https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/21090953aba4c90153cb100cb8442e1a.pdf cf9cfc52acee4fc04063039bbe43fef5 PDF Text Text Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Marvin McDaniel, Chair • Carrie Besnette Hauser, Vice-Chair Marie Haskett, Secretary • Taishya Adams • Betsy Blecha • Charles Garcia • Dallas May • Duke Phillips, IV • Luke B. Schafer • James Jay Tutchton • Eden Vardy �Human Dimensions of Wildlife An International Journal ISSN: 1087-1209 (Print) 1533-158X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20 Exploring Nontraditional Pathways Into Hunting in New York State: Implications for Recruitment and Retention Michael R. Quartuch, Richard C. Stedman, Daniel J. Decker, Lincoln R. Larson, William F. Siemer & Meghan S. Baumer To cite this article: Michael R. Quartuch, Richard C. Stedman, Daniel J. Decker, Lincoln R. Larson, William F. Siemer & Meghan S. Baumer (2017): Exploring Nontraditional Pathways Into Hunting in New York State: Implications for Recruitment and Retention, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2017.1334247 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1334247 Published online: 19 Jun 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 50 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhdw20 Download by: [North Carolina State University] Date: 21 June 2017, At: 08:50 �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1334247 Exploring Nontraditional Pathways Into Hunting in New York State: Implications for Recruitment and Retention Michael R. Quartucha, Richard C. Stedmana, Daniel J. Deckera, Lincoln R. Larsonb, William F. Siemera and Meghan S. Baumera a Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA; bDepartment of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, College of Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Anecdotal evidence suggests that adults lacking previous hunting experience and family support for hunting comprise a growing proportion of new hunters. Empirical evidence of such a trend is lacking. Furthermore, hunting motivations and constraints for these “nontraditional path hunters” (NTPHs) have not been well documented. We articulate a strategy for identifying potential NTPHs in New York, describe socialization mechanisms initiating NTPHs into hunting, and explore motivations and constraints of these hunters. Data were collected using a Web-based survey of 3,605 NTPHs identified among 2014 Sportsman Education course graduates in New York. We found that many NTPHs were initiated by friends and co-workers, and their motivations and constraints were similar to traditional hunters. These findings suggest that NTPHs are not a panacea to the trend of declining numbers of hunters in New York. Constraints; motivations; nontraditional path hunter; recruitment; socialization Introduction In the United States, state wildlife agencies rely on hunters for financial support (e.g., through hunting license purchases, federal taxes on arms and ammunition) and to control overabundant populations of some wildlife species (The Wildlife Society, 2014). Although public acceptance of hunting is relatively high and stable (Decker, Stedman, Larson, & Siemer, 2015; Duda, Jones, & Criscione, 2010; Ryan & Shaw, 2011), the number of licensed hunters in the United States has been steadily declining since the 1980s (United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 2013). This decline has raised concerns among wildlife professionals and others in the conservation community. These concerns include potential for increased human–wildlife conflicts (Enck, Decker, & Brown, 2000; Seng, Byrne, Sanders, & McCool, 2007), lost revenue from shrinking license sales (Winkler & Warnke, 2013), and potential consequences of a diminished hunting culture in rural areas (Heberlein, Ericsson, & Wollscheid, 2002; Larson et al., 2013). As such, many attempts have been made to stem the decline in hunters. Recent anecdotal evidence and popular writings (Cerulli, 2012; McCaulou, 2012) suggest that more new hunters: (a) are being socialized into the activity as adults, (b) lacked family support for hunting during their youth, and/or (c) are in historically underrepresented segments of the hunter population (e.g., females, racial/ethnic minorities, CONTACT Michael R. Quartuch mq63@cornell.edu Postdoctoral Research Associate, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 120 Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC �2 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. males from suburban/urban areas). These nontraditional path hunters (NTPHs), it is surmised, may be motivated to hunt for different reasons and/or face different constraints to their future hunting participation than traditionally socialized hunters. If nontraditional socialization mechanisms culminate in “new” motivations, this could influence how agencies develop recruitment and retention programs. Additionally, if these motivations of NTPHs are different from those of traditional path hunters and if they also face additional barriers to entry, information about such motivations and barriers may help agencies develop more effective programs. If, however, NTPHs have similar motivations to traditional hunters, recruitment and retention programs may not need to be tailored to fit the needs of NTPHs. The shifting landscape of hunters and hunting: Traditional versus nontraditional paths? Most hunters are males, introduced to the activity during their youth by a father or other male family member, and are often from rural areas where hunting represents an important part of the culture (Purdy, Decker, & Brown, 1989; Stedman & Heberlein, 2001). Individuals who have the support of family members, especially those initiated into hunting during childhood, are more likely to develop favorable attitudes about hunting and continue hunting over the course of their life (O’Leary, Behrens-Tepper, McGuire, & Dottavio, 1987; Purdy et al., 1989). However, “traditional” pathways have “not been sufficient to avert a declining trend in hunters” (Ryan & Shaw, 2011, p. 312). Wildlife managers and scholars have discussed the potential for sparking hunting interests among segments of society typically under-represented within the hunting population (e.g., females, racial/ethnic minorities, suburban/urban residents, those lacking family support during their youth). Some have suggested that a large proportion of NTPHs are interested in hunting to obtain local, low-carbon-footprint meat (Cerulli, 2012; McCaulou, 2012), to contribute to wildlife conservation, or for civic-oriented outcomes (e.g., to reduce the number of deer–vehicle collisions; Larson et al., 2014a). These individuals are of interest to hunter-dependent state wildlife agencies and others in the hunting community because they may offer a potential antidote to slow the decline in hunters. Building on this potential, state wildlife agencies and other groups interested in hunter recruitment and retention have implemented programs targeting females and racial/ethnic minorities (Jackson, 1988; Metcalf, Graefe, Trauntvein, & Burns, 2015; Responsive Management & National Wild Turkey Federation, 2011), with mixed success (Byrne, 2009). For example, nationwide programs (e.g., Becoming an Outdoors-Woman, Take One Make One) and conservation camps in several states often appeal to specific hunter motivations while minimizing constraints (Responsive Management & National Wild Turkey Federation, 2011). Understanding whether motivations of NTPHs differ from traditional hunters is critical to hunting recruitment and retention efforts, especially as the U.S. population becomes increasingly more urban and more ethnically diverse. Nationally, for example, Caucasians comprise nearly 94% of the total hunting population (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012). U.S. Census data, however, suggest that by 2050, nearly half of the U.S. population will be non-Caucasian (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). As Ryan and Shaw (2011) indicated “[G]etting minorities and other non-traditional groups involved in hunting is vital to the future of the sport” (p. 314). �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 3 It is important for researchers and wildlife professionals to understand whether more people are entering the hunting community through nontraditional socialization paths and what, if any, relationships exist among these paths, hunter motivations, and perceived constraints. In this article, we explore relationships among these elements. Hunter motivations People are motivated to hunt for a wide range of consumptive and nonconsumptive purposes (More, 1973). Specific hunting motivations are associated with the goals that individuals seek from participating in the activity and often help to initiate and sustain hunter interest (Decker, Provencher, & Brown, 1984; Purdy & Decker, 1986). Traditional hunting motivations have been extensively studied. Purdy and Decker (1986) identified three primary categories of hunter motivations: achievement, affiliative, and appreciative. Achievement-oriented hunters seek to “to maintain or improve level of performance” (Decker et al., 1984, p. 18) such as harvesting a certain quota of game or obtaining meat (Purdy & Decker, 1986). Affiliativeoriented hunters are motivated by the camaraderie and social relationships enhanced or maintained through hunting. Appreciative-oriented hunters prioritize connecting with nature and a sense of belonging they associate with hunting and the outdoors (Purdy et al., 1989). Motivations vary across hunter types and activities (e.g., big game vs. small game hunting; Decker & Connelly, 1989; Purdy et al., 1989). Recent evidence indicated a potential expansion of motivations to include “conservation” (e.g., wildlife management) or “civic” (e.g., reduce problems wildlife cause for humans) orientations (Bhandari, Stedman, Luloff, Finley, & Diefenbach, 2006; Larson et al., 2014a, 2014b; Siemer, Decker, & Stedman, 2012) that extend beyond personal gains to focus on collective, community-level benefits. It is possible that individuals pursuing hunting via nontraditional paths have a stronger tendency to focus on these conservation or civic-oriented motivations, but limited evidence supporting such claims exists. Constraints to hunting participation Jackson (1997) defined leisure constraints as perceived or experienced factors that reduce an individual’s ability to participate in or enjoy a given activity. Constraints are often categorized as intrapersonal, interpersonal, or structural (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Intrapersonal constraints are psychological attributes of an individual, whereas interpersonal constraints are based on social relationships with other people. Structural constraints are external to or outside of the individual (Crawford & Godbey, 1987; Metcalf et al., 2015). Previous research on hunters indicated issues related to intrapersonal (e.g., perceived lack of skills) and structural (e.g., perceived lack of access and perceptions about hunting regulations) constraints as the most prevalent barriers to future hunting participation (Duda et al., 2010; Miller & Vaske, 2003). Metcalf et al. (2015) found that structural constraints among female deer hunters included complex rules and regulations, and high costs associated with hunting limited female hunters’ future participation. However, there is little additional analysis of the constraints that NTPHs might experience. NTPHs, entering the hunting community later in life and without previous experience, may be concerned about how they are accepted by nonhunters and other hunters alike. These intrapersonal constraints are described by female hunters (Thomas & Peterson, 1993), and might affect other NTPHs as well. �4 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. Research questions The purpose of our study was to develop and test a strategy for identifying potential NTPHs in New York and then describe their hunting behaviors, intentions, socialization mechanisms, motivations, and constraints. Specifically, we address the following research questions: (1) Did NTPHs who passed a Sportsman Education (SE) course in 2014 in New York State go hunting in 2014/2015 and do they intend to continue hunting in the future? (2) Who or what influenced NTPHs’ interest in hunting? (3) What are the most important reasons why NTPHs are interested in hunting? (4) What types of constraints are likely to influence NTPHs’ future hunting participation? Methods Survey method and sampling frame We used a Web-based survey to collect data on potential NTPHs in New York State. Prior to developing the sampling frame, we reviewed the literature on hunter socialization and held several meetings with wildlife managers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to discuss how best to define and subsequently identify NTPHs. We defined potential NTPHs as individuals who enter the hunting community later in life with limited previous hunting experience or social support and/ or are from under-represented groups within the hunting population (e.g., women, racial and ethnic minorities, suburban and urban residents). We used the term “NTPHs” throughout this article to refer to potential hunters who possess certain attributes distinguishing them from “traditional” hunters. This does not imply that all individuals have been hunting nor does it imply that they self-identify as a “hunter.” We used our definition of potential NTPHs to define the sampling frame. Anyone who registered online for a New York SE course in 2014 was asked to provide information about their previous hunting experience, social support for hunting during childhood, characteristics of the area where they grew up, and information about their sex and race. Volunteer SE instructors were unable to collect these data from students who registered for an SE course in-person. Excluding on-site registrants from our sampling frame may have resulted in under-coverage of our target population, but we have no reason to believe that in-person and online registrants differ systematically. Additionally, state agencies in New York have been actively promoting online registration. Our criteria for inclusion in the sample were as follows. All students who passed the 2014 New York SE course and were at least 18 years old were eligible for inclusion in the sample. Females and racial/ethnic minorities—two groups who typically enter the hunting community through nontraditional paths—were automatically included in the sample, as were males from suburban/urban areas who chose not to provide information about race/ ethnicity. Caucasian males from suburban and urban areas who did not grow up in a household with one or more hunters and had never hunted before were also included. An additional criterion was applied to this group: they were included only if they had not participated in hunting-related socialization activities defined in previous research, such as having gone afield with a hunter without carrying a firearm or helping process and �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 5 prepare wild game meat to eat (Enck et al., 2000; Stedman & Decker, 1996). Males from rural areas who did not provide information about race/ethnicity were also subjected to this filter. Approximately 14,000 adults registered electronically and subsequently passed an SE course in 2014 (C. Dente, personal communication, July 5, 2016). However, when the sample was drawn, we only had available information for 8,606 adults who had registered online and passed a course. Thus, our sample comprised approximately 61% coverage of potential NTPHs who registered online and passed an SE course. In total, 3,605 people who registered online met the filtering criteria described above and were included in the final sample. Figure 1 illustrates each of the decision criteria used for determining the sample of NTPHs. Based on our selection criteria, the total number of potential NTPHs are provided. However, some individuals were removed due to incomplete contact information. Therefore, there are more potential NTPHs in Figure 1 (4,363) than in the final sample (3,605). There is also a large discrepancy between those who registered electronically and were over the age of 18 years old (10,461) and those who “passed” an SE course (8,606). Few of these individuals failed an SE course. Rather, many registered for, but did not attend, a course on the day of the event. Survey instrument and implementation A questionnaire was developed with input from DEC personnel. This instrument addressed social support and factors that influence participants’ interest in hunting, attitudes, and beliefs about hunting/hunters, motivations and potential barriers to hunting, and current and future intended hunting participation. The Web-based instrument was implemented following a modified Dillman Tailored Design method (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014) between January and February 2015. Respondents received five personalized contacts each containing a unique Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or direct link to the questionnaire. An initial invitation to participate was sent via e-mail and a reminder e-mail was sent to nonrespondents each week for 4 consecutive weeks. Additionally, to appeal to those who might prefer to participate via standard mail, we divided nonrespondents into two groups following the second reminder. The first group (n = 1,243) continued to receive reminders via e-mail. The second group (n = 1,243) received a questionnaire in the mail followed by a reminder 2 weeks later. To assess nonresponse bias, 90 telephone interviews with nonrespondents were conducted. Overall, we received 1,383 useable responses, resulting in a 42% response rate, after subtracting the 116 surveys returned as undeliverable. Data analysis Chi square tests were used for examining potential differences between respondents and nonrespondents across several key variables: current hunting behavior and hunting intentions, social support, race, and area in which respondents grew up and currently live. Independent samples t-tests were used for comparing differences in age. Effect sizes were calculated using phi and Cramer’s V for chi square statistics, and point biserial correlation for t-tests. Only statistically significant differences are described below. �6 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. Figure 1. Implementation of filter criteria to determine NTPH sample. We used principal components analysis (PCA) to identify the underlying dimensions that comprise NTPHs’ motivations and constraints. This procedure is useful because it reduces the number of questionnaire items needed for measuring a theoretical construct by grouping similar items within components and maximizing differences across them. �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 7 Specifically, we used varimax rotation with eigenvalues greater than 1 to identify motivation and constraint components. Sampling adequacy and intercorrelation of variables were determined using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett Test of Sphericity measures. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), KMO values of .60 or greater are considered sufficient. KMO values of .85 for motivation items and .83 for constraint items were observed. The Bartlett’s Tests were statistically significant for both motivation and constraint scales. Only items with factor loadings greater than .40 were retained. Nonrespondent comparisons Statistically significant differences between respondents and nonrespondents were detected. More respondents (52%) than nonrespondents (36%) had gone hunting and planned to hunt regularly, but fewer respondents (20%) than nonrespondents (36%) who had never gone hunting would consider going (χ2(4, N = 1,448) = 43.26, p < .001, V = .17). The effect size indicates a “minimal” to “typical” strength of association (Vaske, 2008). This is substantively important because behavior and behavioral intentions are potentially influenced by motivations and constraints. Also, a greater percentage of nonrespondents were influenced by their father (50%; χ2(1, N = 1,325) = 4.55, p < .033, φ = .05) and other family members (43%) (χ2(1, N = 1,304) = 4.32, p < .033, φ = .05) than respondents (39% and 33%, respectively). However, the relatively weak relationship, as indicated by the effect sizes, suggests that respondents and nonrespondents may not differ in a meaningful way with respect to social support. To address potential nonresponse bias within our sample of NTPHs and to accurately reflect the hunting behaviors and behavioral intentions of NTPHs who chose not (or were unwilling) to participate in our study, we calculated a weight factor using the behavioral intention question described above and applied it to all other respondent data reported here. Respondents who were over-represented in our sample received less weight. This includes individuals who had gone hunting and planned to hunt regularly. Respondents who were under-represented, including those who had never gone hunting but would consider going, received more weight. Weighting these data allowed us to describe our study population with more confidence. Results A slight majority of respondents were female (52%) and a strong majority (85%) selfidentified as White/Caucasian, whereas 8% indicated Hispanic/Latino, 4% Asian American, 4% Black/African American, and 2% were Native American. The mean age of respondents was 36 years old, although more than half (52%) were between the ages of 18–34 (Table 1). Table 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of survey respondents and New York State residents. The composition of survey respondents is similar to that of New York State residents in terms of sex and, to a lesser degree, age. There was a greater percentage of White/Caucasian individuals in our sample than in New York State, but this is not unexpected given that hunting is an activity predominantly practiced by Caucasians. However, comparisons based on race/ethnicity need to be interpreted with caution. The estimates provided in Table 1 are limited to only those categories we included in our questionnaire and they only account for people who specified one race/ethnicity. �8 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. Table 1. Demographic comparison of study respondents to 2015 New York State population estimate age 18 or older. New York State populationa Respondents Sex Male Female Total** Age 18–24 years 25–34 years 35–44 years 45–54 years 55–64 years 65–74 years 75–84 years ≥85 years Total** Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian Hispanic or Latino Black/African American Asian Native Americanb Total** n % N % 563 601 1,164 48 52 9,611,513 10,184,278 19,795,791 49 51 206 417 284 165 78 21 3 0 1,174 17 35 24 14 7 2 1* — 1,942,413 2,879,618 2,495,739 2,758,889 2,544,000 1,660,048 870,796 433,471 15,584,974 10 15 13 14 13 8 4 2 955 62 28 34 9 1,088 87 6 3 3 1* 10,207,941 2,616,250 2,338,269 1,262,943 56,041 16,481,444 52 13 12 7 1* Note. *Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. **Totals in respondent column are unequal due to missing data. a U.S. Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov b New York State population estimates include: “American Indian and Alaska Native.” The majority (83%) of respondents hunted during the 2014–2015 hunting season. Of those, most hunted deer with a firearm (85%); fewer hunted deer with a bow (45%), or hunted turkey (24%). Regarding future behavior, respondents intended to hunt deer with a firearm (89%), turkey (77%), and deer with a bow (71%) more so than small game (55%), waterfowl (50%), or upland game birds (46%). To assess social support, we asked respondents who influenced their interest in hunting. More respondents were influenced by a close friend (56%) or spouse/partner (48%) than by anyone else. Father and extended family members were influential for 36% and 31% of respondents, respectively. Another 30% of respondents indicated that a co-worker was an influential source of social support for hunting. Respondents expressed a wide range of motivations and many represented moderately to very important reasons why they were interested in hunting (Table 2). The PCA produced a four-factor solution, comprising 70% of the total variance in motivations. Two items: “to get away from everyday problems” and “to test my outdoor skills,” were removed due to cross-loadings. The first factor included six items and accounted for the most (39%) variance among factors. Five of the six items represent public-oriented benefits from hunting such as reducing automobile accidents and promoting economic development. Accordingly, this factor was labeled “Community oriented.” The second factor, “Nature oriented,” accounted for an additional 14% of the variance in motivations and spanned appreciative and affiliative reasons to hunt. Items in this factor comprised the highest overall mean (3.40). Two items, “obtaining meat” and “being a locavore” comprised the third factor titled, “Food oriented.” This factor comprised nearly 9% of the �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 9 Table 2. Principal components analysis of motivation items. Factor Community oriented (Factor mean = 2.7) Nature oriented (Factor mean = 3.4) Food oriented (Factor mean = 3.0) Achievement oriented (Factor mean = 2.0) Item Contribute to wildlife management efforts Reduce property damage caused by wildlife Reduce damage wildlife damage to native plants Reduce automobile accidents Reduce financial impacts on my town/city from wildlife Promote economic development in my town/city Learn about wildlife and their habitat Be close to nature Spend time outdoors with family and friends Obtain meat Be a locavore Use hunting equipment Obtain a trophy Item % Moderately– means* very important 3.16 78 Factor Internal consistency loadings (Cronbach’s alpha) .78 .89 2.76 60 .81 2.71 59 .78 2.65 2.34 54 42 .83 .82 2.31 44 .71 3.52 91 .83 3.45 3.37 88 85 .91 .80 3.31 2.61 2.37 82 56 46 .80 .77 .70 1.60 17 .84 .83 .56 .60 Note. *Items measured on a 4-point scale from 1 (Not important) to 4 (Very important). variance in motivations. The fourth factor was comprised of two achievement oriented items (“obtaining a trophy,” “using hunting equipment”), had the lowest overall mean (2.00), and also accounted for 9% of the variance in motivations. For constraints, four factors accounted for approximately 62% of the cumulative variance (Table 3). Five items (lack skills required to hunt, lack knowledge to purchase proper equipment, lack time required to hunt, complexity of hunting laws in New York State, lack of transportation to hunting areas) were removed due to cross-loadings. The first factor, “Mentors needed,” described NTPHs’ concerns about not knowing what to do, where to go, or having anyone with whom to hunt. This factor comprised approximately 31% of the variance Table 3. Principal components analysis of constraint items. Factor Mentors needed (Factor mean = 1.7) Item Lack access to places I can practice shooting Lack knowledge to process/prepare game meat Nobody to hunt with Don’t know where I’m allowed to hunt No one to show me how to hunt Hunting is not for me Not interested in killing wildlife (Factor mean = 1.5) Lack patience Prefer spending time in other activities Issues out of my Firearm laws in NY State control (Factor mean = 2.0) Other costs associated with hunting (e.g., travel) Cost of hunting license Self-conscious Not comfortable around other hunters (Factor mean = 1.2) Feeling judged by others because I hunt Internal consistency Item % Moderately– Factor (Cronbach’s means* very important loadings alpha) 1.86 1.78 27 22 .60 .62 1.64 1.65 1.53 1.50 1.46 1.49 2.36 19 19 17 13 12 12 46 .86 .65 .84 .76 .66 .78 .50 1.89 24 .80 1.61 1.31 1.18 16 6 4 .88 .67 .61 Note. *Items measured on a 4-point scale from 1 (Do not expect it to be a barrier) to 4 (Major barrier). .82 .73 .64 .55 �10 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. in respondent constraints. Two items, lacking access to practice shooting and lacking knowledge to process and prepare game meat, represent moderate to major constraints to 27% and 22% of respondents, respectively. The second factor, “Hunting is not for me,” represents concerns that some NTPHs may have about hunting, and it comprised 13% of the variance in NTPHs’ constraints. The three intrapersonal items within this factor do not appear to be significant constraints to NTPHs’ future participation (M = 1.50). The third factor was labeled “Issues out of my control” and accounted for an additional 10% of the variance. Items within this factor constituted significant constraints to NTPHs’ future hunting participation. For example, 46% of respondents indicated firearm laws as moderate-to-major constraints. The fourth factor, “Self-conscious,” represents two intrapersonal constraints about feeling uncomfortable with hunting, and comprised nearly 8% of variance in respondent constraints. Overall, items in this factor did not represent substantive constraints to NTPHs (M = 1.20). Discussion Those interested in hunting recruitment and retention are anxious to understand the potential for NTPHs to slow the decline in hunter numbers. Anecdotal evidence points to a growing interest in hunting among adults with limited hunting experience and social support. Additionally, the motivations of these individuals are believed to be different than those who enter the hunting community through more traditional pathways. Despite being initiated into hunting by people outside their immediate family, our results show that NTPHs share similar motivations and face similar constraints as traditional path hunters. As such, they may not represent an immediate solution or antidote to the decreasing number of hunters in New York. Previous research has shown that “adult-beginners” have been entering the hunting community for many years (Purdy & Decker, 1986) and recent trends indicate that the percentage of adults initiated into the hunting community is increasing (United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 2006). We provide evidence that a fairly substantive proportion of adults are entering the hunting community in New York through nontraditional socialization mechanisms. We were able to define and subsequently identify NTPHs as individuals who enter the hunting community as adults with limited hunting experience or social support, and/or as adults from segments of society typically under-represented within the hunting population (e.g., women, racial and ethnic minorities). We focused exclusively on identifying and understanding how and why NTPHs are entering (or unable to enter) the hunting community, but it is also important to situate findings in the context of previous research. Specifically, it is useful to compare NTPHs’ social support, motivations, and constraints to those of traditional path hunters. “Traditional” family socialization represents the predominant pathway for most hunters in the United States and often leads to more avid and long-term hunters (Purdy & Decker, 1986; Purdy et al., 1989). Most NTPHs in our study were influenced positively about becoming hunters by individuals outside their immediate family (e.g., friends, co-workers), through nonblood relatives (e.g., spouse/partner), as well as through more traditional sources of social support (e.g., father, extended family). These findings support previous research indicating spouse/partner, friend, or co-worker as crucial sources of social support for first-time, adult hunters (Purdy et al., 1989). This research also shows relatively high �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 11 rates of cessation/desertion among this group (Decker et al., 1984), especially young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 years old (National Shooting Sports Foundation, 2013). Many individuals who start hunting as adults do so to “enrich or help sustain personal relationships by sharing a common interest” (Decker & Mattfeld, 1988, p. 16). When personal or professional situations are modified (e.g., change of employment or moving to a new state) these relationships are tested and many adult hunters are less likely to continue hunting (Purdy et al., 1989). Thus, finding ways to sustain or promote social relationships will likely play a critical role in sustaining NTPHs interests in the long term. Contrary to what is often surmised, our results showed that the motivations of NTPHs do not differ substantively from those of traditional hunters. NTPHs were interested in appreciative motivations, although spending time outdoors with friends and family (an affiliative-oriented motivation) and obtaining meat (an achievement-oriented motivation) were also important. Hunting to obtain a trophy was the least important motivation among NTPHs. This finding mirrors other studies of hunters in the United States (e.g., Duda et al., 2010). Clearly, NTPHs believe that “there is more to hunting than killing,” which is a sentiment shared by traditional path hunters (Decker, Brown, & Gutierrez, 1980, p. 329). When individuals are motivated by multiple goals (or multiple satisfactions), they are more likely to continue hunting over time (Decker et al., 1980; Hammitt, McDonald, & Patterson, 1990; Hendee, 1974). In the context of first-time or potential hunters, those with a variety of interests may be less likely to “place all of their eggs into one basket” and, in turn, more likely to continue hunting over time. Overall, NTPHs expressed relatively few constraints on their future hunting participation. Many of the most pressing individual constraints, such as firearm laws and lack of time, are also shared by traditional path hunters (Duda et al., 2010). Furthermore, many of the intrapersonal constraints that we hypothesized as being potentially significant barriers to first time, adult hunters, including feeling judged by other people or not feeling comfortable around other hunters (Duda, 2001), were the least significant constraints. Structural constraints (i.e., perceived barriers external to the individual) represented more substantive issues to NTPHs. For example, items within the factor “Issues out of my control,” including perceptions about firearm laws and costs associated with hunting, represented significant individual constraints to more than one-quarter of respondents. These findings mirror recent evidence pointing to structural constraints as the most pressing concerns among female hunters in Oregon (Metcalf et al., 2015). Wildlife agencies, hunting organizations, or others dedicated to increasing hunter recruitment and retention may target these types of constraints through SE courses and other communication strategies. For example, students taking an SE course could be provided with information highlighting “common” constraints and ways to negotiate these constraints. This information would also resonate with traditional hunters. Results from the PCA also illustrated the types of intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints that NTPHs may encounter. Several of these (e.g., lack of knowledge, not having anyone to hunt with) in the factor “Mentors needed,” are typically addressed through meaningful and continued social support. Similarities between traditional hunters and NTPHs may suggest that current recruitment programs may not need to be significantly adjusted to accommodate the interests of potential NTPHs (Table 4). Additionally, efforts to minimize the constraints of NTPHs will likely alleviate many of those expressed by traditional hunters, and may not need to be tailored to a particular group of potential hunters. To avoid further attrition, wildlife �12 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. Table 4. Comparing traditional and nontraditional path hunters. NTPHsa Traditional path huntersb Social support ● Spouse/partner ● Close friend ● Father ● Male family member other than father including brother, Motivations ● Learning about wildlife/habitat ● Being close to nature ● Spending time with family/ ● Spending time outdoors (as an escape, relaxation) ● Being close to nature ● Spending time with family/friends grandfather, and/or uncle friends Constraints ● Obtaining meat ● Structural ● Firearm laws/complex hunting laws ● Lack of time ● Lacking access to places to ● ● ● ● Structural Laws/regulations Lack of time Issues of access (lack of land available; lack of access to hunting lands) practice shooting Note. aResults based on current study of NTPHs in NY State. b Decker et al. (1984), Duda et al. (2010), Purdy et al. (1989). managers might consider actively promoting (or continuing to promote) personal relationships between NTPHs and individuals outside their immediate family. Doing so may prove an effective means of sustaining NTPHs’ interests and overcoming constraints to their future participation. Limitations of our inquiry should be acknowledged. To begin, we only studied 2014 SE course graduates, and hence a snapshot of the potential population of NTPHs. We are therefore unable to assess whether the NTPH phenomenon has changed over time. Future work could monitor this behavior to see if a trend is evident. Furthermore, our sample only included SE course graduates. There may be a subset of potential NTPHs who were unable to negotiate or overcome constraints prior to taking and successfully completing an SE course. Understanding whether some constraints pose significant problems for potential NTPHs by preventing them from engaging in SE courses altogether may yield additional insights. The decision to include all females as NTPHs may have been, in hindsight, overly inclusive. Females represent an historically under-represented segment of the hunting community and are often introduced to the activity later in life by a spouse or partner (Purdy et al., 1989). However, females raised in hunting families are more likely to hunt than females who did not (Stedman & Heberlein, 2001). Given the high proportion of females in our sample, it is likely that some were socialized into the hunting community during their youth and may be “traditional” by our other criteria. It is also possible that some female NTPHs are adopting the traditional hunting values and norms of their spouse or partner. The potential interaction effect between temporal dimensions (i.e., life stage) and sources of social support (i.e., spouse versus father) on female hunter socialization has received limited attention in the literature. Future research should continue to test assumptions about female hunters by exploring potential differences across types of social support and the degree they influence female hunter motivations and constraints at different times in their life. The implications from this inquiry may result in increased (or decreased) programmatic efforts targeting female hunters. We were also somewhat limited by our sampling frame. Many people attend and register for an SE course in-person on the day of the event. As such, we are limited in terms of what we can say about all 2014 NTPHs. At the outset of this study, however, we had no reason to believe these individuals would hold different motivations to hunt or face �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 13 different constraints to hunting than NTPHs who registered online. If anything, the online registration system may offer NTPHs with limited social support an easier way to access hunting-related information. It is likely that the number of potential NTPHs who register for an SE course on the day of the event will decrease over time given the emphasis in New York State to transition toward an online registration system. Nonetheless, researchers should consider examining potential differences across onsite and online registrants; doing so may offer a more comprehensive assessment of the current NTPH population in New York and other states. We also recommend future research explore differences across subgroups of NTPHs. It is possible that NTPHs living in urban areas, for example, face different constraints to hunting than NTPHs residing in suburban or rural areas. Comparing subgroups would elicit potential differences within the NTPH population allowing for consideration of whether there is benefit to more targeted recruitment and retention efforts. Conclusion We found that many individuals are entering the hunting community in New York State as adults through nontraditional pathways. However, their reasons to hunt and constraints to future hunting participation (i.e., persistence as active hunters) do not differ substantively from those of traditional hunters. This suggests that this group is not likely to provide any immediate, marked relief to the declining number of hunters in New York. To the extent that our results in New York reflect the reality of other states, the hunting and wildlife management communities in the United States should continue looking for ways to recruit and retain new hunters and not assume that the current level of recruitment of NTPHs will allay concerns about the future of hunting. References Bhandari, P., Stedman, R. C., Luloff, A. E., Finley, J. C., & Diefenbach, D. R. (2006). Effort versus motivation: Factors affecting antlered and anterless deer harvest success in Pennsylvania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 423–436. doi:10.1080/10871200600984422 Byrne, R. L. (2009). Hunting heritage action plan: Recruitment and retention assessment survey report. Mishawaka, IN: D. J. Case & Associates. Cerulli, T. (2012). The mindful carnivore: A vegetarian’s hunt for sustenance. New York, NY: Pegasus Books. Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9, 119–127. doi:10.1080/01490408709512151 Decker, D. J., Brown, T. L., & Gutierrez, R. J. (1980). Further insights into the multiple- satisfactions approach for hunter management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 8, 323–331. Decker, D. J., & Connelly, N. A. (1989). Motivations for deer hunting: Implications for antlerless deer harvest as a management tool. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17(4), 455–463. Decker, D. J., & Mattfeld, G. F. (1988). Hunters and hunting in New York (HDRU Publication 88-7). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources, Human Dimensions Research Unit. Decker, D. J., Provencher, R. W., & Brown, T. L. (1984). Antecedents to hunting participation: An exploratory study of the social-psychological determinants of initiation, continuation, and desertion in hunting. Outdoor Recreation Research Unit Publication. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources. Decker, D. J., Stedman, R. C., Larson, L. R., & Siemer, W. F. (2015). Hunting for wildlife management in America. The Wildlife Professional, 9(1), 26–29. �14 M. R. QUARTUCH ET AL. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Duda, M. D. (2001). The hunting mind: Women and hunting. North American Hunter. Retrieved from http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/NAHWomen.pdf Duda, M. D., Jones, M. F., & Criscione, A. (2010). The sportsman’s voice: Hunting and fishing in America. State College, PA: Venture. Enck, J. W., Decker, D. J., & Brown, T. L. (2000). Status of hunter recruitment and retention in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28, 817–824. Hammitt, W. E., McDonald, C. D., & Patterson, M. E. (1990). Determinants of multiple satisfactions for deer hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 18, 331–337. Heberlein, T. A., Ericsson, G., & Wollscheid, K. U. (2002). Correlates of hunting participation in Europe and North America. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 48(1), 320–326. doi:10.1007/ BF02192424 Hendee, J. C. (1974). A multiple-satisfaction approach to game management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2(3), 104–113. Jackson, E. L. (1988). Leisure constraints: A survey of past research. Leisure Sciences, 10, 203–215. doi:10.1080/01490408809512190 Jackson, E. L. (1997). In the eye of the beholder: A comment on Samdahl & Jekubovich (1997), “A critique of leisure constraints: Comparative analyses and understandings.” Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 1–11. Larson, L. R., Decker, D. J., Stedman, R. C., Siemer, W. F., Baumer, M. S., & Enck, J. W. (2013). Hunter recruitment and retention in New York: A framework for research and action (HDRU Publication 13-04). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources, Human Dimensions Research Unit. Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Decker, D. J., Quartuch, M. R., Siemer, W. F., & Baumer, M. S. (2014a). Understanding non-traditional hunters in New York: Initial insights and implications for recruitment and retention research (HDRU Publication 14-10). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources, Human Dimensions Research Unit. Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Decker, D. J., Siemer, W. F., & Baumer, M. S. (2014b). Exploring the social habitat for hunting: Toward a comprehensive framework for understanding hunter recruitment and retention. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19, 105–122. doi:10.1080/10871209.2014.850126 McCaulou, L. R. (2012). Call of the mild: Learning to hunt my own dinner. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing. Metcalf, E. C., Graefe, A. R., Trauntvein, N. E., & Burns, R. C. (2015). Understanding hunting constraints and negotiation strategies: A typology of female hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20, 30–46. doi:10.1080/10871209.2015.957366 Miller, C. A., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). Individual and situational influences on declining hunter effort in Illinois. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 263–276. doi:10.1080/716100421 More, T. A. (1973). Attitudes of Massachusetts hunters. In Wildlife Management Institute’s Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Vol. 38, pp. 230–234). Washington, DC: The Publisher Wildlife Management Institute. National Shooting Sports Foundation. (2013, August). Annual churn rates and composition of the hunter population: 2004–2013. Technical report #1. Produced by Southwick Associates, Fernandina Beach, FL. O’Leary, J. T., Behrens-Tepper, J., McGuire, F. A., & Dottavio, F. D. (1987). Age at first hunting experience: Results from a national survey. Leisure Sciences, 9, 225–233. doi:10.1080/ 01490408709512164 Purdy, K. G., Decker, D. J. & Brown, T. L. (1989). New York’s new hunters: Influences on huntinginvolvement from beginning to end (HDRU Publication 89-3). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University,Department of Natural Resources, Human Dimensions Research Unit. Responsive Management, & National Wild Turkey Federation. (2011). Effectiveness of hunting, shooting, and fishing recruitment and retention programs: Final report. Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive Management. Ryan, E. L., & Shaw, B. (2011). Improving hunter recruitment and retention. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16, 311–317. doi:10.1080/10871209.2011.559530 �HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 15 Seng, P. T., Byrne, R. R., Sanders, S., & McCool, D. (2007). National shooting sports foundation: Best practices workbook for hunting and shooting recruitment and retention. Mishawaka, IN: D. J. Case & Associates. Siemer, W. F., Decker, D. J., & Stedman, R. C. (2012). Cornell University lands deer hunting program: Profile of active participants in 2011 (HDRU Publication 12-4). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources, Human Dimensions Research Unit. Stedman, R. C., & Decker, D. J. (1996). Illuminating an overlooked hunting stakeholder group: Nonhunters and their interest in hunting. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(3), 29–41. doi:10.1080/10871209609359068 Stedman, R. C., & Heberlein, T. A. (2001). Hunting and rural socialization: Contingent effects of the rural setting on hunting participation. Rural Sociology, 66, 599–617. doi:10.1111/j.15490831.2001.tb00086.x Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. The Wildlife Society. (2014). Federal aid in wildlife restoration act. Policy Brief Series. Retrieved from http://wildlife.org/engage/policy/ Thomas, C. L., & Peterson, T. A. (1993). Becoming an outdoors-woman. Women in Natural Resources, 15, 16–21. United States Census Bureau. (2012). The 2012 statistical abstract: The national data book. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population.html United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2006). 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). 2011 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife–associated recreation: National overview. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, US Fish & Wildlife Service. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013). Historical hunting license data. Retrieved from http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/Hunting.htm Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. State College, PA: Venture. Winkler, R., & Warnke, K. (2013). The future of hunting: An age-period-cohort analysis of deer hunter decline. Population and Environment, 34, 460–480. doi:10.1007/s11111-012-0172-6 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Journal Articles Description An account of the resource CPW peer-reviewed journal publications Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Exploring nontraditional pathways into hunting in New York State: implications for recruitment and retention Description An account of the resource <span>Anecdotal evidence suggests that adults lacking previous hunting experience and family support for hunting comprise a growing proportion of new hunters. Empirical evidence of such a trend is lacking. Furthermore, hunting motivations and constraints for these “nontraditional path hunters” (NTPHs) have not been well documented. We articulate a strategy for identifying potential NTPHs in New York, describe socialization mechanisms initiating NTPHs into hunting, and explore motivations and constraints of these hunters. Data were collected using a Web-based survey of 3,605 NTPHs identified among 2014 Sportsman Education course graduates in New York. We found that many NTPHs were initiated by friends and co-workers, and their motivations and constraints were similar to traditional hunters. These findings suggest that NTPHs are not a panacea to the trend of declining numbers of hunters in New York.</span> Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1334247" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1334247</a> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Quartuch, Michael R. Stedman, Richard C. Decker, Daniel J. Larson, Lincoln R. Siemer, William F. Baumer, Meghan S. Subject The topic of the resource Constraints Motivations Nontraditional path hunter Recruitment Socialization Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2017-06-19 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Extent The size or duration of the resource. 15 pages Type The nature or genre of the resource Article