Motivations to participate in hunting and angling: a comparison among preferred activities and state of residence

ABSTRACT

Motivations for hunting and fishing extend beyond harvesting game and include social, psychological, emotional, and physical benefits. We used data from a web-based questionnaire to compare relationships between preferred hunting or fishing activity types, state of residence, and motivations of hunters and anglers across the central United States (U.S.). Exploratory factor analysis yielded four motivation factors: nature, social, food, and challenge. Differences in terms of state were negligible across all motivation factors (${\eta }_p^2<.01$), indicating similarity across states. Nature (${\eta }_p^2=.01$) and social (${\eta }_p^2<.01$) factors were the first and second most important factors across activity types. We observed larger differences among the challenge (${\eta }_p^2=.03$), and food (${\eta }_p^2=.15$) factors, primarily driven by big game hunters. Big game hunters rated the food motivation factor greater than the other activity types. Overall, our results indicate that there might be a greater universality in these motivation factors among activity types and locations in the U.S.

KEYWORDS:

• Hunter and angler recruitment
• natural resource agencies
• factor analysis
• R3 programs
• motivations

Acknowledgments

We thank all the managers for their input on the questionnaire and helping provide contact information from the participating states: T. Bidrowski from Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism; B. Avers from Michigan Department of Natural Resources; A. Raedeke from Missouri Department of Conservation; J. Hansen from Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks; C. Jager from Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation; R. Murano from South Dakota Game, Fish, & Parks; and N. Huck from Wyoming Game and Fish. We thank all respondents who completed our questionnaires. This project was funded by Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Projects W-123-R, administered by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC). CJC was supported by Hatch funds through the Agricultural Research Division at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and from Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration project W-120-T, administered by the NGPC. We thank the Associate Editor and anonymous reviewers for their contributions that greatly improved this manuscript. University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Office of Institutional Review Board (IRB Approval # 20160215880 EX) approved the final survey instrument and protocols.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission [W-123-R]; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [W-123-R].