Hunter Satisfaction Research Articles

Mississippi Waterfowl Hunter Expectations, Satisfaction, and Intentions to Hunt in the Future

Disconfirmation of expectations, season-long satisfaction, seeing waterfowl, and waterfowl harvest opportunity may affect the intentions to waterfowl hunt in the future for Mississippi hunters. In this study, the disconfirmation of expectations had the strongest relationship with satisfaction for all models examined. Seeing plenty of waterfowl and the perception of having good opportunities to harvest waterfowl were also related to satisfaction for a season. Depending on the season length and bag limit for the following season; seeing waterfowl, satisfaction with previous season, and the perception of harvest opportunity were related to intentions to waterfowl hunt in the future. Our research supports the idea that if managers are unable to manipulate the environmental variables affecting satisfaction and intentions to hunt, they may be able to influence hunter expectations to improve hunter satisfaction and retention.

Comparison of Two Approaches for the Measurement of Waterfowl Hunter Satisfaction

Despite its prominence in the consumer satisfaction literature, the role of expectations has been neglected when studying hunter satisfaction. We used the “expectancy disconfirmation paradigm” from the marketing literature to (a) investigate the role of expectations on waterfowl hunter satisfaction, and (b) compare findings with traditional performance only measures. To measure disconfirmation, we used a measure of expectations and subtracted it from a measure of performance to derive a difference score. Difference scores performed well compared to traditional performance only measures when correlated with overall satisfaction. Expectations were not met for some of the strongest antecedents of overall satisfaction. Variables related to harvest and hunting location were among the most strongly correlated items with overall satisfaction for both measurement techniques. We recommend a measurement of expectations should be considered in future hunter satisfaction research for the additional understanding of satisfaction judgments it offers to wildlife managers.

Managing for Preferred Hunting Experiences: A Typology of Minnesota Waterfowl Hunters

Most research describing the characteristics and behaviors of waterfowl hunters has assumed this group of sportsmen to be relatively homogenous. Using data obtained through a mail survey conducted in 2000, we developed a typology of Minnesota waterfowl hunters based on experience preferences. This type of information may assist wildlife managers in making regulatory recommendations that increase hunter satisfaction, and hence, participation. We used cluster analysis to group hunters into 5 types. We identified 2 types as enthusiasts and 3 as participants. Enthusiasts hunted more days and placed greater importance on almost all experience items than other respondents. We characterized participant hunters as longtime waterfowl-hunting participants, less-engaged waterfowl-hunting participants, and recreational-casual waterfowl-hunting participants. Longtime and less-engaged waterfowl hunters tended to be older than all other respondents. We suggest that modeling hunter participation using experience preferences and satisfaction also may enhance the harvest-management process.

The Nutritional, Ecological, and Ethical Arguments Against Baiting and Feeding White-Tailed Deer

The use of food plots, supplemental feeding, and baiting has been a common and legal practice in Texas for many years. There is now controversy as to whether Texas Parks and Wildlife Department should include this extra nutrition as part of their carrying capacity estimates used to determine harvest permits for private landowners. Managers should remember that nutrition is only one component of carrying capacity, which includes water, shelter, and space as well. Extensive data exists about the potential negative impact of feeding on deer. Studies in Texas (Murden and Risenhoover 1993) have shown that fed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) can degrade rangeland by overconsuming high-quality plants and underconsuming low-quality plants. Guiterrez (1999) did not find that effect when South Texas deer were offered winter food plots. Donier et al. (1997) found in Minnesota that winter supplementation increased browse pressure within 900 m of feeders. Other reports (Williamson 2000) show increased browse pressure within a 1-mile radius of feeders, perhaps due to concentration of deer. Cooper et al. (2002) found 50% kernal home range sizes of fed deer were half that of unfed deer and that browse pressure near the feeder was 7 times that of unfed deer. Supplemental feeding has been suspected of contributing to the spread of tuberculosis in deer, chronic wasting disease in elk (Cervus canadensis) and deer, and brucellosis in elk and bison (Bison bison; Williamson 2000). Crowding due to supplemental feeding led to fighting and injuries in Michigan deer (Ozoga 1972). Feeding has actually led to starvation in deer due to increases in population when feeding was initiated (McCullough 1977, Schmitz 1990). Supplemental feed is consumed by nontarget species, possibly leading them to pass disease and to attract predators. Cooper and Ginnett (2000) found decreased survivorship of simulated turkey nests within 400 m of deer feeders in Texas. In 1998 we found illegal levels of aflatoxin in 40% of 100 randomly purchased bags of “deer corn” in Texas (N. Wilkins, Texas Cooperative Extension, USA, unpublished data). The ecological significance of deer feeding and baiting is only part of the issue. Feeding leads to ethical questions as well. Feeding is part of the domestication process, along with fencing, breeding, and health programs that, due to their expense, may lead to the desire for private ownership of wildlife. Baiting, likewise, adds to the advantages of the hunter over the hunted and may decrease hunter satisfaction and increase concerns of the antihunters and the nonhunting public (Ortega y Gasset 1995). Deer managers and agency personnel should review the data presented here and incorporate it into their decision making when considering feeding or baiting of deer.

A comparison of deer hunters with disabilities and nondisabled hunters in Alabama: motivations and satisfactions in deer hunting

Approximately 20% of the United States population suffers from some form of disability. In the United States, leisure activities such as hunting are becoming more accessible to persons with disabilities, though little research has been published on this topic. Research has been conducted in South Dakota to categorize deer (Odocoileus spp.) hunters based on their motivation for hunting and to collect information about hunter satisfaction. This information has proven valuable to the state management agency, facilitating changes in management that increased satisfaction of the majority of hunters. We conducted a study in Alabama, which included both hunters with disabilities and nondisabled hunters, to determine whether motivations and satisfactions differed between groups. Hunter groups displayed some statistical differences, but practical differences were not found. This suggested that management agencies need not differentiate between groups when making decisions related to the motivations and satisfactions of these constituents.

Factors Influencing Pheasant Hunter Harvest and Satisfaction

From 1996 to 1999, we surveyed pheasant hunters in Utah to determine what factors affected hunting harvest and improved satisfaction with the hunt. We addressed each question by using a path analysis to examine the effect of select factors on hunter harvest and satisfaction, as well as how harvest affects hunter satisfaction. The resulting path analysis determined that relative hunter density, the number of roosters seen, and the number of pheasants harvested positively influenced hunter satisfaction. The number of roosters seen positively influenced hunter harvest. The number of hours hunted, the size of the hunting party, the number of predators seen, the presence of a dog, and the experience of a hunter with his/her chosen area did not affect hunter satisfaction or hunter success.

Peer-Reviewed Articles Too Many Hunters or Not Enough Deer? Human and Biological Determinants of Hunter Satisfaction and Quality

This paper explores how the human dimensions of wildlife management (hunter density, contact with others, perceived crowding) are related to the biological dimensions of deer management (deer population, seeing, shooting, bagging) to produce satisfying and high quality hunts.

Effect of Harvest Success on Hunter Attitudes Toward White-Tailed Deer Management in Pennsylvania

This study examined effects of harvest and subjective evaluations of the state's deer herd on hunter satisfaction with white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) management in Pennsylvania. Hunters were classified as rifle, archery, or muzzleloader through a probability model based on prior experience. Backward hierarchical log-linear analysis was used to model satisfaction with deer management for the three groups. Successfully harvesting deer was significant in predicting satisfaction with deer management among the three hunting groups. Different models explained satisfaction for each type of deer hunter. Harvest was a main effect for archery and a partial-order effect for rifle and muzzleloader deer hunters. Harvest success was directly related to satisfaction with management for archery deer hunters. In the rifle deer-hunter model, harvest success was associated with perception of balanced harvest, which was related to satisfaction with deer management. Harvest success was associated with perceptions of herd size and seeing deer in the muzzleloader model, and seeing deer directly related to satisfaction with deer management. Differing relationships between harvest success and satisfaction with management for different types of hunters may offer understanding into hunter opposition to management programs.

"An Imperfect Tale": Interpretive Accountability in Wieland

"AN IMPERFECT TALE": INTERPRETIVE ACCOUNTABILITY IN WIELAND Toni O'Shaughnessy Stanford University In the "Epistle to the Reader," which prefaces his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), John Locke describes his own authorship in ambiguous and suggestive language. Authors, he says, are those "who let loose their own Thoughts," as hunters release hounds or hawks, "and follow them in writing."1 The understanding searches for "Truth" like a dog after "Quarry," making new and temporarily delightful discoveries. Although the possibility of final apprehension of truth is always apparently assumed in Locke's discussion, in fact Locke's hunter "cannot much boast of any great Acquisition." Truth is never finally caught. This is not, however, a significant problem for Locke, since "the very pursuit makes a great part of the Pleasure. " An author, though he may not arrive at truth, enjoys "the Hunter's Satisfaction" as he passively follows his thoughts in their pursuit of truth.2 Locke further claims that the creative submission of the author to his understanding is equally available to readers, who are encouraged to follow their own thoughts while reading and thus to be, at one remove, like the author following truth.3 With this move, Locke seems to relieve writers of responsibility for the interpretations placed on their texts. Readers cannot hold authors accountable for meanings that they themselves create, especially when in the process they become much like writers themselves. The specific use to which Locke's own text will be put, and indeed whether it seems to have anything to offer a reader or not, is up to the reader. "Thou art not," Locke charges his reader, "to blame me for it."4 Perhaps it is because Locke is self-consciously considering his own authorship in the prefatory epistle that he there emphasizes authors' comparative blamelessness for the interpretations readers make of texts (though he is careful to say that all that he has written is true to the best of his knowledge). For in the Essay proper, as is well known, Locke is at pains to prevent the interpretive anarchy such emphasis might encourage if it were presented without qualifying caveats. He makes it clear in Book III that authorial freedom from interpretive responsibility is never separate from authors' moral responsibility to "take care to apply their Words, as near as may be, to such Ideas as common use has annexed them to."5 He goes on to say that for Words . . . being no Man's private possession, but the common measure of Commerce and Communication, 'tis not for any one, at pleasure, to change the Stamp they are current in; nor alter the Ideas 42Toni O'Shaughnessy they are affixed to; . . . Men's Intentions in speaking are, or at least should be, to be understood.6 While insisting that "the very nature of Words, makes it almost unavoidable , for many of them to be doubtful and uncertain in their significations ,"7 Locke also insists that this does not excuse those who are "guilty" of a "wilful" abuse of words.8 For Locke, final judgment on a text, and indeed its very meaning, are up to the reader; nevertheless, the author should represent his ideas in words that readers are likely to construe according to the author's intentions. When authorship is thus responsible, and readers emulate authors in judging for themselves by following their own understandings, interpretation is as reliable as possible . Complicated and equivocal as Locke's interpretive model certainly is, it depends nevertheless on traditional, and from a contemporary perspective somewhat optimistic and even contradictory, assumptions. Locke supposes that authors write in order to transmit communicable meanings; that readers read to discover those meanings; and that it is possible, though very difficult, for a text to transmit the author's meaning to a reader who is thinking for himself. The inherent unfixedness of language, Locke suggests, may be controlled if an author takes pains to clarify meaning and if a reader agrees to "follow his own thoughts" in the same passively creative way that an author does when writing. A reader who can assume a well-meaning and conscientious author behind a text can be trusted to interpret reliably on...

Wildlife management: Managing the hunt versus the hunting experience

Deer hunter satisfaction is investigated from two perspectives, (1) satisfaction with the hunt/harvest and (2) satisfaction with the overall hunting trip experience. Regression analysis is used to determine what variables best predict satisfaction with the hunt and the hunting experience. Results indicate that animal population variables (number of deer seen, shot at, bagged) are the best determinants of a quality deer hunt, while environmental (outdoors) and social (crowding and hunter behavior) are the best predictors of a quality hunting trip experience. Wildlife managers and researchers need to realize that deer hunters view the hunt/harvest as different from the hunting trip experience and need to manage for both aspects of hunter satisfaction.

Hunting satisfaction and reciprocal exchange: Initial support from a lottery‐regulated hunt

Abstract This study explores the satisfaction of 228 adults with hunting during a state‐regulated lottery hunt in which the day of the hunt was randomly assigned. An analysis of covariance indicated that cohorts, based on the day that subjects hunted, were significantly different with respect to satisfaction with the hunt (p < .037). The cohort with the greatest satisfaction was intermediate with regard to the ratio of number of deer harvested per day to number of hunters, although the mean differences were not statistically significant. It was concluded that reciprocal exchange, which is the interplay among factors associated with hunting, provides a framework for understanding hunter satisfaction. Suggestions for future research are also included to explore further the explanatory contributions of reciprocal exchange.

Annual Changes in Spermatozoan Production and Associated Organs of White-Tailed Deer

The left testis and epididymis were collected from each of 60 wild adult (>12 months old) male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virgin'anus) over approximately 1 year in southwest Virginia. Testes and epididymides were weighed separately and numbers of spermatozoa in each organ were determined. All gonadal parameters were at baseline values from February through June. Testis and epididymis weights and testicular spermatozoan numbers rose markedly from June to July. Epididymal spermatozoan numbers increased from July to August as storage of spermatozoa began. Testis and epididymis weights (g) and testicular and epididymal spermatozoan numbers (x 10) increased to maximum values (46.76 ? 8.16 S.E., 7.40 -11.11 S.E., 4.406 ?-t 0.577 S.E., and 6.602 ? 1.600 S.E., respectively) during November when does normally are bred in southwest Virginia. Male deer apparently have breeding capability and sexual libido from the latter part of September through January in the study area. However, the breeding capability of the male had begun to diminish in December as indicated by the regression of all gonadal measurements. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 41(1):92-99 Deer herds are being managed with everincreasing intensity. The primary management plan has been one directed at increasing productivity of white-tailed deer through habitat manipulation and harvest regulation. However, knowledge of the reproductive physiology of both sexes is necessary to produce optimum sustained deer yields. In particular, certain aspects of the male deer's reproductive physiology need to be known in more detail. Measurements of the testicular and epididymal spermatozoan reserves of wild deer can provide valuable data on the breeding potential of individual animals. Reliable physiological data of this type could contribute to maximization of the male deer harvest and hunter satisfaction. This research was undertaken to define more clearly the nature of reproductive changes during the annual reproductive cycle of the male white-tailed deer. We thank the personnel of the Radford Army Ammunition Plant for their cooperation during the study, and the Virginia Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit for the use of its vehicles throughout the study.