What Sources Are Natural Resource Managers Using to Make Decisions?

Barrett, Kyle; Rodriguez, Shari L.

doi:10.1002/jwmg.22112

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To estimate possible non‐response bias, we used the wave analysis methodology employed in other human dimensions research (Barrett and Rodriguez 2021). We compared demographic attributes and responses to a specific subset of key variables (e.g., beliefs about hunting, future hunting intent) to assess potential differences among respondents who completed all waves of the survey and those who dropped out after the first or second round.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating impacts of R3 workshops for first‐time hunters at universities across the United States

von Furstenberg,

Vayer,

Larson

et al. 2023

Wildlife Society Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Declines in hunter numbers across the United States make hunter recruitment, retention, and reactivation (R3) a high priority for wildlife management. As wildlife management agencies and nongovernmental organizations seek to reach new audiences, college campuses present a unique opportunity to cultivate nontraditional path hunters. Despite recent proliferation of R3 initiatives, little research has evaluated effects of hunting programs on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of new hunters. We designed and implemented Getting Started Outdoors: Hunting 101 workshops specifically targeting college students without previous hunting experience, and we assessed workshop efficacy with a theoretically‐grounded approach to workshop evaluation. Using quantitative and qualitative analysis of surveys conducted before, shortly after, and 12–18 months after workshops, we assessed impacts of R3 efforts at large public universities in 16 different U.S. states. Across all states, 19 workshops attracted 314 total participants, with 255 completing both pre‐ and post‐workshop assessments and 133 completing the follow‐up surveys. Workshops significantly increased participants' confidence in hunting, reduced barriers related to inadequate knowledge and skills, and fostered positive views of hunters and hunting. Immediately after workshops, most participants said they would definitely (50%) or probably (34%) hunt in the future; 82% said they would likely (or very likely) purchase a hunting license. Over one year after the workshops, 34% of workshop participants reported having hunted, and another 45% said they would probably hunt in the future. Overall, workshops attracted a diverse population of potential hunters, increased interest in future hunting, and created hunting advocates. Findings highlight the potentially powerful impact that R3 programs focused on diverse college students can have on the future of hunting across the United States.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating impacts of R3 workshops for first‐time hunters at universities across the United States

von Furstenberg,

Vayer,

Larson

et al. 2023

Wildlife Society Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Approximately 3 weeks passed between mailings. We assessed nonresponse bias by testing for differences in sociodemographic (age), attitudinal (attitude toward density reduction), and affective (negative emotion toward CWD) variables between waves of respondents following the extrapolation method described by Armstong and Overton (1977) and applied in Barrett and Rodriguez (2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining landowners' preferences for a chronic wasting disease management program

Landon

Smith

Cornicelli

et al. 2022

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Private landowners are key partners in chronic wasting disease (CWD) management, especially in landscapes where there is limited public ownership. In this study, we evaluated landowners' preferences for alternative hypothetical CWD management programs using a stated choice experiment. We were particularly interested in understanding preferences for the use of financial incentives to motivate white‐tailed deer harvest and facilitate hunter access to private lands as potential CWD management tools. We used latent class analysis to characterize preference heterogeneity among landowners stemming from patterns of choice. We compared means and distributions of auxiliary variables related to landowners' perceived risks, trust, attitudes toward management, and sociodemographics across latent classes stemming from choice model results. The pooled model demonstrated that reducing deer population density, providing payments to landowners for CWD‐positive deer taken from their property, the form of incentives for public access, and banning recreational deer feeding had a small positive effect on respondents' choice of CWD management program. However, providing financial payments to hunters for harvesting CWD‐positive deer and the use of targeted culling had the opposite effect on choice. Latent class models revealed that a majority of respondents exhibited a pattern of preference where all forms of incentives exerted a negative effect on choice, but smaller subsets of landowners positively evaluate the use of some incentives. Post‐hoc contrasts revealed relationships between patterns of preferences and trust, risk, and attitudes toward CWD management with small to medium effects. Results demonstrated limited support for the use of financial incentives as a tool to manage access and harvest in the southeast Minnesota CWD management zone.

show abstract

Improving the Journal of Wildlife Management: a response to the perspectives of Johnson et al. (2021) and Gould et al. (2021)

Krausman¹

2022

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving the Journal of Wildlife Management: a response to the perspectives of Johnson et al. (2021) and Gould et al. (2021) I invited D. H. Johnson and M. J. Gould to convene senior and mid-career scientists (Johnson et al. 2021) and early career researchers (ECR; Gould et al. 2021) to share their perspectives of the Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) compared to journals that published similar material. The Wildlife Society (TWS) and the JWM team (e.g., JWM staff, TWS leadership, Wiley) continually work to enhance the quality of the journal and my request was to build on the survey sent to TWS members that sought member opinions about TWS publications (Krausman et al. 2017). I requested the opinions of successful researchers and leaders in the profession and opinions of ECRs that have the potential to become leaders. Johnson et al. (2021) included 15 established researchers and Gould et al. (2021) represent 11 ECRs. The views of established researchers and ECRs are valuable because they are current or future leaders in the profession and they are often lead authors in TWS publications. I specifically asked their opinions of the positive and negative aspects of publishing in JWM, concerns that should be considered, and suggestions for improvement. The input both groups provided is welcomed and I use this editorial to respond to their thoughtful opinions and describe changes that the editorial team made in response to Johnson et al. (2021) and Gould et al. (2021) as we move to maintain and enhance the reputation of JWM.The positive aspects provided by both editorials included JWM being the flagship journal for TWS, directly supporting TWS when publishing in JWM, and providing information for policymakers. In addition, JWM is respected by practitioners and scientists, readership is relevant and appropriate for wildlife science, and JWM and The Wildlife Society Bulletin (WSB) "…are the go-to journals for wildlife management science in North America…Other journals publish on wildlife conservation but provide little specific guidance for on-the-ground actions to conserve wildlife and its habitat" (Gould et al. 2021, Johnson et al. 2021:1305. In addition, JWM was read, respected, and used by managers (though the ECRs indicated a perception that access to JWM was a barrier for wildlife managers). The JWM and TWS need to market member access benefits to ECRs better and demonstrate how JWM is being used by managers in practice. The ECRs also appreciated the increased visibility that some articles received via TWS and the publisher (e.g., mentions on the TWS website and social media). Increased visibility will improve even further with the new journal design (Krausman et al. 2021) because all accepted manuscripts will include graphical abstracts for online production that authors can use in social media to promote their work. Further, many JWM articles are coauthored by both managers and scientists, which assists with credibility and acceptance by the management community. I appreciate these comments and will continue ...

show abstract

What Sources Are Natural Resource Managers Using to Make Decisions?

Cited by 5 publications

References 45 publications

Evaluating impacts of R3 workshops for first‐time hunters at universities across the United States

Evaluating impacts of R3 workshops for first‐time hunters at universities across the United States

Examining landowners' preferences for a chronic wasting disease management program

Improving the Journal of Wildlife Management: a response to the perspectives of Johnson et al. (2021) and Gould et al. (2021)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About