A comparison of deer hunters with disabilities and nondisabled hunters in Alabama: motivations and satisfactions in deer hunting

Abstract

Approximately 20% of the United States population suffers from some form of disability. In the United States, leisure activities such as hunting are becoming more accessible to persons with disabilities, though little research has been published on this topic. Research has been conducted in South Dakota to categorize deer (Odocoileus spp.) hunters based on their motivation for hunting and to collect information about hunter satisfaction. This information has proven valuable to the state management agency, facilitating changes in management that increased satisfaction of the majority of hunters. We conducted a study in Alabama, which included both hunters with disabilities and nondisabled hunters, to determine whether motivations and satisfactions differed between groups. Hunter groups displayed some statistical differences, but practical differences were not found. This suggested that management agencies need not differentiate between groups when making decisions related to the motivations and satisfactions of these constituents.

Attitudes and motivations of Tennessee deer hunters toward quality deer management

“…For the hunter groups we surveyed, the top motivation to hunt was experiencing nature. Similar findings have been reported for other hunters across the country (Gigliotti 2000, Grilliot andArmstrong 2005). Decker and Connelly (1989) grouped wildlife recreationists into 3 groups based on motivational orientations: affiliative-oriented (i.e., social interaction with family friends), achievement-oriented (i.e., meat or trophy hunting), and appreciative-oriented (i.e., sense of peace or enjoying natural environment).…”

Online hunting forums identify achievement as prominent among multiple satisfactions

“…In our case, hunting forums might elicit posts by hunters who are particularly achievement‐oriented and emphasize their achievements more in relation to other aspects of a hunt. Despite these limitations, the widespread prominence of achievement in our results supports patterns seen in previous research, suggesting achievement is either the most common or the most influential hunter satisfaction (Decker et al , Decker and Connelly , Grilliot and Armstrong , Child and Darimont ).…”

“…Despite insight from these and similar studies, most hunter satisfactions research has limitations (e.g., Decker and Connelly 1989, Reiter et al 1999, Miller and Graefe 2001, Grilliot and Armstrong 2005, Teel and Manfredo 2010. First, examinations are typically focused on a single type of hunting in one geographic area (e.g., deer [Odocoileus spp.…”

A Statewide Examination of Hunting and Trophy Nonhuman Animals: Perspectives of Montana Hunters

“…Both residents and nonresidents comprised equal proportions of trophy hunters (6%). (p. 39) In their study of motivations among Alabama deer hunters, Grilliot and Armstrong (2005) found trophy hunting to be less important to hunters than experiencing nature, excitement, or social reasons for hunting. In their study of South Dakota muzzleloader hunters, Boulanger, Hubbard, Jenks, and Gigliotti (2006, p. 692) reported that trophy hunters were the least common at 3% while nature hunters were the most common at 23%.…”