State and Residency Differences in Hunters' Responses to Chronic Wasting Disease

Abstract

This article examines: (a) the extent to which chronic wasting disease (CWD) may influence individuals to hunt in other states or quit hunting permanently; (b) hunters' acceptance of strategies for managing the disease; and (c) whether hunters' responses differ by residency, species hunted, and state where they hunted. Data were obtained from mail surveys (n = 9,567) of resident and nonresident deer hunters in eight states and elk hunters in three states. Hunters were shown hypothetical scenarios depicting CWD prevalence levels and human death from the disease. At current prevalence levels in some states, few hunters would change their behavior. If conditions worsen (e.g., 50% prevalence across state, human death), up to 18% of hunters would hunt deer or elk in other states and 37% would quit hunting these species. Arizona and North Dakota hunters were most likely to alter their behavior. Given that CWD is not in these states, it may pose a new risk. In Wisconsin, where hunting is a tradition, hunters were least likely to change their behavior. Across most scenarios: (a) hunters were more likely to quit than switch states; (b) residents were more likely to quit and nonresidents would switch states; and (c) CWD testing and herd reduction were acceptable, whereas taking no action was unacceptable.

Keywords:

• chronic wasting disease
• hunting
• risk behavior
• wildlife management
• potential for conflict index

Acknowledgments

This article is based on a project of the Human Dimensions Committee of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). The authors thank Chris Burkett (Wyoming Game and Fish Department), Dana Dolsen (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources), Jacquie Ermer (North Dakota Game and Fish Department), Larry Gigliotti (South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks), Ty Gray (Arizona Game and Fish Department), Kathi Green (Colorado Division of Wildlife), Larry Kruckenberg (Wyoming Game and Fish Department), Bruce Morrison (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission), Jordan Petchenik (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), Duane Shroufe (Arizona Game and Fish Department), and Linda Sikorowski (Colorado Division of Wildlife) for their assistance. Two anonymous reviewers are also thanked for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes

¹Based on weighted data. Differences among states: scenario 1 χ²(20) = 119.59, p < .001, V = .09; scenario 2 χ²(20) = 210.59, p < .001, V = .11; scenario 3 χ²(20) = 238.39, p < .001, V = .12; scenario 4 χ²(20) = 218.57, p < .001, V = .11; scenario 5 χ²(6) = 58.27, p < .001, V = .10; scenario 6 χ²(6) = 74.02, p < .001, V = .11.

²Represents differences between nonresident and resident hunters.

1. The mail survey was pre-tested in each state in 2003 with hunters who purchased a license to hunt in 2002 (n = 659). Details are reported in Needham et al. (2004).

2. The non-response check contained several questions used here for measuring hunters' behavior and acceptance of management actions in response to hypothetical CWD conditions. See Needham et al. (2005) for weighting details.

3. Further support for using prevalence and human health risks as determinants of hunter behavior in response to CWD was obtained from open-ended questions in the pre-test that asked hunters to list circumstances related to CWD that would cause them to give up deer/elk hunting in the state or permanently. The most dominant responses were related to CWD prevalence (89%) and potential human health risks/death (77%).

4. Ancillary analyses of hunters in each state, residents and nonresidents, and deer and elk hunters showed no substantial relationship between zones in which respondents hunted in 2003 or in their life and behavioral intentions in response to each scenario.