A Typology of South Dakota Muzzleloader Deer Hunters

Abstract

In 1999 we surveyed 1,000 randomly selected South Dakota, USA, muzzleloader deer (Odocoileus spp.) hunters using a self‐administered mail survey to gain better understanding of equipment used, skills, success, motivations, and attitudes about technology and restrictions. This sample represented 67% of the state's muzzleloader deer‐hunter population in 1999. Nine hundred and four usable surveys were returned. We conducted a K‐means cluster analysis to determine if muzzleloader hunters could be separated (based on equipment used) into modern and traditional hunters. Modern muzzleloader hunters (31%) used in‐line muzzleloaders, bullet with sabot, Pyrodex pellets, or fiber‐optic open sights, while traditional muzzleloader hunters (69%) used caplock muzzleloaders, black powder, or flintlock muzzleloaders. We compared hunter type, age, experience, skills, success, and equipment used by category to determine if differences existed. Most muzzleloader deer hunters (68%) were satisfied with current equipment regulations. Probability of hunter success increased when modern muzzleloader equipment was used and the distance hunters were willing to shoot at a standing deer increased. Equipment type only slightly impacted harvest success. Because more muzzleloader hunters were satisfied with equipment restrictions, we concluded that establishing additional limits was not necessary. Moreover, South Dakota wildlife managers already had a lottery quota system for permit allocation that could be used to adjust for increased muzzleloader harvest. Thus, we contend muzzleloader‐equipment‐regulation decisions for South Dakota hunters may be more a social than a biological issue.

A Statewide Examination of Hunting and Trophy Nonhuman Animals: Perspectives of Montana Hunters

“…Only 11% of resident hunters and 16% of nonresident outfitter-sponsored hunters said it was extremely important to get a trophy animal when hunting. Th ese results are consistent with the findings of others such as Boulanger et al (2006) and Gigliotti (2000), who reported in their studies that small percentages of hunters were trophy hunters.…”

Time and Money Invested in Off-Season Deer Hunting Activities

“…Regarding participation rates, 30% spent time and 17% spent money on creating openings/improving habitat, while 18% spent time and 20% spent money on food plot management. The participation rate for time spent on blind construction/scouting was similar to the 53-56% participation rate in pre-season scouting activities by muzzleloader hunters in South Dakota (Boulanger et al, 2006).…”

“…Satisfaction ratings for scouting, for example, are on par with some in-season activities such as shooting at turkey (Wynveen, Cavin, Wright, & Hammitt, 2005). Almost half of muzzleloader hunters spent time scouting (Boulanger, Hubbard, Jenks, & Gigliotti, 2006), and scouting has been mentioned in other research (e.g., Champ & Bishop, 1996;Daigle, Muth, Zwick, & Glass, 1998;Gratson & Whitman, 2000). As for economics, McBryde (1995) compared costs of food plots to supplemental feeding (via feeders).…”

Underaddressed animal‐welfare issues in conservation

“…Recent studies from Scandinavia are a notable exception (Kanstrup et al 2016;Støen et al 2018;Stokke et al 2018 Techniques commonly used for recreational hunting are likely to impose considerably higher animal-welfare impacts than professional harvesting or culling methods. These recreational hunting techniques include archery (Nixon et al 2001), shotguns and muzzle-loading firearms (Boulanger et al 2006), pursuit with dogs (Bradshaw & Bateson 2000), knives (feral pig hunting) (Massey et al 2011), and long-range shooting (Johnston 2017). Many adverse animal-welfare events are associated with recreational hunting, notably nonfatal wounding.…”