The Vanishing Hunter, Part III

The Human Touch of Wildlife Management

With so much competition for their time, how can youngsters be expected to find the hunter that lies within? An increasing number of state agencies are turning to human-dimensions research for the answer.

By Tori J. McCormick

Associate Editor

Magazine Cover

Part 1: Hunting Participation Continues Long-Term Retreat

Part 2: How the 'King's Deer' Became the 'People's Deer'

Part 3: The Human Touch of Wildlife Management

Part 4: The Role of the Media

Part 5: It's the Culture

When the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation was released last year, it revealed an ominous data point with far-reaching ramifications: Waterfowl hunter numbers nationwide had dropped 27 percent since 2001.

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks waterfowl biologist Spencer Vaa took notice, although, he admits, he was preoccupied with data from his own state, where the numbers were even worse: Resident duck hunter numbers had dropped from 26,172 in 1999 to 14,519 in 2007—a precipitous drop of roughly 44 percent.

“The results were and are scary, particularly when you consider that we’ve had liberal seasons for the last several years and that we’ve had good numbers of birds to hunt in a state where getting access for duck hunting is pretty damn easy,” said Vaa, a passionate duck hunter himself.

Beginning this fall, South Dakota wildlife officials will start a long-term research project in hopes of better understanding the most fundamental of questions: Why are duck-hunter numbers free-falling in a state typically rich in ducks and long on public and private access?

“Our initial survey work will ask a lot of questions, including what it would take to convert upland hunters into waterfowl hunters,” said Larry Gigliotti, South Dakota’s human dimensions specialist, noting that pheasant hunting in South Dakota is extremely popular. “Basically, we want to find out what the agency can do, if anything, to increase interest in waterfowl hunting.”

South Dakota’s “social” research isn’t uncommon. In fact, more and more state agencies are using social science—typically classified under the banner of human dimensions of wildlife management—to help make sense of, and provide solutions for, vexing management problems that affect natural-resource stakeholders like hunters.

While human dimensions research has been part of academia since roughly the late 1960s, Dr. Mike Manfredo of Colorado State University says it didn’t take off as a mainstream field of study until the 1990s.

“I’ve heard state-level directors say that managing wildlife is 10 percent biology and 90 percent managing people,” says Manfredo, professor and chair of CSU’s Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources. In simplest terms, human dimensions is bringing social-science information into the decisions about wildlife management or representing the people in wildlife management decisions.”

Manfredo and other social researchers say traditional approaches to wildlife management that rely heavily on the “biological” must be replaced with a model that pairs both biological and social information to make wildlife-management decisions. “It needs to be combination, and in many cases that’s now the norm” he said.

Still, social research is no panacea, particularly when the subject is declining hunter numbers. Indeed, the consensus of among researchers and wildlife managers interviewed for this story is that the decline in U.S. hunter numbers is a complex sociological puzzle that has no silver bullet or magic antidote.

“We still don’t know near enough about recruiting and retaining hunters; we just haven’t done enough research,” said one wildlife official from the Midwest. “We offer special youth hunts, then we hope for results. We know there are several social factors in play, but mostly we’re dealing with a blank slate or at best anecdotes. Part of the problem is money. This type of research can be very expensive.”

Vanishing Hunter Part III Despite the cost constraints, many wildlife officials say it’s critical that more “longitudinal” social-science research is conducted, particularly with new hunters—youth and adult. They say new hunters need to be tracked for an indefinite period so agencies and organizations can better understand why they stay—or leave—hunting.

“I think human dimensions research can help us better understand the barriers, constraints and opportunities that we can take advantage of to try to increase hunter participation,” said Jay Johnson, hunter recruitment and retention coordinator for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “This type of research definitely gives us an important baseline of knowledge. It’s very important. It’s one part of the puzzle.”

As for Vaa of South Dakota, he realizes the stakes couldn’t be higher, especially for waterfowl and waterfowl hunters.

“My biggest worry is who is going to foot the bill for waterfowl and waterfowl habitat,” said Vaa. “Duck hunters are the primary purchasers of duck stamps, but we’re losing them across the board. It’s a scary time.”

Below are three social-science perspectives that illustrate the complexities of recruiting and retaining hunters in contemporary society.

Picture the scene: Junior is sprawled on the couch, remote control or joy stick in hand. His fingers are greasy with potato-chip residue. Soda cans and candy wrappers are strewn across the coffee table. The idea of spending any meaningful time in the outdoors is as abstract as a Jackson Pollock original.

Sloth rules.

Little does Junior know that he’s part of growing social/cultural movement that’s defined by no movement at all.

Researchers call it videophilia.

Consider: While in the not-too-distant past kids spent most of their free time playing in the natural world—learning everything from how to catch frogs to building tree forts to swimming in lakes to exercising their imaginations—researchers say more children are now living a “sedentary life” that revolves around, almost exclusively, “electronic media.”

Hence the term videophilia, which researchers believe is causing serious physical and emotional harm to a generation of children.

To illustrate the disturbing societal shift, the Nature Conservancy in February released a report that showed that more people, especially children, are spending far less time in the outdoors than ever before. The study built on earlier research that showed visits to national parks were declining and that declines in natural “experiences” correlated with a rise in “playing video games, surfing the internet and watching movies.”

The average elementary school child spends more than six hours a day playing video games, according to national statistics, and a 2007 study by the Ohio Department of Health showed more than 34 percent of the state’s third graders were either obese or overweight. Such a lifestyle could impact the child’s long-term development, according to the study.

In his award-winning and landmark book, “Last Child Left in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder”, Richard Louv argues that sensationalist media coverage and risk-averse parents have literally “scared children straight out of the woods and fields,” while nurturing a culture of fear and “safe” regimented play. Children of the digital age, Louv writes, are the “first generation to be raised without meaningful contact with the natural world.

“It’s not very surprising to see a decline in hunter numbers given the fact that many adults are alienating their kids from the natural world,” said Louv, in an interview. “My question and my biggest worry is this: Where will the future stewards of our natural resources come from?”

Louv added that today’s children have an intellectualized relationship with nature, that they know more about the Amazon rain forest, for example, than their neighborhood’s woods and waters. “It’s one thing to read about a frog, it’s another to hold it in your hand and feel its life. You can’t substitute the experience of getting your hands dirty and your feet wet.”

Dr. Larry Lauer doesn’t dispute the above findings—in fact, he agrees with them—but he said he is studying another subset of youths who are anything but sedentary. Unfortunately, they, too, are missing out on learning about the natural world, especially during their formative years, when nature appreciation is learned and can often be the catalyst for becoming lifelong hunters and anglers.

Lauer, director of coaching education and development at Michigan State University’s Institute for the Study of Youth Sports, says part of the culture is spawning a new generation of sports specialists—young kids who concentrate exclusively on one competitive sport, a shift from the archetype “three-sport star” of yesteryear.

“At the institute we call the trend the professionalization of youth sports,” he said. “It’s a professional model of youth sports, meaning it’s a job or a career, that you train almost year-around, that you attend all the camps or have a trainer, and that you play the same sport during the summer, in special leagues, even if that sport isn’t in season.”

The sports specialist, Lauer says, is constantly under pressure to develop his or her talent to best all competitors in order to achieve a well-defined goal, like being named the starting point guard of the school’s basketball team. Sometimes the kids’ entire identity is wrapped up in the sport, and when failure strikes—the athlete gets cut, or isn’t named the starter—the fallout can be devastating, because the one-sport athlete often has nothing to fallback on.

“The intentions are often good because you are trying to develop the talent of the kid and show the kid the importance of commitment and hard work, but the side effects we sometimes forget,” he said. “A lot has to be sacrificed to reach this high level of achievement.”

What’s sacrificed, Lauer says, is a well-rounded childhood packed with diverse cultural experiences and multiple social interactions—like those nurtured in parts of today’s hunting culture, or in other activities, he said.

“We want our kids to be well-rounded, so they have a range of experiences and things to choose from in their lives,” he said. “It’s far healthier for kids to identify themselves as more than basketball or hockey players. What about being apart of the debate team? What about becoming a hunter, learning to appreciate the outdoors?”

As the sport specialist grows older, the stakes become higher and more pressure-packed, Lauer has found. “Parents are spending a lot of money for special camps or trainers, because their son, for example, is vying for a college scholarship. Developing that sort of talent requires a lot of sacrifice and a lot of time and a lot competition, which doesn’t leave much time for anything else. In the end, it creates a lot of pressure on everybody.”

In some cases, Lauer said, parents get so immersed in their child’s sports life that they can’t see the forest for the trees. “It’s very interesting, and not always healthy, because the family dynamic becomes the child’s sport,” he said. “What we’ve found, in some cases, is that parents determine their self-esteem based on their child’s success. So if your kid does well, you think you’re better parent, and other people think you are a better parent.

Lauer said parents should try to find a middle ground.

“The key for parents is to find a balance for their kids, because different cultural and social experiences better prepare them for some of the issues and problems they’ll likely encounter as adults,” Lauer said. “But that often gets lost in today’s competitive sports environment, and that can have unhealthy ramifications for the kid and his entire family, who are vested—emotionally and monetarily—in their kids’ success.”

Dr. Bob Norton of LaCrosse, Wisconsin has spent 25 years studying the personal motivations, behavior and ethics of hunters. He is passionate about his work, and some of his opinions—particularly on how state agencies are introducing kids to hunting—buck contemporary thinking.

“Sometimes you have to speak your mind,” says the life-long hunter and retired psychology instructor from the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse. “I care too much about the future of hunting not to.”

In 2007, Norton’s research was released as a book: “The Hunter: Developmental Stages and Ethics,” a collaboration with his late friend and fellow psychologist Bob Jackson.

“The project was supposed to last four years, but it ended up taking 25,” said Norton. “It was quite the journey.”

The impetus for the research came in 1975 when CBS broadcast the documentary “Guns of Autumn,” which, Norton says, was a biased, anti-hunting expose` that portrayed all hunters as little more than knuckle-dragging thugs.

“After that, I wanted to really examine what made hunters tick,” he said. “I felt the documentary was extremely unfair to hunters.

“The thing is, we couldn’t find any real scientific data about hunter motivation, behavior and ethics, so we were determined to design a truly scientific research study to find out what goes on with hunters.”

Norton and Jackson’s research was labor-intensive, to say the least. Roughly 5,000 duck and bow-hunters were interviewed, and several had follow-up interviews. Trained college students and a handful of conservation officers assisted. “Most of the interviews were done in Wisconsin,” said Norton. “The interviews were conducted with hunters from across the state, in both urban and rural areas.”

After analyzing the data of several interviews, Norton and Jackson discovered that hunters seemingly pass through five “developmental” stages (shooter, limiting out, trophy hunting, method hunting and sportsman), which became the book’s foundation. “What became abundantly clear with the research is that hunters evolve as they pass through these stages,” he said. “Their motivations for hunting were different at each stage.”

For example, in the shooter-stage hunters want an opportunity to shoot game. In the sportsman stage, the final stage, hunters simply want to be in the field. “That’s all the satisfaction they needed as hunters, to be out in the wild, hunting,” Norton said. “Ultimately, the thrill of the kill becomes less important.”

Based on his years of research, Norton believes today’s hunting-recruitment efforts at the state level should be rethought, and that more emphasis should be placed on hunter education, which, he said, should target ethics and behavior. He’s worried about the nationwide trend to allow kids as young as 10 years old to hunt with a mentor. He says he loves the mentor concept, but not at such a tender age and certainly not without hunter education.

“I completely understand why some groups are pushing to reduce hunting barriers for kids, but we have a difference of opinion on how kids should come into hunting,” he said. “I think when we take a 10-year-old kid, give him a gun and have him kill an animal, we are almost forcing the kill aspect of the hunt on him.”

Norton believes that many young children aren’t psychologically mature enough to handle the moral complexities of killing at such a young age. “When you look at the brain development of 9- or 10-year-old and compare it to a 12- or 14-year-old, they are very different,” he said. “I really believe some of our wildlife managers have no understanding of child development and how the brain develops. I think their intentions are good, but I’m fearful we’re going down the wrong path with our kids.”

Norton believes if the goal is to get kids to become lifelong hunters, more emphasis needs to be placed on whetting the child’s appetite for the natural world. “Before we put kids in the duck marsh or the tree stand, we need to get them into the woods, teach them about nature, let them explore and use their own imaginations,” he said. “We need to spend more time with them in the outdoors, one-on-one, answer their questions, and teach them to respect wild animals and their habitats. So instead of saying I want to take you hunting, the kid says, ‘Dad, I want go hunting with you.’”

Without that holistic outdoors experience, and by placing too much emphasis on the “hunt,” Norton says he fears kids will ultimately give up hunting, because their expectations have been fine-tuned to hinge on a singular motivation: killing an animal.

“I hope I’m wrong, but I think what’s going to happen is that we’re going to put all these youth hunting programs together, like we are now, and we’re going to get kids out shooting at such a young age, and I think by the time they’re 16 or 17 they’re going to loose interest, because they haven’t had that “experience.”

Norton says some outdoor media outlets (magazines, television show, etc.) aren’t helping the cause. He says some are sending the wrong messages to youths by over-dramatizing the kill. “With these videos and some magazines, it’s all about shoot’em up and killin’ and how to find’em, and I think that’s incredibly detrimental to the future of hunting,” he said. “What messages are we sending to our children? What kind of expectations are we creating? What type of hunters do we want? ”

Norton believes there is a large audience for more thoughtful outdoor programming that shows all aspects of hunting, including the kill. “There are some really good shows, we just need more of them,” he said. “I really believe there’s a market for more well-told outdoor stories.”

According to Norton’s research, a large percentage of hunters he interviewed wanted more ethics and hunter safety training, not less. He also said that 31 percent of duck hunters—the so-called diehards—will continue to hunt no matter what, and that 70 percent would quit duck hunting under certain conditions. Among the reasons: overly complicated regulations, a lack of game and poor access.

“The ethics responses were really amazing to hear,” he said, adding that the No. 1 ethical concern of duck hunters was “hunter-to-hunter behavior lapses.”

“Many of the hunters we interviewed felt that hunter education itself should be expanded over a period of time after a kid get his hunter ed. certificate at age 12. They wanted more opportunities to come back and get additional education. They believe it was needed.”

Added Norton: “What’s troubling to me is that we’re sort of throwing out hunter education right now. I’m not sure that’s in the best interest of hunting.”

Since Norton’s book has been released, he’s been tapped to speak at a number of hunter education forums and smaller venues across the country. He says likes talking to hunters and that he doesn’t mind that some disagree with his message.

“I spoke at a local rod and gun club recently, and when I was giving my talk, I did hear a few jeers from the audience,” he said. “That’s okay. Dissent is okay. I think it’s healthy for the future of hunting that we’re able to have a discussion. If anything, we need to start talking more.”

It starts at the boat launch.

That’s where you load all your gear—shotguns, decoys, food, drink—into the boat and prepare for a long ride down the bayou.

The outboard roars to life. The anticipation builds. The stilt-buoyed duck shanty, perhaps in the family for generations, finally appears. The gear is unloaded on the dock. The shanty is cleaned. A pot of gumbo is started. The BS starts. And plans are made for the morning hunt.

Welcome to duck camp, Louisiana-style.

“I’ve been invited to a few duck camps over the years, and it’s an unbelievable social experience,” said Dr. Craig Miller, an associate professor at the University of Georgia, who has studied duck camps as part of his social research. “After the you get back from the hunt, you swap stories, talk about where you’re going to go the next day, listen to the LSU football game on the radio if it’s Saturday, eat some gumbo, maybe have a drink, get to bed early, and repeat.”

Generations of Louisiana duck hunters have participated in the time-honored tradition of duck camp, which, with its tight-knit social structure, is more cultural phenomenon than hunting trip, many say.

“There are different motivations for people to go hunting, different reasons people hunt,” Miller said, adding that many Louisiana duck hunters plan their vacations around the duck season. “There are also different desired outcomes. Some hunters may hunt purely on the basis of harvesting game. Others may hunt to experience the social interactions with others, similar to what I’ve witnessed at duck camp.”

Miller said the social power of the duck camp was never more apparent than after Hurricane Katrina, when many duck shanties were destroyed.

“The interviews I did with duck hunters were very telling,” he said. “Many just stopped hunting because their duck camp was gone. Hunting to them was duck camp, so their primary motivation was the social interaction, not harvest.”

The social network that’s developed at duck camp is important to the future of hunting, Miller says, because he believes it brings new hunters into the fold. In other words, parents pass on the tradition to their kids, and they pass it on to their kids.

“We know that when you start hunting in childhood and work your way through your career, there is a much deeper commitment than if you start as an adult,” he said.

Duck camp, he said, helps get kids in the marsh with their parents. The experience can also help kids build a foundation of waterfowling skills, which, Miller and others speculate, likely keeps kids coming back for more.

“There is an intense learning curve, of course, with hunting,” Miller said, speaking generally. “If you don’t have that gratification of success early on in your hunting career, it’s often hard to stay with it.”

The Louisiana duck-hunting experience isn’t without its problems, however. The biggest: access, which, according to Miller, is the biggest predictor of retaining hunters. “Access is the No. 1 problem facing hunters,” he said.

Larry Reynolds is the North American Waterfowl Management coordinator for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. He says roughly 70 percent of Louisiana waterfowlers hunt on private land—a very high percentage, he said.

“If you can’t afford to buy a lease, or if you don’t have a friend or family member who has a duck camp, you’re left with hunting public land,” he said. “And hunting public land can be difficult.”

Reynolds says special lottery hunts are offered on national wildlife refuges and state wildlife management areas in Louisiana, but demand far exceeds supply. “For some lottery hunts, the odds are less than one and seven you’ll get drawn,” he said.

Reynolds also said public hunting opportunities are offered on assorted “public water bodies,” which, he noted, have a unique “self-regulating” social dynamic that isn’t for everyone.

“Many of these areas already have blinds, and conflicts aren’t uncommon,” he said. “There are a lot of unwritten rules out there.”

Reynolds says he spends much of his time applying for federal grants and other monies to increase public hunting opportunities—no easy task. Asked if limited public access is causing some duck hunters to quit, he said: “Yes. I think so. It’s hard to put a number on it, but I believe we are losing hunters. It’s worrisome.”

Reynolds said he fears several social factors—high gas prices, escalating food prices and a bearish economy, to name a few—may force some duck hunters to pass on this year’s hunting season. “For me personally, I spend $1,000 a year on a lease, and I’m seriously considering give it up,” he said. “Money is tight for everyone, and I worry about the consequences. It’s a big financial to commitment to hunt ducks these days.”

Read Part Four of the Vanishing Hunter Series: The Role of the Media