Meeting harvest expectations is key for duck hunter satisfaction

Abstract

Current literature suggests that seeing and bagging game, among other experiences, play a major role in overall satisfaction for hunters. In addition, research highlights relationships that harvest expectations may have with harvest success and in explaining satisfaction. We add to the multiple satisfactions concept that, despite other derived benefits, harvest success may be fundamental to sustain participation and duck (Anatidae) hunters themselves are agents of their own success. We used data from mail surveys conducted between 2007-2015 of Wisconsin, USA, waterfowl hunters to investigate the role of duck hunter behavior and expectations in explaining differences in season satisfaction ratings. We found that duck hunters who spent more days afield, scouted prior to hunting, were mobile during the season, and utilized public lands harvested substantially more ducks than those who did not put effort into these behaviors. Furthermore, we find evidence in support of previous work that by examining the effect of harvest success through the lens of harvest expectations, it better describes satisfaction than either measure did alone among this population of duck hunters. Based on past experiences, duck hunters may develop unrealistic expectations that doom them to dissatisfactory harvests. These results provide assistance to managers and conservationists in helping hunters understand and set realistic harvest expectations, achieve their harvest goals, and continue to be active hunters.Ó 2019 The Wildlife Society.

Duck hunter activity, success, and satisfaction on public hunting areas

“…In Canada, hunters with dogs and decoys fired more shots and bagged more ducks than hunters not using these tools (Boyd 1971), and spinning-wing decoys have been effective in attracting ducks within shooting range (Ackerman et al 2006). In our study, parties with a higher investment index also were slightly less satisfied than parties with a lower index, suggesting that hunters who invested more in associated equipment may tend to be more achievement-oriented (Decker et al 1984, Enck et al 1993) and have higher harvest expectations (Brunke and Hunt 2008, Bradshaw et al 2019, Schroeder et al 2019. Hunting parties used the full spectrum of equipment combinations, and from no equipment to 18 dozen standard decoys, 2 spinning-wing decoys, and dogs.…”

“…Numerous researchers reported that success in bagging game is an important component in waterfowl hunter satisfaction (Brunke and Hunt 2008, Ebeling‐Schuld and Carimont 2017, Bradshaw et al 2019, Schroeder et al 2019, Gruntorad et al 2020). Because weather influences duck movements (Jorde et al 1984), and may directly affect hunters' expectations and enjoyment being in the field, we predicted temperature and precipitation would influence a hunting party's satisfaction.…”

“…Although hunter satisfaction may only partially explain hunters' participation decisions (Case 2004, Larson et al 2014), satisfaction with hunting experiences is considered to be related to patterns of participation, including hunter recruitment, retention, and reactivation (Decker et al 1984). Multiple factors may contribute to hunter satisfaction (Vaske et al 1986, Enck et al 1993, Schroeder et al 2006), but success in bagging game is an important component in waterfowl hunter satisfaction (Brunke and Hunt 2008, Ebeling‐Schuld and Carimont 2017, Bradshaw et al 2019, Schroeder et al 2019, Gruntorad et al 2020). Consequently, managers are interested in actions that help improve hunter success.…”

The Influence of Private Land Deer Management Cooperatives on Harvest Outcomes and Hunter Satisfaction

“…Most often, measures of the social correlates of satisfaction have been bound by the temporal extent of hunting events such as contact within and across hunting parties (Hautaluoma and Brown 1978), hunter density (Hammitt et al 1990, Heberlein 2002, and companionship while hunting (Hazel et al 1990, Hayslette et al 2001. The lack of contact with or interference from other hunters (Gruntorad et al 2020), even while the consideration of other determinants of satisfaction such as hunter knowledge, experience and skill (Hammitt et al 1990, Frey et al 2003, access to private land (Gruntorad et al 2020), or training a dog (Bradshaw et al 2019) has been far less constrained. Missing is a recognition of the broader sociocultural environment of hunters (Larson et al 2014).…”

Influence of sanctuary disturbance, weather, and landscape characteristics on waterfowl harvest opportunity in western Tennessee

“…Recruitment, retention, and reactivation efforts (R3) of hunters often focuses on improving hunting experiences (Humburg et al 2018, Schummer et al 2020). Social science researchers suggest viewing and having the potential to harvest game enhances hunt quality and satisfaction (Fulton et al 2017, Bradshaw et al 2019, Schroeder et al 2019, Schummer et al 2020). Thus, identifying factors associated with seeing, shooting at, and harvesting more game may yield important insights to promote hunter satisfaction and engagement (Ringelman and Rubec 1997).…”