The impact of access, cost, demographics, and individual constraints, on hunting frequency and future participation.

Montgomery, Robert ; Blalock, M. Gale

INTRODUCTION

Hunting is big business. In 2006, 12.5 million U.S. hunting consumers over the age of 16 spent $25 billion hunting. The average annual expenditure per hunter was $1,992 or $110 per hunting day (NSSF 2007). Wildlife recreation is a catalyst for economic growth in every state, particularly in rural areas which have less commerce than urban areas. Spending by outdoorsmen increases employment (593,000 jobs), raises economic output, and generates tax revenues for local communities (Southwick Associates 2007). Private beneficiaries of this largesse include manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of guns, electronics, decoys and calls, trees stands and ground blinds, ATVs, cutlery, archery, clothing, footwear, optics, food, drink, gasoline, lodging, outfitters, outdoor media, and landowners. Perhaps more importantly, the 50 state wildlife agencies rely on the $10.6 billion collected annually in hunting and fishing licenses and fees as their primary source of revenue (FHWAR 2006). In addition to license fees many agencies receive a portion of the taxes levied on hunting and fishing equipment. In sum, the management of all wildlife and their habitats is primarily paid for by hunters, fisherman, and farmers so that they and others can enjoy it.

A Sport, Industry and Heritage In Crisis?

The number of hunting consumers over the age of 16 declined 10% from 14 million to 12.5 million between 1996 and 2006 (FHWAR 2006). It should be noted that the number of actual hunters is under-reported because those under 16 years of age or over 65 are not counted, and landowners who hunt don't have to buy permits in some states (Anderson 2008). There was a corresponding decline in hunting expenditures of 3% from 2001 to 2006. Thus, there are fewer hunters spending more per capita. Any industry would be concerned about a 10% drop in the number of consumers. This trend is particularly worrisome for businesses in the hunting industry because some of the likely reasons for the cause of this trend (e.g., loss of hunting land to urban and suburban development, decline in the number of resident farmers, etc.) are unlikely to go away. Also adding to the worries is the fact that the decline occurred in the face of a 13% increase in the population of the U.S.

RESEARCH PURPOSE

The purpose of this research is to explain some of the underlying causes for the 10% decline in hunting consumers and develop marketing strategies to halt the decline. First, this study will determine who hunts, why they hunt, where they hunt, and what they hunt. Secondly, the effects of access and opportunity, personal constraints, and demographics on future hunting and hunting frequency are assessed.

To date, little has been written about the decline of hunting in the academic literature. First, the work which has been done is discussed to provide context for this study. Second, a theoretical model of consumer decision-making that will guide the study is detailed. Third, the methodology is outlined. Fourth, the results and implications for private and public stakeholders are presented. Lastly, some recommendations are offered.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on the decline in the number of U.S. hunters has generally been focused on four areas: Access and Opportunity, Cost, Personal Constraints, and Demographics. These four areas of influence are discussed in more detail in the sections that follow.

Access and Opportunity

Urban sprawl began forcing eastern hunters onto private leases and hunting clubs in the 1970's. The pace quickened in the 1990s as timber companies began pulling their land out of public programs in favor of private leases. By the mid 1990s as much of 70% of deer hunting in many eastern states was conducted on private lands. This drove up the cost of participation which led to fewer opportunities to hunt. This trend is now nationwide. Several states are now giving outfitters exclusive rights to nonresident licenses which limits access to public lands as well (Marshall 2002). The only place where the "Ask the farmer and you'll get to hunt for free" culture still exists in any numbers is in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for waterfowl hunting (Swan 2008).

Commercial and residential development and clean farming practices reduce the habitat available for hunting. Quail and rabbit habitat have been particularly hard hit, severely limiting the opportunities of rabbit and quail hunters (Phillips 2007). According to Marshall (2002) the U.S. is losing 1.5 million acres a year to development.

A study by Mehmood et al. (2003) found that 18% of former hunters cited the lack of public hunting areas as the reason they quit hunting. Miller et al. (2003) found that the biggest situational constraint limiting hunters was no available land for hunting (26%) and not enough game (17%). Wright et al. (2001) looked at constraints to hunting between hunters who were hunting less than they had prior (decreasers), those who are hunting the same amount (stables), and those who are hunting more than they had prior (increasers). Their results indicate that lack of access and opportunity is a significant constraint for decreasers but not for stables or increasers. They also found non-participants who had a positive attitude towards hunting perceived access to be a bigger problem than those who had previously participated.

A study by Response Management/National Shooting Sports Foundation (2008) asked respondents whether they would classify the access problem as an absolute lack of land or a situation where the land exists but the hunter cannot get to it. The majority of respondents indicated it was the latter; they just can't get to it. When asked why access was getting worse the top responses were cannot get permission to private land and loss of land due to urbanization. Another problem was that private land is often leased to hunting clubs. Finally, 11% of respondents cited poor behavior by hunters for causing the land to be closed.

The mobility of our population likely has an impact on access because people often don't know about hunting possibilities or lack hunting partners as they move to a new area. Providing support for this proposition, a study by Wickman et al. (2007) found that the longer a person lived at their current address the more days they spent hunting.

The increasingly common practice of using lotteries or bonus points to award hunting licenses, further limits opportunity. If an individual goes one or more years without being drawn for a hunt, they may find a permanent replacement for their discretionary time (Johnson 2009). The current economic recession (beginning in December 2007) may further limit the opportunity to hunt. The reduction of revenue that is being experienced by most states is leading some to close or restrict hours on public wildlife refuges (Marshall 2007).

Cost

As mentioned previously, the average hunter spends nearly $2000 per year or $110 per hunt (NSSF 2007). Mueller (2006) determined that total lifetime hunting expenditures total $96, 017.92 per hunter. Clearly, hunting has a significant cost component.

Backman et al. (1993) found that the most important factor that explains lack of participation among former hunters and non hunters is cost (25.8% of the variance explained). Those with a positive attitude toward hunting did not perceive cost as a strong constraint, however.

Mehmood et al. (2003) found that 5% of former Alabama hunters quit due to expense. An additional finding of this study is that the cost of a hunting license was not prohibitive for the majority of respondents. Indeed, 50% of respondents were willing to pay an additional 20% or more for a hunting license. Finally, Mehmood et al. (2003) found that former hunters hunted primarily on private land. The increased cost of private leases may have contributed to their decision to quit hunting.

Wright et al. (2001), report that costs associated with hunting were consistently viewed as constraints by respondents. FHWAR 2001 report that 8% of former hunters quit due to cost. Similarly, Miller et al. (2003) report that 5% of respondents cited lack of financial resources as their biggest constraint to hunting.

Personal Constraints

Personal constraints to hunting include lack of time, poor health, negative attitudes, and lack of interest. Each is discussed below.

Americans are time poor. The average number of hours worked by Americans has increased by 39 a year since 1990 (International Labor Organization 2004). More hours spent working leaves less hours to spend hunting.

Wright et al. (2001), report that work and family commitments were consistently viewed as constraints by respondents. Miller et al. (2003) report that 21% of respondents cited lack of time as their biggest personal constraint to hunting.

A study of Alabama residents found that 51% of former hunters quit because of a lack of time (Mehmood et al. 2003). Similarly, respondents with a positive attitude towards hunting perceive family and time as the biggest constraints to hunting (Backman et al. (1993).

The 2001 FHWAR asked people who had quit hunting in the last three years the reasons for doing so. The results were 46% quit for family or work and 44% did not have enough time.

Regarding attitudes, respondents whose hunting remained stable or decreased reported an increase in anti-hunting attitude and a low preference for hunting as a leisure activity (Wright et al. 2001). Backman et al. (1993) suggest that negative experiences on public hunting land may explain why respondents stopped hunting and formed negative attitudes towards the activity. Mehmood et al. (2003) found that 12% of former hunters changed their mind after participating because they thought it was cruel to animals.

Backman et al. (1993) found that non-participants who had a negative attitude towards hunting had significantly higher education, were more likely to have parents who held negative attitudes towards hunting, and were less likely to live in a rural residence.

Regarding strength of attitude, Mehmood et al. (2003) found that 73% of former hunters had taken 1 to 5 trips when they last purchased a hunting license. This could indicate that they may have purchased a hunting license for a single event or lack avidity. In this case, the 73% of former hunters may hold a low-involvement attitude towards hunting.

Similarly, Wright et al. (2001) found that infrequent hunters were significantly more likely to quit than moderate or frequent hunters.

Regarding changing interest, hunting has a lot more competition than 30 years ago. Organized activities are much more prevalent. Year round athletic seasons infringe on the time which used to be set aside for outdoor pursuits. Video games are of particular concern. As people spend more time communing with technology and less time communing with nature, their interest in nature may wane. Indeed, Backman et al. (1993) found that lack of interest explained 12.6% of the variance in hunter participation.

Demographics

Regarding demographics hunters are predominantly younger, higher income, white males, who live in rural settings more than former hunters or non-hunters (Mehmood et al. 2003). Similarly, Floyd et al. (2002) found that gender and race were the most consistent predictors of hunting license purchases in Texas. Income, age, and population size of residence also had an impact but to a lesser extent. These findings are consistent with research conducted by The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FHWAR). According to the FHWAR (2006), initiation rates (the number of hunters that hunted for the first time) have declined in nearly every socioeconomic category including geographic region, gender, ethnicity, income level, and population density. The decline in initiation rates is especially pronounced for men, low income consumers (under $40,000), African Americans, urbanites, and hunters residing in the Northeast. Being raised in or exposed to a hunting culture is critical to initiating new hunters to the sport. This enculturation to hunting is much more likely to occur in a rural setting (Responsive Management/NSSF 2008).

Hunting retention rates were similar. Low income hunting consumers were more likely to quit hunting as were urbanites, the elderly, and males.

By the year 2050 the U.S. will be older, more ethnically diverse, and more urban (Dwyer 1994). Clearly, if the demographic profile of hunters does not change the decline is likely to continue.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR THIS STUDY

The Model of Consumer Decision-Making is used to organize this study. Here, we model the hunting consumer as a rational problem solver seeking information and making decisions. (Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard 1994). Consumers move through a series of sequential steps in order to make consumer choices. For this study, the application of the model to our work is as follows:

* Problem Recognition--Why do people hunt?

* Information Search--Who initiated them into the sport?

* Evaluation of Alternatives--What competes with hunting for their time?

* Choice--Who chooses to hunt (Demographic profile)? How frequently do they hunt?

* What type of game do they hunt? Where do they to hunt? How far do they travel to hunt?

* Post Purchase Evaluation--What are the constraints to future hunting behavior?

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

The data for this study were collected via an online questionnaire that was posted at http://www.eastmans.com/, which is the official website of Eastman's Hunting Journals, The Magazine for Western Trophy Hunters since 7987. A total of 228 hunters responded to the questionnaire in a non-random process (i.e., convenience).

PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

Problem Recognition

Why do you hunt? Responses appear in Table 1.

As can be seen from Table 1, hunters have many motivations. For these big game hunters the challenge of the hunt (82.5%) is the most cited reason for hunting. A majority of hunters also hunt for meat, recreation, to be close to nature, trophies, fellowship, and family time.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the impact of personal characteristics such as age, gender, race, income, residence, and where one hunts on why they hunt. The sample of 228 hunters yielded 1 woman, 3 Hispanic, 1 African American, 1 American Indian, and 1 Asian hunter. These cell sizes are too small for further analysis and thus, have been eliminated. The significant results appear in Table 2.

A post hoc analysis indicates that younger respondents are more likely to hunt for meat or trophies than are older hunters. Hunters who hunt their own land are significantly more likely to hunt to manage game than hunters who do not hunt their own land.

Information Search

Who initiated you into hunting? Responses appear in Table 3.

Clearly, hunter initiation is the province of family and friends. On average each hunter in the sample has initiated 6.48 (mean) hunters into the sport with a standard deviation of 12.9.

Evaluation of Alternatives

What competes with hunting for your time? Responses appear in Table 4. Work and Family are clearly the biggest competitors for a hunter's time. Household chores came in a distant third which could also be counted as a work or family issue.

Choice

Who hunts? A complete demographic profile appears in Table 5.

Consistent with previous research on American hunters (e.g. Mehmood et al. 2003), this sample is predominantly rural, white males with above average incomes.

How frequently do you hunt? Responses appear in Table 6.

This sample is very avid as indicated by nearly 50 percent (47.8%) hunting more than 20 times per year. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether where you hunt, why you hunt, what you hunt, how far you travel to hunt, residence, age, or income affect hunting frequency. The significant results appear in Table 7.

The frequency with which an individual hunts increases if they hunt small game, travel a short distance, have a rural residence, or hunt either their own land or private land. Similarly, respondents who hunt more frequently perceive time and access to private land as less of a constraint to future hunting than those who hunt less frequently. Lastly, hunters who responded that they hunt for recreation hunt less frequently which indicates that recreational hunters are less avid than those who hunt for other reasons.

What type of game do you hunt? Results appear in Table 8.

One hundred percent of this sample hunts big game. This is not surprising since respondents filled out the questionnaire on a big game hunting website from the Western United States, which has abundant big game. Over half of the sample hunts more than 1 type of game.

Where do you hunt? Responses appear in Table 9.

As can be seen from Table 9, this sample hunts public land heavily. Nearly half hunt a combination of public and private land.

How far do they travel to hunt? Responses appear in Table 10.

Nearly two thirds of the sample travel over 60 miles to hunt. More than forty two percent travel more than 120 miles to hunt. Less avid hunters may be less likely to travel the required distance to hunt.

Post-Choice Evaluation

What are the biggest constraints to future hunting? Responses appear in Table 11.

Access and Opportunity

Five of the top seven constraints to future hunting are access/opportunity related. The perceptions of this sample are that public crowding (44.3%), access to private land (40.8%), bonus points (39.0%), lotteries (32.9%), and access to public land (32.5%) will limit their future hunting. To a lesser extent, regulations (19.3%), lack of quality game (18.4%), lack of a hunting partner (14.0%), and safety on public land (10.1%) are perceived access constraints that will limit future hunting.

Cost

The biggest cost constraint to future hunting is license cost (38.2%), followed by lease cost (20.6%), and equipment cost (18.4%).

Individual Constraints

The personal constraint of lack of time (48.2%) is perceived as the biggest obstacle to their future hunting, followed by health (11.0%), and lack of interest (1.3%).

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether perceived differences of hunting constraints were based on personal characteristics such as age, income, and residence. The significant results of this analysis are presented in Table 12.

Regarding age, older hunters perceive access to public hunting land and safety on public hunting land as a bigger constraint to their future hunting than do young hunters. Lastly, older hunters perceive personal health to be a bigger constraint to their future hunting than younger adults. Regarding income, lower income hunters are more likely to perceive the cost of hunting equipment to be a constraint to their future hunting than do higher income hunters. Rural residents were less likely to perceive equipment cost as a constraint to future hunting than suburban residents.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous research (e.g. Miller et al. 2003), the biggest constraints to future hunting are access, cost, individual constraints, and demographic trends. The biggest constraint to future hunting is time or lack there of.

Three of the four biggest constraints to future hunting are access related. Public crowding is the biggest of these followed by access to private land, bonus points, lotteries, and access to public land.

To a lesser extent cost is perceived as a constraint to future hunting, particularly license cost. This is a bigger problem for low income hunters.

Consistent with previous research this sample of big game hunters is predominantly white, upper income, rural males. As mentioned previously, by the year 2050 the U.S. will be older, more ethnically diverse, and more urban (Dwyer 1994). Clearly, if the demographic profile of hunters does not change the decline is likely to continue.

Finally, travel distance, residency, and hunting private land or one's own land are access issues that affect hunting frequency primarily for hunters who have urban or suburban residency, travel long distances, or hunt public land.

IMPLICATIONS

The sport of hunting is in decline in the United States. This decline is self-perpetuating in that fewer hunters leave fewer hunting mentors to initiate new hunters. The decline in hunting participation is problematic for individuals, communities, businesses, and resource management agencies which may no longer experience the social, economic, ecological, and cultural benefits of hunting.

Currently the sport of hunting is 12+ million strong and enjoys broad public support. However this is not the time for those who have a stake in hunting to get complacent. There are 12 million people in the U.S. that belong to animal rights groups, which are gradually merging into one group, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which has a war chest of over $120 million annually (Lasorta 2007). Total annual anti-hunting funding is in excess of $200 million

(Swan 2008).

Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the HSUS is quoted as saying, "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a minute, we would. Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say that hunting is tradition. We say traditions change." Pacelle well knows that he cannot end all hunting tomorrow. Instead, he campaigns to end it one species, method, or jurisdiction at a time (Lasorta 2007).

A deer hunter in Mississippi may not care if Maine bans the spring bear hunt anymore than a Maine hunter cares if Washington bans trapping. If hunting is to be viable for future generations, these disparate groups must support each other, because anti-hunting groups with the backing of Hollywood celebrities care about each of these battles in the war to end hunting. They use national money to win battles against local unorganized hunters. Like most in-roads to freedom, the losses are gradual (Johnson 2009).

In 1850, hunting was a major part of English culture. In the 1900s personal interests shifted from active participation in sport to spectator sports such as football. As the number of hunters declined and the number of animal rights activists increased so did their clout. In the last 10 years most types of hunting have been restricted or banned by referendum to the point that only bird and rabbit hunting remain (Hoyle et al. 2007).

And American hunters are far from united. Wealthy big game hunters have different priorities than small game hunters who hunt close to home. The NRA sponsors hunting programs and lobby's governmental agencies, but less than 20% of hunters are NRA members.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of this research indicate that access, cost, personal constraints, and demographic trends are contributing to the decline in hunting participation. If the United States continues to shed 100,000 hunting consumers a year, then the critical mass needed to protect the U.S.'s hunting industry against anti-hunters may be lost. And getting into the woods isn't enough. Hunters, businesses in the hunting industry, and fish and wildlife agencies need to unite to save wildlife, their habitats, and their hunting heritage.

A good first step for stakeholders in the hunting industry is to create awareness among hunting consumers that there is a decline in hunting participation, and there are well-organized, well-funded forces who would like to see the sport end.

Secondly, all stakeholders in the hunting industry need to consider the hunting opportunities of others. If hunting is to survive it may be necessary for hunting consumers to sacrifice personally for the good of all, and ultimately the sport. For example, recruiting others to hunt your "spot" may decrease the amount of game available for you to personally harvest in the short-run, but increasing the number of hunters will increase yours' and future generations' ability to hunt in the long-term. Recruiting individuals that aren't raised in a hunting culture is a very challenging marketing task. They simply are not as interested. Therefore, in the short term the low hanging fruit for marketers in the hunting industry is retaining avid hunters and enlisting them as foot soldiers to recruit and initiate new hunters in the name of saving the sport. It is particularly important for hunters to initiate their own children and grandchildren. If hunting skips a generation, there is a very good chance that the industry will lose a hunting family. Promotions should focus on the benefits of quality family time spent with nature.

Secondly, less avid/infrequent hunters are more likely to quit the sport than avid/frequent hunters. Marketers and governmental agencies need to find a way to increase the satisfaction of this segment maybe by focusing on the fact that hunting offers many benefits such as a challenge, food, being close to nature, fellowship, etc. Similarly, initiation strategies can focus on aspects other than the "kill" such as the challenge, being close to nature and quality time with family and friends.

In the long-term, policy makers need to focus recruiting efforts on women and minorities particularly those of Hispanic dissent. This may lead to some racial tension, but the hunting industry cannot thrive in the long run without changing the demographic make-up of its customers.

Clearly a lack of time was the biggest constraint to future hunting in this study. Business or government leaders cannot control the amount of discretionary time available to hunters. However, they can have an impact on the importance that people place on their time spent hunting. Promotions can focus on "Make the time to hunt the benefits to you and future hunters are well worth it." Another finding of this study was that hunting competed with work and family for a hunters' time. These need not be mutually exclusive. For a majority of this sample hunting is family time.

The cost of a hunting license is the variable that state and federal wildlife agencies have the most short term control. While it is true that hunting licenses are price inelastic, it is recommended that state and federal agencies do not take advantage of this fact to increase total revenue. While this would create a much needed short-term boost to state budgets, the long-term effect of losing more hunters and thus more hunting mentors to recruit and initiate new hunters would accelerate the hunting decline.

Business or government leaders cannot control per capita discretionary income. They can however play a key role in keeping hunting affordable to lower and middle income earners. Business leaders can produce products and services that are targeted to limited income hunters. Government agencies can keep the cost of hunting down by keeping license fees low, and by keeping access to public land convenient and affordable. Programs that have been successful in this endeavor include 21 states that have hunter access programs that involve states paying private landowners to allow public hunting on their land. Vermont has three landowner appreciation dinners each year.

Many hunters exit the sport due to age and/or health reasons. They should be recruited to mentor young hunters into the sport. Hunting provides an ideal means to bridging a generation gap and ensuring a hunting family stays one. Promotions can focus on watching the magic of hunting through the eyes of a child.

Both hunters and anti-hunters are passionate about the sport. However, the majority of the U.S. public supports hunting. According to Moyer (2007) 78% of Americans support hunting, up from 73% in 1995. When asked about hunting for food or wildlife management, public support increases to 80%. When asked about hunting for sport or trophy collection, support plummets. In this study hunting for food is important. Programs that feed the poor may help to keep public opinion in the favor of hunters.

Every hunting stakeholder plays a role in the long-term battle for public opinion. It is imperative that hunters behave ethically. While the majority of hunters do behave ethically, the opponents of hunting use the most unethical practices of hunters to turn public opinion against the sport. This tactic helped turn the tide against many forms of legal hunting in England (Hoyle et al. 2007). If hunters practice fair chase, respect game, habitat, property, regulations and other hunters, there will be less ammunition for anti-hunting advocates. Ethical hunters are less likely to ruin the hunting experience for others than are unethical hunters which may have an impact on the perception of public access and safety.

The future of hunting is up to everyone who cares about hunting. If a hunter doesn't think they have the time to be pro-active in the fight to preserve their hunting heritage ... just think of all the free time they'll have if their hunting privileges are taken away due to their complacency.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

The data for this study were collected in a non-random process and are thus, not representative of all hunters. Questions regarding license cost did not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state fees which are much higher.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Future Research should determine the impact of cost on both in-state and out-of-state hunters. Future research should explore how the actual number of hours worked impacts hunter frequency. Also, this study focused on the problems facing the American Hunter. Research that is global would help determine which issues are national and which are global in nature.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. 2008. "Decline in Hunting and Fishing Leaves Budget Gap for DNR," Charleston Daily Mail. January 25.

Backman J., and Wright B. 1993. "An Exploratory Study of the Relationship of Attitude and the Perception of Constraints to Hunting," Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. Summer.

Dwyer J. 1994. "ustomer Diversity and the Future Demand for Outdoor Recreation," The United States Department of Agriculture.

Floyd M, and Lee I. 2002. "Who Buys Fishing and Hunting Licenses in Texas? Results from a Statewide Survey," Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 7: 91-106.

Hellerstein D. 1995. "Welfare Estimation Using Aggregate and Individual-Observation Models: A Comparison Using Monte Carlo Techniques," Amercian Journal of Agricultural Economics. August: 620-630.

Hoyle, R. W., 2007. "Our Hunting Fathers," Carnegie Publishing Ltd.

http://www.nssf.org/07report/

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/median_age.html

Johnson D. 2009. "The Future of Hunting in America," http://www.wisconsinhunter.com

Lasorta, D. 2007. "Will State Constitutions Protect the Future of Hunting," http://www.nraila.org. November 16.

Marshall B. 2002. "The Future of Hunting," Field and Stream. June 12.

Marshall B. 2007. "Hunting and Fishing Closures in California and Louisiana," Field & Stream. February 28.

Mehmood S, Zhang D, and Armstrong J. 2003. "Factors Associated with Declining Hunting License Sales in Alabama," Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 8: 243-262.

Miller C, and Vaske J. 2003. "Individual and Situational Influences on Declining Hunter Effort in Illinois," Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 8: 263-276.

Moyer B. 2007. "Hunting: Number of Hunters is Dropping, but not Public Support," Pittsburg Post Gazette. July 1.

Mueller G. 2006. "Recreational Hunting is Far From Dead," Washington Times. September 24.

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wild-life Associated Recreation (FHWAR), 2006, The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The data were collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wild-life Associated Recreation (FHWAR), 2001, The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The data were collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Pergams O, and Zaradic P. 2008. "Evidence for a Fundamental and Pervasive Shift Away from Nature-based Recreation," Environmental Sciences.

Phillips A. 2007. "Hunters are Going the Way of the Dinosaur," The Washington Post. Sunday September 9.

Response Management/National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2008. "The Future of Hunting and Shooting Sports."

Scrogin D, Berrens R, and Bohara A. 2000. "Policy Changes and the Demand for Lottery-Rationed Big Game Hunting Licenses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 25(2): 501-519.

Southwick Associates. 2007. "Hunting in America: An Economic Engine and Conservation Powerhouse."

Swan J. 2008. "The Future of Hunting," ESPNOutdoors.com. April 16.

Wickman T, Mueller T, Karnash P, Zinn H, and Voorhees C. 2007. "The Future of Hunting in Pennsylvania," The Center for Rural Pennsylvania. June.

Wright B, Drogin Rogers E, and Backman K. 2001. "Assessing the Temporal Stability of Hunting Participation and the Structure and Intensity of Constraints: A Panel Study," Journal of Leisure Research. 33 (4): 450-469.

Robert Montgomery, University of Evansville

M Gale Blalock, University of Evansville

Table 1: Why do you Hunt?

Variable Name              Percent Response

Challenge                       82.5%
Meat                            79.8%
Recreation                      77.2%
To be close to nature           76.8%
Trophy                          62.3%
Fellowship                      56.1%
Spend time with family          54.0%
Wildlife Management             41.7%

Table 2: ANOVAs (Hunter Motivation)

Dependent Variable     Independent Variable   F-Value    P-Value

Meat                   Age                    1.814       .002
Trophy                 Age                    1.411      0.53
Game Management        Own Land               6.851       .009

Table 3: Who initiated you into hunting?

Variable Name        Percent Response

Family                    85.4%
Friend(s)                 7.72%
Myself                    6.75%

Table 4: What competes for your time with hunting?

Variable Name        Percent Response

Work                       83.8%
Family                     70.6%
Household chores           18.0%
Fishing                    11.0%
Volunteering                7.5%
Spectator sports            3.1%
Golf                        1.3%

Table 5: Demographic Profile of all Respondents

    Item                              Responses

Residence      Rural:               128 (56.1%)
               Suburban:             66 (28.9%)
               Urban:                34 (14.9%)
Age            Mean:                41.27 years
               Std. Dev.:           12.04 years
               Range:               14-71 years
Income         Mean:                 $78,248.95
               Std. Dev.:           $40,664.363
               Range:               $0--250,000
Race           White:               219 (97.4%)
               Hispanic:               3 (1.3%)
               African American:        1 (.4%)
               American Indian:         1 (.4%)
               Asian:                   1 (.4%)
Gender         Male:                222 (99.6%)
               Female:                  1 (.4%)

Table 6: How frequently do you hunt?

       Hunting Frequency         Percent Response

Less than 5 times per year              9.7%
5 to 10 times per year                 15.0%
11 to 15 times per year                13.7%
16 to 20 times per year                13.7%
More than 20 times per year            47.8%

Table 7: ANOVAs (Hunting Frequency)

Dependent Variable     Independent Variable    F-Value    P-Value

Hunting Frequency      Distance Travelled       4.341       .005
Hunting Frequency      Small Game               9.305       .003
Hunting Frequency      Own Land                 8.953       .003
Hunting Frequency      Private Land             6.011       .015
Hunting Frequency      Residence                3.634       .028
Hunting Frequency      Private Access           8.020       .005
Hunting Frequency      Time                     3.254       .073
Hunting Frequency      Recreation               9.989       .002

Table 8: What do you hunt?

Variable Name        Percent Response

Big Game                    100%
Birds                      62.7%
Small Game                 53.9%

Table 9: Where do you hunt?

Variable Name                    Percent Response

Public land                            93.4%
Private land with permission           46.9%
Own land                               17.5%
Private lease                          10.1%
Hunting club                            4.8%

Table 10: On average, how far do you travel to hunt?

Variable Name          Percent Response

More than 120 miles          42.5%
61 to 120 miles              23.2%
30 to 60 miles               21.5%
Less than 30 miles           12.7%

Table 11: What will limit your hunting in the future?

Variable Name               Percent Response

Time                              48.2%
Public crowding                   44.3%
Private access                    40.8%
Bonus points                      39.0%
License costs                     38.2%
Lotteries                         32.9%
Public access                     32.5%
Lease costs                       20.6%
Regulations                       19.3%
Equipment costs                   18.4%
Lack of quality game              18.4%
Lack of hunting partner           14.0%
Health                            11.0%
Safety on public land             10.1%
Lack of interest                   1.3%

Table 12: ANOVAs (Future Hunting Constraints)

Dependent Variable     Independent Variable   F-Value    P-Value

Public Access          Age                     1.421       .050
Safety public land     Age                     1.432       .046
Health                 Age                     1.568       .017
Equipment Cost         Income                  1.426       .056
Equipment Cost         Residence               2.759       .066