Grouse Hunting Regulations and Hunter Typologies in Norway

Abstract

Game management relies on satisfied hunters. Satisfaction determinants are, however, seldom uniform across the whole hunter segment and may therefore be difficult to accommodate.Latent class analysis (LCA) is a probabilistic model-based approach to categorizing hunter typologies by, for example, their attitudes and preferences. We applied LCA to large-scale survey data relating to grouse hunting regulations in Norway (3,293 respondents). We identified three typologies with regard to importance of bag size (the "Experience Seeker" 43%, "Bag Oriented" 32% and "Northern Traditionalist" 25%) as well as crowding tolerance (the "Semi-tolerant Mainstream" 86%, "Altruistic Compatriot" 10% and "Passionate Crowdavoiding" 4%), but we could not find a set of typologies that conformed uniformly across the two. The potential and limitation of using hunter typologies in game management is discussed in an applied context. Broadly summarized, typologies are valuable for tailoring local hunting regulations, provided their actual distribution is identified at the appropriate scale. Key-words: bag limit, game, harvest, willingness-to-pay, ptarmigan Declining grouse populations is a pressing management issue worldwide (Storch, 2007). The underlying causes are complex, and while no study has yet identified one single factor that explains the declines at larger spatial scales, the most prominent threat seems to be habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation (e.g., Webb, Boarman, & Rotenberry, 2004;Marzluff & Neatherlin, 2006): changes that are long-lasting and not easily reversed.Additionally, we see growing evidence that game-bird hunting may be more additive to other causes of mortality than previously thought (Smith & Willebrand, 1999;Pedersen et al., 2004;Pöysä et al., 2004;Sandercock, Nilsen, Brøseth, & Pedersen, 2011;Connelly, Hagen, & Schroeder, 2011; but see also Sedinger, White, Espinosa, Partee, & Braun, 2010).It thus seems clear that harvest regulations are inevitable for mitigating grouse population declines. Management agencies then face a partly conflicting quest; they must achieve the ecological goal without overly restricting hunting opportunities and thereby jeopardize hunter satisfaction. Grouse hunting has a considerable socioeconomic impact.Norway, for example, has about 55,000 ptarmigan hunters (out of a population of 4.8 million people; Statistics Norway, 2010a), and they annually spend approximately €1,200 each on activities directly related to grouse hunting (Pedersen, & Karlsen, 2007;Storm, 2007;Andersen et al., 2009).As initiated by Hendee (1974), hunter satisfaction has many components and is therefore best looked at by a "multiple-satisfaction approach" (e.g. Hazel, Langenau, & Levine, 1990;Woods, Guynn, Hammitt, & Patterson, 1996;Frey, Conover, Borgo, & Messmer, 2003;Hayslette, Armstrong, & Mirarchi, 2001, Manfredo, Fix, & Teel, 2004Schroeder, Fulton & Lawrence, 2006). This extensive literature shows that satisfaction determinants are seldom uniform across the whole hunter segment, and that hunters...

The optimal foraging theory, crowding and Swedish grouse hunters

“…Both for, hunters' daily effort, which could reduce their hunting success, and hunters will to return to the area the next year. Contradictory, Wam et al (2013) suggested that most grouse hunters show a quite high crowding tolerance. The result may imply that the recreational carrying capacity was reached (Shelby and Heberlein 1986), and may be the reason for the harvest management with an upper limit of three accumulated hunter days per km 2 in all management areas was not put into action during our study period.…”

Funciones y valoraciones de la caza y su gestión en España: estudios científicos sobre el colectivo cinegético

“…Estos sistemas coinciden con los descritos para otras aves de caza del norte de Europa (p.ej. Wam, Andersen y Pedersen, 2013). No todos estos mecanismos tienen la misma eficacia para regular la extracción total y, en última instancia, la sostenibilidad de la caza.…”

Preferred harvest principles and ‐ regulations amongst willow ptarmigan hunters in Norway

“…Th ere are basically two ways to adjust harvest rates: 1) to limit the total number of ptarmigan harvested (total bag size), or 2) reduce the total eff ort by 2.1) reducing the length of hunting season, and/or 2.2) reducing the number of hunters (Wam et al 2013). Combinations of these three harvest principles are also possible.…”