28 9.1 31 12.5

Piedmont 26 8.3 46 12.4 18-24

Mountain 16 5.4 30 10.0 Overall 112 12.2 160 17.4 Coastal 40 13.0 47 19.0

Piedmont 37 11.8 67 18.1 25-34


Piedmont 56 17.9 76 20.5 35-44


Piedmont 77 24.6 70 18.9 45-54


Piedmont 61 19.5 54 14.6 55-64


Piedmont 56 17.9 57 15.4 ≥65

Mountain 57 19.3 61 15.7

62

Table 2.3. Nonresponse analysis comparing mail and telephone respondents to a survey of North Carolina licensed hunters about hunting on Sunday in North Carolina conducted during summer of 2006.

Question Mailed (N=917)

Phone (N=60) χ2 df P-value

Did you hunt in North Carolina at any time since July 1, 2001 (in the past 5 years)?a 91.6 88.3 0.748 1 0.387

Have you hunted in NC since July I, 2005?a 93.9 90.7 0.192 1 0.660d

For the most recent season, did you hunt more days, fewer days, or about the same number of days as you did during the previous four seasons?b 18.2 30.6 5.881 2 0.053

Do you support or oppose the legalization of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina?c 49.3 30.0 9.586 2 0.008

a Percent indicating �Yes�

b Percent indicating �Fewer Days�

c Percent indicating �Support�

d Fisher�s exact test used because >20% of cells had expected counts <5

63

Table 2.4. Support for and opposition to hunting on Sunday before and after adjusting for nonresponse bias, based on mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. Opinion Prior to Adjustment Opinion After Adjustment

Support for (%) 49.3 37.9 Opposition to (%) 44.7 53.0

64

Tab

le 2

.5. S

igni

fican

t rel

atio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

opin

ion

of h

untin

g on

Sun

day

in N

orth

Car

olin

a an

d re

spon

dent

dem

ogra

phic

s, ba

sed

on m

ail s

urve

y of

lic

ense

d re

siden

t hun

ters

in N

orth

Car

olin

a in

sum

mer

200

6. (N

umbe

rs u

nder

the

valu

e he

adin

g re

pres

ent t

he p

erce

nt o

f hun

ters

who

sele

cted

that

re

spon

se o

ptio

n).

Valu

esa

Dem

ogra

phic

Cha

ract

eris

tics

1 2

3 4

5 N

χ2

df

P-va

lue

Gam

ma

Age

910

98.6

90

20

<0.0

001

0.25

4

18-2

4

44.9

15

.9

8.4

3.7

27.1

25

-34

45

.3

15.7

4.

4 5.

7 28

.9

35-4

4 46

.7

10.3

2.

2 8.

7 32

.1

45-5

4 41

.7

8.6

5.5

5.5

38.7

55

-64

37.2

13

.1

7.6

2.8

39.3

≥6

5 13

.8

4.6

9.2

5.9

66.4

Com

mun

ity

88

1 51

.179

16

<0

.000

1 0.

160

La

rge

City

48

.1

6.2

7.4

12.3

25

.9

Smal

l City

42

.8

10.6

5.

6 7.

2 33

.9

Smal

l Tow

n 39

.5

13.2

9.

9 8.

6 28

.9

Rur

al a

rea

not o

n a

Farm

41

.5

11.3

5.

3 3.

2 38

.7

Rur

al a

rea

on a

farm

27

.2

12.0

3.

8 3.

3 53

.8

In

com

e

836

32.5

59

20

0.03

8 -0

.059

<$24

,999

35

.2

6.7

8.6

2.9

46.7

$2

5,00

0-$3

4,99

9 43

.5

14.5

1.

4 5.

8 34

.8

$35,

000-

$49,

999

41.4

9.

0 6.

0 5.

3 38

.3

$50,

000-

$74,

999

34.4

14

.6

8.0

6.1

36.8

$7

5,00

0-$9

9,99

9 36

.0

10.4

4.

0 8.

8 40

.8

≥$10

0,00

0 51

.2

9.8

7.3

4.9

26.8

Chu

rch

Atte

ndan

ce

85

7 15

9.02

6 12

<0

.000

1 0.

462

0

days

59

.8

13.7

6.

8 1.

8 17

.8

1-2

days

52

.0

13.2

7.

2 8.

6 19

.1

3-5

days

28

.6

12.2

6.

3 7.

6 45

.4

≥6 d

ays

22.0

4.

4 3.

3 3.

3 67

.0

a 1

= S

trong

ly S

uppo

rt, 2

= S

omew

hat S

uppo

rt, 3

= N

eith

er S

uppo

rt N

or O

ppos

e, 4

= S

omew

hat O

ppos

e, 5

= S

trong

ly O

ppos

e

65

Tab

le 2

.6. R

elat

ions

hips

bet

wee

n op

inio

n of

hun

ting

on S

unda

y in

Nor

th C

arol

ina

and

hunt

er c

hara

cter

istic

s, ba

sed

on a

mai

l sur

vey

of li

cens

ed r

esid

ent

hunt

ers i

n N

orth

Car

olin

a in

sum

mer

200

6. (N

umbe

rs u

nder

the

valu

e he

adin

g re

pres

ent t

he p

erce

nt o

f hun

ters

who

sele

cted

that

res

pons

e op

tion)

. Va

lues

a

Hun

ter C

hara

cter

istic

s 1

2 3

4 5

N

χ2 df

P-

valu

e G

amm

a H

unte

r Typ

eb

745

18.3

20

8 0.

019

NA

Big

gam

e

41.6

11

.4

4.1

5.4

37.5

Sm

all g

ame

18

.4

12.2

6.

1 12

.2

51.0

W

ater

fow

l 60

.0

10.0

10

.0

0.0

20.0

M

ixed

45

.9

9.7

5.5

3.9

34.9

Avid

ity

75

7 23

.239

8

0.00

3 -0

.201

Low

(≤ 1

5 da

ys)

31.9

9.

9 6.

6 6.

6 45

.1

Inte

rmed

iate

(16-

53 d

ays)

41

.6

12.7

4.

6 5.

4 35

.7

Hig

h (≥

54

days

) 53

.7

7.8

4.4

2.9

31.2

a 1

= St

rong

ly S

uppo

rt, 2

= S

omew

hat S

uppo

rt, 3

= N

eith

er S

uppo

rt N

or O

ppos

e, 4

= S

omew

hat O

ppos

e, 5

= S

trong

ly O

ppos

e b R

emov

ed w

ater

fow

l cat

egor

y fr

om a

naly

sis d

ue to

smal

l sam

ple

size

(n =

10)

.

66

Table 2.7. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and land ownership, as reported by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006 (χ2 = 39.603, df = 8, P < 0.0001). (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuesa

Land Ownership N 1 2 3 4 5 I own land on which I allow hunting to occur. 332 37.7 9.9 6.6 3.9 41.9 I am a landowner, but I do not allow hunting. 135 23.0 13.3 4.4 5.2 54.1 I am not a landowner. 405 46.7 11.6 4.9 7.4 29.4 a 1 = Strongly Support, 2 = Somewhat Support, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 5 = Strongly Oppose

67

Table 2.8. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and constraints to hunting activity, as reported by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuesa Importance of Statements in Explaining Constraints to

Hunting Activity N 1 2 3 4 5 Work commitments limit my time to hunt.b 816

Very Important 55.9 12.2 3.5 2.9 25.4

Somewhat Important 34.2 16.0 5.5 7.2 37.1

Neither Important Nor

Unimportant 29.2 7.1 8.0 9.7 46.0

Somewhat Unimportant 25.0 7.5 5.0 7.5 55.0

Very Unimportant 37.4 7.8 4.3 4.3 46.1 Family commitments limit my time to hunt.c 820

Very Important 45.6 11.7 4.1 3.5 35.1

Somewhat Important 35.1 16.3 4.3 8.0 36.2

Neither Important Nor

Unimportant 42.2 8.7 6.8 5.8 36.4

Somewhat Unimportant 46.9 10.2 8.2 4.1 30.6

Very Unimportant 42.4 7.6 4.2 2.5 43.2 a 1 = Strongly Support, 2 = Somewhat Support, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 5 = Strongly Oppose b χ2 = 66.726, df = 16, P < 0.0001 γ = 0.270 c χ2 = 23.246, df = 16, P = 0.107

68

Tab

le 2

.9. S

igni

fican

t rel

atio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

opin

ion

of h

untin

g on

Sun

day

with

som

e lim

itatio

ns in

Nor

th C

arol

ina

and

resp

onde

nt d

emog

raph

ics,

base

d on

a m

ail s

urve

y of

lice

nsed

res

iden

t hun

ters

in N

orth

Car

olin

a in

sum

mer

200

6. (N

umbe

rs u

nder

the

valu

e he

adin

g re

pres

ent t

he p

erce

nt o

f hu

nter

s who

sele

cted

that

res

pons

e op

tion)

. Va

lues

a

Dem

ogra

phic

Cha

ract

eris

tics

1 2

3 4

5 N

χ2

df

P-va

lue

Gam

ma

Age

891

76.3

39

20

<0.0

001

0.20

5

18-2

4 26

.9

19.2

12

.5

4.8

36.5

25

-34

20.8

29

.6

10.1

5.

0 34

.6

35-4

424

.9

23.2

4.

9 10

.8

36.2

45

-54

21.1

19

.9

6.2

7.5

45.3

55

-64

22.9

17

.9

10.7

5.

0 43

.6

≥65

4.9

9.2

9.2

10.6

66

.2

C

omm

unity

871

39.6

95

16

0.00

1 0.

120

La

rge

City

25.6

15

.4

10.3

14

.1

34.6

Sm

all C

ity21

.2

22.9

8.

9 8.

9 38

.0

Smal

l Tow

n20

.0

22.7

11

.3

12.0

34

.0

Rur

al a

rea

not o

n a

Farm

22.0

21

.6

7.8

5.3

43.3

R

ural

are

a on

a fa

rm15

.0

17.0

6.

6 2.

7 57

.7

In

com

e

831

36.2

23

20

0.01

4 -0

.036

≤$24

,999

17.5

13

.6

11.7

3.

9 53

.4

$25,

000-

$34,

999

30.4

20

.3

5.1

10.1

34

.1

$35,

000-

$49,

999

15.9

22

.7

10.6

4.

5 46

.2

$50,

000-

$74,

999

17.9

24

.1

9.4

9.0

39.6

$7

5,00

0-$9

9,99

916

.1

21.8

8.

9 5.

6 47

.6

≥$10

0,00

028

.7

19.7

9.

0 8.

2 34

.4

C

hurc

h A

ttend

ance

850

108.

629

12

<0.0

001

0.34

7

0 da

ys29

.0

28.6

9.

7 5.

5 27

.2

1-2

days

24.7

26

.7

13.3

11

.3

24.0

3-

5 da

ys16

.9

18.2

8.

6 8.

3 48

.0

≥6 d

ays

13.8

10

.5

2.8

3.9

69.1

a 1 =

Stro

ngly

Sup

port,

2 =

Som

ewha

t Sup

port,

3 =

Nei

ther

Sup

port

Nor

Opp

ose,

4 =

Som

ewha

t Opp

ose,

5 =

Stro

ngly

Opp

ose

69

Table 2.10. Opinions of hunting on Sunday under different scenarios in North Carolina, as reported by respondents in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuea Support for and Opposition to Hunting on Sunday N 1 2 3 4 5

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only if pursuit dogs are not used. 885 24.4 8.7 15.0 5.2 46.7

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only on a few Sundays. 879 4.3 7.5 14.0 11.0 63.1

Only bowhunting should be allowed on Sunday. 879 5.9 5.7 16.4 8.8 63.3

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only on private lands. 878 10.5 7.8 14.1 7.0 60.7

If hunting on Sunday is allowed, it should be treated like any other day of the week. 883 36.4 10.1 8.7 6.1 38.7

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only on public lands. 881 4.1 1.9 15.4 8.4 70.2

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only for small game. 877 2.2 2.0 15.4 7.8 72.6

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only if safety zones are created around churches. 879 29.5 9.3 13.3 4.9 43.0

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only for big game. 880 6.3 4.4 17.5 7.1 64.7

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only from a stand. 880 7.7 5.0 17.4 7.0 62.9

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only after a certain time (for example after 1:00 p.m.). 881 12.3 9.8 11.0 5.6 61.4

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed only for youth hunters (under 16 years of age). 881 2.0 3.1 14.3 7.5 73.1

a 1 = Strongly Support, 2 = Somewhat Support, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 5 = Strongly Oppose

70

Table 2.11. Scenarios for limited hunting on Sunday that are most strongly opposed by respondents who opposed hunting on Sunday with some limitations in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuea

Scenario N 5 4 3 2 1

�only on public lands. 445 87.6 5.2 5.2 0.0 2.0

�only for youth hunters (under 16 years of age). 446 87.6 5.0 4.3 1.5 1.6

�only for small game. 446 86.8 5.9 5.9 0.0 1.4

�only for big game. 445 86.0 5.1 5.9 1.2 1.9

�only on a few Sundays. 445 85.2 7.7 3.4 1.0 2.7

�only from a stand. 445 84.2 5.7 5.2 1.4 3.5 �only after a certain time

(for example after 1:00 p.m.). 444 83.1 4.2 5.4 3.1 4.1

�only bowhunting. 445 82.2 7.7 5.2 1.5 3.3

�only on private lands. 442 81.9 6.3 4.4 4.0 3.3

�only if pursuit dogs are not used. 447 78.5 5.6 6.5 2.3 7.2

�only if safety zones are created around churches. 444 75.4 5.3 4.6 4.6 10.2

�only if treated like any other day of the week. 445 69.3 4.7 4.3 2.5 19.2

a 5 = Strongly Oppose, 4 = Somewhat Oppose, 3 = Neither Support Nor Oppose, 2 = Somewhat Support, 1 = Strongly Support

71

Table 2.12. Scenarios of limited hunting on Sunday that were supported most strongly by respondents who supported hunting on Sunday with some limitations in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuea

Scenario N 1 2 3 4 5

�only if treated like any other day of the week. 359 55.5 18.4 10.5 7.5 8.0

�only if safety zones are created around churches. 356 51.7 13.5 19.3 4.6 10.3

�only if pursuit dogs are not used. 360 44.8 17.4 20.0 4.3 13.6

�only after a certain time (for example after 1:00

p.m.). 358 23.0 16.3 12.7 7.3 40.7

�only on private lands. 358 18.7 10.8 20.4 8.1 42.0

�only from a stand. 357 14.2 9.6 25.1 8.9 42.2

�only for big game. 357 12.1 9.3 24.9 9.4 44.3

�only bowhunting. 355 8.5 10.7 23.9 10.5 46.4

�only on public lands. 357 7.3 3.9 21.4 12.4 54.8

�only on a few Sundays. 356 6.9 14.0 20.2 16.3 42.5

�only for small game. 353 3.5 4.7 20.0 10.0 61.7

�only for youth hunters (under 16 years of age). 357 2.7 4.5 19.6 9.9 63.3


72

Table 2.13. Most important reasons shaping respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday, as reported by opponents of hunting on Sunday in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuea

Reasons N 1 2 3 4 5

Hunting on Sunday should not be permitted because Sunday

is a holy day. 388 67.7 10.6 10.0 0.5 11.2

Sunday provides a day that other recreationists such as

hikers, horseback riders, and wildlife viewers, can enjoy the woods without worrying about

hunters. 386 61.8 14.8 8.1 2.2 13.0

Sunday provides a day of rest for animals. 380 57.6 11.6 15.0 2.7 13.1

Hunting on Sunday should not be permitted because Sunday

is a family day. 382 57.5 14.2 15.1 2.8 10.3

Sunday provides a day of rest for hunters. 376 55.2 11.4 15.7 1.9 15.8

Noise associated with hunting

activities may interfere with church activities. 381 52.1 19.1 12.8 1.9 14.0

Hunting on Sunday may strain

the NC Wildlife Resources Commission�s personnel

resources because of additional required time on-duty for enforcement staff. 386 47.9 17.9 16.3 4.0 14.0

Hunting on Sunday may

reduce church attendance. 382 44.3 12.2 20.7 2.7 20.2

Additional harvest caused by hunting on Sunday may require

wildlife managers to shorten hunting seasons for some

animals. 379 42.6 19.6 16.2 4.3 17.2

Without a day of rest for animals, my ability to find game may become more difficult later

in the season. 379 37.2 13.9 19.6 5.8 23.5 a 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Unimportant, 5 = Very Unimportant

73

Table 2.14. Most important reasons shaping respondents� opinion of hunting on Sunday, as reported by supporters of hunting on Sunday in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuea

Reasons N 1 2 3 4 5

The decision to hunt on Sunday should be a personal choice rather

than a governmental decision. 442 77.1 13.1 7.1 1.3 1.4

Hunting on Sunday may provide additional hunting opportunities for

working people. 441 75.0 19.7 3.9 0.5 0.9

The hunting on Sunday ban limits opportunities for hunters who work

the rest of the week. 442 65.6 20.9 9.2 1.0 3.4

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed because most other activities are

allowed on Sunday. 441 59.8 18.0 17.1 1.0 4.1

Additional harvest caused by hunting on Sunday would help manage

populations of wildlife such as white-tailed deer. 442 59.6 27.3 9.4 1.2 2.6

Hunting on Sunday should be allowed because 42 other states allow

Sunday hunting. 442 51.5 18.7 22.4 1.6 5.8

Hunting on Sunday may increase revenue to NC Wildlife Resources

Commission by increasing sales of resident hunting licenses 442 48.8 27.0 16.3 2.2 5.7

Hunting on Sunday may provide benefits for local and state

economies. 442 48.1 32.6 13.2 1.0 5.1

Hunting on Sunday may increase hunting participation by youth in North

Carolina. 441 46.8 30.2 15.5 1.9 5.6

Hunting on Sunday may increase revenue to NC Wildlife Resources

Commission by increasing sales of non-resident hunting licenses. 442 37.6 29.1 23.9 3.9 5.5

a 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Unimportant, 5 = Very Unimportant

74

Table 2.15. Significant relationships between respondent participation in hunting on Sunday in North Carolina, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

Demographic Characteristics %a %b N Χ2 df P-value

Age 882 93.484 10 <0.0001 18-24 57.8 28.4 25-34 59.1 26.4 35-44 55.4 34.8 45-54 48.1 37.0 55-64 43.6 44.3 ≥65 15.6 74.1 Community 878 23.555 8 0.003 Large City 54.5 26.6 Small City 51.1 34.8 Small Town 50.0 35.3 Rural area not on a

Farm 48.2 41.1 Rural area on a farm 37.6 52.5 Income 827 25.897 10 0.004 ≤$24,999 40.2 52.0 $25,000-$34,999 52.9 36.8 $35,000-$49,999 49.6 38.9 $50,000-$74,999 42.9 40.1 $75,000-$99,999 49.2 42.7 ≥$100,000 58.2 25.4 Church Attendance 850 160.125 6 <0.0001 0 days 72.1 17.2 1-2 days 64.9 21.2 3-5 days 36.5 47.8 ≥6 days 22.4 69.4 Avidity 749 27.722 4 <0.0001

Low (≤ 15 days) 40.9 33.9

Intermediate (16-53

days) 52.2 46.4 High (≥ 54 days) 61.9 19.7

a Percentage of respondents indicating they would hunt on Sunday if it was legalized b Percentage of respondents indicating they would not hunt on Sunday if it was legalized

75

Table 2.16. Relationship between opinion on hunting on Sunday and respondent participation in hunting on Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006 (χ2 = 821.125, df = 8, P < 0.0001). (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuesa If hunting on Sunday were legalized, would you hunt on Sunday in North Carolina? N 1 2 3 4 5

Yes 415 78.8 15.4 3.1 0.5 2.2

No 354 2.0 1.7 4.2 7.3 84.7

Not Sure 111 10.8 25.2 19.8 19.8 24.3


76

Table 2.17. Significant relationships between level of respondent participation in hunting on Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, and respondent demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

Demographic Characteristics %a %b N χ2 df P-value Gamma

Age 857 99.119 10 <0.0001 0.358 18-24 51.5 47.5 25-34 46.3 53.1 35-44 41.5 58.5 45-54 41.5 56.1 55-64 28.5 68.6 ≥65 7.9 79.8 Community 843 16.330 8 0.038 0.140 Large City 39.7 57.7 Small City 38.9 60.0 Small Town 47.5 50.4 Rural area not on a

Farm 36.4 60.4 Rural area on a farm 27.8 67.6 Church Attendance 821 76.119 6 <0.0001 0.439 0 days 54.7 45.3 1-2 days 48.0 50.0 3-5 days 30.8 66.1 ≥6 days 17.3 76.9 Avidity 738 11.756 4 0.019 -0.204 Low (≤ 15 days) 31.8 66.5

Intermediate (16-53

days) 40.8 58.1 High (≥ 54 days) 49.0 49.5

a Percentage of respondents indicating they would hunt more days if it was legalized b Percentage of respondents indicated they would about the same number of days if it was legalized

77

Table 2.18. Relationship between opinion of hunting on Sunday and respondent level of participation in hunting on Sunday in North Carolina if legalized, based on a mail survey of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006 (χ2 = 407.911, df = 8, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.875). (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuesa

If hunting on Sunday were legalized, would you hunt more days, fewer days, or about the same number of days per year as you do now? N 1 2 3 4 5

More Days 316 79.7 15.5 2.2 0.6 1.9

About the Same 515 17.5 9.1 7.4 8.9 57.1

Fewer Days 24 8.3 0.0 8.3 8.3 75.0


78

Table 2.19. Significant relationships between average number of days hunted that did not involve an overnight stay and demographics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.

Demographics Meana Median N F df P-value Region 768 5.321 2 0.005

Coastal 25.5 (35.1) 20.0 Piedmont 26.5 (35.1) 15.0 Mountain 18.7 (21.4) 11.1

Age 767 6.177 5 <0.0001 18-24 34.8 (38.8) 25.0 25-34 27.1 (32.4) 18.2 35-44 25.6 (32.5) 15.3 45-54 19.3 (20.4) 14.0 55-64 19.3 (23.4) 14.4

65 14.7 (19.5) 5.0 Gender 766 6.687 1 0.010

Male 24.4 (29.8) 15.0 Female 11.7 (18.0) 3.0

Community 757 6.229 4 <0.0001

Large City 10.6 (13.1) 5.0 Small City 23.4 (31.7) 15.3

Small Town 19.6 (24.0) 10.0 Rural area not on a farm 26.4 (27.6) 18.2

Rural area on a farm 29.4 (36.7) 19.8 Education 763 3.109 5 0.009

Some high school or less 28.9 (36.5) 20.0

High school diploma or GED 28.1 (32.5) 16.0

Some college or trade school 21.5 (24.6) 15.0

Bachelor's degree 20.0 (29.7) 12.3 Master's degree 24.6 (35.8) 9.8 Phd., M.D., J.D.,

or equivalent 8.2 (12.7) 1.0 Church Attendance 742 3.438 3 0.017

0 days 28.0 (32.8) 20.0 1-2 days 25.7 (37.7) 10.8 3-5 days 19.4 (23.6) 11.4 >6 days 24.6 (25.6) 16.0

a Means reported with standard deviations in parentheses

79

Table 2.20. Relationships between average number of days hunted that did not involve an overnight stay and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.

Hunter Characteristics Meana Median N F df P-value Hunter Type 680 1.286 3 0.278

Big game 26.0 (28.3) 18.0 Small game 24.3 (44.8) 7.3

Waterfowl 10.3 (10.6) 7.6 Mixed 27.7 (29.4) 20.0

Avidity 681 181.471 2 <0.0001 Low (≤15 Days) 6.5 (7.5) 5.0

Intermediate (16-53 Days) 20.5 (14.5) 20.0 High (≥54 Days) 54.0 (41.6) 50.0

a Means reported with standard deviations in parentheses.

80

Table 2.21. Significant relationships between average number of additional days hunted that would not involve an overnight stay and respondent demographics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.

Demographics Meana Median N F df P-value Age 771 2.929 5 0.013

18-24 10.4 (17.7) 5.0 25-34 7.9 (11.6) 3.4 35-44 7.6 (13.2) 3.0 45-54 5.7 (9.7) 0.0 55-64 5.9 (11.8) 0.0 ≥65 4.1 (12.5) 0.0

Education 766 2.350 5 0.039 Some high school

or less 10.2 (17.2) 3.3 High school diploma

or GED 8.2 (13.0) 3.1 Some college

or trade school 6.7 (12.5) 0.0 Bachelor's degree 4.4 (29.7) 0.0

Master's degree 7.2 (18.3) 0.0 PhD., M.D., J.D.,

or equivalent 3.2 (5.0) 1.1 Income 731 4.469 5 0.001

≤$24,999 9.8 (17.3) 0.0 $25,000-$34,999 11.2 (19.3) 4.5 $35,000-$49,999 6.3 (9.5) 3.0 $50,000-$74,999 5.3 (10.8) 0.0 $75,000-$99,999 5.5 (8.3) 0.2

≥$100,000 6.6 (9.5) 4.4 Church Attendance 745 3.042 3 0.028

0 days 9.3 (11.7) 7.0 1-2 days 7.1 (9.6) 5.0 3-5 days 5.8 (14.2) 0.0 ≥6 days 6.2 (14.2) 0.0


81

Table 2.22. Relationships between average number of additional days hunted that would not involve an overnight stay and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.



Waterfowl 3.7 (4.4) 1.7 Mixed 8.3 (14.8) 3.0

Avidity 684 21.091 2 <0.0001 Low (≤15 Days) 2.9 (7.1) 0.0



82

Table 2.23. Relationships between average number of overnight trips taken to hunt in North Carolina and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.



Waterfowl 4.0 (7.2) 0.0 Mixed 2.1 (4.5) 0.0

Avidity 687 9.284 2 <0.0001 Low (≤15 Days) 1.2 (4.0) 0.0



83

Table 2.24. Relationships between average number of additional overnight trips taken to hunt in North Carolina if hunting on Sunday were legalized and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of North Carolina hunters in summer 2006.



Waterfowl 2.4 (4.1) 0.0 Mixed 2.3 (5.8) 0.0

Avidity 683 10.494 2 <0.0001 Low (≤15 Days) 1.0 (2.5) 0.0



84

CHAPTER 3: Understanding North Carolina hunters: satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of licensed resident hunters in North Carolina

INTRODUCTION Traditionally, hunters have had a significant role in shaping wildlife management in the

United States. Recent declines in hunting participation could threaten this relationship in the

future. As demographics of both hunters and the public continue to change, wildlife

management agencies have begun to focus greater attention on hunter retention and recruitment.

That focus includes developing programs to prevent further declines in hunting participation and

to recruit new hunters into the population (Enck et al. 2000). Change is inevitable, so, as

agencies shift their focus more to hunter retention and recruitment, they must understand the

factors that influence satisfaction with hunting experiences and motivations for hunting.

Manfredo et al. (1995) defined motivations as reasons for hunting and satisfaction as the

fulfillment of the expectations associated with motivations. Research (e.g., Hendee 1974,

Decker et al. 1980, Enck and Decker 1991, Grilliot and Armstrong 2005) confirms the notion

that a clear understanding of hunters� satisfaction with their hunting experiences and motivations

for hunting allows management agencies to maximize hunters� benefits derived from hunting.

Miller and Graefe (2001) also concluded that an understanding of hunters� satisfaction offers an

opportunity to evaluate agencies� ability to meet the needs of constituents. Wildlife management

agencies also need to identify and understand factors that decrease hunting participation or

constrain hunting activity. With better understanding of hunters� satisfaction with their hunting

experiences, the motivations for why they hunt, and the constraints that limit their hunting

activity, agencies may be able to maximize hunting opportunities and combat further declines in

hunting participation.

85

As part of a cooperative research effort (with North Carolina Wildlife Resources

Commission (NCWRC), Responsive Management, Inc., and Southwick Associates), I developed

and implemented a mail survey of licensed North Carolina hunters. My specific objective was:

• to assess and characterize the satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of licensed

resident hunters in North Carolina.

METHODS

Questionnaire Development

My research was part of a larger survey conducted in summer 2006 to assess the opinions

about hunting on Sunday held by licensed resident hunters in North Carolina. I also explored

particular characteristics of the licensed resident North Carolina hunter population. The

questionnaire I developed examined satisfactions, motivations, and constraints of North Carolina

hunters, and was constructed in coordination with other members of the Virginia Tech research

team, Responsive Management, Inc., and NCWRC. I utilized an importance scale (1 = very

important, 5 = very unimportant) to assess the importance of factors that influence satisfaction

with and motivations for hunting experiences in North Carolina. The questionnaire also used an

importance scale to gauge the relative importance that hunters place on reasons for how or why

their hunting activities may be constrained. Additional questions further characterized aspects of

hunting participation in North Carolina, such as hunters� distribution of effort among seasons and

species, region of the state hunted most often, use of hunting dogs, and use of private and/or

public lands for hunting. Finally, I asked participants to answer a number of questions used to

describe the demographics (e.g., gender, age) of the respondent pool.

86

Sampling and Questionnaire Administration

My sample population was comprised of a list of the names and addresses of 2,400

licensed resident hunters in North Carolina, drawn in May 2006 from the 2005 electronic license

database of resident hunting licenses sold between June 2005 and May 2006, such that 800

individuals were drawn from each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions. Each hunting

license type offered in North Carolina was represented proportionately in my sample population.

The distribution sequence I used to contact survey participants included an initial

questionnaire, a reminder postcard, a replacement questionnaire, and a final replacement

questionnaire. To increase my overall response rate, I included a personalized cover letter in the

final replacement package that also included information on the joint Bass Pro® and NCWRC

co-sponsorship of a $1,000 prize package to be awarded to one respondent.


Because my final response rate was <65% (Dolsen and Machlis 1991), I conducted a

nonresponse analysis that consisted of telephone interviews conducted with 60 randomly

selected nonrespondents (20 from each of North Carolina�s 3 administrative regions). The

telephone questionnaire incorporated 6 questions from the original questionnaire; however, only

3 questions focused on hunting participation and level of participation.

Data Analysis

I used SPSS 14.0 (SPSS 14.0, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) to conduct my data analysis.

Because the age distribution of respondents significantly differed from that represented by the

original sample (χ2 = 35.614, df = 5, P < 0.0001), I weighted the data to re-align respondents�

age distribution with that of the original dataset and also within each of North Carolina�s 3

87

administrative regions. For analysis, I also filtered out respondents who indicated they no longer

considered themselves to be a hunter.

I categorized respondents into hunter types (i.e., big game [deer, turkey, and bear], small

game [birds, small mammals, and furbearer], waterfowl, and mixed) using responses they

provided to questions about the number of days they hunted for a particular species (i.e.,

questions 4-13). To be placed into a designated category, ≥80% of one�s total days hunted (the

sum of all days hunted in questions 4-13) must have been devoted to species in that category;

respondents were placed into the mixed category when no single category accounted for >80% of

total days hunted. I classified respondents into avidity categories using the total number of days

hunted (the sum of days hunted in questions 4-13). I placed respondents in the lower quartile

into the �low (≤15 days)� category, respondents within the interquartile range into the

�intermediate (16-53 days)� category, and respondents in the upper quartile into the �high (≥54

days)� category.

Frequency distributions provided descriptive findings for nominal and ordinal data. I

also constructed contingency tables to examine relationships between hunter characteristics (e.g.,

satisfaction), and region, demographics, and hunter characteristics. Further analysis of these

relationships required use of the Chi-square test of homogeneity. A probability value (P-value)

of 0.05 was used to identify statistically significant relationships. When analyses produced

significant P-values, I used gamma to measure the strength of association between 2 ordinal

variables and report gamma values ≤ -0.2 and values ≥ 0.2 as significant. Gamma ranges from -

1.00 (perfect negative association) to 1.00 (perfect positive association) with 0 indicating no

association (Babbie et al. 2003).

88

I conducted a factor analysis, using the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) method of

extraction in SPSS, to detect domains among satisfaction, motivational, and constraint indicator

statements (Garson 2006). Cronbach�s alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of

each domain. I examined relationships between satisfaction, motivational, and constraint

domains, and region, demographics, and hunter characteristics using both Chi-square test of

homogeneity and analysis of variance (ANOVA). I used Duncan�s range test to conduct post-

hoc analyses to determine which means differ. Again, I used a P-value of 0.05 to identify

statistically significant relationships.

RESULTS

Response Rate

Nine hundred and seventeen respondents returned completed surveys. The sample was

adjusted to remove 183 surveys returned with undeliverable addresses, 12 returned from families

where the contact was deceased, and 1 hard refusal (n =196), resulting in a final response rate of

41.6%. Response rates within administrative regions mirrored the overall final response rate

(Coastal response rate = 42.0%, n = 308; Piedmont response rate = 42.4%, n = 313; and

Mountain response rate = 40.5%, n = 296).


Due to the lower than anticipated response, I conducted a nonresponse analysis (Dolsen

and Machlis 1991). I contacted 445 nonrespondents before completing 60 interviews. My

nonresponse analysis suggested a tendency for nonrespondents to have hunted fewer days during

the most recent season, although the difference was not statistically significant (χ2 = 5.881, df =

2, P = 0.053).

89

Demographics

Nearly all hunters were male (95.6%, n = 807), and respondents from this sample

population averaged 44.9 years old (n = 862). The largest group of responding hunters (21.4%, n

= 184) were 35-44 years old, whereas the fewest (11.9%, n = 103) were in the 18-24 year old age

group. More than half of all respondents (53.5%, n = 445) indicated that they currently lived in a

rural area either on a farm or not on a farm. Only a small percentage (9.0%, n = 75) of hunters

indicated that they lived in a large city (>100,000 people). Forty percent (n = 332) had attained a

high school education or less, whereas 40.7% (n = 341) had completed some college (including

Associate�s degree) or trade school; 19.1% (n = 163) held a college degree (including advanced

degrees).

Respondents spanned all annual household income (before taxes) levels: 12.2% (n = 97)

≤$25,000; 16% (n = 128) $25,000-$34,999; 15.8% (n = 125) $35,000-$49,999; 25.7% (n = 203)

$50,000-$74,999; 15.4% (n = 121) $75,000-$99,999; and 14.8% (n = 117) ≥$100,000. Fifty

percent of hunters (n = 380) were placed into the �mixed� hunter category (i.e., they did not

expend ≥80% of their total days hunted in one single category). I classified 42% (n = 315) of the

remaining respondents as big game hunters, 6.7% (n = 51) as small game hunters, and 1.3% (n =

10) as waterfowl hunters.

General Hunting Participation

Nearly all responding hunters (97%, n = 813) had hunted in North Carolina since July 1,

2001, and 93% (n = 752) had hunted in North Carolina since July 1, 2005. Among hunters who

had hunted during the most recent season, most (62.4%, n = 462) had not changed their level of

participation (i.e., number of days hunted) compared to the previous 5 years. Only 19% (n =144)

90

indicated that their hunting participation level had increased over previous years, but 18.2% (n =

135) said their participation had declined.

Hunters� participation during the most recent season differed significantly among North

Carolina�s 3 administrative regions (χ2 = 13.541, df = 4, P = 0.009); hunters in the Piedmont

region hunted more days than hunters from either the Coastal or Mountain regions. Older

hunters hunted fewer days during the most recent season (χ2 = 25.650, df = 10, P = 0.004, γ =

0.098). Income, though significant, produced no clear pattern (χ2 = 22.806, df = 10, P = 0.011, γ

= -0.023). However, 20-28% of hunters who reported incomes between $35,000 and $49,999,

and >$75,000 hunted more days during the most recent season, compared to 13-16 % of those

reporting other income levels. Twenty to twenty-five percent of hunters categorized as big game

hunters and mixed hunters hunted more days during the most recent season (χ2 = 15.668, df = 6,

P = 0.016), whereas only 9-15% of other hunter types reported hunting more days. Avid hunters

hunted more days during the most recent season as compared to the previous 5 seasons, whereas

less avid hunters hunted fewer days (χ2 = 81.902, df = 4, P < 0.0001, γ = -0.497). No significant

differences in participation were found based on gender (χ2 = 1.130, df = 2, P = 0.568),

community type (χ2 = 10.301, df = 8, P = 0.245), or education (χ2 = 17.600, df = 10, P = 0.062).

Satisfactions

Overall, 86.8% of hunters (n = 649) rated their satisfaction with hunting experiences in

North Carolina during the most recent season as adequate to excellent. Hunters in the Mountain

region expressed less satisfaction with their hunting experiences during the most recent season

than did hunters in either the Piedmont or Coastal regions (χ2 = 19.952, df = 8, P = 0.011).

Satisfaction with the most recent hunting experience appeared to differ with age of the

respondent, but the relationship was not uniformly linear (χ2 = 31.791, df = 20, P = 0.046, γ = -

91

0.058). Less avid hunters were less satisfied with their most recent hunting experience in North

Carolina, whereas avid hunters were more satisfied (χ2 = 40.794, df = 8, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.253).

I found no differences in satisfaction based on gender (χ2 = 3.200, df = 4, P = 0.525), community

type (χ2 = 17.471, df = 16, P = 0.356), education (χ2 = 17.474, df = 20, P = 0.622), income (χ2 =

30.518, df = 20, P =0.0625), or hunter type (χ2 = 8.490, df = 8, P = 0.387).

Most hunters (88%, n = 709) rated their satisfaction with hunting experiences in North

Carolina over the last 5 years as adequate to excellent. Hunters in the Piedmont region expressed

greater satisfaction with their hunting experiences over the last 5 years than did hunters in either

the Coastal or Mountain regions (χ2 = 30.662, df = 8, P < 0.0001). Satisfaction with hunting

experiences differed with hunter age, but, as before, no clear pattern emerged (χ2 = 36.428, df =

20, P = 0.014, γ = -0.105). However, 15-20% of hunters ≥55 years old rated their satisfaction as

less than adequate. Avid hunters were more satisfied with their hunting experiences over the last

5 years than were less avid hunters (χ2 = 33.177, df = 8, P < 0.0001, γ = 0.214).

The PCA analysis and reliability analysis using Cronbach�s alpha affirmed that my a

priori domain structure (4 satisfaction orientations: harvest orientation, natural environment

orientation, social orientation, and solitude orientation) for the satisfaction indicator statements

used to develop the questionnaire were appropriate, with the exception of 2 statements: having

the opportunity to take a safe and legal shot, and hunting with dogs (Table 3.1). Each of these 2

statements fell out into their own discrete category rather than clustering with the 4 identified

domains. Hunters identified spending time in the fields/woods (98.1%, n = 789), seeing wildlife

(97.9%, n = 785), seeing signs that game animals are present (97.3%, n = 780), or having the

opportunity to take a safe and legal shot (95.8%, n = 767) as being important factors in

determining satisfaction with their hunting experiences in North Carolina (Table 3.1).

92

Overall, the mean importance placed on factors within the harvest orientation domain

was 2.6 out of 5.0 (1 = Very Important, 5 = Very Unimportant) (n = 772, SE = 0.30). Hunters

≤44 years old placed more importance on factors within the harvest orientation domain than

hunters >45 years old (F = 4.500, df = 5, P < 0.0001) (Table 3.2). As respondents� level of

education (F = 11.495, df = 5, P < 0.0001) decreased, more importance was placed on harvest

orientation factors. Hunters who earned ≤$24,999 placed high importance on factors within the

harvest orientation domain (F = 6.539, df = 5, P < 0.0001). Big game hunters, waterfowl

hunters, and mixed hunters placed greater emphasis on these factors than did small game hunters

(F = 28.163, df = 3, P < 0.0001). Avid and intermediate hunters also placed high importance on

factors with this domain (F = 6.672, df = 2, P = 0.001). No differences existed between harvest

satisfaction factors and region (F = 2.614, df = 2, P = 0.074, gender (F = 1.423, df = 1, P =

0.233), or community type (F = 1.106, df = 4, P = 0.353).

Most respondents (n = 798, x = 1.2, SE = 0.01) believed factors within the natural

environment domain strongly influenced their satisfaction. That belief was not tempered by

region (F = 1.675, df = 2, P = 0.188), age (F = 0.544, df = 5, P = 0.743), gender (F = 2.470, df =

1, P = 0.116), community type (F = 0.255, df = 4, P = 0.907), education (F = 1.003, df = 5, P =

0.415), income (F = 0.211, df = 5, P = 0.958), hunter type (F = 1.189, df = 3, P = 0.313), or

avidity (F = 1.232, df = 2, P = 0.292).

Hunters also believed that factors within the social domain influenced their satisfaction

with hunting in North Carolina (n = 787, x = 1.7, SE = 0.03). A slight difference was detected in

the amount of importance placed on factors within the social domain due to community type (F =

2.388, df = 4, P = 0.050). Respondents who reside in rural areas on farms placed less importance

on factors within this domain than did those in other community types. I did not detect any

93

differences in satisfaction attributable to factors in the social domain when analyzing by region

(F = 0.834, df = 2, P = 0.435), age (F = 0.635, df = 5, P = 0.673), gender (F = 0.159, df = 1, P =

0.691), education (F = 2.148, df = 5, P = 0.058), income (F = 1.590, df = 5, P = 0.161), hunter

type (F = 0.399, df = 3, P = 0.754), or avidity (F = 2.863, df = 2, P = 0.058).

Overall, responding hunters placed less importance on factors within the solitude domain

(n = 779, x = 2.6, SE = 0.04) (Table 3.1). Hunters in the Piedmont and Mountain regions

identified these factors as being important more often than did those in the Coastal region (F =

6.101, df = 2, P = 0.002) (Table 3.3). Small game hunters believed these factors were less

important to their satisfaction than did other hunter types (F = 6.326, df = 3, P < 0.0001).

Expressions of satisfaction in this domain were unaffected by age (F = 1.350, df = 5, P = 0.241),

gender (F = 2.392, df = 1, P = 0.122), community type (F = 0.766, df = 4, P = 0.547), education

(F = 1.703, df = 5, P = 0.131), income (F = 0.178, df = 5, P = 0.971), or avidity (F = 0.018, df =

2, P = 0.983).

Nearly all North Carolina hunters (95.7%, n = 768) stated that having the opportunity to

take a safe and legal shot was important to their hunting satisfaction. Although I detected

significant differences in satisfaction across gender (χ2 = 13.425, df = 4, P = 0.009), income (χ2 =

34.805, df = 20, P = 0.021), and hunter type (χ2 = 15.595, df = 8, P = 0.049) categories, my

confidence in these results was low because >50% of my expected cell counts were <5. I found

no significant differences in satisfaction related to this factor by region (χ2 = 7.235, df = 8, P =

0.511), age (χ2 = 22.236, df = 20, P = 0.328), community type (χ2 = 23.359, df = 16, P = 0.104),

education (χ2 = 14.185, df = 8, P = 0.077), or avidity (χ2 = 7.391, df = 8, P = 0.495).

Approximately 28% of respondents (n = 222) stated their hunting satisfaction in North

Carolina was linked to or derived from hunting with dogs. Hunting with dogs noticeably was

94

important to hunters in the Coastal region (χ2 = 23.885, df = 8, P = 0.002) (Table 3.4). Further, a

greater percentage of hunters ≥55 years of age placed greater importance on hunting with dogs in

determining hunting satisfaction (χ2 = 57.241, df = 20, P < 0.0001, γ = -0.010). Small game

hunters believed that hunting with dogs was important to their hunting satisfaction than did other

hunter types (χ2 = 70.340, df = 8, P < 0.0001). Although suggested, I was not able to confirm

any clear relationship between satisfaction derived from hunting with dogs and community type

(χ2 = 30.050, df = 16, P =0.018, γ = -0.106), income (χ2 = 31.989, df = 20, P = 0.044, γ = 0.092),

and avidity (χ2 = 16.555, df = 8, P = 0.035, γ = -0.118). However, a greater percentage of rural

farm residents, hunters with lower incomes (i.e., <$25,000), and avid hunters considered hunting

with dogs to be an important satisfaction determinant. No relationship existed between this

factor and respondents� gender (χ2 = 1.631, df = 4, P = 0.803) or education (χ2 = 13.668, df = 8, P

= 0.091).

Motivations

The PCA analysis and reliability analysis using Cronbach�s alpha affirmed that my a

priori domain structure for grouping the motivation indicator statements used to develop the

questionnaire was appropriate, with 1 exception. The PCA analysis combined my previously

separate wildlife resources and skills/equipment domains into a single factor domain. Therefore,

my revised structure now included only 4 motivation domains: resource/skills, natural

environment, social, and psychological/physiological (Table 3.5).

Hunters clearly identified several factors as being important reasons why they hunt in

North Carolina (Table 3.5). Among the top motivations expressed were to enjoy the outdoors

(99.5%, n = 800), to relax (97.8%, n = 784), to experience natural surroundings (95.6%, n =

784), and to watch wildlife (95.2%, n = 761).

95

Overall, the mean importance placed on factors within the resource/skills domain was 2.1

(n = 788, SE = 0.03). Younger hunters found these factors to be slightly more important than did

older hunters (F = 3.407, df = 5, P = 0.005) (Table 3.6). As hunters� education level (F =

11.385, df = 5, P < 0.0001) and income (F = 5.241, df = 5, P < 0.0001) decreased, the

importance placed on factors within the resource/skills motivation domain increased. Big game

hunters and mixed hunters identified motivations in this domain as being more important than

small game hunters and waterfowl hunters did (F = 31.509, df = 3, P < 0.0001). Avid hunters

considered the motivations in this domain to be more important than did either intermediate or

low avidity hunters (F = 15.282, df = 2, P < 0.0001). I found no relationship between expression

of motivation and one�s region (F = 1.693, df = 2, P = 0.185), gender (F = 0.844, df = 1, P =

0.359), or community type (F = 1.448, df = 4, P = 0.216) within the resource/skills domain.

Hunters clearly identified with motivations in the natural environment domain (e.g., to

experience natural surroundings) and viewed them as important reasons for hunting in North

Carolina (n = 797, x = 1.3, SE = 0.02) (Table 3.5). I detected differences among hunter types (F

= 3.846, df = 3, P = 0.009) and avidity levels (F = 4.567, df = 2, P = 0.011). Small game hunters

(n = 49, x = 1.5, SE = 0.08) and waterfowl hunters (n = 10, x = 1.6, SE = 0.14) considered factors

within the natural environment motivation domain to be slightly less important than did big game

hunters (n = 309, x = 1.3, SE = 0.02) and mixed hunters (n = 369, x = 1.3, SE = 0.02). Avid

hunters (n = 203, x = 1.3, SE = 0.02) and intermediate hunters (n = 176, x = 1.4, SE = 0.03)

placed more importance on factors within the natural environment motivation domain than did

low avidity hunters (n = 309, x = 1.3, SE = 0.02). I found no other relationship between factors

within the natural environment domain and one�s region (F = 0.234, df = 2, P = 0.791), age (F =

96

1.109, df = 5, P = 0.354), gender (F = 1.114, df = 1, P = 0.291), community type (F = 0.656, df =

4, P = 0.623), education (F = 0.868, df = 5, P = 0.502), or income (F = 0.814, df = 5, P = 0.540).

Overall, elements of the social motivation domain (e.g., to take a youth hunting)

resonated with responding hunters (n = 779, x = 1.9, SE = 0.03). Hunters in the Coastal region

identified social motivations as being more important than did hunters in the Piedmont or

Mountain regions (F = 3.984, df = 2, P = 0.019) (Table 3.7). Hunters 35-44 years old placed the

most importance on factors within the social motivational domain (F = 2.661, df = 5, P = 0.021).

As respondents� education level decreased, respondents placed more importance on these factors

(F = 3.058, df = 5, P = 0.010). Small game hunters considered these factors to be less important

than did other hunter types (F = 4.264, df = 3, P = 0.005). Avid hunters considered social

motivations more important than did low or intermediate hunters (χ2 = 13.897, df = 2, P <

0.0001). One�s gender (F = 0.083, df = 1, P = 0.773), community type (F = 1.208, df = 4, P =

0.306), or income (F = 1.563, df = 5, P = 0.168) did not appear to influence the importance

hunters placed on reasons for hunting within the social motivation domain.

Overall, motivations in the psychological/physiological domain were viewed by most

hunters as being important reasons for why they hunt (n = 793, x = 1.4, SE = 0.02). Hunters <65

years old placed more importance on factors within the psychological/physiological domain than

did hunters ≥65 years old (F = 3.936, df = 5, P = 0.002). Other demographic factors did not

appear to influence hunters� motivational reasons within this domain for hunting (region [F =

0.076, df = 2, P = 0.926], gender [F = 0.067, df = 1, P = 0.796], community type [F = 0.935, df =

4, P = 0.443], education [F = 0.567, df = 5, P = 0.725], income [F = 1.118, df = 5, P = 0.349],

hunter type [F = 2.271, df = 3, P = 0.079], avidity [F = 0.470, df = 2, P = 0.625]).

97

Constraints

Work commitments were an important constraint on one�s hunting activity for many

hunters (67%, n = 548). Crowded public lands (57.0%, n = 469), high leasing costs on private

land (56.6%, n = 466), too few game animals (56.2%, n = 463), and family time commitments

(54.5%, n = 446) also were viewed as important limiting factors (Table 3.8).

My PCA analysis and reliability analysis using Cronbach�s alpha identified 4 distinct

constraint domains for grouping indicator statements used in the questionnaire: costs and

crowding, access, health and safety, and time. The analysis revealed a fifth domain of 5

indicator statements that did not appear to be related, but each of the indicator statements had

unique significance: not enough game animals, hunting regulations are too confusing, my

hunting companions no longer hunt, I no longer have hunting dogs, and I prefer to participate in

other activities during my free time.

Overall, mean importance placed on constraints associated with costs and crowding was

2.9 (n = 809, SE = 0.04). Female hunters considered these constraints to be less important than

did male hunters (F = 5.097, df = 1, P = 0.024) (Table 3.9). Hunters who possessed less

education found these constraints influenced their hunting activity more than did those with more

education (F = 5.764, df = 5, P < 0.0001). Hunters with incomes <$75,000 found these

constraints to be more important than did hunters with incomes ≥$75,000 (F = 6.033, df = 5, P <

0.0001). One�s perception of the importance of economic constraints was not influenced by

region (F = 2.713, df = 2, P = 0.067), age (F = 1.819, df = 5, P = 0.107), community type (F =

1.878, df = 4, P = 0.112), hunter type (F = 0.547, df = 3, P = 0.650), or avidity (F = 0.353, df = 2,

P = 0.703).

98

Overall, hunters identified access-related issues as being less important constraints to

their hunting activity (n = 799, x = 3.5, SE = 0.04). Hunters in the Piedmont and Mountain

regions placed greater importance on access issues than did those in the Coastal region (F =

3.867, df = 2, P = 0.021) (Table 3.10). Female hunters placed less importance on these

constraints than did male hunters (F = 5.641, df = 1, P = 0.018). As respondents� education level

decreased, respondents placed more importance on access-related constraints (F = 4.177, df = 5,

P = 0.001). Hunters with lower incomes (<$35,000) found access constraints were important

impediments to them, whereas those with higher incomes (>$50,000) did not (F = 4.338, df = 5,

P = 0.001). Views on access were not influenced by one�s age (F = 1.608, df = 5, P = 0.156),

community type (F = 1.829, df = 4, P = 0.121), hunter type (F = 1.539, df = 3, P = 0.203), or

avidity (F = 0.673, df = 2, P = 0.510).

Health and safety constraints (e.g., due to my health, I am unable to hunt as much as I

would like) were less important constraints to hunting activity compared to other constraints (n =

815, x = 3.4, SE = 0.04). Hunters in the Mountain region considered these constraints to be

more important than did hunters in the Coastal and Piedmont regions (F = 3.621, df = 2, P =

0.027) (Table 3.11). As the income of the respondent decreased, the amount of importance

placed on health or safety constraints increased (χ2 = 8.247, df = 5, P < 0.0001). In contrast, as

hunter age increased, the importance attributed to statements in this domain increased

dramatically (F = 48.496, df = 5, P < 0.0001). Respondents who reside in large cities considered

constraints associated with health and safety to be less important than did hunters who reside in

other community types (F = 4.033, df = 4, P = 0.003). Hunters who possessed less education

revealed greater concern for these constraints than did those with more education (F= 8.957, df =

5, P < 0.0001). Respondents� gender (F = 0.102, df = 1, P = 0.750), hunter type (F = 0.907, df =

99

3, P = 0.437), or avidity (F = 1.548, df = 2, P = 0.213) did not appear to influence opinion on the

importance of constraints described by this domain.

Hunters considered statements in the time commitment domain to be important

constraints to their hunting activity (n = 806, x = 2.4, SE = 0.04). Hunters between 25-44 years

old placed more importance on time constraints than did hunters <25 years old and hunters ≥45

years old (F = 21.141, df = 5, P < 0.0001) (Table 3.12). Hunters who reside in larges cities were

less concerned with time constraints than were hunters who reside in other community types (F =

2.423, df = 4, P = 0.047). Hunters who earned >$25,000 placed more importance on time

constraints than did hunters who earned ≤$24,999 (χ2 = 3.180, df = 5, P = 0.008). No significant

relationships were detect among the other demographics examined and one�s view on the

importance of time constraints (region [F = 1.627, df = 2, P = 0.197], gender [F = 0.383, df = 1,

P = 0.536], education [F = 0.471, df = 5, P = 0.798], hunter type [F = 2.572, df = 3, P = 0.053],

avidity [F = 0.632, df = 2, P = 0.532]).

Fifty-six percent of hunters (n = 461) believed a lack of enough game animals was an

important constraint to their hunting activity. Hunters in the Mountain region expressed this

view more than those in the other regions did (χ2 = 20.673, df = 8, P = 0.008) (Table 3.13).

Older hunters were more likely to consider this reason important than were younger hunters (χ2 =

36.271, df = 20, P = 0.014, γ = -0.152). As the income of the respondent decreased, the amount

of importance placed on a lack of enough game animals as a constraint to hunting activity

increased (χ2 = 38.975, df = 20, P = 0.007, γ = 0.150). Although opinion of importance about the

lack of game appeared to be influenced by a respondent�s education (χ2 = 24.445, df = 8, P =

0.002, γ = 0.137) and avidity (χ2 = 20.120, df = 8, P = 0.010, γ = 0.101), I did not discern any

clear trend. Respondents with more education found a lack of game animals to be less important.

100

Respondents� gender (χ2 = 8.283, df = 4, P = 0.082), community type (χ2 = 25.809, df = 20, P =

0.057), or hunter type (χ2 = 12.791, df = 8, P = 0.119) did not contribute to one�s rating of

importance on this issue.

Confusing hunting regulations were deemed an important constraint to hunting activity

by 36.6% (n = 298) of all respondents. Hunters who had completed less education found this

more constraining to their hunting than did those with greater education (χ2 = 38.266, df = 8, P <

0.0001, γ = 0.259) (Table 3.14). Differences were detected in respondents� view of importance

by region (χ2 = 16.762, df = 8, P = 0.033) and avidity (χ2 = 16.824, df = 8, P = 0.032, γ = 0.022),

but the strength of those differences was questionable. I found no relationship between

importance placed on clarity of regulations and one�s age (χ2 = 26.282, df = 4, P = 0.508), gender

(χ2 = 3.304, df = 4, P = 0.508), community type (χ2 = 13.387, df = 16, P = 0.644), income (χ2 =

26.786, df = 20, P = 0.141), or hunter type (χ2 = 1.732, df = 8, P = 0.988).

Only 19.3% of hunters (n = 156) identified the loss of hunting companions as an

important constraint to hunting activity. As hunters aged, the importance of this constraint

increased, especially among the oldest hunters (χ2 = 45.594, df = 20, P = 0.001, γ = -0.178)

(Table 3.15). The amount of education appeared to influence one�s view on this constraint, but it

was a weak relationship at best (χ2 = 19.407, df = 8, P = 0.013, γ = 0.094). Other demographics,

such as region (χ2 = 4.130, df = 8, P = 0.845), gender (χ2 = 1.575, df = 4, P = 0.813), community

type (χ2 = 8.022, df = 16, P = 0.948), income (χ2 = 23.244, df = 20, P = 0.278), hunter type (χ2 =

11.442, df = 8, P = 0.178), and avidity (χ2 = 13.854, df = 8, P = 0.086), did not appear to impart

any influence on this constraint.

The loss of hunting dogs was described as a constraint to hunting activity by only a

minority of hunters (13.4%, n = 109) and, among these individuals, this appeared to be more

101

important to hunters in the Coastal region than elsewhere (χ2 = 23.070, df = 8, P = 0.003) (Table

3.16). Older hunters also were more likely to consider this loss to be a constraint than were

younger hunters (χ2 = 53.806, df = 20, P < 0.0001, γ = -0.090). Community type (χ2 = 30.492, df

= 16, P = 0.016, γ = -0.032), education (χ2 = 16.791, df = 8, P = 0.032, γ = 0.153), and income (χ2

= 40.098, df = 20, P = 0.005, γ = 0.172) all appeared to exert some influence on one�s view of

this constraint, but they were weak relationships at best. Slightly more hunters who reside on

farms found this loss to be an important constraint to their hunting activity. Though weak trends,

as respondents� education and income increased, the likelihood of respondents finding a loss of

hunting dogs to be very unimportant increased. I found no similar relationships for hunters�

gender (χ2 = 23.070, df = 4, P = 0.849), hunter type (χ2 = 14.297, df = 8, P = 0.074), or avidity

(χ2 = 4.697, df = 8, P = 0.789).

Somewhat surprising in today�s busy world, only 16.1% of hunters (n = 131) found

competition for one�s free time by other activities to be an important constraint to their hunting.

As avidity rose, the importance of this constraint declined (χ2 = 26.683, df = 8, P < 0.0001, γ =

0.231) (Table 3.17). Small game hunters were more likely to consider this an important

constraint than were either big game or mixed hunters (χ2 = 16.470, df = 8, P = 0.036). A

respondent�s age (χ2 = 18.732, df = 20, P = 0.539), gender (χ2 = 2.540, df = 4, P = 0.637),

community type (χ2 = 15.967, df = 16, P = 0.455), education (χ2 = 13.612, df = 8, P = 0.092), and

income (χ2 = 25.697, df = 20, P = 0.176) appeared not to influence one�s view of importance

regarding time devoted to other activities.

102

DISCUSSION

Satisfaction Among North Carolina Hunters

A better understanding of hunters� satisfaction with hunting experiences, motivations for

hunting, and constraints to hunting participation in North Carolina is necessary if wildlife

management agencies effectively are to evaluate their ability to meet hunters� needs, to

maximize hunting opportunities, and to combat declines in hunting participation. Most hunters

in North Carolina rated both their hunting experiences during the 2005-2006 season and the

previous 5 seasons as adequate to excellent, indicating that North Carolina hunters are satisfied

overall.

Perhaps the most significant relationship between overall satisfaction, and demographic

and hunter characteristics occurred between satisfaction and avidity. Avid hunters expressed

greater overall satisfaction with their hunting experiences in North Carolina than did less avid

hunters. By definition, avid hunters spend more time in the field and, consequently, may be

more likely to achieve their primary objective or fulfill the expectations associated their

motivation for hunting that contributes to their overall satisfaction.

Many research studies have examined hunter satisfaction and found that multiple

determinants of hunter satisfaction exist (e.g., Vaske et al. 1986, Hammitt et al. 1990).

Additional studies focused on the relationship between hunters� satisfaction with hunting

experiences and their motivations for hunting (Heberlein and Kuentzel 2002). Wildlife

managers need to understand both satisfactions and motivations to manage successfully. My

research supports the concept that satisfaction with hunting experiences is derived from many

factors.

103

Most North Carolina hunters identified factors within the natural environment domain,

the social domain, and being able to take a safe and legal shot as important in determining

satisfaction with hunting experiences in North Carolina. Hunters also indicated they derived

some satisfaction from factors associated with harvest and solitude. Hunting with dogs appeared

to be an important determinant of satisfaction only to a relatively small component of the hunting

population.

The importance attached to these factors suggests that a multiple satisfaction approach to

wildlife management is needed in North Carolina if NCWRC managers are to maintain or

increase satisfaction among North Carolina hunters (Hendee 1974). Stankey et al. (1973:241)

recommended that a variety of management strategies are needed, including changing traditional

land management practices, varying hunting seasons, and controlling hunter density, if agencies

are to provide a �wide mix of satisfactions hunters attribute to quality hunting.�

In North Carolina, potential management strategies to maintain or increase satisfaction

among hunters who derive satisfaction from factors within the natural environment domain

might include increasing wildlife populations or directing hunters to areas with higher densities

of wildlife. Hunter perceptions that game animals are too scarce in North Carolina could be

altered through news releases or seasonal mailings. Such management strategies (e.g., increasing

wildlife populations) also may provide NCWRC managers with a means to maintain or increase

satisfaction derived from harvest associated factors (e.g., taking a game animal).

Additional management strategies (e.g., providing youth and family hunts on state

gamelands, providing hunter recruitment workshops) may allow managers to maintain or

increase hunter satisfaction related to the social aspects of hunting. Hayslette et al. (2001)

recommended developing a hunter mentoring program and providing youth hunts to increase

104

satisfaction derived from nonharvest characteristics of hunting experiences. If managers wish to

improve satisfaction related to solitude and/or being able to take a safe and legal shot, it may be

necessary to determine levels of hunter density that trigger perceptions of crowding among

different hunter types or under different circumstances. For example, a hunter who hikes far

from the nearest road probably would have a lower tolerance for crowding than a hunter

participating in an urban controlled hunt. Ultimately, strategies used by agencies to manage the

quality of hunting experiences should be designed for specific groups of hunters (e.g., provide

opportunities to hunt with dogs on state gamelands for small game hunters). Adoption of this

approach would expand traditional wildlife management focused on providing opportunities for

the hunter type (e.g., big game v. small game) and/or for the weapon preference (e.g., bow v.

muzzleloader) to focus on providing opportunities that target groups of hunters based how they

derive satisfaction from their hunting experience.

Motivations of North Carolina Hunters

Wildlife managers also must understand hunters� motivations if they are to provide

quality hunting experiences. Manfredo et al. (2004:1148) emphasized that hunter satisfaction

and motivations are related, defining motivations as the �specific force that directs behavior.�

They further emphasized that all hunters are driven to hunt by different sets of motivations

(Manfredo et al. 2004).

Nearly all hunters believed their strong motivation for hunting stemmed primarily from

factors described by the natural environment (e.g., to experience natural surroundings, to enjoy

the outdoors) and psychological and physiological (e.g., to enjoy solitude, to get away from my

everyday routine) domains. Fewer hunters identified reasons within the social (e.g., to take a

youth hunting, to maintain a family tradition) and/or the wildlife resource/skills equipment (e.g.,

105

to obtain meat, to help manage wildlife populations) domains as important motivations for

hunting; nevertheless, these factors still were important. As with managing to maintain and/or

increase hunter satisfaction, North Carolina wildlife managers will be challenged to provide

diverse hunting opportunities that will ensure motivational fulfillment. Targeted advertising

about unique opportunities available on public lands for hunters to fulfill expectations associated

with motivations or the incorporation of these factors with satisfaction factors identified earlier

may help to maintain hunters� motivations or encourage others to become more motivated.

Constraints to Hunting Participation in North Carolina

A preliminary assessment of potential impediments was obtained by the 2005 workshop

on hunter recruitment and retention in North Carolina, which identified the lack of hunting

opportunities as a prominent constraint both to hunter satisfaction, and to hunter recruitment and

retention (Responsive Management 2005). Workshop participants identified several contributing

subcomponents, a lack of quality land on which to hunt, lack of small game, and lack of access,

as contributing most to this lack of hunting opportunities (Responsive Management 2005).

Workshop participants also identified costs associated with hunting (e.g., the cost of leasing

private land is too expensive), time constraints, and the complexity of hunting regulations as

important constraints and possible barriers to hunter recruitment and retention (Responsive

Management 2005).

My survey results support the basic findings of that previous workshop, with one

exception. Unlike the workshop, my survey found relatively few hunters responding to the

survey considered access issues to be an important constraint to their hunting activity. Survey

respondents were more often concerned with other constraints (e.g., time). Older hunters and

hunters in the Mountain Region more frequently identified lack of game animals as an important

106

constraint. Hunters responding to the survey, particularly having completed less education,

agreed that complex hunting regulations constrained their hunting activity. Over half of

surveyed hunters believed factors associated with time (e.g., work commitments limit my time to

hunt) were important constraints to them, although time constraints were less important to

hunters >55 years old. Additional constraints identified by surveyed hunters included those

related to health and safety (e.g., decreased activity due to age, feeling unsafe while hunting),

particularly among older hunters.

Identifying and comprehending the consequences of the constraints that affect North

Carolina�s hunters and their continuing participation in hunting are crucial if managers are to

combat further declines in hunting participation. Miller and Vaske�s (2003) examination of

hunting participation in Illinois identified a number of perceived personal and situational

constraints as possible explanations for declines in hunting participation. Backman and Wright

(1993) defined personal constraints as one�s perception of barriers to participation (e.g., lack of

time, lack of interest). Wildlife managers often have limited ability to resolve hunters� personal

constraints (Miller and Vaske 2003). In North Carolina, where hunting opportunities are limited

to only 6 days a week, managers may have the ability to lessen the effects of certain personal

constraints (e.g. lack of time) to some extent (e.g., removal of the hunting on Sunday ban). In

addition, they may be able to resolve some of the situational constraints, such as lack of access,

not enough game, or confusing regulations (Miller and Vaske 2003).

Collectively, the workshop and my survey identified one personal constraint (i.e., time),

and two situational constraints (i.e., not enough game, confusing regulations) as major

impediments to hunting activity in North Carolina. Some have speculated that allowing hunting

on Sunday may alleviate time constraints for hunters. I discuss this further in Chapter 4. It is

107

uncertain if the situational constraints identified stem from false perceptions of wildlife

populations and hunting regulations. North Carolina wildlife managers may need to focus

outreach efforts to address inaccurate perceptions of wildlife populations. It may not be possible

to completely resolve issues with regulations as hunters often express dissatisfaction with the

complexity of regulations. In addition, wildlife managers must balance concern for complex

regulations with the often expressed desire for biologically-based management of wildlife

populations at the local level.

Hunters in North Carolina appear to be satisfied with their hunting experiences, remain

motivated for hunting, yet face serious constraints in their ability to continue hunting in North

Carolina. NCWRC needs to use the resources provided from this hunter survey to encourage

hunter recruitment and retention, and to combat further declines in hunting participation without

losing sight of biologically-based management goals and objectives. Giles (1978:4) defined

wildlife management as �the science and art of making decisions and taking actions to

manipulate �populations, habitats, and people to achieve specific human objectives by means of

the wildlife resource.� He further defined the role of wildlife manager as one that is measured in

the difference between what the wildlife system produces naturally and what it produces under

the guidance of the wildlife manager. However, most critical to the synthesis of my findings is

his definition of the wildlife resource. Giles (1978:14) defined the wildlife resource as a human

construct that �supplies specific benefits to people.� NCWRC managers as �wildlife managers�

are challenged with a responsibility to use the findings from my research to manage both hunters

and the wildlife resource. It is necessary for NCWRC managers to acknowledge the fragile

relationship between hunters (i.e., meeting specific human objectives, supplying specific benefits

108

to people) and the wildlife resource; if hunters no longer exist, the resource, by definition, ceases

to exist, and if the wildlife resource perishes, hunters no longer exist.

LITERATURE CITED

Babbie, E., F. Halley, and J. Zaino. 2003. Adventures in social research: data analysis using SPSS 11.0/11.5 for Windows, 5th Edition. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, California.

Backman, S.J. and B.A. Wright. 1993. An exploratory study of the relationship of attitude and the perception of constraints to hunting. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 11:1-16. Decker, D.J., T.L. Brown, and R.J. Gutierrez. 1980. Further insights into the multiple satisfaction approach for hunter management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8:323-331. Enck, J.W., and D.J. Decker. 1991. Hunters� perspectives on satisfying and dissatisfying aspects of deer hunting experiences in New York State. Human Dimensions Research Unit publication 91-4. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Enck, J.W., D.J. Decker, and T.L. Brown. 2000. Status of hunter recruitment and retention in the

United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):817-824. Garson, D. 2006. Factor analysis. http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factor.htm#category. Giles, R.H. 1978. Wildlife management. W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco, CA. Grilliot, A.L., and J.B. Armstrong. 2005. A comparison of deer hunter with disabilities and nondisabled hunters in Alabama: motivations and satisfactions in deer hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):243-250. Hammitt, W.E., C.D. McDonald, and M.E. Patterson. 1990. Determinants of multiple satisfaction for deer hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:331-337. Hayslette, S.E., J.B. Armstrong, and R.E. Mirarchi. 2001. Mourning dove hunting in Alabama: motivations, satisfactions, and sociocultural influences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:81-95. Heberlein, T.A., and W.F. Kuentzel. 2002. Too many hunters or not enough deer? Human and biological determinants of hunter satisfaction and quality. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7:229-250.

109

Hendee, J.C. 1974. Multiple-satisfaction approach to game management. Journal of Wildlife Management 2:104-113. Manfredo, M.J., J.J. Vaske, and D.J. Decker. 1995. Human dimensions of wildlife management: basic concepts. Pages 17-31 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island, Washington, D.C. Manfredo, M.J., P.J. Fix, T.L. Teel, J. Smeltzer, and R. Kahn. 2004. Assessing demand for big- game hunting opportunities: applying the multiple-satisfaction concept. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4):1147-1155. Miller, C.A., and A.R. Graefe. 2001. Effect of harvest success on hunter attitudes toward white- tailed deer management in Pennsylvania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:189-203. Miller, C.A., and J.J. Vaske. 2003. Individual and situational influences on declining hunter effort in Illinois. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:263-276 Responsive Management. 2005. Hunter retention and recruitment in North Carolina: analysis and implications from the �Maintaining the Heritage� 2005 workshop. Responsive Management, Inc., Harrisonburg, Virginia. Stankey, G.H., R.C. Lucas, and R.R. Ream. 1973. Relationships between hunting success and satisfaction. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 38:235-242. Vaske, J. J., A. R. Graefe, B. Shelby, and T. Heberlein. 1986. Backcountry encounter norms: Theory, method and empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research 18(3):137-153.

110

Table 3.1. Importance of domains and individual factors in determining hunter satisfaction with hunting experiences in North Carolina, as reported by hunters in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

a 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Unimportant, 5 = Very Unimportant b Only 2 items within domain.

Valuea

A satisfying hunting experience is one where I� N 1 2 3 4 5

Cronbach�s Alpha

Cronbach�s Alpha if

Item Deleted

Harvest ( x = 2.6, SE = 0.30) 772 0.683

Take a game animal 795 27.2 38.1 24.2 5.4 5.2 0.552

Obtain meat 798 32.3 37.9 19.2 5.7 5.0 0.619

Take a full bag limit 786 6.4 14.9 42.0 14.7 21.9 0.636

Take a trophy animal 797 21.6 33.1 25.1 6.4 13.7 0.650 Natural Environment ( x = 1.2, SE = 0.01) 798 0.631

See wildlife 801 80.1 17.8 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.477 See signs that game animals are present 801 76.4 20.9 2.3 0.1 0.3 0.501 Spend time in the field/woods 803 80.6 17.5 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.608

Social ( x = 1.7, SE = 0.03) 787 0.620 Hunt with a preferred hunting companion 797 52.5 30.4 13.4 2.1 1.7 0.451 Spend time with other hunters 799 40.4 38.3 12.7 3.7 4.8 0.568 Hunt with members of my family 798 62.9 22.6 11.5 1.2 1.9 0.513

Solitude ( x = 2.6, SE = 0.04) 779 0.588

Do not see other hunters 789 15.6 23.8 36.3 11.0 13.2 NAb

Do not see other outdoor recreationists, such as hikers, horseback riders, or wildlife viewers 790 36.8 20.5 23.1 7.9 11.7 NAb

Other Factors

Have the opportunity to take a safe and legal shot 802 84.9 10.9 3.2 0.2 0.9

Hunt with dogs 797 14.7 13.1 25.4 10.0 36.8

111

Table 3.2. Significant relationships between harvest satisfaction domain, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Age 772 4.500 5 <0.0001 18-24 2.5 (0.07) A 25-34 2.4 (0.06) A 35-44 2.5 (0.06) A 45-54 2.6 (0.06) A,B 55-64 2.8 (0.09) C ≥65 2.7 (0.10) B,C Education 764 11.495 5 < 0.0001 Some high school

or less 2.2 (0.11) A High school diploma

or GED 2.4 (0.04) A,B Some college

Or trade school 2.7 (0.05) B,C Bachelor's degree 2.9 (0.08) C Master's degree 2.9 (0.15) C Phd., M.D., J.D.,

or equivalent 3.0 (0.28) C Income 721 6.539 5 < 0.0001 ≤$24,999 2.5 (0.10) B,C $25,000-$34,999 2.3 (0.07) A $35,000-$49,999 2.5 (0.06) A,B $50,000-$74,999 2.6 (0.06) B,C $75,000-$99,999 2.8 (0.08) C,D ≥$100,000 2.8 (0.09) D Hunter Type 711 28.163 3 <0.0001 Big game 2.4 (0.04) A Small game 3.5 (0.14) B Waterfowl 2.6 (0.25) A Mixed 2.6 (0.04) A Avidity 711 6.672 2 0.001 Low (≤ 15 days) 2.7 (0.07) B Intermediate (16-53 days) 2.5 (0.04) A High (≥ 54 days) 2.4 (0.05) A

a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.

112

Table 3.3. Significant relationships between solitude satisfaction domain, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Region 778 6.101 2 0.002 Coastal 2.8 (0.07) B Piedmont 2.6 (0.06) A Mountain 2.5 (0.07) A Hunter Type 720 6.326 3 < 0.0001 Big game 2.5 (0.06) A Small game 3.1 (0.18) B Waterfowl 2.9 (0.27) A,B Mixed 2.6 (0.06) A,B a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.

11

3

Tab

le 3

.4. S

igni

fican

t rel

atio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

impo

rtan

ce o

f hun

ting

with

dog

s in

dete

rmin

ing

satis

fact

ion,

and

dem

ogra

phic

s and

hun

ter

char

acte

rist

ics,

base

d on

a m

ail s

urve

y of

hun

ters

in N

orth

Car

olin

a in

sum

mer

200

6. (N

umbe

rs u

nder

the

valu

e he

adin

g re

pres

ent t

he p

erce

nt o

f hu

nter

s who

sele

cted

that

res

pons

e op

tion)

. Va

lues

a

Dem

ogra

phic

/Hun

ter C

hara

cter

istic

s 1

23

45

N

χ2 df

P-

valu

e G

amm

a R

egio

n79

723

.885

80.

002

NA

C

oast

al

21.6

16

.3

21.6

6.

6 33

.9

Pied

mon

t 12

.9

9.1

26.4

11

.3

40.3

M

ount

ain

11.1

15

.1

27.4

11

.5

34.9

Age

79

7 57

.241

20

<

0.00

01

-0.0

10

18

-24

10.6

11

.7

45.7

6.

4 25

.5

25-3

4 16

.5

9.5

24.1

16

.5

33.5

35

-44

9.9

16.0

21

.0

11.0

42

.0

45-5

4 14

.8

8.4

29.7

7.

1 40

.0

55-6

4 18

.8

13.3

18

.8

8.6

40.6

≥6

5 21

.0

22.2

17

.3

7.4

32.1

Com

mun

ity

78

3 30

.050

16

0.

018

-0.1

06

La

rge

City

5.

8 17

.4

24.6

5.

8 46

.4

Smal

l City

8.

8 12

.6

27.0

11

.9

39.6

Sm

all T

own

13.5

9.

0 24

.1

8.3

45.1

R

ural

are

a no

t on

a fa

rm

16.5

13

.0

25.6

9.

8 35

.0

Rur

al a

rea

on a

Far

m

22.6

14

.3

25.6

10

.7

26.8

Inco

me

74

5 31

.939

20

0.

044

0.09

2

≤$24

,999

25

.0

13.8

21

.3

8.8

31.3

$2

5,00

0-$3

4,99

9 16

.3

12.2

30

.9

8.1

32.5

$3

5,00

0-$4

9,99

9 14

.3

16.8

21

.8

7.6

39.5

$5

0,00

0-$7

4,99

9 15

.6

9.4

24.0

16

.1

34.9

$7

5,00

0-$9

9,99

9 11

.8

14.3

26

.9

5.9

41.2

≥$

100,

000

8.9

15.2

26

.8

6.3

42.9

Hun

ter T

ypeb

73

9 70

.340

8

< 0.

0001

N

A

Big

gam

e 11

.1

7.8

21.8

10

.4

48.9

Sm

all g

ame

42.9

12

.2

14.3

4.

1 26

.5

Wat

erfo

wl

10.0

0.

0 60

.0

0.0

30.0

M

ixed

15

.3

18.8

27

.9

9.7

28.4

Avid

ity

73

8 16

.555

8

0.03

5 -0

.118

Low

(≤ 1

5 da

ys)

7.4

13.1

30

.3

10.3

38

.9

Inte

rmed

iate

(16-

53 d

ays)

16

.7

11.9

23

.6

10.3

37

.5

Hig

h (≥

54

days

) 19

.7

16.3

23

.2

7.4

33.5

a 1 =

Ver

y Im

porta

nt, 2

= S

omew

hat I

mpo

rtant

, 3 =

Nei

ther

Impo

rtant

Nor

Uni

mpo

rtant

, 4 =

Som

ewha

t Im

porta

nt, 5

= V

ery

Uni

mpo

rtant

b R

emov

ed w

ater

fow

l cat

egor

y fr

om a

naly

sis d

ue to

sm

all s

ampl

e si

ze (n

= 1

0).

114

Table 3.5. Importance of motivations for hunting in North Carolina, as reported by hunters in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuea

I hunt� N 1 2 3 4 5 Cronbach�s

Alpha


Item Deleted

Resource/Skills ( x = 2.1, SE = 0.03) 0.698

To obtain meat 798 30.5 36.5 20.9 5.2 6.9 0.660

To test my hunting skills 800 32.0 42.1 19.2 3.2 3.5 0.626

To harvest a trophy animal 793 21.5 33.5 26.9 7.5 10.5 0.685 To help manage wildlife populations 800 50.2 33.2 13.2 1.8 1.8 0.630 Natural Environment ( x = 1.3, SE = 0.02) 0.748 To experience natural surroundings 802 69.1 26.5 3.8 0.4 0.2 0.636

To watch wildlife 799 62.9 32.3 3.8 0.7 0.3 0.735

To enjoy the outdoors 804 84.2 15.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.702

Social ( x = 1.9, SE = 0.03) 0.824

To spend time with family 797 51.0 29.3 14.7 2.4 2.6 0.770 To spend time with friends 798 44.3 37.3 14.4 2.0 2.0 0.805 To share my knowledge of hunting with others 798 31.2 33.2 28.7 4.3 2.6 0.774

To take a youth hunting 790 45.8 31.0 17.0 2.9 3.4 0.792 To maintain a family tradition 798 40.6 24.2 25.4 3.5 6.3 0.804 Psychological/Physiological ( x = 1.4, SE = 0.02) 0.711 To get away from my everyday routine 798 65.5 28.4 4.8 0.6 0.6 0.552

To enjoy solitude 798 61.7 27.9 8.6 0.9 0.9 0.588

To relax 803 74.4 23.4 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.686 a 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Unimportant, 5 = Very Unimportant

115

Table 3.6. Significant relationships between the resource/skill motivation domain, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Age 787 3.407 5 0.005 18-24 2.0 (0.06) A 25-34 2.0 (0.05) A 35-44 2.1 (0.05) A,B 45-54 2.1 (0.06) A,B 55-64 2.3 (0.07) B,C ≥65 2.3 (0.10) C Education 780 11.385 5 < 0.0001 Some high school or less 1.8 (0.08) A High school diploma or GED 1.9 (0.04) A Some college or trade school 2.2 (0.04) B Bachelor's degree 2.3 (0.07) B,C Master's degree 2.4 (0.14) B,C Phd., M.D., J.D., or equivalent 2.5 (0.27) C Income 739 5.241 5 < 0.0001 ≤$24,999 2.0 (0.09) A,B $25,000-$34,999 2.0 (0.06) A $35,000-$49,999 2.0 (0.05) A,B $50,000-$74,999 2.2 (0.05) B,C $75,000-$99,999 2.2 (0.06) C ≥$100,000 2.3 (0.08) C Hunter Type 727 31.509 3 < 0.0001 Big game 1.9 (0.03) A Small game 3.0 (0.13) C Waterfowl 2.4 (0.17) B Mixed 2.1 (0.04) A,B Avidity 727 15.282 2 < 0.0001 Low (≤ 15 days) 2.3 (0.06) A Intermediate (16-53 days) 2.1 (0.04) B High (≥ 54 days) 1.9 (0.04) C a Means based on values: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant b Means reported with standard errors in parentheses. c Means with the same letters did not significantly differ, (P ≤ 0.05) according to post-hoc ANOVA analyses.

116

Table 3.7. Significant relationships between the social motivation domain, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Region 778 3.984 2 0.019 Coastal 1.8 (0.04) A Piedmont 2.0 (0.05) B Mountain 2.0 (0.05) B Age 778 2.661 5 0.021 18-24 2.1 (0.08) B 25-34 1.9 (0.06) A,B 35-44 1.8 (0.05) A 45-54 1.9 (0.07) A,B 55-64 2.0 (0.08) B ≥65 2.0 (0.10) A,B Education 771 3.058 5 0.010 Some high school or less 1.7 (0.11) A High school diploma or GED 1.9 (0.05) A Some college or trade school 2.0 (0.04) A Bachelor's degree 2.0 (0.07) A Master's degree 2.0 (0.12) A Phd., M.D., J.D., or equivalent 2.5 (0.31) B Hunter Type 720 4.264 3 0.005 Big game 1.9 (0.04) A,B Small game 2.3 (0.12) B Waterfowl 1.9 (0.18) A,B Mixed 1.9 (0.04) A Avidity 720 13.897 2 < 0.0001 Low (≤ 15 days) 2.2 (0.06) B Intermediate (16-53 days) 1.9 (0.04) A High (≥ 54 days) 1.7 (0.05) A


117

Table 3.8. Importance of statements in explaining constraints to hunting activity, as reported by hunters in a statewide mail survey of North Carolina licensed resident hunters conducted during summer of 2006. (Numbers under the value heading represent the percent of hunters who selected that response option).

Valuea

Constraints N 1 2 3 4 5 Cronbach�s

Alpha


Item Deleted

Costs/Crowding ( x = 2.9, SE = 0.04) 809 0.871 Traveling to hunt is too expensive. 822 17.4 24.2 28.0 6.8 23.7 0.850 The cost of leasing private land for hunting is too expensive. 823 34.1 22.5 20.2 5.5 17.8 0.856 Public lands are too crowded. 823 32.4 24.6 23.5 3.5 16.0 0.861 Hunting licenses are too expensive. 819 8.1 16.4 37.4 6.7 31.3 0.855 Hunting equipment is too expensive. 818 9.8 20.3 33.2 10.6 26.1 0.855

Access ( x = 3.5, SE = 0.04) 0.861 I do not know where to hunt in North Carolina. 817 6.9 8.8 30.5 8.1 45.7 0.826 I do not have access to private land for hunting. 818 15.9 15.1 27.5 6.0 35.5 0.830 I moved away from the area where I used to hunt. 814 5.0 6.5 29.6 6.0 52.9 0.846 I do not have access to public land for hunting. 813 9.2 10.6 33.1 8.1 39.1 My favorite hunting spot is now posted. 821 17.6 11.1 26.1 4.8 40.4 0.846 I have to travel too far to hunt. 822 10.9 17.8 35.3 7.0 29.0 0.845 Health/Safety ( x = 3.4, SE = 0.04) 0.767 Due to my advanced age, I am unable to hunt as much as I would like. 825 9.8 10.5 25.3 7.1 47.3 0.662 Due to my health, I am unable to hunt as much as I would like. 824 10.7 8.6 25.5 6.3 48.9 0.670 I am concerned about my safety when hunting. 823 32.8 18.7 18.5 7.8 22.1 0.759

Time ( x = 2.4, SE = 0.04) 0.658 Work commitments limit my time to hunt. 815 38.0 29.1 13.8 5.0 14.1 0.488 Family commitments limit my time to hunt. 818 20.9 33.6 25.1 6.0 14.3 0.351

Other Factors Hunting regulations are too confusing. 813 13.1 23.6 36.3 9.7 17.3 There are not enough game animals. 824 23.2 33.0 27.3 6.9 9.6 My hunting companions no longer hunt. 810 6.2 12.9 43.0 10.6 27.3 I prefer to participate in other activities during my free time. 814 2.8 13.2 37.1 13.9 32.9 I no longer have hunting dogs. 813 7.5 5.9 28.1 7.0 51.6

a 1 = Very Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Neither Important Nor Unimportant, 4 = Somewhat Important, 5 = Very Unimportant

Table 3.9. Significant relationships between constraints associated with costs and crowding, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Gender 805 5.097 1 0.024 Male 2.9 (0.04) Female 3.3 (0.21) Education 801 5.764 5 < 0.0001 Some high school or less 2.6 (0.12) A High school diploma or GED 2.8 (0.07) A Some college or trade school 2.9 (0.06) A,B Bachelor's degree 3.3 (0.09) B,C Master's degree 3.1 (0.17) A,B Phd., M.D., J.D., or equivalent 3.6 (0.25) C Income 759 6.033 5 , 0.0001 ≤$24,999 2.8 (0.13) A $25,000-$34,999 2.7 (0.10) A $35,000-$49,999 2.8 (0.09) A $50,000-$74,999 2.8 (0.07) A $75,000-$99,999 3.2 (0.10) B ≥$100,000 3.2 (0.09) B


119

Table 3.10. Significant relationships between constraints associated with access, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Region 797 3.867 2 0.021 Coastal 3.7 (0.07) B Piedmont 3.5 (0.06) A Mountain 3.4 (0.06) A Gender 796 5.641 1 0.018 Male 3.5 (0.04) Female 4.0 (0.17) Education 793 4.177 5 0.001 Some high school or less 3.3 (0.13) A High school diploma or GED 3.4 (0.07) A,B Some college or trade school 3.5 (0.06) A,B Bachelor's degree 3.9 (0.09) B Master's degree 3.8 (0.19) B Phd., M.D., J.D., or equivalent 3.9 (0.20) B Income 750 4.338 5 0.001 ≤$24,999 3.3 (0.12) A $25,000-$34,999 3.3 (0.10) A $35,000-$49,999 3.5 (0.10) A,B $50,000-$74,999 3.5 (0.07) A,B $75,000-$99,999 3.8 (0.10) B ≥$100,000 3.8 (0.09) B


120

Table 3.11. Significant relationships between constraints associated with health and safety, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F df P-value Region 814 3.621 2 0.027 Coastal 3.5 (0.08) B Piedmont 3.5 (0.06) B Mountain 3.2 (0.07) A Age 813 48.496 5 < 0.0001 18-24 4.1 (0.09) E 25-34 4.0 (0.07) E 35-44 3.6 (0.08) D 45-54 3.1 (0.09) C 55-64 2.8 (0.10) B ≥65 2.4 (0.12) A Community Type 799 4.033 4 0.003 Large City 3.8 (0.12) B Small City 3.4 (0.08) A Small Town 3.4 (0.10) A Rural area not on a Farm 3.5 (0.07) A Rural area on a farm 3.2 (0.09) A Education 806 8.957 5 < 0.0001 Some high school or less 2.7 (0.16) A High school diploma or GED 3.3 (0.07) B Some college or trade school 3.5 (0.06) B Bachelor's degree 3. 8 (0.10) B,C Master's degree 3.4 (0.18) B Phd., M.D., J.D., or equivalent 4.1 (0.23) B,C Income 763 8.247 5 < 0.0001 ≤$24,999 2.9 (0.14) A $25,000-$34,999 3.4 (0.11) B $35,000-$49,999 3.3 (0.11) B $50,000-$74,999 3.4 (0.08) B,C $75,000-$99,999 3.8 (0.09) D ≥$100,000 3.7 (0.09) C,D


121

Table 3.12. Significant relationships between constraints associated with time, and demographics and hunter characteristics, based on a mail survey of hunters in North Carolina in summer 2006.

Demographic/Hunter Characteristics Meana, b, c N F Df P-value Age 804 21.141 5 < 0.0001 18-24 2.4 (0.11) B,C 25-34 2.2 (0.09) A,B 35-44 2.1 (0.08) A 45-54 2.2 (0.08) A,B 55-64 2.7 (0.11) C ≥65 3.5 (0.14) D Community Type 791 2.423 4 0.047 Large City 2.7 (0.14) B Small City 2.4 (0.09) A,B Small Town 2.3 (0.09) A Rural area not on a Farm 2.6 (0.08) A Rural area on a farm 2.4 (0.09) A,B Income 753 3.180 5 0.008 ≤$24,999 2.9 (0.16) B $25,000-$34,999 2.3 (0.10) A $35,000-$49,999 2.4 (0.11) A $50,000-$74,999 2.3 (0.08) A $75,000-$99,999 2.5 (0.12) A ≥$100,000 2.4 (0.10) A


Tab

le 3

.13.

Sig

nific

ant r

elat

ions

hips

bet

wee

n im

port

ance

of n

ot e

noug

h ga

me

anim

als i

n ex

plai

ning

con

stra

ints

to h

untin

g ac

tivity

, and

de

mog

raph

ics a

nd h

unte

r ch

arac

teri

stic

s, ba

sed

on a

mai

l sur

vey

of h

unte

rs in

Nor

th C

arol

ina

in su

mm

er 2

006.

(Num

bers

und

er th

e va

lue

head

ing

repr

esen

t the

per

cent

of h

unte

rs w

ho se

lect

ed th

at r

espo

nse

optio

n).

Valu

esa

Dem

ogra

phic

/Hun

ter C

hara

cter

istic

s 1

2 3

4 5

N

χ2 D

f P-

valu

e G

amm

a R

egio

n

822

20.6

73

8 0.

008

NA

Coa

stal

22

.8

31.6

28

.5

7.9

9.2

Pie

dmon

t 17

.4

34.8

27

.6

8.7

11.4

M

ount

ain

31.0

31

.8

26.1

3.

8 7.

3

Age

824

36.2

71

20

0.01

4 -0

.152

18-2

4 13

.0

32.0

33

.0

13.0

9.

0

25

-34

20.1

30

.2

30.2

8.

8 10

.7

35-4

4 23

.0

32.2

25

.7

9.8

9.3

45-5

4 20

.1

37.7

27

.9

3.2

11.0

55

-64

30.1

30

.8

27.1

3.

0 9.

0

≥6

5 33

.7

35.8

18

.9

3.2

8.4

E

duca

tionb

81

6 24

.445

8

0.00

2 0.

137

S

ome

high

sch

ool

or l

ess

30.2

34

.9

22.2

4.

8 7.

9

H

igh

scho

ol d

iplo

ma

or G

ED

29

.5

31.8

24

.0

6.2

8.5

S

ome

colle

ge

or t

rade

sch

ool

19.9

31

.3

31.0

8.

7 9.

0

B

ache

lor's

deg

ree

10.0

38

.2

35.5

2.

7 13

.6

Mas

ter's

deg

ree

26.3

42

.1

10.5

7.

9 13

.2

Ph

d., M

.D.,

J.D

., or

equ

ival

ent

26.7

33

.3

13.3

13

.3

13.3

Inco

me

76

9 38

.795

20

0.

007

0.15

0

≤$24

,999

30

.8

29.7

23

.1

4.4

12.1

$2

5,00

0-$3

4,99

9 27

.4

36.3

26

.6

2.4

7.3

$35,

000-

$49,

999

28.7

27

.0

31.1

7.

4 5.

7

$5

0,00

0-$7

4,99

9 21

.6

34.2

28

.6

8.0

7.5

$75,

000-

$99,

999

12.8

35

.0

29.1

6.

8 16

.2

≥$10

0,00

0 12

.9

36.2

28

.4

12.1

10

.3

A

vidi

ty

74

5 20

.120

8

0.01

0 0.

101

Lo

w (≤

15

days

) 23

.0

41.0

25

.3

2.2

8.4

Inte

rmed

iate

(16-

53 d

ays)

25

.3

32.4

26

.9

6.0

9.3

Hig

h (≥

54

days

) 22

.2

29.1

26

.1

12.3

10

.3

a 1

= V

ery

Impo

rtant

, 2 =

Som

ewha

t Im

porta

nt, 3

= N

eith

er Im

porta

nt N

or U

nim

porta

nt, 4

= S

omew

hat I

mpo

rtant

, 5 =

Ver

y U

nim

porta

nt

b C

olla

psed

edu

catio

n ca

tego

ries

for a

naly

sis:

≤ H

igh

scho

ol e

duca

tion,

Som

e co

llege

to B

ache

lor�

s deg

ree,

≥M

aste

r�s d

egre

e

12

3

Tab

le 3

.14.

Sig

nific

ant r

elat

ions

hips

bet

wee

n im

port

ance

of t

he c

onfu

sion

of h

untin

g re

gula

tions

in e

xpla

inin

g co

nstr

aint

s to

hunt

ing

activ

ity, a

nd

dem

ogra

phic

s and

hun

ter

char

acte

rist

ics,

base

d on

a m

ail s

urve

y of

hun

ters

in N

orth

Car

olin

a in

sum

mer

200

6. (N

umbe

rs u

nder

the

valu

e he

adin

g re

pres

ent t

he p

erce

nt o

f hun

ters

who

sele

cted

that

res

pons

e op

tion)

. Va

lues

a

Dem

ogra

phic

/Hun

ter C

hara

cter

istic

s 1

2 3

4 5

N

χ2 df

P-

valu

e G

amm

a R

egio

n

814

16.7

62

8 0.

033

NA

C

oast

al

15.0

27

.3

26.9

11

.0

19.8

Pi

edm

ont

10.7

23

.6

38.0

11

.0

16.6

M

ount

ain

14.2

20

.3

42.1

7.

3 16

.1

Ed

ucat

ionb

80

4 38

.266

8

< 0.

0001

0.

259

So

me

high

sch

ool

or l

ess

30.2

20

.6

36.5

1.

6 11

.1

H

igh

scho

ol d

iplo

ma

or G

ED

15.7

27

.5

37.3

7.

5 12

.2

So

me

colle

ge

or t

rade

sch

ool

9.2

23.6

38

.3

12.9

16

.0

Bach

elor

's de

gree

7.5

19.6

31

.8

9.3

31.8

M

aste

r's d

egre

e15

.8

10.5

34

.2

7.9

31.6

Ph

d., M

.D.,

J.D

., or

equ

ival

ent

13.3

6.

7 33

.3

26.7

20

.0

A

vidi

ty

73

7 16

.824

8

0.03

2 0.

022

Lo

w (≤

15

days

)12

.0

22.9

44

.0

6.3

14.9

In

term

edia

te (1

6-53

day

s)14

.4

22.9

35

.9

8.3

18.5

H

igh

(≥ 5

4 da

ys)

14.0

25

.5

27.5

14

.5

18.5

a 1 =

Ver

y Im

porta

nt, 2

= S

omew

hat I

mpo

rtant

, 3 =

Nei

ther

Impo

rtant

Nor

Uni

mpo

rtant

, 4 =

Som

ewha

t Im

porta

nt, 5

= V

ery

Uni

mpo

rtant

b C

olla

psed

edu

catio

n ca

tego

ries

for a

naly

sis:

≤ H

igh

scho

ol e

duca

tion,

Som

e co

llege

to B

ache

lor�

s deg

ree,

≥M

aste

r�s d

egre

e

12

4

Tab

le 3

.15.

Sig

nific

ant r

elat

ions

hips

bet

wee

n im

port

ance

of �

my

hunt

ing

com

pani

ons n

o lo

nger

hun

t� in

exp

lain

ing

cons

trai

nts t

o hu

ntin

g ac

tivity

, an

d de

mog

raph

ics a

nd h

unte

r ch

arac

teri

stic

s, ba

sed

on a

mai

l sur

vey

of h

unte

rs in

Nor

th C

arol

ina

in su

mm

er 2

006.

(Num

bers

und

er th

e va

lue

head

ing

repr

esen

t the

per

cent

of h

unte

rs w

ho se

lect

ed th

at r

espo

nse

optio

n).

Valu

esa

Dem

ogra

phic

/Hun

ter C

hara

cter

istic

s 1

23

45

N

χ2 df

P-

valu

e G

amm

a Ag

e

810

45.5

94

20

0.00

1 -0

.178

18-2

4 1.

0 11

.2

42.9

9.

2 35

.7

25-3

4 5.

1 6.

3 40

.5

13.3

34

.8

35-4

4 6.

0 10

.4

46.7

8.

8 28

.0

45-5

4 5.

3 18

.0

47.3

10

.7

18.7

55

-64

6.9

17.7

38

.5

10.8

26

.2

≥65

15.2

16

.3

38.0

10

.9

19.6

Educ

atio

nb

802

19.4

07

8 0.

013

0.09

4

Som

e hi

gh s

choo

l o

r les

s 12

.7

11.1

47

.6

4.8

23.8

H

igh

scho

ol d

iplo

ma

or G

ED

8.7

12.3

44

.7

8.7

25.7

So

me

colle

ge

or t

rade

sch

ool

3.1

13.5

44

.9

12.0

26

.5

Bach

elor

's de

gree

3.6

13.6

35

.5

14.5

32

.7

Mas

ter's

deg

ree

8.3

16.7

38

.9

8.3

27.8

Ph

d., M

.D.,

J.D

., O

r equ

ival

ent

13.3

13

.3

26.7

13

.3

33.3

a 1 =

Ver

y Im

porta

nt, 2

= S

omew

hat I

mpo

rtant

, 3 =

Nei

ther

Impo

rtant

Nor

Uni

mpo

rtant

, 4 =

Som

ewha

t Im

porta

nt, 5

= V

ery

Uni

mpo

rtant

b C

olla

psed

edu

catio

n ca

tego

ries

for a

naly

sis:

≤ H

igh

scho

ol e

duca

tion,

Som

e co

llege

to B

ache

lor�

s deg

ree,

≥M

aste

r�s d

egre

e

12

5

Tab

le 3

.16.

Sig

nific

ant r

elat

ions

hips

bet

wee

n im

port

ance

of �

I no

long

er h

ave

hunt

ing

dogs

� in

exp

lain

ing

cons

trai

nts t

o hu

ntin

g ac

tivity

, and

de

mog

raph

ics a

nd h

unte

r ch

arac

teri

stic

s, ba

sed

on a

mai

l sur

vey

of h

unte

rs in

Nor

th C

arol

ina

in su

mm

er 2

006.

(Num

bers

und

er th

e va

lue

head

ing

repr

esen

t the

per

cent

of h

unte

rs w

ho se

lect

ed th

at r

espo

nse

optio

n).

Valu

esa

Dem

ogra

phic

/Hun

ter C

hara

cter

istic

s 1

23

45

N

χ2 df

P-

valu

e G

amm

a R

egio

n81

323

.070

80.

003

NA

C

oast

al

9.7

9.7

24.2

5.

3 51

.1

Pied

mon

t 7.

3 2.

4 26

.9

9.2

54.1

M

ount

ain

5.8

6.9

32.8

5.

8 48

.6

Ag

e

812

18

-24

1.0

6.1

39.4

12

.1

41.4

53.8

06

20

< 0.

0001

-0

.090

25-3

4 6.

3 5.

7 22

.6

6.3

59.1

35

-44

2.2

4.9

30.2

7.

1 55

.5

45-5

4 9.

3 3.

3 25

.3

8.7

53.3

55

-64

12.2

9.

2 25

.2

4.6

48.9

≥6

5 16

.5

7.7

29.7

2.

2 44

.0

C

omm

unity

800

30.4

92

16

0.01

6 -0

.032

Larg

e C

ity

2.7

4.1

21.6

9.

5 62

.2

Smal

l City

5.

5 5.

5 30

.7

9.2

49.1

Sm

all T

own

9.5

5.1

22.6

7.

3 55

.5

Rur

al a

rea

not o

n a

Farm

3.

9 6.

3 29

.4

6.3

54.1

R

ural

are

a on

a fa

rm

13.5

7.

0 32

.2

4.7

42.7

Educ

atio

nb

806

16.7

91

8 0.

032

0.15

3

Som

e hi

gh s

choo

l o

r les

s 12

.5

4.7

32.8

3.

1 46

.9

Hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a o

r GED

8.

7 8.

7 30

.4

4.3

47.8

So

me

colle

ge

or t

rade

sch

ool

6.7

4.0

29.3

9.

5 50

.6

Bach

elor

's de

gree

3.7

6.5

22.2

6.

5 61

.1

Mas

ter's

deg

ree

5.1

7.7

20.5

10

.3

56.4

Ph

d., M

.D.,

J.D

., O

r equ

ival

ent

7.1

0.0

14.3

14

.3

64.3

Inco

me

76

3 40

.098

20

0.

002

0.17

2

≤$24

,999

15

.6

7.8

28.9

8.

9 38

.9

$25,

000-

$34,

999

7.3

8.9

32.3

4.

0 47

.6

$35,

000-

$49,

999

12.7

5.

1 27

.1

5.9

49.2

$5

0,00

0-$7

4,99

9 4.

5 6.

6 27

.3

11.1

50

.5

$75,

000-

$99,

999

3.4

4.3

28.2

5.

1 59

.0

≥$10

0,00

0 4.

3 5.

2 25

.0

3.4

62.1

a 1 =

Ver

y Im

porta

nt, 2

= S

omew

hat I

mpo

rtant

, 3 =

Nei

ther

Impo

rtant

Nor

Uni

mpo

rtant

, 4 =

Som

ewha

t Im

porta

nt, 5

= V

ery

Uni

mpo

rtant

b C

olla

psed

edu

catio

n ca

tego

ries

for a

naly

sis:

≤ H

igh

scho

ol e

duca

tion,

Som

e co

llege

to B

ache

lor�

s deg

ree,

≥M

aste

r�s d

egre

e

12

6

Tab

le 3

.17.

Sig

nific

ant r

elat

ions

hips

bet

wee

n im

port

ance

of �

I pre

fer

to p

artic

ipat

e in

oth

er a

ctiv

ities

dur

ing

my

free

tim

e� in

exp

lain

ing

cons

trai

nts

to h

untin

g ac

tivity

, and

dem

ogra

phic

s and

hun

ter

char

acte

rist

ics,

base

d on

a m

ail s

urve

y of

hun

ters

in N

orth

Car

olin

a in

sum

mer

200

6. (N

umbe

rs

unde

r th

e va

lue

head

ing

repr

esen

t the

per

cent

of h

unte

rs w

ho se

lect

ed th

at r

espo

nse

optio

n).

Valu

esa

Dem

ogra

phic

/Hun

ter C

hara

cter

istic

s 1

23

45

N

χ2 df

P-

valu

e G

amm

a H

unte

rTyp

eb 73

616

.470

80.

036

NA

Bi

g ga

me

1.6

12.0

37

.9

14.2

34

.3

Smal

l gam

e 4.

3 27

.7

29.8

6.

4 31

.9

Wat

erfo

wl

9.1

9.1

63.6

0.

0 18

.2

Mix

ed

1.9

9.8

36.9

16

.3

35.2

Avid

ity

73

8 26

.683

8

< 0.

0001

0.

231

Lo

w (≤

15

days

) 3.

5 18

.5

38.7

14

.5

24.9

In

term

edia

te (1

6-53

day

s)

1.4

13.0

38

.5

13.3

33

.8

Hig

h (≥

54

days

) 2.

0 4.

9 33

.3

16.7

43

.1

a 1

= V

ery

Impo

rtant

, 2 =

Som

ewha

t Im

porta

nt, 3

= N

eith

er Im

porta

nt N

or U

nim

porta

nt, 4

= S

omew

hat I

mpo

rtant

, 5 =

Ver

y U

nim

porta

nt

b Rem

oved

wat

erfo

wl c

ateg

ory

from

ana

lysi

s due

to s

mal

l sam

ple

size

(n =

10)

.

127

CHAPTER 4: Synthesis and Management Recommendations

The role of hunters in wildlife management has been significant in shaping wildlife

management and policy in the United States. Additionally, hunters provide much of the funding

necessary to support wildlife programs. However, current declines in hunting participation may

threaten this relationship in the future. As a result, wildlife management agencies have begun to

focus greater attention on hunter recruitment and retention. In 2005, at a hunter recruitment and

retention workshop sponsored by NCWRC and conducted by Responsive Management, Inc.,

participants identified North Carolina�s ban on hunting on Sunday as a possible impediment to

hunter recruitment and retention in North Carolina. A collaborative effort by the Virginia Tech

research team, Responsive Management, Inc., Southwick Associates, and the NCWRC was

designed to investigate the many issues associated with hunting on Sunday in North Carolina

(e.g., opinions of the public and hunters of hunting on Sunday, its potential impacts on hunter

recruitment and retention). The hunter survey assessed hunters� opinions of hunting on Sunday

and the potential impacts hunting on Sunday might have on hunting participation. Another

objective of that effort was to gain better understanding of North Carolina hunters, particularly

understanding the factors that influence their satisfaction with hunting, the motivations for why

they hunt, and the constraints that impede their hunting activities in North Carolina. The more

the NCWRC understands about the state�s hunters and their opinions, the better the agency can

meet both hunter expectations and achieve current and future management goals and objectives.

The purpose of this research effort was not to develop specific recommendations for the

North Carolina General Assembly and NCWRC regarding the issue of hunting on Sunday.

Instead, this research was designed to collect, analyze, and present data that would help these

entities understand constituents� opinions about hunting on Sunday and the impacts and

128

implications that hunting on Sunday may have on hunter recruitment and retention. In this

chapter, I review these important findings, discuss and evaluate some of the more significant

consequences related to the issue of hunting on Sunday, and formulate recommendations for

consideration should the NCWRC contemplate conducting future surveys.

Hunting on Sunday � A Final Overview

1) The issue of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina is strongly polarized. Thirty-eight percent

of respondents strongly supported hunting on Sunday, 39% strongly opposed, and only 6%

neither supported nor opposed hunting on Sunday.

2) Currently, older hunters represent both the majority of hunters in North Carolina and those

most opposed to hunting on Sunday. However, the relationship between opinion of hunting on

Sunday and age needs closer scrutiny. It is unknown if younger hunters, who currently display

strong support for hunting on Sunday, will retain their position as they age.

3) Opinion about hunting on Sunday was clearly influenced by the frequency with which one

attended church or another place of worship. As the number of days a person attended worship

per month rose, so did one�s opposition to hunting on Sunday, affirming the strong role that

religion currently plays in this issue.

4) Despite the fact that many respondents originally voiced support for hunting on Sunday, many

of these same individuals opposed hunting on Sunday if some limitations were imposed,

reaffirming the support for an �all or nothing� approach heard from participants in the hunter

focus groups. The exact reasons for this change in opinion are not clear, but may reflect hunters�

perception that regulations already are too numerous and/or confusing. The addition of more

129

restrictions related to hunting on Sunday could exacerbate that perception. Participants in the

hunter focus groups frequently expressed a strong desire to avoid dividing hunters by limiting

available opportunities on Sunday (e.g., allowing only bowhunting on Sunday).

5) As the importance respondents placed on believing that work and/or time constraints impeded

their opportunity to hunt increased, support for hunting on Sunday also increased. Such

supporters viewed hunting on Sunday as an opportunity to provide an additional hunting day for

working people, and this was very important in shaping their opinion about hunting on Sunday.

6) Although many respondents indicated that they likely would hunt on Sunday if it was

legalized, very few of those who stated that they had not hunted during the past 5 years indicated

that they would hunt on Sunday. This suggests that providing an additional day (Sunday) may

not be sufficient, by itself, to have a significant effect on bringing back hunters who have

abandoned hunting activities in North Carolina or bringing new hunters into the field.

7) The exact effect on hunter recruitment is unknown; however, the opportunity to hunt on

Sunday may affect hunting participation positively. Hunters, who previously had taken an adult

friend, family member, or youth hunting in North Carolina, indicated they would do so again if

presented with the opportunity to hunt on Sunday. However, the opportunity to hunt on Sunday

had little influence on persuading hunters to take an adult friend, family member, or youth

hunting on Sunday when they had not done so previously.

8) Although most respondents indicated they would hunt at least the same number of days if

hunting on Sunday was legalized, 1/3 of respondents claimed that they would hunt more days.

Respondents indicated that they would hunt 7 more days that did not involve an overnight stay

130

and take 1.9 more overnight hunting trips if hunting on Sunday was legalized. Thus, legalization

of hunting on Sunday may increase hunting participation, if not hunter retention.

Satisfactions, Motivations, and Constraints

9) Overall, hunters in North Carolina rated both their hunting experiences during the 2005-2006

season and the previous 5 seasons as adequate to excellent, indicating that North Carolina

hunters are satisfied with their hunting experiences.

10) Satisfaction with hunting experiences is derived from many factors. Because hunters

identified many factors, a multiple satisfactions approach to wildlife management would help to

maintain or increase satisfaction among North Carolina hunters. Ultimately, the challenge

managers face is the problem of how to target specific groups of hunters (e.g., provide

opportunities to hunt with dogs on state gamelands for small game hunters) and provide

opportunities to achieve satisfaction from their hunting experience without negatively affecting

the experiences of other hunter types.

11) The fulfillment of expectations associated with hunters� motivations for hunting is necessary

for a quality hunting experience to occur. Previous research found that hunters have many

different motivations for hunting. This is the case in North Carolina, where hunters identified a

diverse array of motivations such as to experience natural surroundings, to enjoy the outdoors, to

enjoy solitude, to get away from my everyday routine, to take a youth hunting, to maintain a

family tradition, to obtain meat, and to help manage wildlife populations. As with satisfaction,

North Carolina wildlife managers will be challenged to find viable ways to guarantee that the

hunting opportunities they provide will fulfill the expectations associated with hunters�

motivations in North Carolina. The blending of these factors with satisfaction factors may be the

131

best strategy to maintain hunters� motivations or to encourage other hunters to become more

motivated, and improve the quality of hunting experiences in North Carolina. For example,

emphasizing experiencing natural surroundings as a means to motivate North Carolina hunters,

and managing to increase wildlife populations in appropriate areas to increase the likelihood of

hunters seeing wildlife may be a method to successfully blend this information.

12) Collectively, participants in the 2005 hunter recruitment and retention workshop and hunters

responding to my survey identified constraints associated with time, not enough game animals,

and confusing hunting regulations as major impediments to their hunting activity in North

Carolina. The identification of time as a constraint suggests that removing the current ban on

hunting on Sunday in North Carolina would help to alleviate one major constraint to hunting in

the state. Permitting hunting on Sunday would provide an additional day of hunting

opportunities for North Carolina hunters; it also would provide a means to increase satisfaction

with and motivations for hunting in North Carolina for some hunters. The negative impacts on

hunting participation of permitting hunting on Sunday are minimal; <3% of respondents

indicated they would hunt fewer days as result of legalizing hunting on Sunday in North

Carolina. It is uncertain if the identification of not enough game and confusing regulations arise

from false perceptions. Possible strategies to resolve or lessen the effects of these constraints

might include focusing agency outreach efforts to address inaccurate perceptions, and providing

convenient opportunities to solicit and/or incorporate hunter input on hunting regulations. It may

not be possible to completely resolve issues with regulations as hunters often express

dissatisfaction with the complexity of regulations. That dissatisfaction often is countered by a

desire for biologically-based management of wildlife populations at the local level.

132

13) Ultimately, NCWRC may use the information provided from this hunter survey to

encourage hunter recruitment and retention, and to combat further declines in hunting

participation; however, management practices should balance this information with biologically-

based management goals and objectives. Wildlife management previously has been defined as

both a science and an art concentrating on populations, habitats, and people. The role of the

wildlife manager includes manipulating the natural production of the wildlife system

remembering that the wildlife resource is a human construct. NCWRC managers are challenged

with a responsibility to use this information to manage both hunters and the wildlife resource. It

is necessary for NCWRC managers to acknowledge the fragile relationship between the wildlife

resource and hunters; without one, the other ceases to exist.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SURVEYS

1) If hunting on Sunday is legalized in North Carolina, a follow-up survey should be conducted

to assess and determine the specific impacts on hunting participation. The assessment should

focus on estimating the number of hunters participating on Sunday and the number of hunters

taking another hunter (i.e., adult friend, adult family member, youth) hunting on Sunday. To

make useful comparisons with the 2006 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-

Associated Recreation, any such assessment should use similar methodologies. Key metrics

should include estimating the number of days hunted and the number of overnight trips. The

agency should examine license sales, and monitor enrollment in hunter education courses and

attendance at outdoor events (e.g., NCWRC sponsored youth hunts) to estimate impacts on

hunter recruitment and retention. Such an effort would provide valuable information to the

agency needed to develop future management goals and objectives associated with both hunters

133

and the wildlife resource. It also would present valuable information to the remaining states

considering modifying current hunting on Sunday regulations.

2) Use a shorter questionnaire than the one used in this research effort. Nonrespondents

identified time as a constraint to completing and returning my survey. Besides gathering useful

quantitative information, survey design and implementation should focus on developing an

instrument that is user-friendly. Do not try to evaluate multiple characteristics (e.g., satisfaction

with, motivations for, and constraints to hunting activity) in one survey. Instead, conduct smaller

surveys focusing on 1 or 2 specific hunter characteristics to ensure the needed response rate to

make population inferences. My PCA analysis also identified that 1 or 2 factors within a

satisfaction or motivation domain may be sufficient instead of using 3-5 indicator statements to

determine satisfaction with hunting experiences and/or motivations for hunting; using only 1 or 2

indicator statements is another way to shorten the questionnaire.

134

APPENDIX A: Mail Questionnaire

144

Note � Six version of this question were sent to random hunters: $1, $2, $5, $20, $20, and $50

146

APPENDIX B: Cover Letters and Postcard

147

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY

A Land-Grant University The Commonwealth Is Our Campus An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Institution

College of Natural Resources Mail Code 0321, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 (540) 231-5573 Fax: (540) 231-7580

May 22, 2006 Dear North Carolina Hunter, We are writing to ask for your help in better understanding the opinions of North Carolina hunters on the issues surrounding Sunday hunting in North Carolina. We are conducting this survey at the request of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The North Carolina General Assembly has asked the Wildlife Resources Commission to explore the issues surrounding Sunday hunting in North Carolina. This survey is one step in that process. By exploring the views and opinions of North Carolina hunters, the Wildlife Resources Commission will have a better understanding of this important stakeholder group and be better able to make an appropriate recommendation to the legislature. Results from our survey will be provided in a summary report to the Wildlife Resources Commission. Your answers will remain completely confidential and any data collected will be released only as summaries in which no individual�s answers can be identified. The tracking number on the front cover of the survey is used by us only to ensure that survey respondents do not receive additional mailings. When you return your completed survey, your name will be deleted permanently from our mailing list and never connected to your answers in any way. This survey is voluntary. However, you can help us and NCWRC very much by taking a few minutes to share your thoughts about Sunday hunting. If you would like to receive a copy of the summary results (available in December, 2006), please indicate so in the comment section at the back of your completed survey. If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with you. Dr. McMullin�s phone number is 540-231-8847, or you can e-mail me at [email protected] you very much for helping with this important study. Sincerely, Melissa K. Hooper Graduate Research Assistant

148





June 12, 2006 Dear North Carolina Hunter: About three weeks ago, we sent you a questionnaire that asked about your views and opinions regarding Sunday hunting in North Carolina. As of today, we have not yet received a reply from you. Your opinions are very important on this issue and will help ensure that we accurately represent the views of North Carolina hunters. You are an important member of this group! The results from this survey will provide the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission with a better understanding of the many issues related to Sunday hunting in North Carolina. We will prepare a final summary report for the Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina General Assembly prior to their deliberations on this issue. The tracking number you see on the front cover of the survey is used only to ensure that survey respondents do not receive additional mailings. When you return your completed survey, your name will be deleted permanently from the mailing list and never connected to your answers in any way. Again, this survey is voluntary. However, you can help us by sharing your thoughts about Sunday hunting. If you would like to receive a copy of the results, please indicate so in the comment section at the back of your completed survey. We encourage you to complete and return the survey as soon as possible. If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with you. Dr. McMullin, project investigator, can be reached at (540) 231-8847, or you can e-mail me at [email protected]. Thank you very much for helping with this important study. Sincerely, Melissa K. Hooper Graduate Research Assistant

149



Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences Mail Code 0321, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 (540) 231-5573 Fax: (540) 231-7580

July 17, 2006 Dear [Insert First and Last Name],

Your response to the Sunday Hunting Survey could win a lifetime sportsman�s license and a Bass Pro Shops gift card! (see below)

Over the last several weeks, we sent you two copies of a survey asking about your views and opinions regarding Sunday hunting in North Carolina. We are writing again because your opinions are very important and to help ensure that our report to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission accurately represents the views of North Carolina hunters. You are part of a critical sample of North Carolina�s hunters who were asked to participate in this research effort. It is very important that we hear from as many hunters as possible, regardless of whether you support, oppose, or are neutral about Sunday hunting. The results of this research will help provide the Wildlife Resources Commission with a better understanding of the many issues related to Sunday hunting in North Carolina. If you would like to have your opinions included in this study, you must return your completed survey by July 31, 2006! If you have already returned it to us, please accept our sincere appreciation. The tracking number you see on the front cover of the survey is used only to ensure that survey respondents do not receive additional mailings. When you return your completed survey, your name will be removed from the mailing list and never connected to your answers in any way. Again, this survey is voluntary. However, all hunters who return a completed survey (regardless of their position on Sunday hunting) will be entered into a drawing for a Special Prize Package sponsored by Bass Pro Shops to be presented at a 2007 Wildlife Resources Commission meeting.

This package, worth $1,000, includes a never-before-available Unified Lifetime Sportsman�s License valued at $675 for you or a person you select (covers hunting plus fresh & saltwater fishing in NC for life!) plus a $325 Bass Pro Shops gift card.

If you would like to receive a copy of the survey results, please indicate so on the back of your completed survey. If you have any questions or comments about this study, we would be happy to talk with you. Feel free to call Dr. Steve McMullin at 540-231-8847, or e-mail me at [email protected]. Thank you very much for helping with this important study. Sincerely, Melissa K. Hooper Graduate Research Assistant

150




May xx, 2006 Last week, we sent you a survey that asked about your views and opinions regarding Sunday hunting. This note is a quick reminder for you to please complete this questionnaire. If you already completed and returned it to us, please accept our sincere appreciation. If not, please do so today! If you did not receive the questionnaire or misplaced it, we�ll be sending you a second copy shortly. You are part of a critical sample of North Carolina�s hunters who were asked to participate in this research effort. It is very important that we hear from as many hunters as possible. Without your response, our results will not represent accurately the true opinions and views of North Carolina hunters. If you have any questions, please contact me at 540-231-8847 or email me at [email protected]. Thank you! Melissa K. Hooper Graduate Research Assistant

151

APPENDIX C: Nonresponse Questionnaire

152

Sunday Hunting in North Carolina: Hunter Survey Nonresponse Analysis Contact Telephone Script

Hello, my name is Melissa Hooper, and I�m calling from Virginia Tech. I�m a member of the Sunday hunting research team working with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Over the last couple of months, we sent you three copies of a survey asking about your views and opinions regarding Sunday hunting in North Carolina. I am calling because your opinions are very important and to help ensure that our report to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission accurately represents the views of North Carolina hunters. I have a few simple questions that I would like to ask you about the Sunday hunting issue, which should take less than five minutes to answer. Your responses will be confidential and you will not be contacted again. Do you have five minutes to answer a few questions? If yes, continue to Question #1. If no, thank you for your time and have a good evening. Question #1 Did you hunt in North Carolina at any time since July 1, 2001 (or in the past five years)? If yes, continue to Question #3. If no, continue to Question #2. Question #2 Are you a hunter? If yes, continue to Question #5. If no, continue to Question #5. Question #3 Have you hunted in North Carolina since July 1, 2005 (the most recent season)? If yes, continue to Question #4. If no, continue to Question #5. Question #4

For the most recent season, did you hunt more days, fewer days, or about the same number of days as you did during the previous four seasons? Continue to next Question #5. Question #5 For the most recent season (since July 1, 2005), how many days did you hunt? Continue to Question #6.

153

Question #6 Based on what you know today, do you support or oppose the legalization of hunting on

Sunday in North Carolina? Continue to Question #7.

Question #7 Why do you [support or oppose] the legalization of hunting on Sunday in North Carolina? Continue to Question #8. Question #8 If hunting on Sunday were legalized in North Carolina, would you hunt more days, fewer days, or about the same number of days per year as you do now?

If [ more or fewer] days, continue to Question #9 If about the same number of days, continue to Question #10..

Question #9 How many [more or fewer] days per year would you hunt in North Carolina? Question #10 To assist our research team in designing more efficient surveys of hunters in the future, we would like to know if there was any particular constraint that prevented you from completing and returning the original survey? Thank you very much for your help. If you have any questions about the study, please call us at (540) 231- 8847 or email us at [email protected].

154

VITA Melissa Kay Hooper was born to William H. and Linda A. Hooper on February 10, 1978

in Luray, Virginia. After living in Luray and Bedford, Virginia, her family settled in

Martinsville, Virginia. Melissa graduated as class salutatorian from Martinsville High School on

June 8, 1996. She was active in both athletics and academics in high school, serving as Captain

of the girls� softball team, Captain of the math academic, and co-editor of the school yearbook.

Melissa began her college career at Virginia Tech in August, 1996. She completed her

Bachelor of Science Degree in May, 2000 with a minor in Biology and emphasis in Sociology.

During her undergraduate experience, Melissa was a member of the Virginia Tech Corps of

Cadet, Block and Bridle Animal Husbandry Club, and Xi Sigma Pi National Natural Resources

Honor Society. She also gained valuable experience while working as a Research Technician

with the Conservation Management Institute�s Military Lands Division.

After graduation, Melissa worked as a Virginia Game Warden with the Virginia

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in Lunenburg and Franklin Counties, Virginia. While

employed with the department, Melissa developed a keen appreciation and love of public

outreach and education, particularly in natural resources.

Melissa first began working on a Master of Science in Agriculture and Extension

Education in January, 2004. Melissa became a Master�s Degree candidate with the Virginia

Tech Fisheries and Wildlife Department in January, 2005. In collaboration with her advisors,

she completed a technical report summarizing the impacts of hunting at New River Gorge

National River, West Virginia, for the National Park Service. During this time, she also served

as the Fisheries and Wildlife Graduate Student Association representative to the Graduate

Student Assembly and as the College of Natural Resources representative to the Graduate

Student Budget Board. Melissa also continued her commitment to natural resources education

through volunteering as Hunter Education Instructor and facilitating Project WILD, Learning

Tree, and WET workshops. She completed her degree requirements in December, 2006. Upon

completing her degree requirements, Melissa accepted an Agriculture/Conservation Specialist

position with the John Marshall Soil and Water Conservation District in Fauquier County,

Virginia.

opinions of north carolina hunters regarding hunting on sunday … · 2020. 1. 21. · hunting on...

Documents