MEASURING “FLOW” IN MICHIGAN YOUTH FIREARM DEER HUNTERS AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR HUNTER RECRUITMENT
By
Michael Winthrop Everett

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies – Doctor of Philosophy
2013

ABSTRACT
MEASURING “FLOW” IN MICHIGAN YOUTH FIREARM DEER HUNTERS AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR HUNTER RECRUITMENT
By
Michael Winthrop Everett
The steady decline of populations taking up recreational hunting is cause for concern
among state and federal wildlife agencies. Young hunters are the future of hunting. As the
average age of hunters continues to increase, young people participating in hunting activities
provide an opportunity for insight to change the current declining trend. Flow theory and hunter
satisfaction have both received extensive attention in research literature, however they have been
utilized in separate and disconnected settings. An attempt to combine both constructs, as a way
to measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivational, mood, and flow indicators of youth hunters has
not been attempted to date. Measuring and understanding antecedents of “flow” in youth is an
important consideration when determining why youth enjoy hunting as an outdoor recreational
experience. This exploratory study utilizes flow theory and the four-channel model of flow to
examine relationships among youth hunters’ (12 to 16 years of age) experiences and satisfaction
during Michigan’s Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt (n=43). This research
provided a snapshot in time of young hunters, their experiences and the satisfaction of those
experiences during the youth hunt. Of the youth participants in this study, 69% indicated that
they intend to go back out in the field for Michigan’s opening day of firearm deer season
(November 15, 2012). Additionally, 97.6% of youth respondents intend to hunt in future years,
providing support for implementation of special hunting opportunities where youth and mentors
can enjoy the experience of hunting together. This exploratory research suggests that there is a
significant and direct relationship between “flow” experiences and young hunters that hear deer

and other animals, and see white-tailed deer. Knowledge of congruence between “flow”
experiences and hearing deer and other animals, and seeing white-tailed deer offers the
opportunity for further research on a much broader scale of licensed young hunters in Michigan.
This research also has the potential to inform recruitment and retention personnel of state
wildlife agencies about ways to support programs that promote hunting activities within younger
populations in the future.

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

	
  
	
  

The past several years have been a journey. A journey for me that took time,
perseverance, and support from a variety of people. I would first like to thank my dissertation
committee. My dissertation committee includes Dr. Meredith Gore from Fisheries and Wildlife,
and Drs. Rick Paulsen and Shari Dann from the Department of Community, Agriculture,
Recreation, and Resource Studies. I would also like to pay a special thanks to my committee
chair, Dr. Chuck Nelson. Dr. Nelson has provided unending amounts of support from not only an
academic perspective, but also a personal perspective by talking about hunting and opportunities
to grow in Michigan’s great outdoors. Thank you so very much.
I would also like to thank the Michigan Hunter Education (MHE) Administration and
Instructors that made this research possible. I would like to thank Cpl/Specialist Peggy Ruby,
Southern Michigan Hunter Education Field Coordinator, and Shar McConeghy, Recreation
Education Program Coordinator, both of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. I would
also like to thank the following MHE instructors for providing support and a site for my
research: Tom Wanless, Geoff Hendricks, Derek Russ, Clint Thomas, Wayne Hansen, Ray
Haywood, Dennis Niles, Jim LePeak, Larry Martin, and Greg Gerding.
As for my family, they are first and foremost in my world. However, there have been
times when my program has been the center of my universe and without fail, they have all been
supportive of my situation with school and work. Jill is my best friend and a wonderfully
supportive wife. Parker and Aubrey are the most understanding kids a husband and father could
have. I look forward to the future and opportunities to make their lives better as I continue on the
journey.

	
  

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

	
  
	
  
	
  
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Need ......................................................................................................... 1
Overview and Definition of Terms ............................................................................... 2
Statement of Purpose and Objectives .......................................................................... 13
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................. 13
Organization of Dissertation ....................................................................................... 15
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ......................................................................................... 18
Examining Recreational, Subsistence and Commerical Hunting ................................ 18
Worldwide Recreational Hunting ................................................................................ 19
Non-Consumptive Recreation and Leisure ....................................................... 21
Consumptive Recreation and Leisure................................................................ 21
Worldwide Subsistence Hunting ................................................................................. 27
Worldwide Commercial Hunting ................................................................................ 29
The North American Model for Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC) .......................... 30
Defining the NAMWC ...................................................................................... 31
Limitations and Implications of the NAMWC .................................................. 33
An Amendment to the NAMWC................................................................................. 37
The Hunter of Today ................................................................................................... 40
The Michigan Hunter .................................................................................................. 41
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 46
Flow Theory ................................................................................................................ 46
“Flow” Literature in the Context of Outdoor Recreation ............................................ 52
Satisfaction with the Hunting Experience ................................................................... 57

	
  

v

CHAPTER 4
METHODS ............................................................................................................................... 60
Measuring "Flow" and the Implications for Hunter
Recruitment in Michigan Youth Firearm Deer Hunters .............................................. 60
Subject Selection ......................................................................................................... 60
Methods and Instrumentation ...................................................................................... 66
Experience Sampling Method (ESM) ............................................................... 66
Experience Sampling Form (ESF) .................................................................... 69
Validity .............................................................................................................. 71
Reliability .......................................................................................................... 73
Analytical Methods ..................................................................................................... 75
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 79
Survey Response ......................................................................................................... 79
Background Survey (Initial Participants) .................................................................... 82
Background Survey (Participants That Completed All Surveys) ................................ 92
Comparing Background Surveys for Non-Response Bias ........................................ 102
Results from the Experience Sampling Method ........................................................ 110
Hunting Experience ......................................................................................... 110
Indicators of Flow ........................................................................................... 118
Mood Ratings .................................................................................................. 129
Youth Hunting Experience and Satisfaction ............................................................. 133
Intention to Continue Hunting ................................................................................... 140
Defining Flow, Anxiety, Apathy, and Boredom Channels ....................................... 146
Relationship Between Channels and Indicators of Flow........................................... 148
Frequency of Channels Among Hunting Experiences .............................................. 150
Intention to Continue Hunting and its Relationship to Flow..................................... 153
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 156
Summary of Sampling Methods ................................................................................ 157
Summary of Procedures ............................................................................................ 158
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ 159
Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 169
Discussion and Implications ...................................................................................... 170
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 175

	
  

vi

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 181
Appendix A: Parental consent and youth assent form.
Appendix B. Letter to parents and youth participants explaining research.
Appendix C: Background survey directions for youth firearm deer hunters.
Appendix D: Background youth hunter survey.
Appendix E: ESM hunting survey directions for youth firearm deer hunters.
Appendix F: ESM (AM/PM) hunting survey instrument.
Appendix G: Youth Wildlife Inventory.
Appendix H: Hunting experience and satisfaction survey directions.
Appendix I: Hunting experience and satisfaction survey instrument.
LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................... 196
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

vii

LIST OF TABLES
	
  
	
  
Table 1.1. Definitions and characteristics of Recreation, Leisure,
Subsistence, and Commercial Hunting ....................................................................................... 3
Table 1.2. Defining the total recreation experience (adapted from
Jensen and Guthrie, 2006) using hunting related examples ........................................................ 6
Table 1.3. Outline of Today’s Hunter (Michigan Hunter Education)
Curriculum (MDNR, 2011b) .................................................................................................... 10
Table 2.1. Worldwide hunting Convention on International Trade of
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES. Adapted from
Bauer and Herr (2004, pp. 62-63) ............................................................................................. 25
Table 2.2. Tenets of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation ............................. 32
Table 2.3. Comparison between the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation and AFWA framework ....................................................................................... 39
Table 2.4. National Resident and Nonresident Hunter Churn, Adapted
From NSSF, 2009 ..................................................................................................................... 43
Table 4.1. Survey instruments used in exploratory study.. ....................................................... 61
Table 4.2. ESM survey signaling protocol definitions and advantages .................................... 68
Table 5.1. Distribution of youth respondents that participated in the
Background Survey (n=98) ....................................................................................................... 82
	
  
Table 5.2. Distribution of respondents (youth white-tailed deer hunters)
who hunted with family and friends prior to the study (n=55) ................................................. 83
Table 5.3. Distribution of youth white-tailed deer hunters who hunted with
family members prior to being able to shoot (n=84) ................................................................ 85
Table 5.4. Initial background survey of youth hunters who watched a
TV show, DVD, or video about deer hunting within the last year (n=81) ............................... 86
Table 5.5. Initial background survey of youth hunters who played video
games about deer hunting within the last year (n=78) .............................................................. 87
Table 5.6. Enjoyment of being in the outdoors to youth respondents in
the initial Background Survey data (n=98) ............................................................................... 87

	
  

viii

Table 5.7. Enjoyment of Watching Wildlife to youth respondents in the
initial Background Survey data (n=98) ..................................................................................... 88
Table 5.8. Enjoyment of Hunting to youth respondents in the initial
Background Survey data (n=96). Two youth did not respond to the question ......................... 88
Table 5.9. Enjoyment of Fishing to youth respondents in the initial
Background Survey data (n=98) ............................................................................................... 89
Table 5.10. Enjoyment of Hiking to youth respondents in the initial
Background Survey data (n=95). Three youth did not respond to the
question ..................................................................................................................................... 89
Table 5.11. Enjoyment of Camping to youth respondents in the initial
Background Survey data (n=98) ............................................................................................... 90
Table 5.12. Enjoyment of Shooting Sports to youth respondents in the
initial Background Survey data (n=98). .................................................................................... 90
Table 5.13. Enjoyment of Sports to youth respondents in the initial
Background Survey data (n=98) ............................................................................................... 91
Table 5.14. Enjoyment of Gaming to youth respondents in the initial
Background Survey data (n=98) ............................................................................................... 91
Table 5.15. Distribution of youth white-tailed deer hunters who
participated and completed the Background Survey, at least one ESM
Hunting Survey, and the Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey (n=43) ....................... 92
	
  
Table 5.16. Distribution of youth white-tailed deer hunters who hunted
with family and friends prior to the research study and completed all survey
aspects of the study (n=38) ....................................................................................................... 93
Table 5.17. Distribution of youth white-tailed deer hunters who hunted with
family and friends prior to being able to shoot and that completed all survey
aspects of the study (n=38) ....................................................................................................... 94
Table 5.18. Youth hunters who watched a TV show, DVD, or video
about deer hunting within the last year (n=34) and completed
all aspects of the study categories. ............................................................................................ 95
Table 5.19. Youth hunters who played video games about deer
hunting within the last year (n=34) and completed all aspects of
the study .................................................................................................................................... 96

	
  

ix

Table 5.20. Enjoyment of being in the outdoors to youth respondents
in the Background Survey data from those youth who completed all
aspects of the study (n=43) ....................................................................................................... 97
Table 5.21. Enjoyment of watching wildlife to youth respondents in
the Background Survey data from those youth who completed all aspects
of the study (n=43) .................................................................................................................... 98
Table 5.22. Enjoyment of hunting to youth respondents in the
Background Survey data from those youth who completed all aspects
of the study (n=43) .................................................................................................................... 98
Table 5.23. Enjoyment of fishing to youth respondents in the
Background Survey data from those youth who completed all aspects
of the study (n=43) .................................................................................................................... 99
Table 5.24. Enjoyment of hiking to youth respondents in the
Background Survey data from those youth who completed all aspects
of the study (n=43) .................................................................................................................... 99
Table 5.25. Enjoyment of camping to youth respondents in the
Background Survey data from those youth who completed all aspects
of the study (n=43) .................................................................................................................. 100
Table 5.26. Enjoyment of shooting sports to youth respondents in
the Background Survey data from those youth who completed all
aspects of the study (n=43) ..................................................................................................... 100
Table 5.27. Enjoyment of sports to youth respondents in the
Background Survey data from those youth who completed all
aspects of the study (n=43) ..................................................................................................... 101
Table 5.28. Enjoyment of gaming to youth respondents in the
Background Survey data from those youth who completed all
aspects of the study (n=43) ..................................................................................................... 101
Table 5.29. Analysis to investigate any potential non-response bias.
Comparison of total initial youth respondents (n=98) with youth who
completed all survey (n=43) ................................................................................................... 103
Table 5.30. Comparison of previuous hunting partners where
youth could not shoot in intitial Background Surveys and where
all youth completed the Backgound Survey, at least one
ESM Survey and the Overall Experience and Satisfaction Survey ........................................ 104

	
  

x

Table 5.31. Comparison of previous hunting partners where youth
could not shoot in initial Background Surveys and where all
youth completed the Background Survey, at least one ESM Survey
and the Overall Experience and Satisfaction Survey .............................................................. 105
Table 5.32. Comparison of time spent watching a TV, DVD, or
Video about deer hunting in initial Background Surveys and
where all youth completed the Background Survey, at least one ESM
Survey and the Overall Experience and Satisfaction Survey.................................................. 107
Table 5.33. Comparison of time spent watching a TV, DVD, or
Video about deer hunting in initial Background Surveys and
where all youth completed the Background Survey, at least one ESM
Survey and the Overall Experience and Satisfaction Survey.................................................. 108
Table 5.34. Comparison of youth ratings of various recreational
activities in initial Background Surveys (n=98) and where all youth
completed the Background Survey, at least one ESM Survey and the
Overall Experience and Satisfaction Survey (n=43)............................................................... 109
Table 5.35. Distribution of hunts by youth respondents who hunted
Michigan’s Special White-tailed Deer Hunting periods on September
22 and 23, 2012 (n=43) ........................................................................................................... 110
Table 5.36. Distribution of locations where youth respondents
hunted during Michigan’s Special White-tailed Deer Hunting
periods on September 22 and 23, 2012 (n=43) ....................................................................... 111
Table 5.37. Distribution of what youth hunters thought about
while hunting during Michigan’s Special White-tailed Deer Hunting
periods on September 22 and 23, 2012 (n=43) ....................................................................... 112
Table 5.38. Distribution of white-tailed deer seen by youth deer
hunting respondents that hunted Michigan’s Special White-tailed
Deer Hunt on September 22 and 23, 2012 (n=43) .................................................................. 113
Table 5.39. Youth respondents who shot at, hit a deer, tagged a deer,
and the type of deer harvested during Michigan’s Special White-tailed
Deer Hunt on September 22 and 23, 2012 by gender (n=43) ................................................. 115
Table 5.40. Youth participant ratings of the experience of finding
that deer after harvest (n=16) .................................................................................................. 117
Table 5.41. Youth participant ratings of the experience of field
dressing the deer after harvest (n=16)..................................................................................... 117

	
  

xi

Table 5.42. Youth participant ratings of the perceived challenge
of the hunting experience (n=84) ............................................................................................ 119
Table 5.43. Youth participant ratings of the perceived importance
(Involvement Indicator) of the hunting experience (n=84) .................................................... 120
Table 5.44. Youth participant ratings of the perceived skill of the
hunting experience (n=84) ...................................................................................................... 121
Table 5.45. Youth participant ratings of wishing they had been doing
something else (intrinsic motivation indicator) rather than the hunting
experience (n=84) ................................................................................................................... 121
Table 5.46. Youth participant ratings of finding the hunting experience
interesting (Merging Action and Awareness Indicator) (n=84).............................................. 122
	
  
Table 5.47. Youth participant ratings of how important hunting is to
their future goals (Concentration On Task at Hand Indicator) (n=84) ................................... 123
Table 5.48. Youth participant ratings of will they talk about their hunts
with friends (Self- Esteem - Peer Expectation Indicator) (n=84) ........................................... 123
Table 5.49. Youth participant ratings of how likely they will talk about
their hunts with family (Self Esteem - Family Expectation Indicator) (n=84) ....................... 124
Table 5.50. Youth participant ratings of their own expectations during the
hunting experience (Self Esteem – Own Expectations) (n=84) .............................................. 125
Table 5.51. Youth participant ratings of their interest in the hunting
experience (n=84) ................................................................................................................... 126
Table 5.52. Youth participant ratings of their interest in feeling as
though they were doing the best that they could on the hunt (n=84)...................................... 126
Table 5.53. Youth participant ratings of their interest in feeling in
control of the hunting experience (Paradox of Control Indicator) (n=84) .............................. 127
Table 5.54. Youth participant ratings of their interest in how good
they felt about themselves during the hunting experience (n=84) .......................................... 128
Table 5.55. Youth participant ratings of their interest if they felt
they were getting better at hunting (n=84).............................................................................. 129
Table 5.56. Mood ratings perceived by youth white-tailed deer
hunters during Michigan’s Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt........................................ 132

	
  

xii

Table 5.57. Rating of the overall hunting experience by youth
hunters (n=42) ......................................................................................................................... 133
Table 5.58. Youth responses of the one most important reason for
their overall hunting experience (n=42).................................................................................. 135
	
  
Table 5.59. Ratings of how prepared youth hunters felt for their overall
hunting experiences (n=42) .................................................................................................... 136
	
  
Table 5.60. Youth responses of the one most important reason for felt
preparedness of the overall hunting experience (n=42) ......................................................... 136
Table 5.61. Ratings of how comforTable youth hunters felt during their
overall hunting experiences (n=42) ........................................................................................ 137
Table 5.62. Youth responses of the one most important reason for
comfort felt during the overall hunting experience (n=42)..................................................... 137
Table 5.63. Ratings of the amount of deer youth hunters saw during
their hunting experiences (n=42) ............................................................................................ 138
Table 5.64. Youth responses of the one most important reason for
your rating of the number of deer seen during the overall hunting
experience (n=42) .................................................................................................................. 138
Table 5.65. Ratings of youth time spent with their hunting partner (n=42) ........................... 139
Table 5.66. Youth responses of the one most important reason for your
rating of time spent with your hunting partner during the overall hunting
experience (n=42) .................................................................................................................. 139
Table 5.67. Youth intention to go archery hunting in 2012 (n=42) ........................................ 140
Table 5.68. Youth intention to go firearm hunting on
November 15, 2012 (n=42) ..................................................................................................... 141
Table 5.69. Youth responses of the one most important reason
for your rating of the number of deer seen during the overall
hunting experience (n=41) ...................................................................................................... 142
Table 5.70. Youth intention to go hunting for other game (n=42) ......................................... 142
Table 5.71. Other game youth have hunted or intend to hunt (n=42)..................................... 143
Table 5.72. Youth intention to go trapping in 2012 (n=42) .................................................... 144

	
  

xiii

Table 5.73. Youth intention to continue hunting in future years (n=42) ................................ 145
Table 5.74. Youth responses of intention to continue hunting (n=36) ................................... 145
Table 5.75. Relationship between channels of flow, anxiety, apathy,
and boredom to flow indicators during the Michigan Special Youth Firearm
White-tailed Deer Hunt (n=84 hunts) ..................................................................................... 149
Table 5.76. Relationship between channels of flow, anxiety, apathy,
and boredom to mood indicators during the Michigan Special Youth Firearm
White-tailed Deer Hunt (n=84 hunts) ..................................................................................... 150
Table 5.77. Chi-Square Test of Association for differences in frequency
of channels during Michigan’s youth firearm white-tailed deer hunting experience
and hearing deer and other animals, and seeing and shooting at deer (n=84 hunts)............... 152
Table 5.78. Summary of experience measures of youth hunters with
discriminant analysis (n=84 hunts) ......................................................................................... 154
Table 5.79. Comparison of experience measures during youth
participating in the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed
Deer Hunt (n=84 hunts) .......................................................................................................... 155

	
  

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Theoretical model of “Flow” and non-flow constructs in youth
hunting experiences .................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 2.1. Worldwide Consumptive Wildlife Tourism. Adapted from Bauer
and Herr (2004, p. 60). For interpretation of the references to color in this and
all other figures, readers is referred to the the electronic version of theis disseration .............. 23
Figure 3.1. Single channel “flow” model adapted from Csikszentmihalyi (1975) ................... 49
Figure 3.2. The four-channel flow model applied to ESM. The origin for the
optimal experience is the individual average of challenge and skills. Only when
an individual is above that point does flow begin (Adapted from Massimini and
Carli, 1988) ............................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 5.1. Participation and response rates of youth respondents (ages 12 to 16)
during the ESM Hunting Experience ........................................................................................ 82
Figure 5.2. Youth respondents who shot at, hit a deer, tagged a deer, and the
type of deer harvested during Michigan’s Special White-tailed Deer Hunt on
September 22 and 23, 2012 (n=43) ......................................................................................... 116
	
  
Figure 5.3. The four-channel flow model applied to youth hunters
during Michigan’s Special Firearm White-tailed Deer Season
(September 22 and 23, 2012) .................................................................................................. 147
	
  

	
  

xv

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Need
Hunting as a form of outdoor recreation is important to many Michigan citizens both
young and old. For example, in Michigan, according to Frawley (2010), an estimated 686,000
hunters spent 10.2 million days afield during the 2009 hunting season (Frawley, 2010; U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.
Census Bureau [FHWAR], 2007b). State and national research projected that hunter populations
would continue to decrease in both Michigan and nationally over the long term (Enck, Decker &
Brown, 2000; FHWAR, 2007a). For example, according to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Study (FHWAR, 2007b) in 1996 in Michigan there
were 934,000 distinct hunters, whereas in 2006 there were 753,000 distinct hunters, a decrease of
19%. Nationally, during the same time period, the metrics indicate that there were 13,975,000
and 12,510,000 distinct hunters in 1996 and 2006 respectively, a decline of 10% (FHWAR,
2007a). This is valuable information, since hunting is considered to be an important wildlife
management tool (Riley, Decker, Enck, Curtis, & Lauber, 2003). From an economic perspective,
according to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Study, expenditures by hunters for hunting from a national perspective were $22.9 billion
(FHWAR, 2007a), whereas Michigan expenditures are nearly $1 billion dollars (FHWAR,
2007b). Preliminary results of the 2012 FHWAR survey suggest that the number of distinct
hunters from 2006 to 2011 has increased from 12.5 million to 13.7 million hunters nationally
(FHWAR, 2012). Currently, the Michigan Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Study have not been released for 2006 to 2011.

	
  

1

Overview and Definition of Terms
The term “outdoor recreation” is used to define experiences related to activities such as
hunting and serves as the context for this research (Table 1.1). Additionally, outdoor recreation
includes three descriptors that specify the spatial context of the outdoor recreation activity. These
include: resource-based, intermediate, and user-based recreation (Table 1.1). In many instances,
the terms recreation and leisure have been used interchangeably. Therefore, for the purposes of
this dissertation “outdoor recreation,” “leisure,” and “recreation” will be used interchangeably.
Research by Thompson, Rehman, and Humbert (2005), suggested that leisure habits can be
facilitated through providing opportunities in safe environments for youth to participate in a
variety of structured and non-structured physical activities, and hunting is just one example of
this type of recreational experience. Jensen and Guthrie (2006) defined outdoor recreation based
on previous research from Clawson and Knetch’s definitions of resource-oriented and
intermediate recreation (Table 1.1).
Driver, Brown, and Peterson (1991), defined the word “benefit” in two different ways to
exhibit positive recreational gain. The term “benefit” can be summarized through both the
monetary and non-monetary aspects of leisure. Monetary measures of benefit are also referred to
as “economic efficiency” (Driver et al., 1991). Monetary benefits are economic in nature, but
may also be indirectly related to physiological, psychological, and sociological attributes of
recreation (Driver et al., 1991; Lewis & Kaiser, 1991; Siehl & Kostmayer, 1991). Conversely,
non-monetary benefits are related to the physiological, psychological, sociological and spiritual
wellbeing of recreation and leisure participants (Driver et al., 1991; Godbey & Jung, 1991;
Goodale & Cooper, 1991). Non-monetary benefit is also referred to as “benefit-as-improvedcondition” (Driver et al., 1991). According to Driver et al. (1991), the rationale for this

	
  

2

Table 1.1. Definitions and characteristics of Recreation, Leisure, Subsistence, and Commercial
Hunting.
Definition

Related Literature

Recreation

Commercial
Hunting

Profiting from the sale of harvested
wildlife. May include the profit obtained
from meat, fur, antler, ivory, or other
parts of wildlife.

Consumptive
Hunting or Harvest

Harvesting of wild terrestrial animals,
which are eaten or used.

Intermediate
Recreation

Relies on natural settings from a human
Clawson & Knetch,
impact perspective. Includes a mixture of 1966
resource and user-oriented outdoor
recreation. Examples include hunting and
fishing on state or federal lands.

Leisure

Unobligated state of time that is when
recreation occurs.

Outdoor Recreation

Recreational experiences that occur in the Jensen & Guthrie,
natural environment and especially wild
2006
lands. These recreational experiences
include a relationship between the
participant and natural environment
through appreciation and/or interaction.

Resource-oriented
Recreation

Or resource-based recreation. Relies on
the use of natural resources in natural
settings. Examples include hunting,
fishing and camping

Clawson & Knetch,
1966

Subsistence
Hunting

	
  

A subset of leisure that has the following Jensen & Guthrie,
characteristics: 1) is an activity; 2) occurs 2006
during leisure time; 3) is voluntary; 4) is
intrinsically engaging; 5) provides for a
sense of competence; and 6) produces
feelings of self-satisfaction or well-being.

An activity where one relies on dietary
need through the acquisition and use of
fish and game species for consumption.

Condon et al., 1995;
Cordain et al., 2000;
Peloquin & Berkes,
2009; McGee, 2010

3

Humle & Kormos,
2011

Muth et al., 2001;
Bauer & Herr, 2004

Driver et al., 1991;

nomenclature is because economic metrics can be used to quantify the improved conditions of
recreational activities. Hunting is an excellent example, where the hunter is the beneficiary of the
“benefit-as-improved-condition,” and the Michigan DNR receives the “economic efficiency” or
benefit of the activity through license sales, management of land, and wildlife.
The word “benefit,” according to Driver et al. (1991), “refers to a change that is
advantageous - an improvement in condition, or a gain to an individual, a group, to society, or to
another entity” (p. 4). A benefit is definable and measureable. Hence, researchers can model
benefit to investigate cause and effect relationships (Driver et al., 1991).
It is clear that with today’s ever-increasing time demands on youth (e.g., sports,
homework, family and other potential activities), any time spent seeking one set of benefits (i.e.
hunting) could result in loss of time at other activities (Winkler & Warnke, 2012). An example of
measurement of benefit can be found in research conducted by Csikszentmihalyi and Kleiber
(1991) in an effort to measure self-actualization through feelings of freedom and intrinsic
motivation or motivation to engage in activities that enhance or maintain a person's self-concept.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs provided an interpretation for self-actualization through being
placed at the pinnacle of human motivation and needs (Maslow, 1943). Maslow’s definition of
self-actualization reflects human needs that are based on morality, creativity, spontaneity,
problem solving, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts (1943).
The total recreation experience involves four phases: anticipation, planning, participation
and recollection (Table 1.2) (Jensen & Guthrie, 2006). These phases play a vital role in defining
the hunting experience. Jensen and Guthrie (2006) suggests that one can engage in having a
recreation experience without having all four phases, however mindful participation in all phases
can be most gratifying. In the case of hunting, one might hypothesize that the sum total of these

	
  

4

experiences are what keeps families hunting for generations. Much of the hunting literature today
cites that the recreational value, as both “economic efficiency” and “benefit-as-improvedcondition” are of primary importance (Driver et al., 1991). However, the recreational “value” of
hunting as an outdoor recreation experience has served and will continue to serve as a
cornerstone activity to many families and individuals alike for generations to come (Jensen &
Guthrie, 2006; Petersen, 2010; Swan, 1995).
Flow theory was developed by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (1975) as a way to describe
feelings of joy from the intrinsic rewards of an activity, and not from extrinsic reward such as a
trophy or monetary compensation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Csikszentmihalyi (1975) found that
intrinsic motivation gives participants a sense of discovery, exploration, and problem solution,
hence a feeling of challenge based on an individual’s skill level in an activity. According to
Mitchell (1983), for “flow” to be achieved in an outdoor recreation experience, it is necessary
for: (1) the recreationist to have freedom of choice among a wide range of uncertain outcomes to
be possible; (2) the recreationist must creatively fashion these uncertainties into tasks that are
perceived to be within his or her abilities; and (3) the recreationist must achieve a level of
involvement such that the hunt and participating in the experience through action and awareness
become indistinguishable. Self-actualization utilizing Maslow’s definition provides a platform to
measure “flow” in the context of hunting, through an individual’s ability to process issues related
to the morality, spontaneity, problem solving and acceptance of facts with regard to the hunting
experience. So what is “flow” and why is it important?
Psychological definitions of leisure have gained prominence in the past thirty years.
Authors have measured leisure by controlling for freedom and intrinsic or extrinsic motivation
through studies conducted in laboratory settings (Lefevre, 1988; Mannell & Zuzanek,

	
  

5

Table 1.2. Defining the total recreation experience (adapted from Jensen & Guthrie,
2006) using hunting related examples.
Stage of
Recreational
Experience

Definition

Stage 1
Anticipation

Identification and consideration for pursuing the activity. Examples
may include imagining or thinking about the harvest of a trophy
white-tailed deer, setting up a tree stand, or considering where to scout
for wildlife in the spring. Even if anticipation is the terminal point of
actually doing the activity, this can serve a useful purpose.

Stage 2
Planning

Educational phase of preparation for the activity. Examples may be
accomplished through reading books and magazines, discussions with
family and friends, acquiring and organizing equipment and supplies
as well as making arrangements for upcoming hunting experiences.

Stage 3
Participation

The actual experience of the activity. Examples may include travel
time both to and from the hunting location. In the recreational
experience, this is typically the shortest stage, however it is also the
reason the other stages occur.

Stage 4
Recollection

Reminiscing and recounting the experiences that occurred during the
participation phase of the activity. This phase may be expressed in
oral or written form. Examples may include mementos of the hunt are
often times the most significant components of this phase. Examples
may include a harvested set of white-tailed deer antlers, a mount of
the first harvested buck, photographs, or simply everlasting memories
of the experience. There is no time limit on this phase. In fact, these
memories and mementoes may be some of the most cherished
experiences of one’s life.

1988). However, in recent years there has been an increase in literature utilizing the field as a
research setting to measure intrinsic motivation through “flow” experiences (Bassi & Delle Fave,
2010; Decloe, Kaczynski, & Havitz, 2009; Jones, Hollenhorst, Perna, & Selin, 2000; McIntyre &
Roggenbuck, 1998). These authors view recreation and leisure as being related to a desirable
state, such as the state of “flow” outlined by Csikszentmihalyi and Kleiber (1991). According to

	
  

6

Driver et al. (1991), leisure within the context of “flow” is considered to be a good or higher
state, condition, or experience that provides a benefit. Since leisure behavior is considered to be
intrinsically rewarding, the beneficial nature of leisure is analogous to outdoor enjoyment
(Driver et al., 1991). Driver et al. (1991) suggested that there are five categories of beneficial
consequences of leisure. These beneficial consequences include: (1) physiological; (2)
psychological; (3) sociological; (4) economic; and (5) spiritual aspects related to changes in
values, benefits, and costs (Driver et al., 1991).
According to Driver et al. (1991), benefit measures based on behavior include
improvements in physical health (physiological), increased productivity (psychological), and
family solidarity (economic, social and spiritual). Introspective measures can be either focused
directly on benefits (improvement of conditions) or indirect measures (Driver et al., 1991).
According to Driver et al. (1991) indirect measures do not focus on the improvement of
conditions, but on the activity. Examples of indirect measures may include but are not limited to
going hunting or fishing, tracking game and hiking with family members.
Several studies have helped researchers understand the complexities of hunter motivation
and identification of factors related to satisfaction of the hunting experience (Cornicelli, Fulton,
Grund, & Fieberg, 2011; Hammitt, McDonald, & Patterson, 1990; Langenau & Mellon, 1980;
Manfredo, 2004). However, no research exists that compares the construct of “flow” in a hunting
experience with youth hunter satisfaction ratings. Relationships between youth hunter
satisfaction and constructs related to “flow” have the potential to provide causal relationships to
the experience of the hunt. Decker, Brown, and Gutierrez (1980) suggested that many important
variables affecting hunter satisfaction are beyond the scope of the wildlife manager.
Additionally, McCullough and Carmen (1982) suggested that getting away from home,

	
  

7

companionship and enjoying nature are dependent on the experience of the hunter. By providing
positive hunting recreation experiences to youth, the potential exists to create lifelong hunters.
Implications of this research are that state wildlife management agencies may be able to improve
youth intrinsic motivation and enjoyment during hunting activities in an effort to recruit and
retain youth to become new hunters.
Additionally, Several studies have applied theoretical frameworks to hunter participation
and involvement (Decker & Purdy, 1986; Decker, Brown, & Siemer, 2001). Decker, Brown, and
Siemer (2001) have suggested that there is a need to better understand and predict hunting
participation by designing programs that consider hunters’ interest while meeting expectations,
satisfaction, and motivation during the hunt. One approach by Decker and Purdy (1986) utilized
the innovation-adoption theoretical framework to meet the needs of hunters within their Hunter
Education courses. The authors’ cited that development of a technique used to assess hunting
involvement could be a helpful evaluation tool for Hunter Education program administrators
(Decker & Purdy, 1986). The ability to apply flow theory as a way to address hunter
participation and involvement may provide additional insight to hunter educators in an effort to
provide engaging experiences to future youth hunters. Decker and Purdy (1986) cite these
experiences as ways to increase involvement following a youths’ certification in Hunter
Education.
Youth are one of the most important audiences to recruit into hunting. According to the
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation (2007a), individuals 35
years of age and older make up 72% of the current hunters in the U.S., suggesting that the
average age of hunters continues to increase. Further, by gender, males make up 91% of hunters
(FHWAR, 2007a). According to Frawley (2006), the proportion of Michigan residents over the

	
  

8

age of 16 that hunted declined by 1% from 1991 to 2001. During the period of 2003 to 2005,
only 6% of 12-year old residents participated in hunting activities in Michigan (Frawley, 2006).
If hunting is to continue to be viable and make a dramatic impact, both economically (FHWAR,
2007a; FHWAR, 2007b), and from a recreational perspective (Driver et al., 1991; Jenson and
Guthrie, 2006) a concerted effort to recruit and retain future hunters is imperative to the future of
hunting.
Michigan Hunter Education (MHE) serves as the certifying entity for individuals, young
and old, to learn about various aspects of wildlife management, conservation, hunting, shooting,
and firearm safety. The MHE course provides certification in order for individuals to purchase a
Michigan hunting license. Recreational and leisure concepts such as enjoying nature and
participating in an activity in the outdoors can be incorporated into the curriculum through
hands-on, student-centered learning where individuals who finish the course feel as though they
have learned the basics of how to hunt, shoot safely, properly dress harvested game, and above
all, feel more comfortable in the outdoors. Ideally, the end results are individuals who feel as
though they are competent as hunters with the desire to want to go out and take part in future
hunting activities.
In Michigan, if an individual was born after January 1, 1960, that person is required (by
law) to take a course in Michigan Hunter Education (MDNR, 2011). There are three ways to
complete Hunter Education in the State of Michigan. The first mode of learning is through the
“traditional classroom” model. The traditional course model and corresponding goals include
nine components as defined by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR, 2011b)
(Table 1.3). According to the MDNR, these courses are typically held at outdoor clubs, schools,
police stations and camps. The second mode for course instruction is a home study approach to

	
  

9

learning (MDNR, 2011). Before taking the home study course, students must sign up to take a
field class (shooting experience). The third mode to take Michigan Hunter Education is through a
web-based, online learning format (MDNR, 2011). Students may enroll through one of two

Table 1.3. Outline of Today’s Hunter (Michigan Hunter Education) curriculum (MDNR, 2011b).
Chapter

Overview

Chapter 1: Introduction to
Hunter Education
Chapter 2: Know Your
Firearm Equipment

Types, function, components and caring for firearms
and ammunition.

Chapter 3: Basic Shooting
Skills

Marksmanship and accuracy when shooting rifles,
shotguns, and pistols.

Chapter 4: Basic Hunting
Skills

Planning, preparation and strategies of the hunting
experience. Shot placement and field care of game.

Chapter 5: Primitive
Hunting Equipment and
Techniques

Hunting basics, safety and skills needed for hunting
with a muzzleloader, bow and arrow, and crossbow.

Chapter 6: Be a Safe
Hunter

Firearm safety. Loading and unloading, transporting,
proper carrying firearms. Hunting from elevated stands
and boats. Use of All-Terrain vehicles while hunting.

Chapter 7: Be a
Responsible and Ethical
Hunter

Hunting laws, game conservation, fair chase, the
hunter’s image, hunting ethics, and the five stages of
hunter development.

Chapter 8: Preparation and
Survival Skills

Planning and preparation of the hunt. Physical
conditioning, clothing, map and compass, survival
skills, coping with weather extremes and basic first aid.

Chapter 9: Wildlife
Conservation

	
  

Learning objectives for the course, why take Hunter
Education and funding for Hunter Education.

Wildlife Conservation, The North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC), wildlife
management, and wildlife identification.

10

websites: http://www.hunter-ed.com/Michigan/ and http://www.huntercourse.com/usa/michigan/.
Both courses are approved by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to complete the
classroom portion of the Michigan Hunter Education course (MDNR, 2011). However, online
students must register for a skills/field portion of the class prior to completing the online
curriculum. Once students have passed the online course of study and successfully completed the
skills/field portion of the class, they receive their Hunter Education certification.
In 2012 Michigan certified 25,327 Hunter Education graduates. Of those, 23,457 were
certified in a traditional course of study (92.6%), 1,669 (6.6%) were certified in a home study
course, and 201 (0.8%) utilized an Internet option for certification. Age breakdown for the
traditional course of study were: 7,855 (33.5%) less than 12 years of age, 9,671 (41.2%) 12 to 16
years of age, 1,968 (8.4%) 17 to 24 years of age, 3,285 (14.0%) 25 to 50 years of age, and 678
(2.9%) greater than 50 years of age.
Finally, another distinct pathway exists. An individual may hunt in Michigan without
having taken the Michigan Hunter Education course. According the MDNR, an Apprentice
Hunter may purchase a license for two years prior to successfully completing the Michigan
Hunter Education course (MDNR, 2011a). When hunting, Apprentice Hunters must be
accompanied by another licensed hunter who is 21 years of age or older (MDNR, 2011a).
Additionally, Apprentice Hunter’s under the age of 17 are required to be accompanied by a
parent or legal guardian who is licensed in the same hunting season (MDNR, 2011a).
MHE courses are taught by volunteers in a format that is typically 2 to 5 sessions in
length, followed by recommended time on a shooting range. Courses are offered year-round
throughout the state. The MHE course has a required instructional time of 10 to 12 hours of
instruction, but it is also offered in web-based and home study formats. The MHE course

	
  

11

provides an opportunity to give participants a hands-on, student-centered experience where
principles of wildlife conservation and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation are
central to the outcomes of the course.
MHE is currently funded from the sale of firearms and ammunition through the Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669i; 50 Stat. 917) "Pittman-Robertson Act" (PR) that was signed into law on September 2, 1937. The Act has been amended several times, and
provides federal aid to States for Wildlife Restoration, Multistate Conservation, North American
Wetlands Conservation Program, and the Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety
Program (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013). The Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) utilizes P-R funding to support Hunter Education in Michigan. Monies within Hunter
Education (HE) are used to provide curriculum and materials to individuals taking HE as well as
providing professional development and classroom materials for staff to teach the course.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013), for the fiscal year 2012, Michigan
received $12.3 million dollars from Pittman-Robertson appropriations at the Federal level. Of
those monies, $2.1 million was allocated for Hunter Education in Michigan (2013).
It is clear from the research that the future of hunting in the United States will be under
increased pressure over time due to more urbanization, lack of access to hunting land, challenges
with travel to accessible lands, and familial constraints (Organ & Fritzell, 2000; Zinn et al.,
2002; Jacobson & Decker, 2006). According to the authors, these factors have the potential to
increase nontraditional stakeholders interested in wildlife while continuing to decrease traditional
hunter stakeholder populations, whereby increasing a nontraditional approach to wildlife
management.

	
  

12

Increasing the number of hunters in Michigan through recruitment, retention and
reconnection to hunting opportunities is clearly an important step to addressing potential
challenges with management of wildlife populations while providing positive outdoor
recreational experiences to young people. However, unknown antecedents that provide these
positive outdoor recreational experiences are still in question.
Statement of Purpose and Objectives
The purpose for this exploratory study was to determine if participation in recreational
hunting activities (i.e. the Michigan Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt) resulted in “flow”
experiences and if those experiences were related to behavioral intentions to continue hunting in
the future. My research objectives include: (1) developing the experience sampling method
(ESM) to measure youth firearm white-tailed deer hunter “flow,” mood, level of challenge, and
interest level in a hunting activity; (2) testing the experience sampling method (ESM) to measure
youth firearm white-tailed deer hunter “flow,” mood, level of challenge, and interest level in a
hunting activity; (3) determining the level at which “flow” and “anxiety” occur relative to youth
hearing, seeing, shooting at and harvesting white-tailed deer; and (4) determining if youth who
experience various levels of “flow” are more likely than those who do not experience “flow” to
state their intent to participate in further hunting opportunities.
Hypotheses
My overarching hypothesis of this study was that youth who are experiencing “flow” in a
white-tailed deer firearm hunting context will express intention to hunt in the future, whereas
youth that exhibit “boredom,” “apathy,” or “anxiety” during a white-tailed deer hunting
experience will not intend to hunt in the future (Figure 1.1).

	
  

13

The first hypothesis was informed by flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) through the
measurement of the “flow” construct of the hunt using the four-channel “flow” model
(Massimini & Carli, 1988). My null hypothesis 1 (Ho1) thus states that there is no statistical
significance between youth firearm deer hunting experiences and respondents’ perceived mood,
level of interest and perceived challenge. Whereas, my alternative hypothesis 1 (H1) states that
there is a positive relationship between respondents’ perceived mood, flow indicators, level of
skill, and perceived challenge using the four-channel model (Massimini & Carli, 1988).
Hypothesis two was informed by flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) in the context of a
youth white-tailed deer hunting experience relative to the four-channels (flow, anxiety, apathy,
and boredom) of the flow model adapted by Massimini and Carli (1988). My null hypothesis 2
(Ho2) thus states that there is no association between youth firearm deer hunter experiences of
hearing, seeing, shooting at, and harvesting deer relative to the constructs of the four-channel
model (Massimini & Carli, 1988). Whereas, the alternative Hypothesis 2 (H2) states that there is
a positive relationship between respondents’ levels of “flow” and “anxiety” and experiences of
hearing, seeing, shooting at, and harvesting white-tailed deer during the Michigan Special Youth
Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt.
My third hypothesis examines whether participants that achieve various levels of “flow”
during youth firearm deer hunting experiences intend to continue hunting. My null hypothesis 3
(Ho3) states that there is no association between participants that experience various levels of
“flow” and their intention to continue hunting. Whereas, the alternative hypothesis (H3) states
that a positive relationship exists between participants’ ability to achieve various levels of “flow”
under hunting conditions and intention to continue hunting. Or, the alternative hypothesis (H3)

	
  

14

states that there is discriminating ability among functions related to the intention to continue
hunting in the future.
Organization of Dissertation
The remaining chapters of this dissertation are organized as follows: Chapter two
provides background and context of hunting starting from a worldwide to local Michigan
context. Chapter three is a review of the literature as it relates this study. Chapter four includes
methods were used to conduct this research. Chapter five is a summary of the results, and
Chapter six is a discussion of the results, limitations of this exploratory study, and suggested
avenues of research for the future.
Summary
This study has the potential to inform researchers, state agencies, hunters, and others
interested in continuing hunting as a wildlife management tool through theoretical,
methodological, and practical contributions. From a theoretical perspective, this research will
advance the framework of flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) and the four-channel model of
“flow” (Massimini & Carli, 1988) with a purposeful sample of youth as respondents in a hunting
activity (Michigan’s Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt, September 22 and 23,
2012).
Methodologically, no research exists that applies the constructs of the experience
sampling method (ESM) to a specific hunting situation utilizing youth (12 to 16 years of age) as
sample respondents. Application of ESM will inform researchers on further opportunities to
benefit youth hunters through understanding perceived feelings, mood, and interest during a
hunting experience. This study also provides a methodological approach that utilizes open-ended

	
  

15

questions about a youth’s experience during the youth hunt, which has the potential to frame
further survey research in the area of hunter recruitment from a state wildlife agency perspective.
This research provides a practical application by better understanding youth hunters and
what factors may contribute to a young person’s intention to continue hunting in the future. This
research will inform state wildlife agencies in an effort to develop larger scale research to better
understand recruitment needs of Michigan’s youth hunting and non-hunting populations.

	
  

16

Flow and Non-Flow Constructs of Youth Hunting Experiences

Figure 1.1. Theoretical model of “Flow” and non-flow constructs in youth hunting experiences.

	
  

17

CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
	
  

Examining Recreational, Subsistence and Commercial Hunting
Recreational and subsistence hunting are important for populations around the world

(Cordain et al., 2000; Fortier, 2009; Kerr & Woods, 2010; Kümpel, Milner-Gulland, Cowlishaw,
& Rowcliffe 2010; Lamprey & Mugisha, 2009; Peloquin & Berkes, 2009; Parry, Barlow, &
Peres, 2009; Mahoney, 2009; Mazzullo, 2010; McGee, 2010; Minzenberg & Wallace, 2011;
Prayaga, Rolfe, & Stoeckl, 2010; Sasaki, 2010; Sharp & Wollscheid, 2009; World Forum on the
Future of Sport Shooting Activities, 2010). Recreational hunting exists throughout the world and
continues to thrive in areas including Europe, Oceania, North America, and in certain regions of
South America (Kerr & Woods, 2010; Mahoney, 2009; Prayaga et al., 2010; Sharp &
Wollscheid, 2009). Subsistence hunting still exists and is found primarily in rural regions of
Africa (Kümpel et al., 2010), South America (Minzenberg & Wallace, 2011; Parry et al., 2009)
and in the circumpolar latitudes of Europe, North America and Asia (Fortier, 2009; Mazzullo,
2010; McGee, 2010; Peloquin & Berkes, 2009).
This chapter is organized to provide the reader with: (1) an overview of the literature
related to hunting as a recreational, subsistence, and commercial activity; and (2) a synthesis of
literature regarding the use of the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation (Geist,
2006), including a definition, as well as current limitations, implications and challenges of using
the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC) as the framework for
management of wildlife throughout North America.

	
  

18

Worldwide Recreational Hunting
Non-consumptive (Chiutsi, Mukoroverwa, Karigambe, & Mudzengi, 2011; Duffus &
Dearden, 1990; Fennell & Nowaczek, 2010; FHWAR; 2012) and consumptive recreation and
tourism (Bauer & Herr, 2004; Kerr & Woods, 2010; Lamprey & Mugisha, 2009; Mahoney,
2009; Prayaga et al., 2010; Sharp & Wollscheid, 2009; WFSA, 2010) play an essential role in
worldwide recreation. Conversely, consumptive recreation and tourism, for the purposes of this
dissertation, may include a trip out back on a squirrel hunting adventure with a son or daughter to
a complex and potentially expensive trip to hunt white-tailed deer in Saskatchewan. The latter
trip can become quite costly as it may include the application and purchase of a passport, travel
fees, and outfitter expenses. Nigel Leader-Williams (2009) further suggests that, “recreational
hunting refers to hunting where the hunter or hunters pursue their quarry for recreation or
pleasure” (p. 11). Perceived enjoyment of recreational hunting includes both social and cultural
norms associated with the hunter and wildlife, even in instances when game is not harvested
(Leader-Williams, 2009). Leader-Williams (2009) frames these norms by the social and cultural
contexts that take place before during and after the hunt. Cultural examples include obtaining
permission to the hunting area, travelling to the area, and seeking out the quarry. Additionally,
Leader-Williams (2009) points out that the cultural norms are facets that determine when, what
and how to hunt. Conversely, Leader-Williams (2009) provides context for the social aspects by
referring to the social aspects of the hunt associated with the camaraderie prior to, in-situ, and
after the hunting experience. These social and cultural norms of today may include travelling to
and participating in an Upper Peninsula deer hunting camp the first week of the Michigan
firearm deer season, having a family conversation about hunting stories past and present over a
wild game dinner during Thanksgiving, or taking a youth hunting during Michigan’s white-tailed

	
  

19

deer season. In many instances, social and cultural norms provide the most enjoyable and
memorable features of the hunting experience (Petersen, 2010).
Recreational hunting is subject to considerable debate according to Leader-Williams
(2009). Critics of recreational hunting are concerned that hunting is biologically unsustainable
and pose issues related to ethics, animal welfare and animal rights (Loveridge, 2006; Regan
2001; Singer, 1993; Singer 1995). Examples cited include the inhumane treatment of animals
through various hunting methods and the rights of animals to live without fear of being hunted.
In contrast, Posewitz (1994) suggests that these ethical issues surrounding the hunt and hunting
strengthen the ideals of hunters. In turn, this underscores the biological sustainability of hunting
as a game management tool. Posewitz and others believe that hunting is one tool used to aid in
the biological sustainability of wildlife (Boone and Crockett Club, 2008; Geist, 2006; Petersen,
2010; Posewitz, 1994). However, today’s definition of hunting in the media is painting a portrait
that goes against the tenets of the NAMWC. Commercial game ranches or preserves through
“canned hunting events” and TV programming that portrays hunting in a context through
examples of the consistent harvest of trophies or hunting experiences that occur within a 30minute “block” of time should concern many individuals that are strong supporters of the hunting
movement.
Sharp and Wollscheid (2009) posits that recreational hunting can be divided into local
hunting and hunting tourism. With regard to local hunting, individuals typically live on their
property or land and organize their own hunting experiences; while paying fees that are
appropriate for the local hunting experience (Sharp & Wollscheid, 2009). These fees may
include travel, license fees and items essential for a particular hunting experience such as
clothing, firearms or archery equipment, and ammunition. In hunting tourism, individuals travel

	
  

20

an unspecified distance from home and in many instances abroad, pay considerable sums of
money, and include intermediary suppliers, outfitters, or travel agents that assist in various
aspects of the hunting experience (Sharp & Wollscheid, 2009).
Non-Consumptive Recreation and Leisure
Non-consumptive practices may include wildlife-watching practices that are also known
today as ecotourism (Chiutsi et al., 2011; Fennell & Nowaczek, 2010). Duffus and Dearden
(1990) posited that an increasing number of people are generating substantial economic revenue
by offering non-consumptive recreational activities, and according to the FHWAR (2012), 71.8
million people spent US $55.0 billion to take part in non-consumptive recreational practices.
Research by Davies, Hamman and Magome (2009) suggested that recreational hunting and nonconsumptive recreational practices such as ecotourism or photo-tourism are mutually exclusive,
yet can co-exist together where both types of activity can thrive. Though important, due to the
scope of this chapter and dissertation, I will limit my discussion of non-consumptive recreational
practices.
Consumptive Recreation and Leisure
Ten thousand years ago, hunting and fishing transformed from primarily a subsistence
activity of people to more of a “recreational,” male-centric activity found primarily in Europe
(Ardrey, 1976; Geist, 2010; Koppedrayer, 2010; Scruton, 2010). Petersen (2010) proposed that:
To hunt, kill, and devour the flesh of creatures wild and free is not only the most
natural possible exercise for body and spirit: it represents a palpable and
significant, if only partial, return to our evolved animal heritage. Viewed in this
light, honorable hunting is a spiritual sacrament, a humbling genuflection to our
evolutionary design, genetic plan, and nutritional needs, as well as a sacred
affirmation of our ancient blood-bond with the wildlings that for millions of years
fed us, fed on us, and, in time, made us human. Thus were we created. (p. 15)

	
  

21

These recreational experiences were directly correlated to areas where higher human
population existed (Figure 2.1). Many of the components that Bauer and Herr (2004) defined as
consumptive wildlife tourism are staple characteristics of recreational hunting and fishing
practices in North America today. According to Muth, Dick, and Blanchard (2001), consumptive
hunting was defined as the harvesting of terrestrial wild game, which are eaten or used (see
Chapter 1, Table 1.1).
The growth of what we would define today as traditional agriculture, allowed human
populations to live and thrive in concentrated areas where large amounts of food (plant and
animal) could be grown. Today it is no different. In fact, longitudinal research by Duda, Jones,
and Criscione (2010) suggested that population centers are becoming larger, and fewer
individuals are choosing rural lifestyles. Worldwide, many areas have become less dependent on
subsistence hunting and are more likely to pursue consumptive and non-consumptive hunting
and related opportunities as recreational and leisure-based endeavors (Bauer & Herr, 2004; Kerr
& Woods, 2010; Lamprey & Mugisha, 2009; Mahoney, 2009; Prayaga et al., 2010; Sharp &
Wollscheid, 2009; WFSA, 2010). According to Sharp and Wollscheid (2009), “Recreational
hunting is a significant social and economic phenomenon where leisure activities are fully
developed, principally in the richer countries of the world” (p. 25).
Outside of North America, limited opportunities to hunt non-native game species cause
hunters to travel in search of exotic wildlife (Bauer & Herr, 2004). These limited opportunities
are due to high costs, challenges of acquiring permits and licenses, and obtaining permission to

	
  

22

Worldwide Consumptive Wildlife Tourism

Consumptive	
  Wildlife	
  Tourism	
  

Hunting	
  Tourism	
  

Big	
  Game	
  Hunting	
  

Small	
  Game	
  

Skill	
  Hunting	
  

Game	
  Preserve	
  

Migratory	
  Birds	
  

Bow	
  Hunting	
  

Big	
  Game	
  

Game	
  Birds	
  

Black	
  Powder	
  

Safari	
  

Rodents	
  

Falconry	
  

Group	
  

Small	
  	
  
Predators	
  

Trapping	
  

Indigenous	
  

Ferreting	
  

Songbirds	
  
	
  

Figure 2.1. Worldwide Consumptive Wildlife Tourism. Adapted from Bauer and Herr (2004, p.
60). For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred
to the electronic version of this dissertation.

	
  

23

hunt. For example, today European hunters travel to African destinations to hunt for exotic game
due to high costs and licensing/permitting challenges associated with hunting in their country of
origin. Bauer and Herr (2004) cited that participation in hunting today places many more
demands on individuals. The authors cited that the typical hunter that is traveling to distant
reaches is more apt hunt larger ungulate species (cervids and bovids). Bauer and Herr (2004)
posited that the European expansion caused an increase in international hunting tourism.
Affluent Europeans were more apt to discover remote places and explore first-hand, experiences
confronting large game species (Bauer & Herr, 2004). A similar expansion began occurring in
North America in the 1950s and 60s and is still strong today as many North American hunters
choose to go on guided hunting experiences in other states, provinces, and even countries. Hofer
(2002) and Bauer and Herr (2004) indicate regions of the world where the Convention on
International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) monitor’s animals
that are being exported from various regions of the globe (Table 2.1) based on legal hunting
activities. It is important to understand CITES monitoring, as this is one of only a few data
collection sources to make inferences about wildlife trafficking on a worldwide scale. It should
be noted that trafficking of CITES wildlife is occurring in most regions with the exception of
East/South East Asia and the Middle East where lack of continuity between national, regional
and local agencies may make it challenging to manage wildlife populations for the purposes of
hunting (Bauer & Herr, 2004; Nijman, 2010; Sodhi, Koh, Brook, & Ng, 2004). According to
Hofer (2002), fragmentary governments, limited wildlife management, and limited interest by
residents to create functional wildlife management entities were key factors in the lack of foreign
hunting markets. European and North American hunters make up the majority of individuals
hunting abroad. Locations most often traveled are Africa, Oceania (Australia and New Zealand)

	
  

24

Table 2.1. Worldwide hunting Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES). Adapted from Bauer and Herr (2004, pp. 62-63).
Hunting Location
Major CITES Species
North America
Moose, White-tailed Deer,
Wapiti, Brown Bear, Black
Bear, Puma
South East Asia/Middle Asia
Limited hunting opportunities
due to variances in rules by
region within countries and
lack of regional cooperation.
Europe/North Asia
Red Deer, Wolf, Brown Bear,
Chamois, Argali, Ibex, Roe
Deer, Blue Sheep, Himalayan
Thar, Marco-Polo Sheep,
Siberian Ibex, Serau
Africa
Lion, Buffalo, Elephant
Hippopotamus, Eland,
Impala, Sita tunga,
Waterbuck, Hyena,
Crocodile
South America
Jaguar, Red Deer (i), Tapir

CITES Market Size

Related Literature

A very large market in particular in
Canada. Dramatic increase in trophy
trade from Canada to the US in
particular Black Bear.

Festa-Bianchet,
2009; Hofer, 2002;
Mahoney, 2009

Limited CITES market due to lack of
consistent rules among national,
governmental, regional and local
authorizes.

Bauer & Herr,
2004; Frisina &
Tareen, 2009;
Hofer, 2002; Sodhi
et al., 2004;
Nijman, 2010

A medium market with approx. 3200
CITES listed trophies imported to
Europe and North America (1990-96).

Aebischer, 2009;
Bauer & Herr,
2004; Hofer, 2002

Important income for Zambia,
Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana,
Namibia and South Africa with
approximately 31,000 CITES listed
trophies introduced to North America
and Europe (1990-1996).

Jones, 2009;
Lamprey &
Mugisha, 2009;
Loveridge et al.,
2009; WFSA, 2010

Small market with only 880 CITES
listed trophies introduced between
1990-1996. (Private land only)

Bauer & Herr,
2004; Hofer, 2002

Oceania
Red Deer (i), Sambar Deer
Overall a small market segment. On
(i), Chamois (i), Himalayan
its own however a significant
Thar (i), Rusa Deer (i), Feral
domestic industry in particular in New
Pig (i), Red Fox (i) Banteng
Zealand but also Australia.
(i), Water Buffalo (i),
Dromedary (i)
(i) – Introduced (Market size based on Hofer 2002, Bauer & Giles, 2002)
	
  

25

Bauer & Herr,
2004; Hofer, 2002;
Kerr & Woods,
2010; Prayaga et
al., 2010

and North America (Canada) according to Hofer (2002) and Bauer and Herr (2004). Hofer
(2002) indicates that CITES-listed exportations are most common from North America and
Africa and to a lesser degree from Oceania, South America, and Europe/North Asia (Table 2.1).
Ironically, much of the CITES-listed exportations are found in North America through the
transfer of American black bear (Ursus americanus) from Canada to the United States (Table
2.1).
Nationally, consumptive recreational hunting is significant based on the metrics provided
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. (FHWAR, 2012). The data indicated that in 2011,
90.1 million Americans (38%) spent US $145.0 billion to hunt, fish and watch wildlife. Of these
37.4 million Americans participated in fishing, hunting or both activities in 2011. Hunting
accounted for US $34.0 billion, fishing for US $41.8 billion, and wildlife watchers were
responsible for US $55.0 billion in 2011 (FHWAR, 2012). These data suggests that hunting,
fishing and wildlife watching is an economically important component of the U.S. economy.
Considering that nationally, in 2011, it is estimated that 13.7 million Americans ages 16
and older hunted for big and small game (potential duplication of participants) in the U.S.
according to a survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. (FHWAR, 2012) or 6% of the
total population. Given the national trend in hunters, we should be cognizant of the perceptions
of various populations toward the activity of hunting. According to a study in 2008 by
Responsive Management and The National Shooting Sports Foundation (RM/NSSF), 78% of
Americans responded favorably to recreational hunting. However, research by Organ and Fritzell
(2000), suggested that as a declining number of hunters take to the field there will likely be
added impact of non-hunters to management of wildlife across the U.S. This is a function of
fewer hunter stakeholders providing input (both financially and advisory) toward the

	
  

26

management of wildlife. The authors posited that this “swing” in population disposition toward
hunting might restrict hunters toward more management and subsistence purposes (Organ &
Fritzell, 2000). Further, changing patterns of values within hunter families due to changes in
family composition (e.g., single-parent households) suggested that hunting may be in danger of
further declining populations due to aspects related to urbanization, residential mobility (ability
to travel to hunting destinations), and increasing education (Zinn, Manfredo & Barro, 2002).
Worldwide Subsistence Hunting
Prior to the 20th Century, in fact before agriculture via the domestication of cereals,
legumes, and animals, woodland populations of the world utilized hunting and fishing as their
primary forms of food acquisition (Ardrey, 1976; Geist, 2010; Scruton, 2010). According to
Cordain et al. (2000), the hunter-gatherer or subsistence way of life had been the primary means
of dietary sustenance for all but the last ten thousand years. Subsistence hunting is still an
important part of the hunting continuum. Worldwide, wild game is no longer the primary source
of sustenance for most of the world’s population. However, subsistence hunting is still a major
source for the dietary needs in many rural regions of North America (Condon et al., 1995;
Peloquin & Berkes, 2009; McGee, 2010), South America (Minzenberg & Wallace, 2011), Asia
(Fortier, 2009), Northern Europe (Mazzullo, 2010) and Africa (Kümpel et al., 2010).
In North America, subsistence hunting lifestyles were and are still an important cultural
and often, necessary form of dietary sustenance of Native Americans across the U.S. and Canada
(Cleland, 1992; Condon et al. 1995; Peloquin & Berkes, 2009; McGee, 2010) and in many parts
of Alaska (McGee, 2010). Implications of subsistence living include the potential for divisive
social relationships and the political nature of living a subsistence lifestyle (McGee, 2010),
however subsistence hunting still holds important cultural and religious significance to many

	
  

27

communities around these rural regions of North America (Condon, 1995; Peloquin & Berkes,
2009).
Peloquin and Berkes (2009) found that subsistence hunting was important to the residents
of Lime Village, Alaska. In 2007, during data collection, the authors found that all Lime Village
residents participated in subsistence activities and utilized the wild resources within and around
Lime Village. The authors suggested that the use of subsistence hunting to harvest healthy game
is meaningful to the framework of the native culture, religious beliefs, and health of community
residents. The authors posited that increases in subsistence hunting are an encouraging sign for
not only the future of subsistence lifestyles of rural Native Alaskans, but also the continuance of
cultural and religious practices of various native cultures (Peloquin & Berkes, 2010).
In Michigan, early settlers and Native American populations relied heavily on wild fish
and game for their dietary needs as a way to provide animal protein for families and community
(Cleland, 1992). While on these excursions, hunters harvested a variety of game, however whitetailed deer were the favorite target due to the multi-use of deer in the form of meat for protein
and the hide for clothing and bedding (Cleland, 1992). Many hunting activities were the center of
community feasts. These social activities were held at a time when the celebration reflected on
ancestors through a “renewal feast” (Cleland, 1992). The renewal feast was a social event that
also included new fires being kindled, pipes being smoked, and singing and dancing that lasted
the entire night (Cleland, 1992).
According to Cleland (1992), in the 1880s Michigan and other Great Lakes states began
enforcing hunting and fishing laws. The federal government, which at one time recognized
treaties of Native Americans, advised the Native population to abide by state law. Unfortunately,
according to Cleland (1992), this was due to the gross overharvest of fish and wildlife by non-

	
  

28

Native populations of hunters and fishermen. The depression of the 1920’s and 30’s brought
additional tough times on Native American populations due to increased unemployment in and
around Native American tribal lands (Cleland, 1992). In fact, according to Cleland (1992), at the
printing of his book, 80% of the nearly 62,000 Native Americans live in Michigan cities.
However, a key ruling in 1976 in People v Le Blanc provided Michigan Native Americans the
right to once again fish unregulated and eventually hunt in a subsistence way based on the
intended spirit of the Treaty of 1836. In another case of Lac Courte Oreille v. Wisconsin, or the
Voight Case, The Lake Superior Chippewa Bands of northern Wisconsin won the right to hunt
and fish over lands and waters ceded during the treaties of 1837 and 1842 as long as these areas
were under public ownership (Cleland, 1992). As of 1992, 20% of remaining Native Americans
that inhabited rural areas of the Upper Peninsula and Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula,
many still utilize subsistence hunting and fishing methods to supplement their dietary needs
(Cleland, 1992).
Worldwide Commercial Hunting
Much of the commercial hunting that ensues worldwide occurs on the continents of
Africa (Humle & Kormos, 2011; Kümpel et al., 2010; Wall & Child, 2009) and South America
(Da Silveira & Thorbjarnarson, 1999). In certain instances, animals are either hunted legally or
poached illegally and sold for protein consumption, traditional medicinal purposes or trade of
animal parts such as ivory for decorative purposes or antlers and bone that are ground up and
used as an aphrodisiac (Humle & Kormos, 2011). Commercial trade is not only a local issue
from the country of harvest, but also important from the demand aspects of countries that desire
these wildlife commodities. Additionally, the commercial trade of bushmeat from harvest in rural
areas to sell in urban areas of Africa is substantial (van Vleit, Nasi, & Taber, 2011). Van Vliet et

	
  

29

al., (2011) cited that although commercial harvest in certain species (larger mammals) has been
found to be unsustainable through the harvest of larger mammals for their meat, horns or antlers,
tusks, furs and skins. In many instances the political and cultural complexities of commercial
wildlife harvest and trade outweigh the ecological aspects given the ever-increasing urban
populations in regions of West and Central Africa (Kümpel et al., 2010; Lamprey & Mugisha,
2009; van Vliet, 2011). Biodiversity and international wildlife trade is an essential component to
the commercial industry. Although beyond the scope of this dissertation, it should be noted that
illegal international wildlife trade in Southeast Asia is economically lucrative for many
participants while being an unsustainable practice that threatens the biodiversity of the region
(McNeely, 2009; Nijman, 2010). Literature on challenges of worldwide commercial harvest of
wildlife exists at various levels worldwide, however due to the scope of this dissertation I will
conclude my discussion on this topic.
Wall and Child (2009), cited that successful worldwide conservation-hunting programs
are those that contribute to the viability of various wildlife species through ecosystem
biodiversity and use of sustainable harvests in recreational hunting situations. The authors
posited that these programs would generate an economic benefit that can, in turn be used to
create relevant conservation programs for that region (Wall & Child, 2009).
The North American Model for Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC)
Much of the historical and current success of hunting and wildlife populations is credited
to the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation (Geist 2006; Mahoney, 2009). Currently
and traditionally (19th and 20th centuries), the conservation and management of wildlife in the
United States and Canada has been theoretically based on the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation (NAMWC) (Geist, 2006; Mahoney, 2009). Though theoretical, the NAMWC has

	
  

30

stood the test of time by providing the basis for the sustainability of renewable natural resources
that is unparalleled worldwide (Geist, Mahoney & Organ, 2001). However, research also
suggests that due to changing stakeholder beliefs about wildlife management, the NAMWC may
need to reflect the “Democracy of Hunting” as populations change (Geist, 2006; Jacobson &
Decker, 2006; Organ & Fritzell, 2000; Zinn, Manfredo, & Barro, 2002). As the transformation of
our hunting populations continues to occur, understanding the dynamics of the NAMWC along
with the needs of wildlife management agencies will inform future hunting populations about the
importance of wildlife management in Michigan and nationwide.
Defining the NAMWC
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation provides a framework for hunting
through emphasis of seven foundational tenets (Mahoney, 2009). These “pillars” or core tenets
provide a framework for wildlife management (Table 2.2). By following these core tenets (Table
2.2), wildlife managers can provide recreational activity and manage wildlife of North America
in a way that is fair and equitable to the population of sportsmen and women that pay for this
management through the Pittman-Robertson Act (1937). However, one of the implications of the
Pittman-Robertson (P-R) Act and the NAMWC are that the two are distinct and not necessarily
dependent on one another. For example the tenets of the NAMWC are not funded by P-R dollars,
however hunters pay for licenses, firearms and ammunition, which provide federal monies for
states to provide hunting opportunities that are the tenets of the NAMWC (Table 2.2).
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669i; 50 Stat. 917) also
referred to the "Pittman-Robertson Act" was signed into law on September 2, 1937. The Act has
been amended several times, and provides federal aid to States for the management and

	
  

31

Table 2.2. Tenets of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
NAMWC (Geist, 2009)

Definition

1.

Wildlife as a public trust

Wildlife is not owned by any one person but
is entrusted to all people and managed
through governmental entities.

2.

Elimination of markets for
wildlife

Elimination of the trafficking and sale of
wildlife such as meat, furs, bones, antlers,
etc. for the purposes of compensation.

3.

Allocation of wildlife by law

Wildlife is managed by federal and state
government agencies through laws. Public
input is an integral process of the
management of wildlife.

4.

Legitimate harvest of
wildlife

Wildlife is harvested in legitimate ways
using ethical means. Furthermore, all parts
of animals would be used for consumptive
or other purposes.

5.

Wildlife is considered as an
international resource

Certain species of wildlife transcend
international boundaries (ex. migratory bird
species). Cooperative management among
international entities is essential to provide
proper management of a species.

6.

Science as a tool to discharge Concepts of science should be the
wildlife policy
determining factor in wildlife management.

7.

Democracy of Hunting

Hunting is considered a recreational activity
where ALL citizens have an opportunity to
participate in hunting activities. Examples
include hunting access to state, federal and
provincial land or opportunities to take part
in Hunter Education courses to learn about
hunting and become certified to purchase a
hunting license.

restoration of wildlife. Funds from an 11% excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, archery
bows and arrows [Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161(b)] are appropriated to the Secretary

	
  

32

of the Interior and apportioned to States on a formula basis paying up to 75% of the cost for
approved projects. Project activities include acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat,
introduction of wildlife into suitable habitat, research into wildlife problems, surveys and
inventories of wildlife problems, acquisition and development of access facilities for public use,
and Hunter Education programs, including construction and operation of public target ranges
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Southeast Region, 2010).
Limitations and Implications of the NAMWC
The tenets of the NAMWC are often thought of in the context of hunting followed by the
words “and fishing.” One typically thinks of hunting and fishing and have been synonymous
with each other and the two are typically related to each other in the context of recreational and
leisure activities that promote the outdoors, and wild fish and game (Bauer & Herr, 2004). Does
the NAMWC promote fishing and or angling as a component of the model? Literature by key
authors and proponents of the model suggest that angling is a component and can be related to
the “pillars” or core tenets of the model (Geist 2006; Mahoney, 2009). However, this same
literature lacks concrete examples where fishing and or angling are associated with the
NAMWC. Clearly, one limitation and potential implication of the NAMWC and the relationship
to fishing is defined in tenet two that states, “elimination of markets for wildlife” (Geist, 2006).
Although the marketing and sale of wildlife in North America is illegal, the same does not hold
true for the commercial fishing industry around the U.S. and Canada. Second, tenet seven relates
to the democracy of hunting (Geist, 2006). This concept implies the use of “sport” hunting that
includes the ethical use of “fair chase” methods (Geist, 2006). The Fair Chase statement was
developed based on early founders (1890s) of the Boone and Crockett Club as “the ethical,
sportsmanlike, lawful pursuit, and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big

	
  

33

game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animal”
(Boone and Crockett Club, “Fair Chase Statement”, 2008).
Clearly, there is differentiation between legislation that support the various financial and
managerial aspects of recreational hunting (The Lacey Act, 1900; Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
1918; The Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 1929; The Duck Stamp Act, 1934; PittmanRobertson, 1937) fishing (Dingell-Johnson Act, 1950; Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1972)
and a combination of fishing and hunting as the precursor of the of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Does this mean
there should be differentiation among fish and game when defining the model as a tool to
manage natural resources?
A major implication of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation includes the
increased fragmentation of private land holding across North America according to Mahoney
(2009). Butler et al. (2005) cite that in excess of 70% of land in the U.S. is privately owned and
in Canada the percentage is increasing as well. Increasing fragmentation of private holdings of
land results in decreased opportunities for hunters. This fragmentation has been attributed to
additional generations of families and hence more family members owning property rights to a
finite number of acres. Landowner attitudes will have a major impact on the NAMWC and with
land continuing to be subdivided into smaller parcels this also means increasing the number of
landowners, which will inherently create variations in attitudes toward hunters and hunting.
Additionally, substantial market fluctuations in forestry and agricultural products have made
revenue from recreational hunting on private land a desirable benefit for private landowners
(Mahoney, 2009).
Contrary to Mahoney (2009), Michigan has increasing opportunities for intermediate

	
  

34

outdoor recreation with regard to public land. According to the Michigan Statewide Outdoor
Comprehensive Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2008-2012, public outdoor recreational land is
approximately 4.5 million acres (12% of the state). Additionally, The Michigan Natural
Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) utilizes a grant process to expand state recreational lands on an
annual basis. According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR, 2001), “The
Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) began as the ‘Kammer Recreational Land
Trust Fund Act of 1976’ via P.A. 204 of 1976. Act 204 created the Michigan Land Trust Fund
(MLTF) program to provide a source of funding for the public acquisition of lands for resource
protection and public outdoor recreation. Funding was derived from royalties on the sale and
lease of State-owned mineral rights.” Retrieved from www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-15339002_16791-39513--,00.html.
Two recent articles in The Wildlife Professional have scrutinized the North American
Model of Wildlife Conservation. Nelson, Vucetich, Paquet and Bump (2011) suggested that a
broader interpretation of the model is needed due to a misguided prescription for the future of
conservation. Nelson et al. (2011) also contended that hunting may not play as central of a role
as what it had once played in the future of wildlife conservation. In another article by Dratch and
Kahn (2011), the authors suggested that populations of animals are getting too close to people
and that this is a potential implication to the tenets of The North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation.
An ancillary to increased privatization of recreational hunting is the use of “pay-to-hunt”
facilities located throughout North America also known as game preserves (Figure 2.1). Though
a good economic stimulant in rural areas where the activity typically occurs (Swan, 1995),
attitudes by non-hunters may not be conducive to promoting “fair chase” recreational hunting.

	
  

35

Instead of hunting purely for food, hunters pay for the thrill of killing exotic animals or trophies.
Privatization of hunting opportunities using “pay-to-hunt” operations also pose disease and
invasive species implications to “free-ranging” wildlife populations (Vercauteren, LaVelle,
Seward, Fischer, & Phillips, 2007). Additionally, Mahoney (2009) cited that the genetic
manipulation of fenced wildlife increases the trophy hunting potential and hence the economic
gain for many private landowners. For example, many wildlife preserves are utilizing artificial
insemination to create abnormally large antlered animals in an effort to produce an animal that is
more desirable to harvest by paying individuals. Additionally, another example where private
wildlife ownership had been detrimental to the “public trust” tenet is here in Michigan where
feral pigs that were once inhabitants in game ranches or preserves around the state have escaped
or been released and are now roaming both private and public lands throughout Michigan (Teget,
Mayer, Dunlap & Ditchkoff, 2011). Feral pigs are considered a threat to agriculture as well as to
the general population. Examples of threats to the population may include car/swine collisions,
ecosystem degradation, or potential disease vectors. Currently, legislation regarding feral pigs is
in place that lists these animals as invasive species in the State of Michigan. Lawmakers and
ranch/preserve owners disagree about whether or not their importation should be outlawed,
however, this is a problem according to Teget et al. (2011). Hunting these animals under
confined conditions could be considered recreational activity by Ibrahim and Cordes’ (2002)
definition, however, the implications of perceptions by hunters and non-hunters alike may not
promote the desired results of being true outdoor recreation by many. Going directly against the
theoretical constructs of the NAMWC, Peterle, (1977) and Petersen (2010) suggested that a
European system of hunting (similar to pay-to-hunt) may be, in certain instances, an effective
way of promoting “the hunt” or hunting opportunities for wildlife species that may not be found

	
  

36

in current locations or giving beginning hunters a “successful” experience, which may, in turn
create a future hunter. However, Knox (2011) believed that many of the current attitudes through
pay-to-hunt and the deer hunting media have given cannon fodder to anti-hunters and antihunting organizations. The promotion of recreational hunting through these “pay-to-hunt”
approaches would not be popular among our founding fathers of wildlife management and
conservation and those that support and promote the tenets of the NAMWC.
According to Mahoney (2009), declining hunter numbers nationally provides the second
challenge to the current model for wildlife conservation. Of the approximately 6% of the
population that hunts annually, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FHWAR, 2012),
the percentage of people that are continuing to hunt are declining as a reflection of the overall
U.S. population (RM/NSSF, 2008). This declining trend in hunter numbers was also similar
across Canada (Mahoney, 2009). The physical (written, verbal, advocacy) and financial support
of hunters in North America is the current impetus for successful wildlife conservation in many
regions (Mahoney, 2009), but how long can the current structure of the NAMWC survive based
on the challenges to conservation in North America? Jacobson and Decker (2006) suggested that
there is a need for the public and state wildlife agencies to consider their role as change agents
for the future. The authors indicated that increasing pressure to reform state wildlife management
due to declining hunter numbers and increasing numbers of nontraditional stakeholders (nonhunters) make implementation and access toward a comprehensive decision-making process
important to the future of wildlife management nationally (Jacobson & Decker, 2006).
An Amendment to the NAMWC
The Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies, in an effort to strengthen conservation
education, has developed the Core Concepts for Conservation Education. The goal is to align the

	
  

37

Core Concepts with the current NAMWC by integrating components in order to achieve the
AFWA Strategic Plan through an informed and involved citizenry. Integration of hunting as a
recreational activity into conservation education is not only appropriate, but also imperative to
the future of hunting and wildlife management. Jacobson and Decker (2006) cited that this
change in philosophy by hunters, nontraditional stakeholders of wildlife management, and state
and federal agencies is needed and holds much promise toward advancing decision-making
processes. The Core Concepts of Conservation Education provide a definition that inform the
citizenry (hunters, nontraditional stakeholders, and state agencies) while still utilizing the
framework of the NAMWC through:
(I)

understanding the value of our fish and wildlife resources as a public trust;

(II)

appreciating that conservation and management of terrestrial and water
resources are essential to sustaining fish and wildlife, the outdoor
landscape, and the quality of our lives;

(III)

understanding and actively participating in the stewardship and support of
our natural resources;

(IV)

understanding and accepting and/or lawfully participating in hunting,
fishing, trapping, boating, wildlife watching, shooting sports, and other
types of resource-related outdoor recreation; and

(V)

understanding and actively supporting funding for fish and wildlife
conservation. Retrieved from
http://www.fishwildlife.org/index.php?section=conservation_education&a
ctivator=25.

The AFWA definition of conservation education is similarly aligned with the North American
Model of Wildlife Conservation (Geist, 2006). For this reason, characteristics of conservation
education can be differentiated from the definitions of environmental and outdoor education
(Table 2.3). Further, the population of North America can appreciate and understand all aspects
related to natural resources whether participating in hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching or
observing individuals taking part in these activities using the platform of recreational hunting

	
  

38

Table 2.3. Comparison between the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and AFWA
framework.
NAMWC
(Geist, 2009)
Wildlife as a
public trust

AFWA Framework
(AFWA 2011)
Understanding the value of
our fish and wildlife
resources as a public trust.

Elimination
of markets
for wildlife

NAMWC Definition
Wildlife is not owned by any one person
but is entrusted to all people and managed
through governmental entities.
Elimination of the trafficking and sale of
wildlife such as meat, furs, bones, antlers,
etc. for the purposes of compensation.

Allocation of
wildlife by
law

Understanding and
accepting lawful
participation in hunting,
fishing, trapping, boating,
wildlife watching, shooting
sports, etc.

Wildlife is managed by federal and state
government agencies through laws. Public
input is an integral process of the
management of wildlife.

Legitimate
harvest of
wildlife

Understanding and actively
supporting funding for fish
and wildlife conservation.

Wildlife is harvested in legitimate ways
using ethical means. Furthermore, all parts
of animals would be used for consumptive
or other purposes.

Wildlife
considered as
international
resource
Science as a
tool to
discharge
wildlife
policy

Appreciating that
conservation and mgt. of
terrestrial and water
resources are essential to
sustaining fish and wildlife,
the outdoor landscape, and
the quality of our lives.

Democracy
of Hunting

Understanding and actively
participating in the
stewardship and support of
our natural resources.

	
  

Certain species of wildlife transcend
international boundaries (ex. migratory
bird species). Cooperative management
among international entities is essential to
provide proper management of a species.
Concepts of science should be the
determining factor in wildlife management.

Hunting is a recreational activity where
ALL citizens have an opportunity to
participate in hunting activities.

39

from The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (Geist, 2006). Additionally, we can
utilize the definitional feature from AFWA regarding conservation education to provide and
enhance the instructional framework of Michigan Hunter Education in an effort to recruit more
hunters.
The Hunter of Today
One of the most important features of the sportsperson of today is the idea that hunting
takes place using the “code of the sportsman” (Organ, Muth, Dizard, Williamson, & Decker,
1998; Roggenbuck, 2004). The “code of the sportsman” can be summarized in the following
excerpt (Organ et al., 1998, pp. 529-530) as one who hunts game: 1) does so primarily for the
pursuit of chase; 2) affords game a “sporting” chance (fair chase); 3) seeks knowledge of nature
and the habits of animals; 4) derives no financial profit from game killed; 5) will inflict no
unnecessary pain or suffering on game; and 6) will not waste any game that is killed.
These core components of a sportsperson (hunter) of today are important to underscore in
today’s climate toward hunting. Organ et al. (1998) cited the importance of recreational hunting
as a tool to supplement dietary needs is more generally supported than the idea of “sport”
hunting where animals are not fully utilized for their meat, fur, antlers and other appropriate
components. Further, Organ et al. (1998) emphasized that the term “sport” hunting may not
provide a positive approval from non-hunter stakeholders. Therefore it is critical that hunting,
though recreational means, becomes synonymous with terms related to the utilitarian nature of
harvesting and utilizing game as a food source. However, Organ et al. (1998) are quick to point
out that prior to the management of our wildlife resources, utilitarianism was a standard term
used as many animals were harvested and sold commercially, which led to the near extirpation of
white-tailed deer and wild turkeys across much of North America. The authors suggested that if

	
  

40

the sportsman’s code is to continue to survive in an era where urban populations and negative
perceptions toward recreational hunting continue to increase, a proactive approach must be taken
(Organ et al., 1998). Organ et al. (1998) suggested that hunting and trapping publications must
take the “high ground” on ethical issues with regard to the sportsman’s code. This “high ground”
is where hunters strictly adhering to the tenets that underscore the sportsman’s code (Organ et
al., 1998). An opportunity exists for these issues to be addressed within the constructs of Hunter
Education and the potential to recruit new hunters that have appropriate experiences using the
sportsman’s code.
The Michigan Hunter
According to the Michigan Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)
for 2008 to 2012 published by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), in 2006,
distinct recreational Michigan hunters totaled 814,643. These numbers were slightly higher than
2005, however have been lower than any year since 1980 for hunters (MDNR, 2008).
A variety of hunting and human dimensions literature has cited that as the population
increases, the overall percentage of hunters in the population is decreasing (Adams, Brown, &
Higginbotham, 2004; Duda et al., 2010; Enck et al., 2000; Responsive Management, 2006;
Responsive Management/National Shooting Sports Foundation, 2008; Riley et al., 2003; Ryan &
Shaw, 2011; Winkler & Warnke, 2012). In the case of hunting, a high percentage of the North
American population in the late 1800’s hunted as a source of dietary sustenance for self and
family. However, with more traditional agriculture and increases in domesticated livestock,
individuals and family have placed less reliance on hunting. This decrease in reliance and
reduction in number of hunters in the field may have the potential to cause an increase in wildlife
populations (Enck et al., 2000; Riley et al., 2003; Winkler & Warnke, 2012). These wildlife

	
  

41

population increases in areas of higher human population also have the potential to increase
wildlife/car collisions, disease potential and negative ecosystem impacts. One potential way to
keep wildlife populations in “check” is by increasing the number of hunters that go to the field
(Enck et al., 2000). Two factors are critical to understanding the dynamics of hunting and
hunters. First, changes in the societal characteristics of U.S. populations including: a higher
percentage of population in urbanized areas, increased activity commitment for the same amount
of available time and an aging population are all cited as contributing factors in hunter
population reductions (Dizard, 2003; Duda et al., 1995; Mehmood; 2003; Riley et al., 2003;
Ryan & Shaw, 2011; Winkler & Warnke, 2012). Second, As Petersen (2010) states in his book,
Heartsblood: Hunting, Spirituality, and Wildness in America:
MOST MODERN HUNTERS, good and bad, just want to hunt-not explore and
debate why they do it and how they do it and what others think of them for it. Yet
today, no thoughtful hunter can afford to just hunt. In order to defend what we do
to ourselves, our families, our friends, and, especially, to an increasingly
urbanized, denatured, domesticated, and virtualized populace-in order to improve
hunting ethics and invite and inspire tomorrow’s hunters and assure that hunting
has a tomorrow…for all of these reasons and more, hunters must ask themselves:
Why? (p. 8)
In Michigan, between 2003 and 2005, 92% of license purchases were by males, however
participation by females has been increasing in recent years according to Frawley (2006).
Further, according to Frawley (2006), white-tailed deer hunters made up the largest percentage
of overall license purchases (78%), with small game hunting decreasing in popularity.
Recreational hunter retention is a concern not only nationally (RM/NSSF, 2008; Duda et al.,
2010) but also locally in the State of Michigan (Frawley, 2006). According to Duda et al. (2010),
the number of hunters leaving the activity due to waning interest, age, and changes in familial or
work obligations are not being made up through youth interested in becoming future hunters.

	
  

42

No recruitment and retention discussion would be complete without addressing
challenges related to hunter churn rates from a national perspective. Hunter churn rates are
defined as those hunters that do not purchase hunting licenses on a yearly basis according to the
National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF, 2009). Churn rates are important to the overall
understanding of recruitment and retention of recreational hunters due to the competitiveness for
time with other activities. Nationally, in a report by the NSSF (2009), 78% of resident hunters
and 49% of nonresident hunters who purchased a license in one year could be expected to
purchase a license the following year. National resident and nonresident data suggests that churn
rates are an important consideration in the overall understanding of hunters that go to the field
and how avidly they do so (Table 2.4). The data suggested that nearly 26% of resident hunters
and 58% of nonresident hunters purchased licenses 1 year out of every 5 (Table 2.4). Further,

Table 2.4. National Resident and Nonresident Hunter Churn, Adapted from NSSF, 2009.
Hunters Purchased a
License…

National
Residents

National
Nonresidents

1 out of every 5 years

26%

58%

2 out of every 5 years

15%

19%

3 out of every 5 years

12%

10%

4 out of every 5 years

12%

7%

5 out of every 5 years

35%

7%

NSSF (2009) metrics included overall percentage decreases for resident and non-resident hunters
for years two through five in all instances except for national residents that purchase hunting
licenses for five years consecutively (35%). Churn rates are an important feature in the overall

	
  

43

context of recruitment and retention as this may suggest that hunter dynamics are changing
across the U.S. (Enck et al., 2000), Organ and Fritzell (2000), and Zinn et al. (2002), suggest
dynamics that may be indicative of these changes in the future of recruitment and retention
efforts nationwide. The increased urbanization of our population, ability to connect with hunting
opportunities (travel/access), and educational implication provide an opportunity to challenge the
current thinking about hunter recruitment and retention (Organ and Fritzell, 2000; Zinn et al.,
2002). In Michigan between 2003 and 2004, 78.4 % of hunters purchased white-tailed deer
licenses during consecutive years. Between 2004 and 2005 only 77.2 % of hunters purchased
deer hunting licenses consecutive years, a decrease of 1.2 % (Frawley, 2006).
Much of the current literature suggests that mentorship is the most important way to
create new hunters (Posewitz, 1994; RM/NSSF, 2008; Ryan & Shaw, 2011). Mentorship in
hunting can be defined as the encouragement of one hunter to another prospective hunter through
transfer of knowledge and advocacy for the activity, in this case hunting. According to
RM/NSSF (2008), mentorship has been broadly defined into two types of experiences. The first
type of mentorship occurs through hunting families (80%) and the second type occurs when
individuals in their early twenties are introduced to hunting through friends or spousal
relationships with family (20%). Pass it on, Youth Outdoors Skills Camps, Conservation Leaders
for Tomorrow, and Becoming an Outdoors Woman are current mentoring and educational
programs that provide important inclusionary opportunities for social aspects related to hunting
(Ryan & Shaw, 2011). According to RM/NSSF (2008) the most effective way to become
introduced to hunting is through family, therefore the challenge is to reach outside of family
constructs to provide mentorship opportunities for youth to become future hunters.

	
  

44

Education is the second component that has been identified as a critical area for the
recruitment and retention of future hunters (Posewitz, 1994; Duda et al., 1995; Enck et al., 2000;
Dizard, 2003; Mehmood, 2003; RM/NSSF, 2008; Ryan & Shaw, 2011). Enck et al. (2000)
suggests that non-hunters receiving recreational and cultural benefits such as understanding why
hunters hunt, the significance of hunting to families, and the value of hunting as a management
tool may be 3 times greater than the current population of U.S. hunters.

	
  

45

CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Flow Theory
The theoretical basis of this study is informed through the framework of flow theory
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). The goal of defining “flow” is to understand enjoyment as an ongoing
process that provides rewarding experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). However, to understand
“flow” we must first understand the autotelic experience. Autotelic is a word derived from the
Greek language where auto=self and telos=goal or purpose. We can further refine our definition
of the autotelic experience as having feelings of joy from the intrinsic rewards of an activity, and
not for the extrinsic reward such as a trophy or monetary compensation (Csikszentmihalyi,
1975). You do something because you simply enjoy it! This chapter is organized to provide the
reader with: (1) an overview of flow theory; (2) a synthesis of “flow” literature related to outdoor
recreation and youth; and (3) the need for this research through gaps in the literature.
Csikszentmihalyi (1975) confirmed his theory that intrinsic rewards were far more
enjoyable than extrinsic rewards. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) examined the experience of rock
climbing in a recreational context, where “flow” was explained as a dynamic state, a merging of
action and awareness, and as loss of self-consciousness, hence creating an optimal experience.
Additionally, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) found that intrinsic motivation gave participants a sense
of discovery, exploration, and problem solution, hence a feeling of challenge. Further, this
autotelic experience created an uncertainty that the participant was potentially able to control by
what he or she was accomplishing (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Consequently, an individual having
an autotelic experience would therefore be unable to experience anxiety or exhibit boredom from

	
  

46

that activity. In fact, a person can make use of any skills he or she has available in a variety of
challenging situations.
After defining the autotelic experience, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) began conceptualizing
his work on, “the holistic sensation that people feel when they act with total involvement” (p.
36), or, in lay terms “flow.” Athletics are a good example of experiences where “flow” occurs on
a regular basis and are characterized by peaks and valleys of “happiness,” “boredom,” and
“anxiety.” Further, it is impossible to maintain emotional continuity for any length of time in a
“flow” event, although this is the goal (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Csikszentmihalyi (1975)
suggested that the goal is not to look for utopia, which is a peak, but to stay in the “flow” as long
as possible.
In a true one-to-one “flow” experience, an individual is in “flow” when the level of
challenge in an activity by an individual is equal to the skill level of that activity by the same
person. If the challenge and skill level are equal, then the person is in “flow” (Figure 3.1). If the
challenge is greater than the skill level for that person in the activity, then the individual will
experience a sense of “anxiety.” However, if the challenge is less than the skill level for the same
person and activity, then the individual will exhibit “boredom.”
Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1987) suggest that advantages of studying “flow” include
the ability to (1) engage scientists in laboratory research by asking participants to evoke feelings,
behavior and imagery that are not typically experienced in real-life situations; (2) implement
quality-of-life studies, through measurement of complex phenomena that are often temporally or
spatially represented; (3) be a data gathering source outside the context of the life-situation; and
(4) evaluate time-budgeting, which is often present in unclear links between behavior and
psychological states. Scollon et al. (2003) posited that the Experience Sampling Method (ESM)

	
  

47

has been successful at (1) allowing researchers to understand contingencies of behavior; (2)
removing the respondent from the lab and placing the participant in real-life situations; (3)
allowing research of processes that are characteristic of internal behavior; (4) decreasing memory
and recall bias by use of heuristics; and (5) decreasing the need for multiple methods to study
psychological phenomena.
An adapted version of the single channel model (Figure 3.1) provides more defined
boundaries of a “flow” experience through the use of the four-channel model (Figure 3.2). The
four-channel model is based on the following assumptions: (1) “flow” occurs when perceived
challenge and skill are above an individual’s personal average; (2) “anxiety” occurs when
perceived challenge is greater than skill; (3) “boredom” occurs when perceived skills exceeds
challenge; and (4) “apathy” occurs when both perceived challenge and skill are below the
personal average (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988;
Massimini & Carli, 1988) (Figure 3.2).
“Flow” was developed out of the study of autotelic and optimal experiences in the mid1970s. Methodologically, “flow” can be measured using the ESM, a method in which
participants are signaled and asked to complete a survey instrument while involved in an activity.
Respondents fill out questions related to interest level, mood and challenge while participants are
involved in the activity. Additionally, in some studies, survey participant’s fill out the surveys
10-12 times during the course of a day over a one-week period of time (Hektner, Schmidt, &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2007). Following the experience, survey responses are tabulated and analyzed
to determine if “flow” can be measured.
Measuring “flow” and the autotelic experience are notions that methodologically are very
different from other forms of quantitative/qualitative social science research. In, fact the

	
  

48

Single Channel “Flow” Model

Figure 3.1. Single channel “flow” model adapted from Csikszentmihalyi (1975). For
interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the
electronic version of this dissertation.

	
  

49

Four-Channel “Flow” Model

Figure 3.2. The four-channel flow model applied to ESM. The origin for the optimal experience
is the individual average of challenge and skills. Only when an individual is above that point
does flow begin (Adapted from Csikszentmihalyi & Csikzentmihalyi, 1988; Massimini & Carli,
1988).

	
  

50

Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) in itself is unique in that it utilizes survey
questionnaire techniques with additional mixed-mode applications to measure “flow.” The one
caveat to this methodology is that these questionnaires are time dependent. Experience Sampling
Method questionnaires are filled out by respondents that are dependent on the activity being
measured.
Csikszentmihalyi characterized learning at its optimum to be intrinsically based.
Csikszentmihalyi (1975) suggested that optimal learning conditions are found in an environment
where students are motivated to learn because they have an internal desire to understand. This
internal desire is based on the instructional practices that give students the “Drive” to learn (Pink,
2011).
Flow is often reported in the context of physical activities such as hiking (Wöran &
Arnberger, 2012), mountain climbing (Bassi & Delle Fave, 2010; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975),
marathon running (Schüler & Brunner, 2009), walking (Decloe et al., 2009), and kayaking and
rafting (Jones et al., 2000; McIntyre & Roggenbuck, 1998). Additionally, flow has been applied
to athletics (Chavez, 2008; Jackson & Marsh, 1996), academics (Bassi & Delle Fave, 2004), and
comparing work and leisure (Delle Fave & Massimini, 2003). However, gaps in the research
exist that measure “flow” with respect to youth during outdoor recreation hunting experiences.
Motivational research by Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1997) and Lefevre (1988) suggested that
individuals learn better and have a desire to continue what they are doing under conditions where
participants are having “flow” experiences. And this “flow” occurs when the perceived challenge
and skill needed are above an individual’s personal average (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Therefore,
hunting enthusiasts with skill and challenge levels that are above their own average are likely to
achieve a state of “flow” and hence learn and desire to continue hunting. If we can measure

	
  

51

where, when, why, and how youth are exhibiting “flow” within an outdoor recreation context
(e.g., white-tailed deer hunting), we can begin to understand under what conditions youth enjoy
and have intrinsically satisfying experiences in the context of hunting.
“Flow” Literature in the Context of Outdoor Recreation
The range of “flow” literature within the context of outdoor recreation is broad. Research
by McIntyre and Roggenbuck (1998) studied group and family recreation while applying flow
theory. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Jones et al. (2000) applied flow theory from an
individual recreation perspective (kayaking). Finally, Jackson and Marsh (1996) and Decloe et
al. (2009) implemented methodology to determine “flow” based on co-participation and
individual recreational physical activity. In much of the literature with a “flow” and outdoor
recreation theme, the authors cited intrinsic motivation based on situational involvement as a key
determinant of the construct (Wöran & Arnberger, 2012; Decloe et al., 2009; Delle Fave &
Massimini, 2003; Jones et al., 2000; McIntyre and Roggenbuck, 1998; Jackson & Marsh, 1996).
A key component of the ESM approach is the measurement and collection of real-time
data during the course of an activity. Hektner, Schmidt, and Csikszentmihalyi (2007) identified
three signaling schedule strategies to assist in the ESM. The first signaling schedule includes
interval-contingent sampling in which respondents self-report at the same time each day
(Scollon, Kim-Prieto, & Diener, 2003; Hektner et al., 2007). In Event-contingent signaling,
participants are required to self-report based on their schedule in a specific activity (Scollon et
al., 2003; Hektner et al., 2007). Respondents record their perceptions of the activity after the
event has concluded. In this format, respondents are signaled as a way to remind them that
surveys should be completed at an appropriate time when individuals are not actively
participating in an event. Finally, signal-contingent sampling is the most typical ESM approach

	
  

52

(Scollon et al., 2003; Hektner et al., 2007), in which respondents are signaled at random times
throughout the activity (Scollon et al., 2003; Hektner et al., 2007). Once texted or beeped, signalcontingent sampling participants complete the survey as quickly as possible after being signaled.
As part of the data collection process in research by McIntyre and Roggenbuck (1998), a
group of black-water rafting participants were required to stop at specific points along the rafting
adventure and fill out the experience sampling form (ESF) using signal-contingent sampling.
Black-water rafting adventures are defined as white-water rafting inside caves (McIntyre &
Roggenbuck, 1998). The ESF survey asks specific questions about the perceived experience of
an activity. Questions were based on measurements of mood (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987)
and focus of attention (Borrie & Roggenbuck, 1995). At various points along the rafting
adventure, participants were also asked to reflect on their thoughts through journaling as though
they were explaining their adventures to another individual. McIntyre and Roggenbuck (1998)
concluded that in-situ measurements of person-nature transactions were important to
contextualize mood and focus in an effort to better understand personal attributes of outdoor
recreation participants. This and another study by Jones et al. (2000) cited that most outdoor
research occurs post hoc, therefore use of ESM in measuring “flow” poses the potential for
research studies that better inform outdoor recreation agencies about participant interest
(McIntyre and Roggenbuck, 1998). Additionally, several studies have cited that global measures
of “flow” may not be appropriate for research as it typically implies generalizations across larger
populations, whereas “flow” is an measure of individual participants in relation to activities
(Hogarth, Portell, & Cuxart, 2007; McIntyre & Roggenbuck; 1998, Jackson & Marsh, 1996).
Finally, the authors are quick to point out that a major limitation includes the utilization of

	
  

53

college students as research participants and that a larger sample and broader range of
participants would have added to the reliability of the data (McIntyre and Roggenbuck, 1998).
Similar to McIntyre and Roggenbuck (1998), Jones et al. (2000) studied individual
kayakers to investigate various aspects of flow theory. The authors’ methodology included the
utilization of a modified version of the four-channel model developed by Massimini and Carli
(1988) as well as the experience sampling method (ESM), which required individuals to fill out a
brief questionnaire when they were randomly beeped using electronic beeping devices (signalcontingent sampling) within a specified period of time along the river that was being kayaked. In
this research, the kayakers’ state of “flow” was determined as the activity progressed over time.
Jones et al. (2000) suggested that “flow” and “anxiety” states occurred with more frequency than
“boredom” and “apathy.” The authors attributed this to whitewater kayaking experiences that
were perceived by participants as being more challenging at certain stages of the river (Jones et
al., 2000). Jones et al. (2000) also cited that limitations of this research include the low number
of subjects (n=52) and inherently limited statistical analyses.
Ellis et al. (1994) utilized the original flow model (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) and the fourchannel model (Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; and Massimini and Carli, 1988)
to develop and test an eight-channel flow model. The eight channels included: (1) arousal; (2)
flow; (3) control; (4) relaxation; (5) boredom; (6) apathy; (7) worry; and (8) anxiety. According
to the authors, previous eight-channel model research had been successful at quantifying the
challenge-skill ratio (Ellis et al., 1994). The authors utilized a one-way ANOVA to measure
relationships between challenge-skill ratios and measures related to enjoyment and positivity of
affect (Ellis et al., 1994). Ellis et al. (1994) defined positivity of affect as the instrument
questions related to mood in a typical ESM study (e.g., unhappy to happy, not sociable to

	
  

54

sociable). The findings of the study suggested that individual differences are important to explain
the variance in indicators of “flow” (Ellis et al., 1994).
Similar to Ellis et al. (1994), Bassi and Delle Fave (2010) utilized the framework of the
eight-channel model to measure “flow” based on goals of high-altitude climbers. The authors
point out that an advantage to this type of research is the real-time repeated experience sampling
that allowed for the capture of dynamic aspects of the climbers’ daily practices while on the
mountain (Bassi and Delle Fave, 2010). Further, the authors were able to ascertain that goals and
experiences were directly associated to weather conditions during the mountain climbing
experience (Bassi and Delle Fave, 2010). The authors concluded that set goals were strongly
correlated to the “flow” channel. Furthermore, Bassi and Delle Fave (2010) posited that having
goals allowed the participants to have increased optimal experiences (“flow”) through focusing
attention and organization of behavior and intentions during the mountain climbing expedition.
Finally, consistent with other “flow” research, the authors suggested that small sample size was a
major limitation to the statistical analyses used in this study (Bassi and Delle Fave, 2010).
An alternative method to validate “flow” was utilized by Jackson and Marsh (1996). The
authors’ utilized a nine dimension Flow State Scale (FSS) to measure “flow” based on the model
proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (1990). Athletes carried electronic beepers and asked to respond
to FSS survey questions at varying points in the team or individual sports in which they were
participating (Jackson and Marsh, 1996). The nine flow dimensions include: 1) challenge-skill
balance; 2) action-awareness merging; 3) clear goals; 4) unambiguous feedback; 5) concentration
on task at hand; 6) sense of control; 7) loss of self-consciousness; 8) transformation of time; and
9) autotelic or optimal experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, Jackson & Marsh, 1996). This
variant of the FSS was developed to (1) validate prior research both in and out of sport settings;

	
  

55

(2) collect qualitative results from athletes; and (3) measure quantitative characteristics of the
experience. An important limitation to this study highlighted by the authors was the ability to
capture and quantify experiential states of participants. The authors suggested that qualitative
data regarding the “flow” construct may provide richness and complex phenomenological
descriptions of the experience that are critical to understanding intrinsic motivation of athletes
and otherwise cannot be determined through quantitative data collection techniques (Jackson and
Marsh, 1996).
Decloe et al. (2009) conducted research that specifically examined “flow” in both
individual and collaborative situations. Participants utilized a logbook to record activities greater
than 10 minutes in length over a seven-day period of time. Activities were coded based on
recreation, household, job, or transportation endeavors (Decloe et al., 2009). Data for the study
were only utilized if an activity was defined as “recreation” related. The data were then analyzed
based on the participatory context of the activity. Recreation related experiences were coded as
individual, spouse/partner, children, friends, co-workers, other relative, pet, group or club, or
other (Decloe et al., 2009). Consistent with other research, the study by Decloe et al. (2009)
suggested that situational involvement scores were highest during “flow” activities as opposed to
episodes characterized by “anxiety,” “boredom,” and “apathy.” Additionally, Decloe et al.
(2009) and Jones et al. (2000) cited that situational involvement “anxiety” scores were
consistently higher than “boredom,” and “apathy” scores for sample respondents.
Research by Wöran and Arnberger (2012) utilized relationships between recreation
specialization and restorative environments to measure mountain hikers’ “flow” experiences.
According to the authors, the concepts of recreational specialization and restorative
environments were closely related to flow experiences (Wöran & Arnberger, 2012). The authors

	
  

56

attributed these occurrences to restorative qualities of being away, fascination and compatibility,
as well as the hiker’s level of specialization (Wöran & Arnberger; 2012). Wöran and Arnberger
(2012) concluded that understanding of the positive influence of recreation specialization on
“flow” experience would assist hiking managers to address opportunities for recruitment and
marketing efforts.
“Flow” is a complex construct to measure. Much of the mystique and attraction of “flow”
lies in the utilization of various approaches to collect and disseminate data. Jackson and Marsh
(1996) pointed out that “flow” cannot be fully quantified through the ratio of environmental
opportunities for action (challenge) to personal capabilities (skill), but must be approached in
ways that consider both quantitative and qualitative aspects as well as the experience that is
occurring. Csikszentmihalyi (1992) cautioned that to just use empirical data will compromise the
richness and completeness of any study that measures “flow” in experiential situations. Much of
the literature to date has measured “flow” using interval level ESM instrument questioning, yet
report results as a dichotomous feature (e.g., flow or no flow). Thus, an opportunity exists to
measure and report “flow,” and to identifying varying levels of “flow” and the instances under
which they occur.
Satisfaction with the Hunting Experience
Hunter satisfaction literature was developed out of the need to better understand hunter
motivations and perceptions during the decision making process by wildlife and natural
resources professionals (Cornicelli, Fulton, Grund, & Fieberg, 2011; Hammitt, McDonald, &
Patterson, 1990; Langenau & Mellon, 1980; Manfredo, 2004). Hunter satisfaction research by
Langenau and Mellon (1980) cited that, “A dynamic approach requires concentration on the
younger age classes of hunters because these individuals will comprise the hunting population

	
  

57

for the future.” (p. 69) Langenau and Mellon (1980) stated that understanding behaviors of 12- to
18-year-old hunters through surveying of satisfaction of the hunting experience provided
professionals with critical information about the hunt. Langenau and Mellon’s (1980) research
suggested that 43% of youth hunters sampled rated their satisfaction with the hunting experience
as either “very good” or “good.” Additionally, 33% rated the satisfaction of the hunt as “neither
good nor bad.” Young hunters reported that seeing game, getting outdoors, and the challenge and
suspense of seeking game were all major factors in hunter satisfaction (Langenau & Mellon,
1980). In other research using multiple-satisfactions techniques, researchers cited psychological
aspects such as experiencing nature and the outdoors, and social factors such as companionship,
crowding and hunter behaviors as being important (Decker et al., 1980; Hammitt et al., 1990).
Multiple satisfaction approaches recognize the benefits related to not only the hunting and
harvest of animals, but also the psycho-social aspects related to the experience. Although hunting
and harvesting wild game is important, other aspects are potential indicators of a satisfying
hunting experience. Further, stages of the recreational experience: anticipation, planning,
participation and recollection (see Chapter 1; Table 1.2) may be more important to retention of
future hunter than aspects such as shots taken and number of deer harvested (Hammitt et al.,
1990; Langenau & Mellon, 1980).
Hunter recruitment literature has suggested that although the number of young hunters
taking up hunting is keeping pace with the number of individuals leaving hunting through
various forms of attrition, the average age of hunters continues to increase (FHWAR, 2007a).
Additionally, although the number of hunters across the U.S. is currently stable, trends suggest
that this number may decrease over the long-term (Enck et al., 2000). Gaps in the current
literature indicate that there is a lack of research that applies behavioral intention to the context

	
  

58

of youth for the purposes of hunter recruitment. These same gaps also suggest that there is a
great opportunity to inform state agencies, hunters, and non-hunting populations about how
youth experiences during a hunting activity reflect a young person’s perceived feeling, interest,
mood, and intention to continue hunting. Additionally, young hunter satisfaction research has the
potential to be integrated with the theory of “flow” as it relates to youth white-tailed deer
hunters.

	
  

59

CHAPTER 4
METHODS
Measuring “Flow” and the Implications for Hunter Recruitment in Michigan Special
Youth Firearm Deer Hunters
The purpose of this exploratory study was to determine if participation in recreational
hunting activities (i.e. the Michigan Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt) resulted in “flow”
experiences and if those experiences were related to behavioral intentions to continue hunting in
the future. Flow was measured using an interval-scale survey instrument that I developed to
measure involvement with the recreational activity of white-tailed deer hunting.
The study was accomplished by measuring: (1) youth demographic information; (2)
interest level of participants prior to the special firearm white-tailed deer season using the youth
hunting interest survey (Appendix D); (3) “flow” using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM)
instrument (Appendix F); (4) youth experience with nature using a wildlife inventory (Appendix
G); and (5) intention to continue hunting and satisfaction of the hunt in an survey to be filled out
after the “flow” surveys have been completed (Appendix I) (Table 4.1). Additionally, youth
participants were encouraged to journal about their experiences throughout the research study.
This chapter presents the study methods in the following sections: (1) subject selection;
(2) methods and instrumentation; and (3) analytical methods.
Subject Selection
The subjects for this were recruited through several processes. Discussions with MHE
instructors and the researcher occurred at a Natural Resources Commission Meeting on
December 8, 2011, at a Michigan Hunter Education instructor update on April 22, 2012, and at a
statewide Michigan Hunter Education Meeting held from July 13 to 15, 2012. Instructors from

	
  

60

Table 4.1. Survey instruments used in exploratory study.
Survey

When Respondents Take
the Survey

Table of
Contents
Appendix D

Background Survey

The Background Survey
administered at the
participant’s respective
Hunter Education course.

ESM Hunting Survey
or Experience
Sampling Form (ESF)

Youth respondents survey Appendix F
at 12:00 p.m. and 9:00
p.m. on September 22 and
23, 2012.

Wildlife Inventory

Youth
respondents Appendix G
inventory of wildlife while
participating in the special
youth firearm deer hunt on
September 22 and 23,
2012.

Hunting Experience
and Satisfaction
Survey

The
Experience
and Appendix I
Satisfaction survey filled
out immediately following
the last ESM Hunting
Survey.

around Michigan agreed to provide a forum for the researcher to give a presentation and to
petition voluntary youth subjects (with consent permission from parents/guardians) to participate
in this study. Recruitment of subjects for this study occurred at nine Michigan Hunter Education
classes in late July, August and September 2012. Subjects for this study were selected according
the following criteria, including: (1) being a 2012 graduate of a traditional Hunter Education
program; (2) parental consent and youth assent to participate in the study; (3) youth who were
between 12 and 16 years of age; and (4) youth willingness and ability to fill out the ESM surveys
during the 2012 Michigan Special Youth Deer Hunt. The age criterion for this study was based

	
  

61

on youth hunters that could participate in the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer
Hunt using a firearm (September 22 and 23, 2012).
Prospective participants and parent(s) or guardian(s) were invited to participate during
their respective Hunter Education courses. Willing youth and parents read and signed the
consent/assent form prior to starting the Hunter Education class. Additionally, assenting youth
completed the background survey as the first phase of data collection. A goal of 50 subjects was
determined to be appropriate for this study based on previous “flow” studies (Hektner et al.,
2007). However, additional respondents were encouraged to participate in an effort to add
validity and reliability to the study. The size of this purposeful sample was based on an analysis
of literature that suggested ranges of six (Hektner et al., 2007) to 800 participants
(Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003). A recreational-based research study of youth by
Csikszentmihalyi, Larson, and Prescott (1977) utilized a sample of thirty-five participants to
report daily activity and quality of their experiences during a normal week. In this same study,
the sampled youth participants ranged from 13 to 18 years of age.
Due to a desired sample size goal of 50 participants, this exploratory study was
implemented to develop: (1) a basic understanding of topic-related concerns to a given
population where there is a lack of research; (2) opportunities to explore larger studies; or (3)
methodology that is broader in scope (Vaske, 2008). The purposeful sample for this study was
derived from the 9,644 youth hunter’s ages 12 to 16 years-of-age that participated in Michigan
Hunter Education during the fiscal year 2012 (October, 1 2011 through September, 30 2012) (S.
McConeghy, personal communication, January 3, 2013). During the same fiscal year 2012, a
total of 21,759 individuals participated in the certification program (S. McConeghy, personal
communication, January 3, 2013). Of this population, 19,859 (91.4%) were certified using

	
  

62

traditional classroom and field experience, 201 (0.9%) were certified using the web-based course
option and field experience, and 1,669 (7.7%) chose the home study option for certification.
However, previous research suggested that: (1) a large percentage of hunters typically hunt deer
as their choice of wildlife (78%), and (2) over 90% of youth who take hunter safety are certified
by traditional classroom and field study instructional methods (See Chapter 1). Therefore,
although the sample size is small in comparison to other survey research, the sample reflects the
methodology used in this type of study, the way in which youth are currently certified, and the
choice of wildlife that is typically hunted.
Research by Hektner et al. (2007) suggested that participant attrition rates are typically
low (< 10%) in ESM studies across various populations. Additionally, Csikszentmihalyi and
Larson (1987) cited that participation rates in ESM studies where youth are the subjects are as
high as 91%. Research also suggested that if participation attrition does occur it may be due to
lost data booklets in the mail or participants being unable to participate in the activity due to
various constraints, which may be characteristics more attributable to youth (Hektner et al.,
2008).
The background, ESM, and hunting experience and satisfaction instruments were piloted
using: (1) current professionals involved with youth and hunting; and (2) youth that have had
Michigan Hunter Education and have participated in a previous hunting experience (12 to 16
years of age). Piloting this study’s instruments ensured readability, validity, and reliability of
questions asked and that surveys were appropriate for the September youth white-tailed deer
hunt. Pilot testing the study’s instruments provided youth an opportunity answer questions based
on hunting experiences that occurred prior to May and June, 2012.

	
  

63

Two professionals affiliated with Hunter Education and shooting sports were asked to
read through the instruments and provide comments and feedback regarding the content and
format of the instruments for this study. Peggy Ruby, Southern Michigan Hunter Education Field
Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Dale Elshoff, Conservation
Education Specialist and 4-H Shooting Sports Coordinator at Michigan State University
provided comments and feedback on the survey instruments.
In early July 2012, ten youth were asked to complete the three instruments while
reflecting on a prior deer hunting experience. This original 9 to 1 male to female ratio was
originally selected based on current percentages of male to female hunters in Michigan. Of the
nine males and one female youth in this group, six of the males and the one female completed
and returned the surveys (86% male, 14% female). The average age of the pilot participants was
14.7 years (SD = 1.38). Of the ten youth who were asked to participate in the pilot study, seven
completed and returned the surveys. Reliability analyses showed that the “flow” items were
internally consistent (Cronbach’s Alpha (α) = .818). This analysis of reliability is consistent with
the ESM literature (Hektner et al., 2007). One concern during this phase of the study was the
three initial questions asked to participants as identifying features between all instruments.
Although there were no repeated identifiers when participants were asked to write down the first
three letters of their favorite (1) athletic team, (2) subject in school, and (3) food; it was
determined that enough of the study participants could have chosen repeated identifiers in
several of the questions as there are only a finite number of options to choose from. Therefore,
the instrument matching questions were changed to the first three letters of the respondents’
favorite (1) athlete (last name), (2) animal, and (3) food. Additionally, the pilot testing also

	
  

64

provided a variety of written responses that reinforced the usefulness of open-ended questions in
this study.
The sample was selected from graduates of Michigan Hunter Education classes attended
from August 11, 2012 to September 16, 2012. I went to nine Michigan Hunter Education classes
across central and southern Michigan and solicited instructors to present my proposal and
instruments to youth ages 12 to 16 and their parents or guardians. Hunter Education classes
attended to recruit subjects included: the Michigan Outdoor Recreational Safety (Genesee
County); the Livingston County Sportsman’s Club (Livingston County); Compounds and
Crossbows (Eaton County); the Saginaw Field and Stream Club (Saginaw County); the Red Fox
Sportsman’s Club (Hillsdale County); the Grass Lake Sportsman’s Club (Jackson County); the
Ackerson Lake School/Onondaga Sportsman’s Club (Jackson County); Ovid-Elsie High School
(Clinton County); and the Shiawassee Conservation Association (Shiawassee County). Hunter
Education classes ranged in size from 30 participants (Eaton and Livingston Counties) to 128
participants (Hillsdale County) for a total of 574 participants with an average class size of 64
participants among all classes.
In this research, it is important to understand that there are additional concerns related to
data collection with youth. Bruzzese and Fisher (2003), suggested that there is ethical value of
informed assent as youth need to be able to: (1) comprehend the nature of the study; (2)
understand their research rights, including the right to volunteer or withdraw from the study, to
receive and understand information about the study, and have their data remain confidential; and
(3) understand how they can protect themselves from violation of rights. In this study, I sought
parental consent for youth participation and youth assent to participate in the research at the
participant’s respective Michigan Hunter Education course (Appendix I).

	
  

65

Methods and Instrumentation
The Experience Sampling Method (ESM)
This study uses a modified experience sampling method (ESM) to capture individuals’
representations of experience as they occur within the context of everyday life activities (Hektner
et al., 2007). Research suggests that ESM protocol is ideally suited to measure human
dimensions of experience that are context-dependent (i.e. during hunting experiences) and that
the protocol addresses the psychological perceptions of individuals in this context: “How do you
feel right now?” (Hektner et al., 2007).
I utilized an ESM paper-and-pencil survey instrument with respondents. The paper-andpencil form of the survey was chosen over other forms of ESM surveying (i.e. cellular phones or
computer technology) due to reliability challenges. These challenges included inappropriate
signaling and safety considerations during the hunting/recreational experience (Bassi & Delle
Fave, 2010; Decloe et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2000; McIntyre & Roggenbuck, 1998).
Additionally, Hektner et al. (2007) have cited that paper-and-pencil ESM surveys are
inexpensive and convenient for participants. However, the authors also suggested that a
drawback to paper-and-pencil surveys is that respondents must be responsible for keeping track
of an ESM booklet, a signaling device (e.g., pager, cellular phone, or other similar device) and a
writing utensil (Hektner et al., 2007). Due to my study being based on the principle of eventcontingent sampling (taking the survey during or with regard to a specific event), respondents
were only responsible for the booklet and a writing utensil at that specific time that they took the
ESM survey (noon and 9 p.m. on the field experience days). When not filling out ESM surveys,
respondents filled out the youth wildlife inventory portion of the booklet to engage in and
document the experience without creating unsafe conditions or situations that may inhibit the

	
  

66

success of the hunt. An additional potential drawback to the paper-and-pencil survey method was
conversion of the information into a useable electronic format (Hektner et al., 2007). According
to the authors, paper-and-pencil questionnaires should be coded and entered into electronic
format by hand, which introduces the potential for considerable cost, time delay, and risk of
human error (Hektner et al., 2007).
For my study purposes, acquisition of data in this study began at the respondents’
respective Michigan Hunter Education course (Background Survey) and concluded with the twoday Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt on September 22 and 23, 2012
where the ESM survey and Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey was taken.
The ESM hunting survey, wildlife inventory checklist, and hunting experience and
satisfaction surveys were provided in booklet form to respondents. Additionally, parents and
youth were provided with instructions that assisted youth respondents in the properly filling out
of the ESM hunting survey (Appendix F), wildlife inventory (Appendix G) and hunting
experience and satisfaction survey (Appendix I) during and after the Michigan Special Youth
Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt. Based on research by Hektner et al. (2007), experience-samples
should be limited to 1-2 minutes once respondents become proficient at taking the survey.
However, due to the scope of additional questioning and signaling schedule (twice per day) the
ESM survey for my study took less than ten minutes to complete. See Appendix G for a sample
ESM data collection form (ESF) that was used in this research.
A background survey (Appendix D) that is not part of the booklet was used to determine
basic demographic, prior and current hunting experience, and interest characteristics. The
background survey includes dichotomous, categorical and continuous questions that provided

	
  

67

nominal, ordinal and interval level data and framed the research by providing background
information from the respondents who participated in the study.
According to Hektner et al. (2007) there are three options for signaling respondents in
ESM research (Table 4.2). I utilized an event-contingent sampling protocol in which participants
were asked to fill out the ESM survey at noon and again at 9:00 p.m. This survey sampling style
(Event-Contingent) was utilized based on beginning (6:49 to 6:50 a.m.) and ending (8:00 to 7:58
p.m.) hunting times (MDNR, 2011d), in addition to making the survey as unintrusive to the
hunting experience as possible. The noon survey was filled out at lunchtime when deer

Table 4.2. ESM survey signaling protocol definitions and advantages.
Sampling
Style

Definition
(Hektner et al., 2007)

Advantages

IntervalContingent

Most applicable to
situations where
research simplicity is
needed.

EventContingent

Sampling responses to
ESM surveys are based on
a particular event of
interest.

Specific to a particular
event. May be
appropriate for precise
non-generalizable
situations.

SignalContingent

	
  

Sampling procedure
where respondents fill out
the ESM survey based on
pre-determined time
intervals.

Sampling is based on
participants being signaled
at random times over
several days or weeks.

Random sampling
structure.
Advantageous in
situations where
individuals are being
sampled over long
periods of time.

68

movement and hunting is typically at a minimum. The 9:00 p.m. survey time was selected since
hunting hours have ended, and the respondents are likely to be in a setting that is safe and
conducive to filling out the survey. The two times ensured that youth have time to fill out the
ESM hunting survey when it is safe to do so or not disruptive to the hunting experience. Hektner
et al. (2007) cited that one key to the success of an ESM study is striking a balance between
obtaining a representative sample of time intervals from respondents and overburdening or
interrupting participants during potential “flow” experiences.
The experience sampling method can go beyond typical social-psychological research by
assisting in quantifying youth “flow” experiences while white-tailed deer hunting. The remaining
components of this section examine the principles that undergird ESM including the experience
sampling form (ESF), rating-scale, and validity and reliability.
The Experience Sampling Form (ESF)
The experience sampling form (ESF), which is the survey instrument of ESM (Table 3.1),
was designed to include questions that investigate respondents’ internal and external dimensions
of experience as defined by Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1984) (Appendix F). External
dimensions reference the time, date, physical location, activities, and companions. According to
Hektner et al. (2007), referencing the date and time in an ESM structured research project are
important aspects of the external experience. The development of an ESF will provide a means
to examine whether youth have “flow” experiences during recreational hunting (Hektner et al.,
2007).
“Flow” was measured utilizing two types of questions on the ESF. The perceived
challenge and skills of the hunting activity will be used to determine “flow.” Additionally,
“flow” was measured based on whether perceived challenge and skill are above the individual’s

	
  

69

average or not (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Massimini & Carli, 1988). The ESM instrument
for this study includes dichotomous, categorical, continuous and open-ended questions that will
provide nominal, ordinal and interval level data to frame the ESM portion of the research. The
“how you felt” section of the ESM instrument asked participants about the perceived challenge
and skill level during the hunt. These questions are of a 5-point Likert type scale format ranging
from “Not at all” (1) to “Very much” (5). According to Hektner et al. (2007) the challenge and
skill questions in the “how you felt” section of the ESM survey are indicators used to determine
the conditions in which a “flow” experience will most likely occur. The “interest level”
questions will ask individuals to rate their interest while on the hunt. These continuous questions
are in a 5-point Likert type scale format ranging from “Not at all” (1) to “Very much” (5). The
“mood” series of questions is in a Likert 5-Point scale (e.g., Not Happy = 1 to Very Happy = 5).
Jackson and Marsh (1996) and Hektner et al. (2007) suggested using a multi-method
approach to determining “flow” and the optimal experience, therefore qualitative data collection
may provide additional opportunities to triangulate quantitative ESM data. Further, McIntyre and
Roggenbuck (1998) suggested the use of reflective journaling to validate the results of the
interval-contingent survey. The surveys within the youth firearm deer hunting “flow” booklet for
this study contain specific open-ended questions that serve as an opportunity for respondents to
elaborate on their feelings and experiences about their hunting experiences. The open-ended
questions provide youth the opportunity reflect on their hunting experiences. These questions
were used to provide the researcher with additional information to assist in analysis of the data
and provide potential opportunities for future recruitment and retention related surveys.
Rating scale items of ESF are designed to measure concentration or attention, assessment
about the activity, feeling about oneself or others, and the general mood of the participant

	
  

70

(Hektner et al., 2007). Rating scales using ESF are combined with analyses to form composite
measures of interest level, mood and perceived challenge during an event or activity (Appendix
F). Hektner et al. (2007) suggested that it is important to identify desired measureable
components prior to the study in order to provide adequate time to include necessary questions
on the ESF.
The hunting experience and satisfaction survey items assess the intention of participants
to continue hunting after the youth white-tailed deer hunt and satisfaction with their overall
hunting experience (Appendix I). Respondents were asked satisfaction questions about the
hunting experience using a 5-point Likert scale rating system with are range of “very good,”
“good,” “OK,” “poor,” and “very poor” (Langenau & Mellon, 1980). Participants were also
asked dichotomous and categorical questions about their intentions to hunt and types of hunting
that may occur in the future. Finally, youth were asked an open-ended question to explain their
ONE most important reason why or why they will not continue hunting in the future.
Validity
Validity is an important consideration when developing and administering an ESM-based
research study. Groves (1987) defined internal validity as the correlation between a measure and
the true value of the attribute, examined on a set of individuals. Due to ESM’s focus on everyday
life, the method emphasizes external or ecological validity over internal validity (Hektner et al.,
2007). Hektner et al. (2007) defined ecological validity as the ability to ask for surveys to be
filled out as close to or even during (e.g., ESM) the activity being measured. In the case of ESM,
respondent measurements are taken at such a high frequency and under real-life conditions,
which provide for high internal validity during an ESM study, hence high ecological validity.
Hektner et al. (2007) cited that internal validity in ESM is strong due to the frequency at which

	
  

71

the ESF data are collected, which is much greater than a one-time questionnaire. However,
immediacy of answering questions (recall error), tendency to choose responses that are not based
on the actual experience (reflexivity bias), and social desirability of answering a questionnaire
during everyday life occurrences have all been cited as challenges related to internal validity of
ESM surveys (Hektner et. al., 2007).
Recall error is an important component with regard to ESM-based activities (Hicks et al.,
2010). Recall error is caused by participants not being able to recall, or recalling in an inaccurate
way events a day, week, month or later. These errors are caused by variability in emotional state
of respondents, by the length of time after the signal that participants are asked to recall
information, and by the environment within which participants are participating in the ESM
study. Recall error may be a major problem when youth are responding to ESM surveys during
hunting experiences. Additionally, to minimize the potential for individual response bias errors,
the literature suggests the use z-scores of challenge and skills constructs in ESM studies
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Massimini & Carli, 1988).
Reflexivity bias is also an integral component of internal validity (Hektner et al., 2007).
Reflexivity bias refers to a respondent’s ability to be able to discern the purpose of the research,
hence modifying answers to reflect a bias to the study being conducted. By signaling respondents
many times during a sampling day or activity to fill out the ESM, reflexivity bias will be
minimized within a research project. Reflexivity bias is not an implication of this study as youth
participant hunting success and safety are not direct factors related to hunting success.
Situational validity is a form of external validity within ESM. Situational validity is
defined as the ability to examine the construct related to internal logic in an effort to report on
the convergence of time, context and activity when contextualizing ESM (Hektner et al., 2007).

	
  

72

Research suggests that situational validity is typical for ESM activities (Csikszentmihalyi &
Larson, 1984; Hektner et al., 2007). Situational validity may be a concern if, in the case of
hunting, one would typically be in a relaxed state while participating in the activity where the
behavior is considered “normal.” If the participant is consistently exhibiting behavior that is not
considered being in a state of boredom, this may imply that situational validity is be
compromised in the research.
Ecological validity is the opposite of external validity. The two constructs can be thought
of as the inverse of one another. External validity ensures that results are generalizable in
specific instances, whereas ecological validity ensures that generalized results hold up in specific
instances (Hektner et al., 2007).
Use of paper-and-pencil devices for the purposes of my study of “flow” in Michigan
youth deer hunters will inherently minimize the potential for internal validity issues. By
providing paper-and-pencil survey instruments to respondents, I can provide a means for quick
response at the time when the survey should be completed. An additional goal of the ESM
framework for this study is to minimize intrusiveness in the lives of respondents. Minimizing
this intrusiveness will inherently provide as normal a situation as possible while collecting ESM
data.
Reliability
One of the major implications to consider in relation to reliability is with respect to
accuracy of reporting (Hektner et al., 2007). Reactivity relates to the ability for participants to
respond to and fill out the ESM survey as soon after the interval-, event- or signal-contingent
request occurs. Study participants who respond to an ESM signal in a timely manner are more
likely to provide accurate data for the research. The slower the response time in relation to when

	
  

73

the participant was signaled, the less accurate the data might become. Additionally, participants
may alter their daily or weekly activities in an effort to anticipate signaling during an ESM event.
For this study, I expect respondents to fill out the ESM survey as quickly as near as possible to
the denoted time during the hunt, while adhering to the various safety aspects related to using a
firearm in a hunting situation.
In ESM, reliability takes on two distinct pathways. ESM research can be either a
collection of participants or activities that are experienced (Hektner et al., 2007). Many of the
same concerns that traditional research shares regarding reliability are also a concern with ESM
research. One particular concern highlighted by Zuzanek (1999) is the attempt to move away
from purposive sampling to a representative sampling structure indicative of more traditional
research. Although this is an important consideration for our study, the goal is to measure youth
during the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt in September of 2012.
Therefore a finite purposeful sample that is specific to Michigan youth deer hunters was used for
data collection.
It is also important to underscore that response rates in ESM are deceiving. Response
rates in a traditional survey are based on the response to a one-time questionnaire, whereas
response rates in an ESM research study are based on the proportion of recruits in a study that
agree to participate with respect to the signal response rate and proportion of signals in which
responses are completed (Hektner et al., 2007). According to Hektner et al. (2007), self-selection
bias is important and must be examined prior to data acquisition. Hektner et al. (2007) also
suggested that researchers conducting ESM studies might find value in requiring respondents to
supplement the ESF with a daily or weekly reflective journal.

	
  

74

Measurement of internal consistency is achieved through calculation of Cronbach’s
alpha. However in the case of ESM construct reliability, Cronbach’s alpha is calculated based on
average responses of several highly intercorrelated constructs (Hektner et al., 2007). Eid and
Diener (1999) found that measurement of internal emotional states have reliability coefficients
ranging from .69 to .91. In the case of ESM, reliability risks are minimized due to multiple
signaling answers coming from a single item on the research instrument.
Analytical Methods
Analytical procedures of ESM research range from basic descriptive statistics to complex
multivariate procedures (Hektner et al., 2007). However, research by Kimiciek and Stein (1992)
suggested that basic statistical procedures (descriptive analysis and univariate tests-ANOVA) are
preferred to multivariate procedures in ESM studies.
For the purposes of assessing four-channel “flow” model data, youth “flow” survey
responses will be converted to z-scores to control for individual response bias. Challenge-skill
survey questions will be used to determine channels (flow, anxiety, boredom, and apathy) within
the four-channel model (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Determining flow and non-flow in the original
model required a literal match of challenge-skill data. Conversely, the four-channel model of
“flow” was used to measure the balance of z-scores for challenge-skills (see Figure 3.2).
The four-channels (“anxiety,” “apathy,” “boredom,” and “flow”) are categorized into
interval variables that measure the level of challenge and skill (see Figure 3.2), as well as
associated indicators of interest and mood (Appendix F). Perceived challenge and skill are
represented by the instrument questions, “How challenging was it?” and “How skilled are you at
it?” and measured with 5-point Likert-type response options.

	
  

75

For the purposes of measuring the four-channel model, the intersection of the four
constructs (“anxiety,” “apathy,” “boredom,” and “flow”) is the calculation of an individual’s
perceived average challenge and skill during the course of the activity (Csikszentmihalyi et al.,
1993; Massimini and Carli, 1988). Using individual challenge and skill ratings for each of the
hunting events (Saturday AM through Sunday PM): (1) “boredom” is observed when an
individuals perceived skill exceeds challenge; (2) “anxiety” is observed when perceived
challenge exceeds skill; (3) “apathy” is observed when both measures are below the individuals
average; and (4) “flow” is observed when both challenge and skill are above the individuals
average over the entire hunt. In this study “flow” is measured by the quotient of challenge to skill
levels perceived by respondents in the ESM Survey Questions 21 and 23 (Appendix F). Average
challenge and skill levels among respondents are calculated as the intersection of the four
constructs in determining whether “flow” is occurring or not and at what level (boredom,
anxiety, apathy, and flow).
The first hypothesis was informed by flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) through the
measurement of various levels of the “flow” construct during the hunt using the four-channel
“flow” model (Massimini & Carli, 1988). Hypothesis 1 (Ho1 and H1) was addressed by analysis
of descriptive statistics from the youth hunting interest survey (Appendix D) and a 1-way
ANOVA (F test statistic) on the youth firearm deer hunting “flow” survey data (Appendix F).
According to previous research the four-channel model of “flow” is typically addressed by oneway ANOVA analysis (Ellis et al., 1994; Jones et al., 2000; Massimini & Carli, 1988; Stein,
Kimiciek, Daniels, & Jackson, 1995). Additionally, a Post-hoc comparison using a modified
Fisher’s LSD (Bonferroni) correction will be utilized to keep p-values (α) at desired levels
(α=.05, α=.01, α=.001) (Vaske, 2008). Post-hoc comparison provides an opportunity to discover

	
  

76

previously undetected patterns that were not discovered using a priori statistical procedures.
Independent measures for hypothesis 1 (H1) include an ordinal variable that is categorized
utilizing the four-channel model (“anxiety,” “apathy,” “boredom,” and “flow”), based on ratio of
the challenge and skill constructs. Dependent variables for hypothesis 1 (H1) include measures
adapted from Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975, 1990) elements of flow and flow indicators cited and
adapted based on Jackson and Marsh (1996) and Jones et al. (2000). The dependent measures for
hypothesis 1 are based on interval questions related to constructs of how the participant felt, their
mood and perceived interest level (ESM Survey Questions 21 to 43, Appendix F) during the
hunting activity.
The second hypothesis was informed by flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) in the
context of a youth white-tailed deer hunting experience relative to the four-channels (anxiety,
apathy, boredom, and “flow”) of the flow model adapted by Massimini and Carli (1988).
Hypothesis 2 (Ho2 and H2) was addressed using a Chi-Square Test of Association (χ2 test
statistic) and crosstabs procedure to compare the percentages of experiences within each channel
(anxiety, apathy, boredom, and “flow”) to ordinal and interval questions related to hearing,
seeing, shooting at, and harvesting white-tailed deer (Appendix F). Independent measures for
hypothesis 2 (H2) include an interval variable that is categorized utilizing the four-channel
model (anxiety, apathy, boredom, and “flow”). Dependent variables for hypothesis 2 (H2)
include measures related to hearing, seeing, shooting at, and harvesting deer during the hunting
activity (ESM Survey Questions 10 to 18, Appendix F).
The third hypothesis examines if participants that achieve different levels of “flow”
during youth firearm deer hunting experiences intend to continue hunting. Hypothesis 3 (Ho3
and H3) will utilize a discriminant analysis (F test statistic) to compare respondents that exhibit

	
  

77

various levels of “flow” and categorical (ordinal) questions (ESM Survey Questions 14 to 22)
related to youth intentions to hunt (Appendix I). The independent or grouping variable for
hypothesis 3 (H3) included an interval variable that is categorized utilizing the four-channel
model (anxiety, apathy, boredom, and “flow”). Dependent measures for hypothesis 3 (H3)
include measures related to hunting participation (ESM Survey Questions 4 to 18, Appendix F),
rating of the hunting experience (HE Survey Questions 4 to 13, Appendix I), and intention to
continue hunting in the future (HE Survey Questions 14 to 22, Appendix I). The goals of
utilizing a discriminant analysis in hypothesis 3 were to: (1) categorize respondents into
appropriate groups using a discriminant prediction equation; (2) measure the relative importance
of the “flow” (independent) variables in classifying dependent variables; and (3) determine the
percent of variance in the dependent variables explained by the “flow” variables (Vaske, 2008).
The discriminant analysis involves: (1) determining significance using the F test (Wilks’
lambda), and (2) if the F test is significant, the “flow” variables are calculated to determine their
relative impact to classify the levels of dependent variables (Vaske, 2010). For this study the
equation that describes the discriminant function is:

Di = di1Z1 + di2Z2 + di3Z3 + di3Z3 + dipZp
Where:
Di = the score on the functions of “flow”
d = weighting coefficients, and
Z = the standardized values of the p discriminating variables used in the analysis

	
  

78

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
The purpose of this exploratory study was to determine if participation in recreational
hunting activities (i.e. the Michigan Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt) resulted in “flow”
experiences and if those experiences were related to behavioral intentions to continue hunting in
the future.
Three objectives were addressed in this exploratory study. First, could varying levels of
“flow” be quantified during the youth white-tailed deer hunting experience? Second, were these
“flow” experiences related to hearing, seeing, shooting at, and harvesting a deer? And finally,
were these “flow” experiences related to a young hunters level of participation and experience
during the hunt, and intention to hunt in the future?
This chapter will review the results of this exploratory study using the following
subheadings: (1) Survey Response; (2) Initial Background Survey Descriptive Statistics; (3)
Completed Background Survey Descriptive Statistics; (4) ESM Hunting Survey Descriptive
Statistics; (5) Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey Descriptive Statistics; (6)
Relationship Between Channels and Indicators of Flow; (7) Frequency of Channels Among
Hunting Experiences; and (8) Intention to Continue Hunting as a Function of Flow.
Survey Response
Of the original, 182 distributed Background Surveys and Packets (ESM Hunting Surveys
and Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey), 98 Background Surveys were returned (53.8%
of packet recipients) (Figure 5.1). Of the 98 initial respondents, 52.0% (51) of the Background
Survey participants returned their ESM Hunting Surveys and Hunting Experience and
Satisfaction Surveys. Of these 51 respondents, 43 (43.9%) were determined to be complete. A

	
  

79

survey was determined to be complete if the following were completed and returned to the
researcher: (1) Initial Background Survey; (2) a minimum of one of four ESM Hunting Surveys;
and (3) the Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey.

	
  

80

Participation and Response Rates of Youth During the ESM Hunting Experience Study

Figure 5.1. Participation and response rates of youth respondents (ages 12 to 16) during the ESM
Hunting Experience Study.
	
  

81

Background Survey (Initial Participants)
Of the 98 respondents who originally agreed to participate in this study, participants
ranged from 12 to 16 years of age (Table 5.1). Of the initial respondents that filled out the
Background Survey, 72 (73.5%) were male and 26 (26.5%) were female. The average age of the
98 initial respondents was 12.61 (SD – 0.99).

Table 5.1. Distribution of youth respondents who participated in the Background Survey (n=98).
Age of
Participants

Total
#

%

Males
#

%

Females
#

%

12

58

59.1

42

58.3

16

61.6

13

27

27.6

22

30.6

5

19.2

14

6

6.1

4

5.6

2

7.7

15

5

5.1

3

4.2

2

7.7

16

2

2.1

1

1.3

1

3.8

Total

98

100.0

72

100.0

26

100.0

Of the initial participants in the Background Survey 55 of 98 (56.1%) respondents
indicated that they had hunted with a firearm prior to taking Michigan Hunter Education (MHE).
Male respondents accounted for 46 of the 55 (83.6%) participants who had hunting experience
prior to taking their MHE course. Of the respondents who indicated that they had hunted prior to
taking their MHE course, 50 of 55 (91.0%) indicated that they had hunted with their dad (Table
5.2). Of the 50 who indicated having previous experience hunting with their dad, 41 of 46
(89.1%) were male and 9 of 9 (100.0%) were female (Table 5.2).

	
  

82

Table 5.2. Distribution of respondents (youth white-tailed deer hunters) who hunted with family
and friends prior to the study (n=55).
Previous Hunting
Partners
Total # (%)
(n=55)

Males # (%)
(n=46)

Mom

4 (7.3)

4 (8.7)

Dad

50 (91.0)

41 (89.1)

Brother

2 (3.6)

2 (4.3)

0

(0.0)

Sister

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

10 (18.2)

10 (21.7)

0

(0.0)

Aunt

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Uncle

4 (7.3)

4 (8.7)

0

(0.0)

Cousin

1 (1.8)

1 (2.2)

0

(0.0)

Friend

2 (3.6)

2 (4.3)

0

(0.0)

Neighbor

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Grandparent

Total
55
46
Note. Youth respondents could select multiple categories.

Females # (%)
(n=9)
0

(0.0)

9 (100.0)

9

Initial Background Survey results indicated that 27 of 98 (27.6%) respondents
participated in Michigan’s Apprentice Hunting License program prior to their MHE course. Of
the 27 respondents who participated in the apprentice hunting license program, 21 of 27 (77.8%)
were males. Finally, 3 of 98 (3.1%) indicated that they were unsure whether they hunted under
the Apprentice Hunting License program prior to taking their Hunter Education course.

	
  

83

From the original number of 98 respondents, 84 (85.7%) youth indicated that they had
gone hunting before they were able to shoot (Table 5.3). Of the youth respondents, 74 (88.0%)
indicated that they had hunting experiences with their dad before they could shoot, 23 (27.4%)
with a grandparent before they could shoot, and 18 (21.4%) had previous hunting experiences
with an uncle when they could not shoot more than any other adult (Table 5.3). Additionally,
distributions of previous hunting partners were similar between males, females, and total youth
hunters (Table 5.3)
In the initial Background Survey during this study, 47 of 96 (49.0%) youth indicated that
their best friend hunted, whereas 37 of 96 (38.5%) of respondents indicated that their best friend
did not hunt. Males represented 42 of 47 (89.4%) respondents that indicated that their best friend
hunted. Females represented 5 of 47 (10.6%) respondents that indicated that their best friend
hunted. Of the youth respondents to the initial survey, 12.5% indicated that they did not know
whether their best friend hunted or not.
In the initial sample of 98 respondents, 81 of 98 (82.6%) youth participants indicated that
they had watched a TV show, DVD or video about deer hunting in the last year (Table 5.4). Of
those who had watched deer hunting TV shows, 59 of 81 (72.8%) were males and 22 (27.2%)
were females. Among youth who watched deer hunting shows, 50 of 81 (61.7%) watched for less
than 1 hour per week.
In the initial sample of 98 respondents, 78 of 98 (79.6%) youth participants indicated that
they had played a video game about deer hunting in the last year (Table 5.5). In the initial sample
of 78 youth participants that gamed about deer hunting, 61 (78.2%) were males and 17 (21.8%)
were females. Of the respondents in the initial Background Survey sample that played video
games, 46 of 78 (59.0%) played these games for less than 1 hour per week.

	
  

84

Table 5.3. Distribution of youth white-tailed deer hunters who hunted with family and friends
prior to being able to shoot (n=84).
Previous Hunting
Partners
Total # (%)
(n=84)

Males # (%)
(n=63)

Mom

9 (10.7)

7 (11.1)

Dad

74 (88.0)

55 (87.3)

Brother

3 (3.6)

2 (3.2)

1

(4.8)

Sister

4 (4.8)

3 (4.8)

1

(4.8)

23 (27.4)

19 (30.2)

Aunt

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Uncle

18 (21.4)

17 (27.0)

1

(4.8)

Cousin

6 (7.1)

5 (7.9)

1

(4.8)

Friend

6 (7.1)

5 (7.9)

1

(4.8)

Neighbor

2 (2.4)

1 (1.6)

1

(4.8)

Grandparent

Total
84
63
Note. Youth respondents could select multiple categories.

	
  

85

Females # (%)
(n=21)
2

(9.5)

19 (90.2)

4 (19.0)

21

Table 5.4. Initial background survey of youth hunters who watched a TV show, DVD, or
video about deer hunting within the last year (n=81)
Time spent
watching a TV,
DVD, or Video
about deer hunting
(hours/week)

Total # (%)
(n=81)

Males # (%)
(n=59)

Females # (%)
(n=22)

<1

50 (61.7)

35 (59.3)

15 (68.2)

1-2

23 (28.4)

16 (27.1)

7 (31.8)

2-3

(2.5)

2

(3.4)

0

(0.0)

3-4

2

(2.5)

2

(3.4)

0

(0.0)

>4
Total

2

4

(4.9)

4

(6.8)

0

(0.0)

81 (100.0)

59 (100.0)

22 (100.0)

Youth were asked to rate their participation in outdoor activities using the Background
Survey in an effort to provide baseline information about enjoyment of their prior experiences
(Tables 5.6 to 5.14). For all activities, 61.2% indicated that they “Really Enjoyed” being in the
outdoors (Table 5.6), 39.8% indicated that they “Really Enjoyed” watching wildlife (Table 5.7),
70.8% of youth respondents “Really Enjoyed” hunting (Table 5.8), 58.2% of youth “Really
Enjoyed” fishing (Table 5.9), 26.3% of youth respondents “Really Enjoyed” hiking (Table 5.10),
56.1% of youth respondents “Really Enjoyed” camping (Table 5.11), 62.3% indicated that they
“really enjoyed” shooting sports (Table 5.12), and 66.3% of youth respondents “Really Enjoyed”
sports (Table 5.13). Only 31.7% of youth participants indicated that they “Really Enjoyed”
gaming and 10.2% indicated that they “Don’t Enjoy” gaming at all (Table 5.14).

	
  

86

Table 5.5. Initial background survey of youth hunters who played video games about deer
hunting within the last year (n=78).
Time spent playing
video games about
deer hunting
(hours/week)

Total # (%)
(n=78)

Males (%)
(n=61)

Females (%)
(n=17)

<1

46 (59.0)

34 (55.7)

12 (70.6)

1-2

13 (16.7)

12 (19.7)

1

(5.9)

2-3

11 (14.1)

10 (16.4)

1

(5.9)

3-4

3 (3.8)

2

(3.3)

1

(5.9)

>4

5 (6.4)

3

(4.9)

2 (11.7)

61 (100.0)

17 (100.0)

Total

78 (100.0)

Table 5.6. Enjoyment of being in the outdoors to youth respondents to the initial Background
Survey data (n=98).
Being in the
Outdoors

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2

2 (2.1)

1 (1.4)

1

(3.8)

3

12 (12.2)

8 (11.1)

4 (15.4)

4

24 (24.5)

18 (25.0)

6 (23.1)

5 – Really Enjoy

60 (61.2)

45 (62.5)

15 (57.7)

98

72

26

4.45
(0.79)

4.49
(0.75)

4.35
(0.89)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

87

Females # (%)

Table 5.7. Enjoyment of Watching Wildlife to youth respondents in the initial Background
Survey data (n=98).
Watching Wildlife

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

1 (1.0)

1 (1.4)

0

(0.0)

2

9 (9.2)

7 (9.7)

2

(7.7)

3

19 (19.4)

15 (20.8)

4 (15.4)

4

30 (30.6)

17 (23.7)

13 (50.0)

5 – Really Enjoy

39 (39.8)

32 (44.4)

7 (26.9)

98

72

26

3.99
(1.03)

4.00
(1.10)

3.96
(0.87)

Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

Table 5.8. Enjoyment of Hunting to youth respondents in the initial Background Survey data
(n=96). Two youth did not respond to the question.
Hunting

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

10 (10.4)

5 (7.0)

5 (20.0)

4

18 (18.8)

12 (16.9)

6 (24.0)

5 – Really Enjoy

68 (70.8)

54 (76.1)

14 (56.0)

96

71

25

4.60
(0.67)

4.70
(0.60)

4.36
(0.81)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

88

Females # (%)

Table 5.9. Enjoyment of Fishing to youth respondents in the initial Background Survey data
(n=98).
Fishing

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

2 (2.0)

1 (1.4)

1

(3.8)

2

4 (4.1)

4 (5.6)

0

(0.0)

3

13 (13.3)

8 (11.1)

5 (19.3)

4

22 (22.4)

15 (20.8)

7 (26.9)

5 – Really Enjoy

57 (58.2)

44 (61.1)

13 (50.0)

98

72

26

4.31
(0.99)

4.35
(0.99)

4.19
(1.02)

Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

Table 5.10. Enjoyment of Hiking to youth respondents in the initial Background Survey data
(n=95). Three youth did not respond to the question.
Hiking

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

11 (11.6)

8 (11.4)

3 (12.0)

2

11 (11.6)

8 (11.4)

3 (12.0)

3

25 (26.3)

20 (28.6)

5 (20.0)

4

23 (24.2)

15 (21.4)

8 (32.0)

5 – Really Enjoy

25 (26.3)

19 (27.2)

6 (24.0)

95

70

25

3.39
(1.35)

3.36
(1.73)

3.44
(1.33)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

89

Table 5.11. Enjoyment of Camping to youth respondents in the initial Background Survey data
(n=98).
Camping

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

1 (1.0)

1 (1.4)

0

(0.0)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

18 (18.4)

11 (15.2)

7 (26.9)

4

24 (24.5)

22 (30.6)

2

5 – Really Enjoy

55 (56.1)

38 (52.8)

17 (65.4)

98

72

26

4.35
(0.85)

4.34
(0.84)

4.38
(0.99)

Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

(7.7)

Table 5.12. Enjoyment of Shooting Sports to youth respondents in the initial Background Survey
data (n=98).
Shooting Sports

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

2 (2.0)

1 (1.4)

1

(3.8)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

12 (12.2)

10 (13.9)

2

(7.7)

4

23 (23.5)

14 (19.4)

9 (34.7)

5 – Really Enjoy

61 (62.3)

47 (65.3)

14 (53.8)

98

72

26

4.44
(0.86)

4.49
(0.83)

4.35
(0.94)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

90

Females # (%)

Table 5.13. Enjoyment of Sports to youth respondents in the initial Background Survey data
(n=98).
Sports

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

1 (1.0)

0 (0.0)

1

(3.8)

2

4 (4.1)

4 (5.6)

0

(0.0)

3

12 (12.3)

9 (12.4)

3 (11.5)

4

16 (16.3)

10 (13.9)

6 (23.2)

5 – Really Enjoy

65 (66.3)

49 (68.1)

16 (61.5)

98

72

26

4.43
(0.93)

4.46
(0.91)

4.38
(0.98)

Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

Table 5.14. Enjoyment of Gaming to youth respondents in the initial Background Survey data
(n=98).
Gaming

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

10 (10.2)

7 (9.7)

3 (11.5)

2

10 (10.2)

8 (11.1)

2

3

26 (26.5)

18 (25.0)

8 (30.8)

4

21 (21.4)

17 (23.6)

4 (15.4)

5 – Really Enjoy

31 (31.7)

22 (30.6)

9 (34.6)

98

72

26

3.56
(1.31)

3.56
(1.30)

3.54
(1.36)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

91

(7.7)

Background Survey (Participants That Completed All Surveys)
Of the 43 respondents who completed the Background Survey, at least one ESM Hunting
Survey, and the Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey, 35 (81.4%) were male and 8
(18.6%) were female (Table 5.15). The average age of the 43 respondents was 12.81 (SD – 1.07).
Of the participants who completed all surveys for the study, 38 of 43 (88.4%)
respondents indicated that they had hunted with a firearm prior to taking the Michigan Hunter
Education course. Male respondents made up 33 of the 38 (86.8%) participants who had hunting
experience prior to taking their MHE course. Of the respondents who indicated that they had
hunted prior to taking their MHE course, 30 of 38 (78.9%) indicated that they had hunted with
their dad, including 100.0% of female respondents (Table 5.16).

Table 5.15. Distribution of youth white-tailed deer hunters who participated and completed the
Background Survey, at least one ESM Hunting Survey, and the Hunting Experience and
Satisfaction Survey (n=43).
Age of
Participants

%

Males
#

%

Females
#

%

12

21

48.8

16

45.7

5

62.5

13

15

34.8

12

34.3

3

37.5

14

3

7.0

3

8.6

0

0.0

15

2

4.7

2

5.7

0

0.0

16

2

4.7

2

5.7

0

0.0

Total

	
  

Total
#

43

100.0

35

100.0

8

100.0

92

Table 5.16. Distribution of youth white-tailed deer hunters who hunted with family and friends
prior to the research study and completed all survey aspects of the study (n=38).
Previous Hunting
Partners
Total # (%)
(n=38)

Males # (%)
(n=33)

Mom

1 (2.6)

1 (3.0)

Dad

30 (78.9)

25 (75.8)

Brother

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Sister

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Grandparent

5 (13.2)

5 (15.2)

0

(0.0)

Aunt

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Uncle

2 (5.3)

2 (6.1)

0

(0.0)

Cousin

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Friend

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Neighbor

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Total
38
33
Note. Youth respondents could select multiple categories.

Females # (%)
(n=5)
0

(0.0)

5 (100.0)

5

Background Survey results indicated that 14 of 43 (32.6%) of respondents participated in
Michigan’s Apprentice Hunting License program prior to their MHE course. Of the 14
respondents who participated in the Apprentice Hunting License program, 12 of 14 (85.7%) were
male. Finally, 1 of 43 (2.3%) indicated that they were unsure whether they had hunted under the
Michigan Apprentice Hunting License program prior to taking their Hunter Education course.
From the final sample of 43 respondents, 38 (88.4%) youth indicated that they had gone
hunting before they were able to shoot (Table 5.17). Youth participants also indicated that 34 of
	
  

93

38 (89.5%) had hunting experiences where they could not shoot with dad, 9 of 43 (23.7%) had
hunting experiences where they could not shoot with a grandparent and 7 of 43 (18.4%) had
previous hunting experiences where they could not shoot with an uncle (Table 5.17) more than
any other adult. Male (87.9%) and female (100.0%) youth respondents were more likely to hunt
with dad than any other hunting partner within the survey.

Table 5.17. Distribution of youth white-tailed deer hunters who hunted with family and friends
prior to being able to shoot and that completed all survey aspects of the study (n=38).
Previous Hunting
Partners

Total # (%)
(n=38)

Males # (%)
(n=33)

Females # (%)
(n=5)

Mom

4 (10.5)

3 (9.1)

1 (20.0)

Dad

34 (89.5)

29 (87.9)

5 (100.0)

Brother

1 (2.6)

0 (0.0)

1 (20.0)

Sister

1 (2.6)

1 (3.0)

0

Grandparent

9 (23.7)

8 (24.2)

1 (20.0)

Aunt

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Uncle

7 (18.4)

7 (21.2)

0

(0.0)

Cousin

2 (5.3)

1 (3.0)

1 (20.0)

Friend

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Neighbor

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Total
38
33
Note. Youth respondents could select multiple categories.

	
  

94

(0.0)

5

Of the Background Survey where youth participated in all aspects of the study, 23 of 42
(54.8%) youth participants indicated that their best friend hunted. One youth participant did not
respond to this question. Males represented 21 of 23 (91.3%) respondents that indicated that their
best friend hunted and females represented 2 of 23 (8.7%) respondents. Additionally, 3 of 42
(7.1%) indicated that they were unsure whether their best friend hunted or not. The remaining
participants in this study indicated that their best friend did not hunt.
In the purposeful sample of 43 respondents, 34 of 43 (79.1%) youth participants indicated
that they had watched a TV show, DVD or video about deer hunting in the last year (Table 5.18).
Of the 34 youth participants that watched deer hunting TV shows, 27 of 34 (79.4%) were males
and 7 (20.6%) were females. Of the respondents in the sample that watched deer hunting shows,
21 of 34 (61.8%) watched for less than 1 hour per week (Table 5.18).

Table 5.18. Youth hunters who watched a TV show, DVD, or video about deer hunting within
the last year (n=34) and completed all aspects of the study.
Time spent watching a
TV, DVD, or Video
about deer hunting
(hours/week)

Total # (%)
(n=34)

Males # (%)
(n=27)

Females # (%)
(n=7)

<1

21 (61.8)

17 (63.0)

4 (57.1)

1-2

10 (29.4)

7 (25.9)

3 (42.9)

2-3

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

1

(2.9)

1

(3.7)

0

(0.0)

>4

	
  

(0.0)

3-4

Total

0

2

(5.9)

2

(7.4)

0

(0.0)

34 (100.0)

95

27 (100.0)

7 (100.0)

In the sample of 43 respondents, 34 of 43 (79.1%) of youth participants indicated that
they had played a video game about deer hunting in the last year (Table 5.19). In the initial
sample of 34 youth participants that gamed about deer hunting, 29 (85.3%) were males and 5
(14.7%) were females. Of the respondents in the initial Background Survey sample that played
video games, 21 of 34 (61.8%) played these games for less than 1 hour per week.

Table 5.19. Youth hunters who played video games about deer hunting within the last year
(n=34) and completed all aspects of the study.
Time spent playing
video games about deer
hunting (hours/week)
<1

Total # (%)
(n=34)

Males # (%)
(n=29)

Females # (%)
(n=5)

21 (61.8)

18 (62.2)

3 (60.0)

1-2

(8.9)

3 (10.3)

0

2-3

7 (20.6)

6 (20.7)

1 (20.0)

3-4

2

(5.9)

1

(3.4)

1 (20.0)

>4
Total

3

1

(2.8)

1

(3.4)

0

34 (100.0)

29 (100.0)

(0.0)

(0.0)

5 (100.0)

Outdoor activities were rated by the 43 youth participants using the Background Survey
in an effort to provide baseline information about enjoyment of their prior experiences (Tables
5.20 to 5.28). For all activities, 67.4% indicated that they “Really Enjoyed” being in the outdoors
(Table 5.20), 44.2% indicated that they “Really Enjoyed” watching wildlife (Table 5.21), 74.4%
of youth respondents “Really Enjoyed” hunting (Table 5.22), 55.8% indicated that they “Really
Enjoyed” fishing (Table 5.23), 30.2% indicated that they “Really Enjoyed” hiking (Table 5.24),

	
  

96

60.5% indicated that they “Really Enjoyed” camping (Table 5.25), 62.8% indicated that they
“Really Enjoyed” shooting sports (Table 5.26), and 58.1% indicated that they “Really Enjoyed”
sports (Table 5.27). Only 25.6% of youth participants indicated that they “Really Enjoyed”
gaming and 14.0% indicated that they “Don’t Enjoy” gaming at all (Table 5.28).

Table 5.20. Enjoyment of being in the outdoors to youth respondents in the Background Survey
data from those youth who completed all aspects of the study (n=43).
Being in the
Outdoors

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

2

1 (2.3)

0 (0.0)

1 (11.1)

3

6 (14.0)

5 (14.7)

1 (11.1)

4

7 (16.3)

7 (20.6)

0

29 (67.4)

22 (64.7)

7 (77.8)

43

34

9

4.49
(0.83)

4.50
(0.75)

4.44
(1.13)

5 – Really Enjoy
Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

97

Females # (%)
(0.0)

(0.0)

Table 5.21. Enjoyment of watching wildlife to youth respondents in the Background Survey data
from those youth who completed all aspects of the study (n=43).
Watching Wildlife

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

1 (2.3)

1 (2.9)

0

(0.0)

2

2 (4.7)

2 (5.9)

0

(0.0)

3

4 (9.3)

4 (11.8)

0

(0.0)

4

17 (39.5)

11 (32.3)

6 (66.7)

5 – Really Enjoy

19 (44.2)

16 (47.1)

3 (33.3)

43

34

9

4.19
(0.96)

4.15
(1.13)

4.33
(0.50)

Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

Table 5.22. Enjoyment of hunting to youth respondents in the Background Survey data from
those youth who completed all aspects of the study (n=43).
Hunting

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

4 (9.3)

3 (8.9)

1 (11.1)

4

7 (16.3)

6 (17.6)

1 (11.1)

32 (74.4)

25 (73.5)

7 (77.8)

43

34

9

4.65
(0.65)

4.65
(0.65)

4.67
(0.71)

5 – Really Enjoy
Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

98

Females # (%)

Table 5.23. Enjoyment of fishing to youth respondents in the Background Survey data from
those youth who completed all aspects of the study (n=43).
Fishing

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2

3 (7.0)

3 (8.8)

0

(0.0)

3

8 (18.6)

6 (17.7)

2 (22.2)

4

8 (18.6)

7 (20.6)

1 (11.1)

24 (55.8)

18 (52.9)

6 (66.7)

43

34

9

4.23
(1.00)

4.18
(1.03)

4.44
(0.88)

5 – Really Enjoy
Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

Table 5.24. Enjoyment of hiking to youth respondents in the Background Survey data from those
youth who completed all aspects of the study (n=43).
Hiking

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

4 (9.3)

3 (8.8)

1 (11.1)

2

4 (9.3)

3 (8.8)

1 (11.1)

3

10 (23.3)

10 (29.4)

4

12 (27.9)

8 (23.6)

4 (44.5)

5 – Really Enjoy

13 (30.2)

10 (29.4)

3 (33.3)

43

34

9

3.58
(1.33)

3.53
(1.33)

3.78
(1.39)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

99

0

(0.0)

Table 5.25. Enjoyment of camping to youth respondents in the Background Survey data from
those youth who completed all aspects of the study (n=43).
Camping

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

1 (2.3)

1 (2.9)

0

(0.0)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

7 (16.3)

6 (17.6)

1 (11.1)

4

9 (20.9)

9 (26.5)

0

26 (60.5)

18 (53.0)

8 (88.9)

43

34

9

4.37
(0.93)

4.26
(0.96)

4.78
(0.67)

5 – Really Enjoy
Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

(0.0)

Table 5.26. Enjoyment of shooting sports to youth respondents in the Background Survey data
from those youth who completed all aspects of the study (n=43).
Shooting Sports

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

1 (2.3)

1 (2.9)

0

(0.0)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

2 (4.7)

2 (5.9)

0

(0.0)

4

13 (30.2)

10 (29.4)

3 (33.3)

5 – Really Enjoy

27 (62.8)

21 (61.8)

6 (66.7)

43

34

9

4.51
(0.80)

4.47
(0.86)

4.67
(0.50)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

100

Females # (%)

Table 5.27. Enjoyment of sports to youth respondents in the Background Survey data from those
youth who completed all aspects of the study (n=43).
Sports

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2

2 (4.7)

2 (5.9)

0

(0.0)

3

7 (16.3)

7 (20.6)

0

(0.0)

4

9 (20.9)

6 (17.6)

3 (33.3)

25 (58.1)

19 (55.9)

6 (66.7)

43

34

9

4.33
(0.92)

4.24
(0.99)

4.67
(0.50)

5 – Really Enjoy
Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

Table 5.28. Enjoyment of gaming to youth respondents in the Background Survey data from
those youth who completed all aspects of the study (n=43).
Gaming

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

6 (14.0)

4 (11.8)

2 (22.2)

2

5 (11.6)

5 (14.7)

0

3

12 (27.9)

8 (23.5)

4 (44.5)

4

9 (20.9)

8 (23.5)

1 (11.1)

11 (25.6)

9 (26.5)

2 (22.2)

43

34

9

3.33
(1.36)

3.38
(1.35)

3.11
(1.45)

5 – Really Enjoy
Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

101

(0.0)

Comparing Background Surveys for Non-Response Bias
To determine whether there was any non-response bias, I compared the results of the
initial Background Surveys (n=98) and completed Background Surveys (n=43) where youth
participants also completed at least one ESM Hunting Survey, and the Hunting Experience and
Background Survey were analyzed for response bias. The average age of all Background Surveys
was 12.61 (SD – 0.99), whereas the average age of those youth respondents who completed the
Background Survey, at least one ESM Hunting Survey, and the Overall Hunting Experience and
Satisfaction Survey were 12.81 years of age (SD – 1.07) (Table 5.29).
A comparison of previous hunting partners where youth respondents could shoot
indicated that, in general distributions between various family and friends were very similar
among the initial Background Survey participants (n=98) and respondents that completed all
aspects of the study (n=43) (Table 5.29). There was a noticeable difference (9.4%) between
initial and full study background surveys with regard to “Dad” being the previous hunting
partner (Table 5.30). One noticeable finding suggests that initial participants indicated that they
had hunted with a brother, cousin, or friend. However those respondents that completed all
aspects of the study did not hunt with these same individuals (Table 5.30). Further comparison of
initial and completed data suggests there was a 5% difference in Apprentice Hunting License
holders between the initial Background Survey (27.6%) and the completed Background Survey
(32.6%) results (Table 5.29).
A comparison of previous hunting partners where youth respondents could not shoot
indicated that, in general distributions between various family and friends were very similar
among the initial Background Survey participants (n=98) and respondents that completed all
aspects of the study (n=43) (Table 5.31). One notable characteristic suggests that initial

	
  

102

Table 5.29. Analysis to investigate any potential non-response bias. Comparison of initial total
youth respondents (n=98) with youth who completed all survey (n=43).
Results for non-response bias

Initial
Background
Survey
Responses
(n=98)

Youth Who
Completed
All
Surveys
(n=43)

12.61 (0.99)

12.81 (1.07)

% Who hunted with father (Not shooting)

88.0

89.5

% Who purchased an Apprentice Hunting License

27.6

32.6

% Who reported that best friend hunted

49.0

54.8

% Who watched a TV show about deer hunting

79.6

79.1

% Who gamed about deer hunting

59.0

79.1

The Outdoors

61.2

67.4

Watching Wildlife

39.8

44.2

Hunting

70.8

74.4

Fishing

58.2

55.8

Hiking

26.2

30.2

Camping

56.1

60.5

Shooting Sports

62.3

62.8

Sports

66.3

58.1

Gaming

31.7

25.6

Analysis Criterion
Mean Age (SD)

% Who “Really Enjoyed” …

	
  

103

Table 5.30. Comparison of previous hunting partners where youth could not shoot in initial
Background Surveys and where all youth completed the Background Survey, at least
one ESM Survey and the Overall Experience and Satisfaction Survey.
Previous
Hunting
Partners

All Background Survey responses
Total #
Males # Females #
(%)
(%)
(%)
(n=55)
(n=46)
(n=9)

Full study responses
Total #
Males #
Females #
(%)
(%)
(%)
(n=38)
(n=33)
(n=5)

Mom

4
(7.3)

4
(8.7)

0
(0.0)

1
(2.6)

1
(3.0)

0
(0.0)

Dad

50
(91.0)

41
(89.1)

9
(100.0)

30
(78.9)

25
(75.8)

5
(100.0)

Brother

2
(3.6)

2
(4.3)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

Sister

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

Grandparent

10
(18.2)

10
(21.7)

0
(0.0)

5
(13.2)

5
(15.2)

0
(0.0)

Aunt

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

Uncle

4
(7.3)

4
(8.7)

0
(0.0)

2
(5.3)

2
(6.1)

0
(0.0)

Cousin

1
(1.8)

1
(2.2)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

Friend

2
(3.6)

2
(4.3)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

Neighbor

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

33

5

Total
55
46
9
38
Note. Youth respondents could select multiple categories.

	
  

104

Table 5.31. Comparison of previous hunting partners where youth could not shoot in initial
Background Surveys and where all youth completed the Background Survey, at least one ESM
Survey and the Overall Experience and Satisfaction Survey.
Previous
Hunting
Partners

All Background Survey responses
Total #
Males # Females #
(%)
(%)
(%)
(n=84)
(n=63)
(n=21)

Full study responses
Total #
Males #
Females #
(%)
(%)
(%)
(n=38)
(n=33)
(n=5)

Mom

9
(10.7)

7
(11.1)

2
(9.5)

4
(10.5)

3
(9.1)

1
(20.0)

Dad

74
(88.0)

55
(87.3)

19
(90.2)

34
(89.5)

29
(87.9)

5
(100.0)

Brother

3
(3.6)

2
(3.2)

1
(4.8)

1
(2.6)

0
(0.0)

1
(20.0)

Sister

4
(4.8)

3
(4.8)

1
(4.8)

1
(2.6)

1
(3.0)

0
(0.0)

Grandparent

23
(27.4)

19
(30.2)

4
(19.0)

9
(23.7)

8
(24.2)

1
(20.0)

Aunt

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

Uncle

18
(21.4)

17
(27.0)

1
(4.8)

7
(18.4)

7
(21.2)

0
(0.0)

Cousin

6
(7.1)

5
(7.9)

1
(4.8)

2
(5.3)

1
(3.0)

1
(20.0)

Friend

6
(7.1)

5
(7.9)

1
(4.8)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

Neighbor

2
(2.4)

1
(1.6)

1
(4.8)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

33

5

Total
84
63
21
38
Note. Youth respondents could select multiple categories.

	
  

105

participants who hunted with their brother or cousin also hunted with those same individuals who
completed all aspects of the study (Table 5.31).
Based on the results of this study, there was a 5.8% difference in whether a youth
respondents’ best friend hunted between the initial Background Survey (49.0%) and the
completed Background Survey (54.8%) results. However, there were only small differences
between males and females who’s best friends hunted between the initial sample (n=98) and the
compete sample utilized for hypothesis testing (n=43).
A comparison of time spent watching a TV, DVD or Video about deer hunting in the
initial Background Survey participants (n=98) and respondents that completed all aspects of the
study (n=43) yielded no differences between initial Background Survey results and Completed
Background Survey results data (Table 5.32).
A comparison of time spent playing video games about deer hunting in the initial
Background Survey participants (n=98) and respondents that completed all aspects of the study
(n=43) yielded no differences between initial Background Survey results and Completed
Background Survey results data (Table 5.33).
A comparison of youth ratings of various recreational activities were analyzed based on
the initial Background Survey participants (n=98) and respondents that completed the
Background Survey, at least one ESM Hunting Survey, and the Hunting Experience and
Satisfaction Survey (n=43) (Table 5.34). Average ratings of enjoyment of watching wildlife were
lower for the initial sample of respondents than those that completed the Background Survey, at
least one ESM Hunting Survey, and the Hunting Experience and Satisfaction at the conclusion of
Michigan’s Special Youth Deer Hunt (Table 5.34). In general, youth rated being in the outdoors,
hunting, fishing, camping, shooting sports, and sports as “Enjoyable” or “Very Enjoyable”

	
  

106

(Table 5.34). Conversely, youth ratings of hiking and gaming were rated higher than the median
of the rating scale, but lower than other recreational activities measured (Table 5.34).

Table 5.32. Comparison of time spent watching a TV, DVD, or Video about deer hunting in
initial Background Surveys and where all youth completed the Background Survey,
at least one ESM Survey and the Overall Experience and Satisfaction Survey.
Time spent
watching a
TV, DVD,
or Video
about deer
hunting
(hrs/wk)

All Background Survey responses

Full study responses

Total #
(%)
(n=98)

Males #
(%)
(n=72)

Females #
(%)
(n=26)

Total #
(%)
(n=43)

Males #
(%)
(n=35)

Females #
(%)
(n=8)

<1

50
(61.7)

35
(59.3)

15
(68.2)

21
(61.8)

17
(63.0)

4
(57.1)

1-2

23
(28.4)

16
(27.1)

7
(31.8)

10
(29.4)

7
(25.9)

3
(42.9)

2-3

2
(2.5)

2
(3.4)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

0
(0.0)

3-4

2
(2.5)

2
(3.4)

0
(0.0)

1
(2.9)

1
(3.7)

0
(0.0)

>4

4
(4.9)

4
(6.8)

0
(0.0)

2
(5.9)

2
(7.4)

0
(0.0)

81

59

22

34

27

7

Total

	
  

107

Table 5.33. Comparison of time spent watching a TV, DVD, or Video about deer hunting in
initial Background Surveys and where all youth completed the Background Survey,
at least one ESM Survey and the Overall Experience and Satisfaction Survey.
Time spent
playing
video games
about deer
hunting
(hrs/wk)

All Background Survey responses

Full study responses

Total #
(%)
(n=98)

Males #
(%)
(n=72)

Females #
(%)
(n=26)

Total #
(%)
(n=43)

Males #
(%)
(n=35)

Females #
(%)
(n=8)

<1

46
(59.0)

34
(55.7)

12
(70.6)

21
(61.8)

18
(62.2)

3
(60.0)

1-2

13
(16.7)

12
(19.7)

1
(5.9)

3
(8.9)

3
(10.3)

0
(0.0)

2-3

11
(14.1)

10
(16.4)

1
(5.9)

7
(20.6)

6
(20.7)

1
(20.0)

3-4

3
(3.8)

2
(3.3)

1
(5.9)

2
(5.9)

1
(3.4)

1
(20.0)

>4

5
(6.4)

3
(4.9)

2
(11.7)

1
(2.8)

1
(3.4)

0
(0.0)

78

61

17

34

29

5

Total

	
  

108

Table 5.34. Comparison of youth ratings of various recreational activities in initial Background
Surveys (n=98) and where all youth completed the Background Survey, at least one ESM Survey
and the Overall Experience and Satisfaction Survey (n=43).
Youth
Ratings of
Activities

Mean Initial Sample Ratings
(n=98)

Mean Completed Sample Ratings
(n=43)

Total #
(SD)

Females #
(SD)

Total #
(SD)

Males #
(SD)

Females #
(SD)

Being in the
outdoors

4.45
(0.79)

4.49
(0.75)

4.35
(0.89)

4.49
(0.83)

4.50
(0.75)

4.44
(1.13)

Watching
Wildlife

3.99
(1.03)

4.00
(1.10)

3.96
(0.87)

4.19
(0.96)

4.15
(1.13)

4.33
(0.50)

Hunting

4.60
(0.67)

4.70
(0.60)

4.36
(0.81)

4.65
(0.65)

4.65
(0.65)

4.67
(0.71)

Fishing

4.31
(0.99)

4.35
(0.99)

4.19
(1.02)

4.23
(1.00)

4.18
(1.03)

4.44
(0.88)

Hiking

3.39
(1.35)

3.36
(1.73)

3.44
(1.33)

3.58
(1.33)

3.53
(1.33)

3.78
(1.39)

Camping

4.35
(0.85)

4.34
(0.84)

4.38
(0.99)

4.37
(0.93)

4.26
(0.96)

4.78
(0.67)

Shooting
Sports

4.44
(0.86)

4.49
(0.83)

4.35
(0.94)

4.51
(0.80)

4.47
(0.86)

4.67
(0.50)

Sports

4.43
(0.93)

4.46
(0.91)

4.38
(0.98)

4.33
(0.92)

4.24
(0.99)

4.67
(0.50)

Gaming

	
  

Males #
(SD)

3.56
(1.31)

3.56
(1.30)

3.54
(1.36)

3.33
(1.36)

3.38
(1.35)

3.11
(1.45)

109

Results from the Experience Sampling Method
Hunting Experience
Youth respondents who hunted at least once during Michigan’s Special Youth Firearm
Hunt (September 22 and 23, 2012) were asked to complete the ESM Hunting Survey for each
time they went hunting. Of the original 98 youth who completed the Background Hunting
Survey, 43 youth completed at least one ESM Hunting Survey and hunted 86 times on Saturday
and Sunday. Of the youth respondents in this study that completed ESM Hunting Surveys, 25 of
86 (29.1%) hunts occurred Saturday morning, 29 of 86 (33.7%) hunts occurred Saturday
afternoon, 17 of 86 (19.8%) hunts occurred Sunday morning, and 15 of 86 (17.4%) hunts
occurred Sunday afternoon (Table 5.35). Youth respondents that did not hunt during the four
hunting periods cited weather, other commitments, and harvested a deer as reasons for not going
hunting or continuing to hunt during the 2012 Michigan Special Youth Deer Hunt.

Table 5.35. Distribution of hunts by youth respondents who hunted Michigan’s Special Whitetailed Deer Hunting periods on September 22 and 23, 2012 (n=43).
Number
Of
Hunts

%
of all
Hunts

Hunts
By
Males

% of
Males’
Hunts

Hunts
By
Female

% of
Females’
Hunts

Saturday AM

25

29.1

20

29.0

5

29.5

Saturday PM

29

33.7

23

33.3

6

35.3

Sunday AM

17

19.8

14

20.3

3

17.6

Sunday PM

15

17.4

12

17.4

3

17.6

Total Hunts

86

100.0

69

100.0

17

100.0

Hunting Period

	
  

110

Of the 86 hunts that occurred during Michigan’s Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt,
41 (47.7%) hunts occurred on the youth respondent’s own property (Table 5.36). A smaller
proportion (24.4%) occurred on property of a youth’s relative (Table 5.36). Additionally, 16
hunts occurred on a friend’s property and only 8 (9.3%) hunts occurred on public land (Table
5.36). Youth that hunted multiple times did not indicate hunting at different locations, only the
first location cited in the ESM Hunting Experience Surveys. Males were more likely to hunt on
their own property (53.7%), whereas female hunters were most likely to hunt on a friend’s
property (41.2%) (Table 5.36).

Table 5.36. Distribution of locations where youth respondents hunted during Michigan’s Special
White-tailed Deer Hunting periods on September 22 and 23, 2012 (n=43).
Location of Hunting
Experience

Total
#

%

Male
#

%

Female
#

%

Own Property

41

47.7

37

53.7

4

23.5

Relative’s Property

21

24.4

16

23.2

5

29.4

Friend’s Property

16

18.6

9

13.0

7

41.2

8

9.3

7

10.1

1

5.9

86

100.0

69

100.0

17

100.0

Public Land
Total

While hunting, youth were asked to report their thoughts during their hunting
experiences. On 64 of 86 (74.4%) hunts, youth were thinking about the hunt (Table 5.37). Youth
hunters were next most likely to be thinking about family. Youth thought about family during 9
of 86 (10.4%) hunts (Table 5.37). Although males and females thought about hunting the most,

	
  

111

Table 5.37. Distribution of what youth hunters thought about while hunting during Michigan’s
Special White-tailed Deer Hunting periods on September 22 and 23, 2012 (n=43).
While hunting youth
hunters were thinking
about…

Total
#

Total
%

Males
#

Males
%

Female
#

Females
%

School

3

3.5

3

4.4

0

0.0

Home

1

1.2

0

0.0

1

5.6

Nature

8

9.3

3

4.4

5

27.8

Family

9

10.4

6

8.9

3

16.7

Friends

1

1.2

0

0.0

1

5.6

Hunting

64

74.4

56

82.3

8

44.3

Total

86

100.0

68

100.0

18

100.0

frequently females were more likely than males to think about nature while hunting on 5 of 18
(27.6%) hunts than any other activity measured (Table 5.37).
Youth reported that they saw 284 white-tailed deer over the two-day hunt (Table 5.38).
Of the four hunting periods, the Saturday afternoon hunt had 120 (42.3%) visual sightings of
white-tailed deer by youth respondents (Table 5.38). On average, youth participants saw 4.14
deer during the Saturday PM hunt (Table 5.38). Youth reported seeing 3.11 deer/day on the
Saturday morning hunt, which accounted for 29.6% of the total number of deer seen (Table
5.38). Sunday AM and PM had the lowest number of deer seen at 45 (15.8%) and 35 (12.3%)
animals respectively (Table 5.38). Additionally, the Saturday PM hunts held the most visual
sightings of white-tailed deer for males (Average – 4.14 deer/day), while females on the Sunday
PM hunt had the highest average visual sightings of deer at 3.00 deer/day.

	
  

112

During youth hunting experiences, 63 of 86 (73.3%) experiences indicated that youth had
heard deer or other animals that they could not see. Other animals seen that were most
commonly mentioned by youth hunters included: squirrels, raccoons, chipmunks, turkeys and
songbirds.

Table 5.38. Distribution of white-tailed deer seen by youth deer hunting respondents that hunted
Michigan’s Special White-tailed Deer Hunt on September 22 and 23, 2012 (n=43).
Total deer seen during the Michigan
white-tailed deer youth hunt

Saturday Saturday
AM
PM

Sunday
AM

Sunday
PM

Total

Total number of deer seen each
hunting period

84

120

45

35

284

Total number of hunters during each
hunting period

27

29

17

15

88

Average number of deer seen by each
hunter

3.11

4.14

2.65

2.33

3.23

Total number of deer seen by male
hunters

74

110

40

26

250

Total number of male hunters during
each hunting period

21

23

14

12

70

Average number of deer seen by male
hunters

3.52

4.78

2.86

2.17

3.57

Total number of deer seen by female
hunters

10

10

5

9

34

6

6

3

3

18

1.67

3.00

1.89

Total number of female hunters during
each hunting period
Average number of deer seen by
female hunters

	
  

1.67

113

1.67

Of the sample of 43 youth deer hunters who reported on their hunting experiences, 29 of
43 (67.4%) indicated that they had shot at a white-tailed deer during the hunt (Table 5.39). Five
of 43 hunters (all males) indicated that they had hit a deer, but could not find the animal (11.6%).
Of the 43 youth deer hunters, 16 (37.2%) indicated they had harvested and tagged a deer during
Michigan’s Special White-tailed Deer Youth Hunt (Table 5.39). Of the 16 successful hunters, 12
(27.9%) tagged a buck with one or both antlers at least 3 inches in length, 3 (7.0%) hunters
tagged a buck with antlers less than 3 inches in length, and 1 (2.4%) hunter tagged a doe (Table
5.39).
Sixteen young hunters were successful during this study, and of those 16 successful youth
hunters, 8 (50.0%) youth rated their experience of finding the deer after harvest as “Good,” while
8 (50.0%) youth rated the same experience as “Very Good” (Table 5.40). On average, youth
hunters rated the experience of finding the animal after the harvest at 4.50 (SD – 0.52) on a scale
of 1 to 5 (Table 5.40).
Of the 16 successful youth hunters, 8 (50.0%) youth rated their experience of field
dressing the deer after harvest as “Good,” while 7 (43.8%) youth rated the same experience as
“Very Good” (Table 5.41). On average, youth hunters rated the experience of field dressing the
animal after the harvest at 4.37 (SD – 0.60) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.41). Notably, only one
youth male hunter rated their experience of field dressing the deer after harvest as “OK” (Table
5.41).

	
  

114

Table 5.39. Youth respondents who shot at, hit a deer, tagged a deer, and the type of deer
harvested during Michigan’s Special White-tailed Deer Hunt on September 22 and 23, 2012 by
gender (n=43).
Deer shot at, missed,
hit but could not find,
tagged, and type of
deer.

Total
(n=43)

%

Male
(n=35)

%

Female
(n=8)

%

Shot at a deer

29

67.4

25

71.4

4

50.0

Missed a deer

8

18.6

5

14.3

3

37.5

Hit a deer but could not
find it

5

11.6

5

14.3

0

0.0

Shot and tagged a deer

16

37.2

15

42.9

1

12.5

Tagged a deer with one
or both antlers 3 inches
or longer

12

27.9

11

31.4

1

12.5

Tagged a deer with
antlers smaller than 3
inches

3

7.0

3

8.6

0

0.0

The tagged deer was a
doe

1

2.3

1

2.9

0

0.0

Total Youth
Respondents

	
  

43

35

115

8

Youth Respondent Hunting Experiences during the Michigan Special Youth Deer Hunt

Figure 5.2. Youth respondents who shot at, hit a deer, tagged a deer, and the type of deer
harvested during Michigan’s Special White-tailed Deer Hunt on September 22 and 23, 2012
(n=43).

	
  

116

Table 5.40. Youth participant ratings of the experience of finding that deer after harvest (n=16).
Rating the experience of
finding the deer after
harvest?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Very Bad

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2 – Bad

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3 – OK

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

4 – Good

8 (50.0)

8 (53.3)

0

(0.0)

5 – Very Good

8 (50.0)

7 (46.7)

1(100.0)

16

15

1

4.42
(0.51)

4.33
(0.58)

4.44
(0.51)

Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

Table 5.41. Youth participant ratings of the experience of field dressing the deer after harvest
(n=16).
Rating the experience of
field dressing the deer
after harvest?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Very Bad

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2 – Bad

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3 – OK

1 (6.3)

1 (6.6)

0

(0.0)

4 – Good

8 (50.0)

7 (46.7)

1 (100.0)

5 – Very Good

7 (43.7)

7 (46.7)

0

16

15

1

4.37
(0.60)

4.38
(0.62)

4.33
(0.58)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

117

Females # (%)

(0.0)

Indicators of Flow
Youth participants indicated how they felt about the hunt during each of the hunting
periods (Saturday AM, Saturday PM, Sunday AM, and Sunday PM) (Tables 5.42 to 5.49). Two
youth did not respond to the questions in Tables 5.42 to 5.49. Of the 41 youth respondents who
recorded 84 hunting experiences, 10 (11.9%) felt “Very Much” challenged by their hunting
experience while 11 (13.1%) did not feel at all challenged during the hunt (Table 5.42). On
average, youth hunters rated their perceived challenge of the hunt at 3.30 (SD – 1.19) on a scale
of 1 to 5 (Table 5.42). Additionally, males rated their perceived challenge higher (3.47, SD –
1.08) than females (2.67, SD – 1.37) (Table 5.42).
Of the purposeful sample of youth respondents across 84 recorded hunting experiences,
28 (33.3%) felt that their hunting experience was “Very Much” important to them (Table 5.43).
Additionally, only 1 (1.2%) youth hunter did not feel that the hunting experience was important
to them (Table 5.43). On average, youth hunters rated their perceived importance of the hunt at
3.88 (SD – 0.97) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.43). Additionally, females rated their average
perceived importance of the hunt higher (4.11, SD – 0.76) than males (3.82, SD – 1.02) (Table
5.43). Twenty-five (29.8%) of the youth respondents in this study felt “Very Much” that they had
the adequate skills to participate in the hunting experience (Table 5.44). Additionally, only 3
(3.6%) of youth hunters did not feel that had the adequate skills to participate during their
hunting experiences (Table 5.44). On average, youth hunters rated their perceived skill level of
the hunt at 3.67 (SD – 1.10) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.44). Additionally, females and males
rated their average perceived skill level on the hunt at the same level (3.67) with standard
deviations for males at 1.14 and females at 0.97 (Table 5.44).

	
  

118

Table 5.42. Youth participant ratings of the perceived challenge of the hunting experience
(n=84).
How challenging
was the hunting
experience?

Challenge Indicator
Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

11 (13.1)

5 (7.6)

6 (33.2)

2

7 (8.3)

6 (9.1)

1

3

22 (26.2)

17 (25.8)

5 (27.8)

4

34 (40.5)

29 (43.9)

5 (27.8)

5 – Very Much

10 (11.9)

9 (13.6)

84

66

18

3.30
(1.19)

3.47
(1.08)

2.67
(1.37)

1 – Not At All

Total
Average
(SD)

1

(5.6)

(5.6)

During 47 of 84 (56.0%) hunting experiences by youth, participants rated that they did
not wish to be doing something else during the hunt (Table 5.45). Interestingly, only 2 of 84
(2.4%) hunting experiences were recorded where the participant wished “Very Much” that they
had been doing something else rather than deer hunting (Table 5.45). On average, youth hunters
rated their perceived desire to be doing something other than deer hunting at 1.70 (SD – 1.00) on
a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.45). Additionally, females rated their average perceived wish that they
had been doing something else other than hunting during the hunt higher (2.11, SD – 1.37) than
males (1.59, SD – 0.86) (Table 5.45).
During 35 of 84 (41.6%) hunting experiences by youth, participants rated “Very Much”
that the hunting experience was interesting (Table 5.46). Only 1 of 84 (1.2%) hunting

	
  

119

Table 5.43. Youth participant ratings of the perceived importance (involvement indicator) of the
hunting experience (n=84).
How important was
this hunting
experience to you?

Total Hunts
# (%)

Involvement Indicator
Male Hunts
Female Hunts
# (%)
# (%)

1 – Not At All

1 (1.2)

1 (1.5)

0

(0.0)

2

4 (4.8)

4 (6.1)

0

(0.0)

3

27 (32.1)

23 (34.8)

4 (22.2)

4

24 (28.6)

16 (24.3)

8 (44.4)

5 – Very Much

28 (33.3)

22 (33.3)

6 (33.4)

84

66

18

3.88
(0.97)

3.82
(1.02)

4.11
(0.76)

Total
Average
(SD)

experiences were recorded where the participant did not think the hunting experience was
interesting at all (Table 5.46). On average, youth hunters rated their perceived hunting
experience as interesting at 4.20 (SD – 0.83) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.46). Additionally,
females rated their average perceived importance of the hunt higher (4.28, SD – 0.75) than males
(4.18, SD – 0.86) (Table 5.46).
During 45 of 84 (53.6%) hunting experiences by youth, participants rated “Very Much”
that the hunting experience was important to their future goals (Table 5.47). No youth hunters
felt that hunting would not be important to their future goals (Table 5.47). On average, youth
hunters rated their perceived importance of the hunt to their future at 4.29 (SD – 0.86) on a scale
of 1 to 5 (Table 5.47). Additionally, females rated their average perceived importance of the hunt
to their future goals higher (4.33, SD – 0.84) than males (4.27, SD – 0.87) (Table 5.47).

	
  

120

Table 5.44. Youth participant ratings of the perceived skill of the hunting experience (n=84).
How skilled did you
feel on this hunt?

Total Hunts
# (%)

Skill Indicator
Male Hunts
# (%)

1 – Not At All

3 (3.6)

3 (4.5)

0

(0.0)

2

7 (8.3)

6 (9.1)

1

(5.6)

3

30 (35.7)

21 (31.9)

9 (50.0)

4

19 (22.6)

16 (24.2)

3 (16.7)

5 – Very Much

25 (29.8)

20 (30.3)

5 (27.7)

84

66

18

3.67
(1.10)

3.67
(1.14)

3.67
(0.97)

Total
Average
(SD)

Female Hunts
# (%)

Table 5.45. Youth participant ratings of wishing they had been doing something else (intrinsic
motivation indicator) rather than the hunting experience (n=84).
Did you wish you
had been doing
something else?

Intrinsic Motivation Indicator
Total Hunts
Male hunts
Female Hunts
# (%)
# (%)
# (%)

1 – Not At All

47 (56.0)

39 (59.1)

8 (44.4)

2

24 (28.5)

19 (28.7)

5 (27.8)

3

6 (7.1)

4 (6.1)

2 (11.1)

4

5 (6.0)

4 (6.1)

1

5 – Very Much

2 (2.4)

0 (0.0)

2 (11.1)

84

66

18

1.70
(1.00)

1.59
(0.86)

2.11
(1.37)

Total
Average
(SD)
	
  

121

(5.6)

Across the 84 hunts measured from the 43 respondents, 49 (58.3%) responses indicated
“Very Much” that young hunters would talk about their hunt with friends (Table 5.48). On
average, youth hunters rated their perceived willingness to talk with friends about the hunt at
4.40 (SD – 0.82) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.48). Additionally, males rated their average
perceived willingness to talk with friends about the hunt higher (4.42, SD – 0.84) than females
(4.33, SD – 0.77) (Table 5.48). Conversely, 54 of 84 (64.3%) responded “Very Much” when
asked whether they would talk about their hunt with family (Table 5.49). On average, youth
hunters rated their perceived willingness to talk with family about the hunt at 4.48 (SD – 0.80)
on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.49). Additionally, males rated their average perceived willingness to
talk with family about the hunt higher (4.55, SD – 0.77) than females (4.22, SD – 0.88) (Table
5.49).

Table 5.46. Youth participant ratings of finding the hunting experience interesting (Merging
Action and Awareness Indicator) (n=84).
Was this hunting
experience
interesting?

Merging Action and Awareness Indicator
Total Hunts
Male Hunts
Female Hunts
# (%)
# (%)
# (%)

1 – Not At All

1 (1.2)

1 (1.5)

0

(0.0)

2

1 (1.2)

1 (1.5)

0

(0.0)

3

13 (15.5)

10 (15.2)

3 (16.7)

4

34 (40.5)

27 (40.9)

7 (38.8)

5 – Very Much

35 (41.6)

27 (40.9)

8 (44.5)

84

66

18

4.20
(0.83)

4.18
(0.86)

4.28
(0.75)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

122

Table 5.47. Youth participant ratings of how important hunting is to their future goals
(Concentration On Task at Hand Indicator) (n=84).
How important is
hunting to your
future goals?

Concentration On Task at Hand Indicator
Total Hunts
Male Hunts
Female Hunts
# (%)
# (%)
# (%)

1 – Not At All

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2

1 (1.2)

1 (1.5)

0

(0.0)

3

19 (22.6)

15 (22.7)

4 (22.2)

4

19 (22.6)

15 (22.7)

4 (22.2)

5 – Very Much

45 (53.6)

35 (53.1)

10 (55.6)

84

66

18

4.29
(0.86)

4.27
(0.87)

4.33
(0.84)

Total
Average
(SD)

Table 5.48. Youth participant ratings of will they talk about their hunts with friends (Self Esteem
- Peer Expectation Indicator) (n=84).
Will you talk about
this hunt with
friends?

Self Esteem – Peer Expectation Indicator
Total Hunts
Male Hunts
Female Hunts
# (%)
# (%)
# (%)

1 – Not At All

1 (1.2)

1 (1.5)

0

(0.0)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

12 (14.3)

9 (13.7)

3 (16.7)

4

22 (26.2)

16 (24.2)

6 (33.3)

5 – Very Much

49 (58.3)

40 (60.6)

9 (50.0)

84

66

18

4.40
(0.82)

4.42
(0.84)

4.33
(0.77)

Total
Average
(SD)
	
  

123

Table 5.49. Youth participant ratings of how likely they will talk about their hunts with family
(Self Esteem - Family Expectation Indicator) (n=84).
Will you talk about
this hunt with
family?

Self Esteem – Family Expectation Indicator
Total Hunts
Male Hunts
Female Hunts
# (%)
# (%)
# (%)

1 – Not At All

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2

2 (2.4)

2 (3.0)

0

(0.0)

3

10 (11.9)

5 (7.6)

5 (27.8)

4

18 (21.4)

14 (21.2)

4 (22.2)

5 – Very Much

54 (64.3)

45 (68.2)

9 (50.0)

84

66

18

4.48
(0.80)

4.55
(0.77)

4.22
(0.88)

Total
Average
(SD)

Youth participants indicated their perceived enjoyment level during each of the hunting
periods (Saturday AM, Saturday PM, Sunday AM, and Sunday PM) (Tables 5.50 to 5.55). Of the
43 youth respondents that recorded 84 hunting experiences, 40 (47.6%) indicated “Very Much”
enjoyment of the hunting experience, while 1 (1.2%) was “Not At All” interested in the
enjoyment of the hunting experience (Table 5.50). On average, youth hunters rated their
perceived enjoyment of the hunt at 4.37 (SD – 0.77) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.50).
Additionally, females rated their average perceived enjoyment of the hunting experience higher
(4.33, SD – 0.83) than males (4.50, SD – 0.51) (Table 5.50).
Youth were also asked to rate their interest in each of the hunting experiences. Forty-five
of 84 (53.5%) hunting experiences were perceived as “Very Much” interesting (Table 5.51). On
average, youth hunters rated perceived interest in each of the hunts at 4.25 (SD – 1.01) on a scale

	
  

124

of 1 to 5 (Table 5.51). Additionally, females rated their average perceived interest in the hunting
experience higher (4.44, SD – 0.78) than males (4.20, SD – 1.06) (Table 5.51).
Eighty-four hunts were measured from the 43 respondents, 44 (52.4%) hunt responses
indicated “Very Much” that young hunters perceived they were doing the best they could while
hunting (Table 5.52), whereas only 1 of 84 (1.2%) perceived that they were not doing the best
they could during the hunting experience (Table 5.52). On average, youth hunters rated their
perceived ability of doing the best they could do during the hunt at 4.32 (SD – 0.89) on a scale of
1 to 5 (Table 5.52). Additionally, females rated their average perceived ability to do the best they
could do during the hunting experience higher (4.39, SD – 0.70) than males (4.30, SD – 0.94)
(Table 5.52).

Table 5.50. Youth participant ratings of their own expectations during the hunting experience
(Self Esteem – Own Expectations) (n=84).
Did you enjoy this
hunting experience?

Self Esteem – Own Expectation Indicator
Total Hunts
Male Hunts
Female Hunts
# (%)
# (%)
# (%)

1 – Not At All

1 (1.2)

1 (1.5)

0

(0.0)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

5 (6.0)

5 (7.6)

0

(0.0)

4

38 (45.2)

29 (43.9)

9 (50.0)

5 – Very Much

40 (47.6)

31 (47.0)

9 (50.0)

84

66

18

4.37
(0.77)

4.33
(0.83)

4.50
(0.51)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

125

Table 5.51. Youth participant ratings of their interest in the hunting experience (n=84).
Was this hunting
experience
interesting?

Total Hunts
# (%)

Male Hunts
# (%)

1 – Not At All

1 (1.2)

1 (1.5)

0

(0.0)

2

4 (4.8)

4 (6.1)

0

(0.0)

3

12 (14.3)

9 (13.6)

3 (16.7)

4

22 (45.2)

18 (27.3)

4 (22.2)

5 – Very Much

45 (47.6)

34 (51.5)

11 (61.1)

84

66

18

4.25
(1.01)

4.20
(1.06)

4.44
(0.78)

Total
Average
(SD)

Female Hunts
# (%)

Table 5.52. Youth participant ratings of their interest in feeling as though they were doing the
best that they could on the hunt (n=84).
Did you do the best
you could on this
hunt?

Total Hunts
# (%)

Male Hunts
# (%)

1 – Not At All

1 (1.2)

1 (1.5)

0

(0.0)

2

1 (1.2)

1 (1.5)

0

(0.0)

3

11 (13.1)

9 (13.6)

2 (11.1)

4

27 (32.1)

20 (30.4)

7 (38.9)

5 – Very Much

44 (52.4)

35 (53.0)

9 (50.0)

84

66

18

4.32
(0.89)

4.30
(0.94)

4.39
(0.70)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

126

Female Hunts
# (%)

Of the same sample of youth respondents across 84 recorded hunting experiences, 34
(40.5%) youth felt that they were “Very Much” in control of their hunting experience (Table
5.53). Additionally, on 5 (6.0%) of the hunts youth did not feel as though they were in control of
the hunt (Table 5.53). On average, youth hunters rated perception of control during the hunt at
3.90 (SD – 1.24) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.53). Additionally, females rated their average
perceived feeling of being in control of the hunting experience higher (4.06, SD – 1.11) than
males (3.86, SD – 1.28) (Table 5.53).

Table 5.53. Youth participant ratings of their interest in feeling in control of the hunting
experience (Paradox of Control Indicator) (n=84).
Did you feel in
control of this
hunting experience?

Paradox of Control Indicator
Total Hunts
Male Hunts
Female Hunts
# (%)
# (%)
# (%)

1 – Not At All

5 (6.0)

4 (6.1)

1

(5.6)

2

8 (9.5)

8 (12.1)

0

(0.0)

3

10 (11.9)

6 (9.1)

4 (22.2)

4

27 (32.1)

22 (33.3)

5 (27.8)

5 – Very Much

34 (40.5)

26 (39.4)

8 (44.4)

84

66

18

3.90
(1.24)

3.86
(1.28)

4.06
(1.11)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

127

During 38 of 84 (45.2%) hunting experiences by youth, participants reported that they
felt good about themselves by indicating “Very Much” during the hunt (Table 5.54).
Interestingly, only 2 of 84 (2.4%) hunting experiences were recorded where the participants did
not feel good about themselves during the hunting experience (Table 5.54). On average, youth
hunters rated perceptions about how they felt on the hunt at 4.18 (SD – 1.00) on a scale of 1 to 5
(Table 5.54). Additionally, females rated their average perceived feeling about themselves during
the hunting experience higher (4.28, SD – 0.75) than males (4.05, SD – 1.06) (Table 5.54).
During 44 of 84 (52.4%) hunting experiences by youth, participants responded “Very
Much” that they felt as though they were getting better at hunting (Table 5.55). Only 1 of 84
(1.2%) hunting experiences were recorded where the participant did not think they were

Table 5.54. Youth participant ratings of their interest in how good they felt about themselves
during the hunting experience (n=84).
Did you feel good
about yourself
when hunting?

Total Hunts
# (%)

Male Hunts
# (%)

1 – Not At All

2 (2.4)

2 (3.0)

0

(0.0)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

15 (17.9)

12 (18.2)

3 (16.7)

4

29 (34.5)

22 (33.3)

7 (38.9)

5 – Very Much

38 (45.2)

30 (45.5)

8 (44.4)

84

66

18

4.18
(1.00)

4.05
(1.06)

4.28
(0.75)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

128

Female Hunts
# (%)

Table 5.55. Youth participant ratings of their interest if they felt they were getting better at
hunting (n=84). Two youth did not respond to this question.
Total Hunts
# (%)

Male Hunts
# (%)

1 – Not At All

1 (1.2)

1 (1.5)

0

(0.0)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

12 (14.3)

11 (16.7)

1

(5.6)

4

27 (32.1)

17 (25.7)

10 (55.6)

5 – Very Much

44 (52.4)

37 (56.1)

7 (38.8)

84

66

18

4.33
(0.87)

4.33
(0.93)

4.33
(0.59)

Are you getting
better at hunting?

Total
Average
(SD)

Female Hunts
# (%)

getting better at hunting (Table 5.55). On average, youth hunters rated perceptions of getting
better at hunting while on the hunt at 4.33 (SD – 0.87) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.55).
Additionally, females and males rated their average perceived level of getting better at hunting at
the same level (4.33) with standard deviations for males at 0.93 and females at 0.59 (Table 5.55).
Mood Ratings
Youth participants reflected on their mood during each of the hunting periods (Saturday
AM, Saturday PM, Sunday AM, and Sunday PM) (Table 5.56). Of the 43 youth respondents that
recorded 84 hunting experiences, 74 (88.1%) indicated that they were “Happy” or “Very Happy”
while hunting with an average rating of 4.30 (SD – 0.70) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.56).

	
  

129

Additionally, males rated their average perceived happiness during the hunting experience higher
(4.32, SD – 0.71) than females (4.22, SD – 0.73) (Table 5.56).
During 59 of 84 (70.2%) youth hunting experiences, participants rated themselves as
either “Active” or “Very Active” while hunting with an average rating of 3.92 on a scale of 1 to
5 (SD – 1.03) (Table 5.56). Additionally, females rated their average perceived activeness during
the hunting experience higher (4.44, SD – 0.51) than males (3.77, SD – 1.09) (Table 5.56).
Of the sample of youth respondents across 83 recorded hunting experiences, 51 (61.4%)
rated themselves as feeling “Proud” or “Very Proud.” Additionally, only 1 of 83 (1.2%) hunting
experiences by youth rated themselves as “Not Proud” of the hunting experience while hunting
with an average rating of 3.80 (SD – 1.00) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.56). Additionally,
females rated their average perception of being proud during the hunting experience higher
(3.89, SD – 0.83) than males (3.71, SD – 1.13) (Table 5.55). One respondent did not answer this
question.
During 53 of 82 (64.6%) youth hunting experiences, participants rated themselves as
either “Relaxed” or “Very Relaxed” while hunting with an average rating of 3.71 (SD – 1.26)
(Table 5.55). Additionally, females rated their average perception of being relaxed during the
hunting experience higher (3.94, SD – 1.21) than males (3.53, SD – 1.41) (Table 5.55). Two
respondents did not answer this question.
Of the same sample of youth respondents across 82 recorded hunting experiences, 53
(64.6%) rated themselves as feeling “Strong” or “Very Strong.” 1 of 82 (1.2%) hunting
experiences by youth rated themselves as “Not Strong” during the hunting experience while
hunting with an average rating of 3.89 (SD – 0.98) (Table 5.55). Additionally, males rated their

	
  

130

average perception of being strong during the hunting experience higher (3.82, SD – 1.08) than
females (3.72, SD – 1.36) (Table 5.56).
During 46 of 78 (58.9%) hunting experiences by youth, participants rated themselves as
either “Sociable” or “Very Sociable” while hunting with an average rating of 3.58 (SD – 1.25)
(Table 5.56). Additionally, females rated their average perception of being sociable during the
hunting experience higher (3.83, SD – 0.92) than males (3.17, SD – 1.61) (Table 5.56). Six
respondents did not answer this question.
During this study of youth respondents across 80 recorded hunting experiences, 67
(83.8%) rated themselves as feeling “Excited ” or “Very Excited” during the hunting experience
with an average rating of 4.18 (SD – 0.89) (Table 5.56). Additionally, females rated their average
perception of being excited during the hunting experience higher (4.39, SD – 1.20) than males
(3.92, SD – 1.26) (Table 5.56). Four respondents did not answer this question.
Finally, of the 80 respondents that rated themselves on friendliness during the hunting
experience, 62 of 80 (77.5%) perceived themselves as being “Friendly” or “Very Friendly during
their hunting experiences with an average rating of 4.09 (SD – 1.01) (Table 5.56). Additionally,
females rated their average perception of being friendly during the hunting experience higher
(4.06, SD – 1.39) than males (3.83, SD – 1.31) (Table 5.56). Four respondents did not answer
this question.

	
  

131

Table 5.56. Mood ratings perceived by youth white-tailed deer hunters during Michigan’s
Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt.
Mood
Type

Mood Ratings of Youth White-tailed Deer Hunters During Hunts
Neither
Very
Overall
Male
Female
1
2
3
4
5
Hunts
Hunts
Hunts
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Avg.
Avg.
Avg.
(SD)
(SD)
(SD)

Not

Happy

1
(1.2)

9
(10.7)

38
(45.2)

36
(42.9)

4.30
(0.70)

4.32
(0.71)

4.22
(0.73)

Active

1
(1.2)

9
(10.7)

15
(17.9)

30
(35.7)

29
(34.5)

3.92
(1.03)

3.77
(1.09)

4.44
(0.51)

Proud

1
(1.2)

7
(8.5)

24
(28.9)

27
(32.5)

24
(28.9)

3.80
(1.00)

3.71
(1.13)

3.89
(0.83)

Relaxed

7
(8.5)

8
(9.8)

14
(17.1)

26
(31.7)

27
(32.9)

3.71
(1.26)

3.53
(1.41)

3.94
(1.21)

Strong

1
(1.2)

5
(6.1)

23
(28.1)

26
(31.7)

27
(32.9)

3.89
(0.98)

3.82
(1.08)

3.72
(1.36)

Sociable

8
(10.3)

6
(7.7)

18
(23.1)

26
(33.3)

20
(25.6)

3.58
(1.25)

3.17
(1.61)

3.83
(0.92)

Excited

1
(1.3)

3
(3.8)

9
(11.2)

31
(38.7)

36
(45.0)

4.18
(0.89)

3.92
(1.26)

4.39
(1.20)

Friendly

	
  

0
(0.0)

2
(2.5)

5
(6.3)

11
(13.7)

29
(36.2)

33
(41.3)

4.09
(1.01)

3.83
(1.31)

4.06
(1.39)

132

Youth Hunting Experience and Satisfaction
Satisfaction of the overall hunting experience was measured using questions from the
Hunting Experience and Satisfaction instrument (Appendix I). One of the 43 participants did not
provide ratings for the overall experience and satisfaction of the hunt. Nearly half (19 of 42 or
45.2%) of youth respondents rated their overall hunting experience as “Really Enjoyable” with
an average rating of 4.17 (SD – 0.85) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.57). Additionally, none of the
youth participants rated their hunting experience as “Didn’t Enjoy” (Table 5.57). Finally, males
rated their average perception of their overall hunting experience higher (4.32, SD – 0.81) than
females (3.50, SD – 0.76) (Table 5.57). Of the 42 participants, 15 (35.7%) indicated that
“shooting a deer” was the one most important reason for their overall hunting experience rating
(Table 5.58).

Table 5.57. Ratings of the overall hunting experience by youth hunters (n=42).
Rating the overall
hunting experience

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

3

12 (28.6)

7 (20.6)

5 (62.5)

4

11 (26.2)

9 (26.5)

2 (25.0)

5 – Really Enjoy

19 (45.2)

18 (52.9)

1 (12.5)

42

34

8

4.17
(0.85)

4.32
(0.81)

3.50
(0.76)

Total
Average
(SD)

	
  

133

Females # (%)

Ten of 42 (23.8%) youth participants rated their perceived preparation toward their
hunting experience as “Really Enjoyable” with an average rating of 3.69 (SD – 0.92) on a scale
of 1 to 5 (Table 5.59). Finally, females rated their average felt perception overall during the
hunting experience higher (3.88, SD – 1.13) than males (3.65, SD – 0.88) (Table 5.58). Of the 42
participants, 13 (31.0%) indicated that they “prepared a lot” as the one most important reasons
for their overall hunting experience rating (Table 5.60).
Youth respondents rated their perceived comfort level during the hunting experience.
Eleven of 42 (26.2%) youth rated their comfort level as “Really Enjoyable” during their hunting
experiences with an average rating of 3.98 (SD – 0.81) (Table 5.61). Finally, females rated their
average perceived comfort level during the hunting experience higher (4.00, SD – 0.93) than
males (3.97, SD – 0.80) (Table 5.61). Of the 42 participants, 16 (38.1%) indicating that they felt
“good/enjoyment/fun” as the one most important reason for their overall hunting experience
rating (Table 5.62). In general, in south central and southern Michigan the weather on Saturday
was overcast with scattered rain showers and a high of 50°F. On Sunday of Michigan’s Special
Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt, the weather was mostly sunny with a high temperature of 50°F.
Of the 42 respondents who answered questions rating the amount of deer seen during the
youth hunt, 9 of 42 (21.4%) young hunters “Really Enjoyed” the number of deer seen during the
overall hunting experience (Table 5.63). Interestingly, 9 of 42 (21.4%) indicated that they
“Didn’t Enjoy” the number of deer seen. The average rating for number of deer seen was 3.05
(SD – 1.45) on a scale of 1 to 5 (Table 5.63). Finally, males rated their average perceived number
of deer seen during the hunting experience higher (3.15, SD – 1.46) than females (2.63, SD –
1.41) (Table 5.63). Of the 42 participants, 9 (21.4%) indicated that they “saw lots/saw many
deer” as the one most important reason for their overall hunting experience rating (Table 5.64).

	
  

134

Youth respondents rated perceived time spent with their hunting partner during the
overall hunting experience. Of the 42 youth participants, 23 (54.7%) rated the time spent with
their hunting partner as “Really Enjoyable” (Table 5.65). Additionally, 1 of 42 (2.4%) “Didn’t
Enjoy” the overall hunting experience with their hunting partner. Overall hunting experiences
with hunting partners were rated with an average score of 4.33 (SD – 0.93) on a scale of 1 to 5
(Table 5.65). Finally, males rated their average time spent with their hunting experience partner
higher (4.35, SD – 0.98) than females (4.25, SD – 0.71) (Table 5.65). Of the 42 participants, 13
(31.0%) indicated that they “felt good about spending time with their hunting partner” as the one
most important reason for their overall hunting experience rating (Table 5.66).

Table 5.58. Youth responses of the one most important reason for their overall hunting ratings
(n=42).
What is the one most
important reason for
your answer about the
overall experience?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

15 (35.7)

14 (41.2)

1 (12.5)

“Fun”

6 (14.3)

3 (8.8)

3 (37.5)

“Saw a deer”

5 (11.9)

5 (14.7)

0

“Missed a deer”

2 (4.8)

1 (2.9)

1 (12.5)

14 (33.3)

11 (32.4)

3 (37.5)

42

34

8

“Shooting a deer”

No comment provided
Total

	
  

135

(0.0)

Table 5.59. Ratings of how prepared youth hunters felt for their overall hunting experiences
(n=42).
Rating how
prepared you felt
during the hunt

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

2

3 (7.1)

2 (5.9)

1 (12.5)

3

17 (40.5)

15 (44.1)

2 (25.0)

4

12 (28.6)

10 (29.4)

2 (25.0)

5 – Really Enjoy

10 (23.8)

7 (20.6)

3 (37.5)

42

34

8

3.69
(0.92)

3.65
(0.88)

3.88
(1.13)

Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)
(0.0)

Table 5.60. Youth responses of the one most important reason for felt preparedness of the overall
hunting experience (n=42).
What is the one most important
reason for how prepared you felt
about the overall hunting
experience?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

13 (31.0)

11 (32.4)

2 (25.0)

“Not prepared enough”

3 (7.0)

3 (8.9)

0

“Family helped in preparation”

2 (4.8)

1 (2.9)

1 (12.5)

“Had fun preparing”

1 (2.4)

1 (2.9)

0

23 (54.8)

18 (52.9)

5 (62.5)

42

34

8

“Prepared a lot”

No comment provided
Total

	
  

136

(0.0)

(0.0)

Table 5.61. Ratings of how comfortable youth hunters felt during their overall hunting
experiences (n=42).
Rating how
comfortable were
you during the hunt

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

2

2 (4.8)

2 (5.9)

0

(0.0)

3

8 (19.0)

5 (14.7)

3 (37.5)

4

21 (50.0)

19 (55.9)

2 (25.0)

5 – Really Enjoy

11 (26.2)

8 (23.5)

3 (37.5)

42

34

8

3.98
(0.81)

3.97
(0.80)

4.00
(0.93)

Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

Table 5.62. Youth responses of the one most important reason for comfort felt during the overall
hunting experience (n=42).
What is the one most
important reason for
how comfortable you
felt about the overall
hunting experience?
“Good/enjoyment/fun”
“Not comfortable”
No comment provided
Total

	
  

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

16 (38.1)

13 (38.2)

3 (37.5)

5 (11.9)

4 (11.8)

1 (12.5)

21 (50.0)

17 (50.0)

4 (50.0)

42

34

8

137

Table 5.63. Ratings of the amount of deer youth hunters saw during their hunting experiences
(n=42).
Rating the amount
of deer seen during
the hunt

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

9 (21.4)

6 (17.6)

3 (37.5)

2

6 (14.3)

6 (17.6)

0

3

10 (23.8)

8 (23.5)

2 (25.0)

4

8 (19.1)

5 (14.7)

3 (37.5)

5 – Really Enjoy

9 (21.4)

9 (26.6)

0

42

34

8

3.05
(1.45)

3.15
(1.46)

2.63
(1.41)

Total
Average
(SD)

(0.0)

(0.0)

Table 5.64. Youth responses of the one most important reason for your rating of the number of
deer seen during the overall hunting experience (n=42).
What is the one most important
reason for the number of deer seen
during the overall hunting
experience?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

“Saw lots/Saw many deer”

9 (21.4)

9 (26.5)

0

(0.0)

“Saw a few deer”

6 (14.3)

6 (17.6)

0

(0.0)

“Saw no deer”

4 (9.5)

3 (8.8)

1 (12.5)

“Wish I had seen more deer”

3 (7.2)

2 (5.9)

1 (12.5)

20 (47.6)

14 (41.2)

6 (75.0)

42

34

8

No comment provided
Total

	
  

138

Females # (%)

Table 5.65. Ratings of youth time spent with their hunting partner (n=42).
Rating the time you
spent with your
hunting partner

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

1 – Don’t Enjoy

1 (2.4)

1 (2.9)

0

(0.0)

2

1 (2.4)

1 (2.9)

0

(0.0)

3

4 (9.5)

3 (8.8)

1 (12.5)

4

13 (31.0)

9 (26.6)

4 (50.0)

5 – Really Enjoy

23 (54.7)

20 (58.8)

3 (37.5)

42

34

8

4.33
(0.93)

4.35
(0.98)

4.25
(0.71)

Total
Average
(SD)

Females # (%)

Table 5.66. Youth responses of the one most important reason for your rating of time spent with
your hunting partner during the overall hunting experience (n=42).
What is the one most important
reason the experience with
your hunting partner during the
overall hunting experience?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

13 (31.0)

11 (32.4)

2 (25.0)

“Good/Fun/OK”

9 (21.4)

7 (20.6)

2 (25.0)

“Got to talk”

3 (7.1)

3 (8.8)

0

17 (40.5)

13 (38.2)

4 (50.0)

42

34

8

“Felt good about spending
time with my partner”

No comment provided
Total

	
  

139

(0.0)

Intention to Continue Hunting
Youth intention to continue hunting in the future was measured based on a series of
questions in the Hunting Experience and Satisfaction survey that respondents filled out at the
conclusion of the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer hunt (Appendix I). One of
the 43 respondents did not answer the questions about intention to continue hunting in the future.
Of the 42 youth respondents, 23 (54.8%) indicated that they would go archery hunting
during Michigan’s archery deer hunting season (October 1, 2012). Additionally, 4 of 42 (9.5%)
youth hunters indicated that they might go hunting during archery season (Table 5.67)

Table 5.67. Youth intention to go archery hunting in 2012 (n=42).
Will you go archery
hunting in 2012?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

Yes

23 (54.8)

21 (61.8)

2 (25.0)

No

15 (35.7)

11 (32.4)

4 (50.0)

4 (9.5)

2 (5.8)

2 (25.0)

42

34

8

Maybe
Total

Twenty-nine of 42 (69.1%) youth respondents indicated their intention to go out hunting
the opening day of Michigan’s firearm deer season (November 15, 2012) with an additional 12
(28.6%) youth hunters who indicated that they may go hunting the opening day of firearm deer
season (Table 5.68). When youth respondents were asked what was the one most important
reason for going out November 15, 2012, youth cited: “I like/love hunting,” “having fun being in

	
  

140

the outdoors,” and “want to get a deer.” The only “no” response to the previous question cited
that they could not miss school to go hunting.
Of the 42 the respondents, 33 (78.6%) indicated that if Michigan’s firearm deer season
opened on a Saturday they would intend on hunting that day (Table 5.69). Interestingly, only 1 of
42 (2.4%) youth respondents said that they would not go hunting if the Michigan firearm deer
season were to always open on a Saturday (Table 5.69). The data from this question suggest that
there may be a potential opportunity to increase youth hunter participation during Michigan’s
firearm deer season by having the opening day for the season on a Saturday (e.g., Saturday
closest to November 15) annually.

Table 5.68. Youth intention to go firearm hunting on November 15, 2012 (n=42).
Will you go firearm
hunting on
November 15,
2012?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

Yes

29 (69.1)

25 (73.5)

4 (50.0)

No

1 (2.3)

0 (0.0)

1 (12.5)

12 (28.6)

9 (26.5)

3 (37.5)

42

34

8

Maybe
Total

	
  

141

Table 5.69. Youth intention to go firearm hunting on opening day, if opening day
were always a Saturday (n=42).
If the firearm
season were to open
on a Saturday,
would you go?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

Yes

33 (78.6)

30 (88.2)

3 (37.5)

No

1 (2.4)

1 (3.0)

0

Maybe

8 (19.0)

3 (8.8)

5 (62.5)

42

34

8

Total

(0.0)

Of the 42 youth respondents, 27 (64.3%) indicated that they would go hunting for other
game in 2012 (Table 5.70). Additionally, 4 of 42 (9.5%) youth hunters indicated that they might
go hunting for other game in 2012 (Table 5.70). Of the youth respondents that indicated they
intended to go hunting for other game, participants cited squirrels (52.3%), rabbits (40.5%),
turkeys (31.0%), geese (28.6), and ducks and grouse (21.4%) as their choices of game to hunt
(Table 5.71).

Table 5.70. Youth intention to go hunting for other game (n=42).
Will you go hunting
for other game?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

Yes

27 (64.3)

25 (71.4)

2 (25.0)

No

11 (26.2)

6 (17.6)

5 (62.5)

4 (9.5)

3 (11.0)

1 (12.5)

42

34

8

Maybe
Total

	
  

142

Table 5.71. Other game youth have hunted or intend to hunt (n=42).
Other game youth have
or intend to hunt

Total #

%

Male #

%

Female #

%

Rabbit

17
25

40.5
59.5

16
18

47.1
52.9

1
7

12.5
87.5

Squirrel

Yes
No

22
20

52.3
47.7

20
14

58.8
41.2

2
6

25.0
75.0

Grouse

Yes
No

9
33

21.4
78.6

9
25

26.5
73.5

0
8

0.0
100.0

Pheasant

Yes
No

5
37

11.9
88.1

4
30

11.8
88.2

1
7

12.5
87.5

Woodcock

Yes
No

1
41

2.4
97.6

1
33

2.9
97.1

0
8

0.0
100.0

Ducks

Yes
No

9
33

21.4
78.6

9
25

26.5
73.5

0
8

0.0
100.0

Geese

Yes
No

12
30

28.6
71.4

12
22

35.3
64.7

0
8

0.0
100.0

Turkeys

Yes
No

13
29

31.0
69.0

12
22

35.3
64.7

1
7

12.5
87.5

Bear

Yes
No

0
42

0.0
100.0

0
33

0.0
100.0

0
8

0.0
100.0

Coyote

	
  

Yes
No

Yes
No

3
39

7.1
92.9

2
32

5.9
94.1

1
7

12.5
87.5

143

Only 4 of 42 (9.5%) of youth respondents indicated that they would be going out trapping
in 2012 (Table 5.72). Interestingly, 2 of 4 (50%) youth who indicated that they would go
trapping in 2012 were females (Table 5.72).

Table 5.72. Youth intention to go trapping in 2012 (n=42).
Will you go
trapping in 2012?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

Yes

4 (9.5)

2 (5.9)

2 (25.0)

No

34 (81.0)

28 (82.4)

6 (75.0)

4 (9.5)

4 (11.7)

42

34

Maybe
Total

0

(0.0)
8

The final question of the overall hunting experience instrument indicated that 41 of 42
(97.6%) youth respondents planned to hunt in future years (Table 5.73). No respondents
indicated that they would not hunt in the future (Table 5.73). The remaining respondent (2.4%)
indicated that they “may” continue to hunt in the future (Table 5.73). When respondents were
asked the one most important reason for their hunting plans in the future, 16 of 36 (44.5%) said,
“Fun/enjoyed hunting,” 14 of 36 (38.9%) youth said, “I like/love hunting,” 3 of 36 (8.3%) said,
“because all of my family does it/family tradition,” (Table 5.74). Interestingly, 7 of 8 (87.5%)
female respondents indicated that they intend to continue hunting in future years because they
“liked/loved hunting” (Table 5.74). The remaining youth respondents that provided “other”
answers included: “Free food on the Table, times are hard,” To try to shoot a big buck,” and
“Don’t know” (Table 5.74).

	
  

144

Table 5.73. Youth intention to continue hunting in future years (n=42).
Do you plan to hunt
in future years?

Total # (%)

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

Yes

41 (97.6)

33 (97.1)

8 (100.0)

No

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0

(0.0)

Maybe

1 (2.4)

1 (2.9)

0

(0.0)

42

34

Total

8

Table 5.74. Youth responses of intention to continue hunting (n=36).
What is the one most
important reason why
you intend to hunt in
future years?

Males # (%)

Females # (%)

“I like/love hunting”

14 (38.9)

11 (39.3)

3 (37.5)

“Fun/enjoy hunting”

16 (44.5)

12 (42.9)

4 (50.0)

“Because my family
does it/family tradition”

3 (8.3)

2 (7.1)

1 (12.5)

Other

3 (8.3)

3 (10.7)

0

Total

	
  

Total # (%)

36

28

145

(0.0)
8

Defining Flow, Anxiety, Apathy, and Boredom Channels
Channels of flow, anxiety, apathy, and boredom were calculated based on the intersection
of average perceived challenge (Table 5.42) and skill (Table 5.44) ratings from the sample of
youth hunters that provided the Background Survey, at least one ESM Survey, and the Hunting
Experience and Satisfaction Survey (n=43) (Figure 5.3). Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and
Whalen (1993) suggest that utilizing raw-score values for challenge and skill are an appropriate
way to calculate sample averages. After each of the hunting experiences, youth respondents
answered a series of questions about how they felt, perceived challenge, and mood while
hunting. Respondents answered two specific questions used to determine “flow” while hunting.
The first question asked youth to indicate the perceived challenge of the hunt, while the second
question asked youth to indicate their perceived skill level during the hunting experience. Of the
43 respondents, the average perceived challenge was 3.30 (Table 5.42) and perceived skill was
3.67 on a Likert 5-point scale (Table 5.44). Channel scores were calculated by the quotient of
perceived challenge to perceived skills for each youth hunting experience. Perceived challenge >
3.30 and skill > 3.67 were youth hunters considered to be in the “flow” channel during the
hunting experience. Youth hunters with perceived challenge > 3.30 and skill < 3.67 were
considered to be in the “anxiety” channel during youth the hunting experience. Youth were
considered to be in the “apathy” channel during the hunting experience if they rate their
challenge < 3.30 and skill < 3.67. Finally, youth were considered to be in the “boredom” channel
when their perceived challenge < 3.30 and skill > 3.67 (Figure 5.3).

	
  

146

Youth Hunting Experience Four-Channel Flow Model

Figure 5.3. The four-channel flow model applied to youth hunters during Michigan’s Special
Firearm White-tailed Deer Season (September 22 and 23, 2012).

	
  

147

Relationship Between Channels and Indicators of Flow
	
  

Hypothesis 1 states that there is a positive relationship between respondents’ perceived

mood, flow indicators, level of skill, and perceived challenge using the four-channel model
(Massimini & Carli, 1988). Differences in subjective experiences existed among flow, anxiety,
apathy, and boredom channels for 4 of the 8 indicators, however they were not significant (Table
5.75). Youth hunters were more likely to exhibit flow (n=41) than boredom (n=21), anxiety
(n=19), and apathy (n=3) channels during the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed
Deer Hunt on September 22 and 23, 2012.
Consistent with H1, youth hunter flow channel experiences were significantly related to
involvement and self-esteem. Inconsistent with H1, the flow channel was not considered to be an
indicator during involvement of the hunt where boredom was considered the dominant factor.
Additionally, inconsistent with H1 was the relationship between flow and personal expectations
during the hunting experience. Analysis of self-esteem from a personal perspective indicates that
boredom was more indicative of a young hunter’s perspective than the flow, anxiety, or apathy
channels of the four-channel model (Table 5.75). Further, there is a lack of significant difference
of flow indicators: intrinsic motivation, merging of action and awareness, self-esteem from a
peer and family perspective, concentration on task at hand, and paradox of control. Due to small
sample size, a post-hoc Bonferroni correction was calculated. A small sample size suggests that a
post-hoc comparison be used to keep p-values at desired levels. Therefore, a test of homogeneity
of variances was used to determine the need for a post-hoc comparison. The post-hoc
comparison indicated that variances differ statistically at p < .05 for flow indicators of
involvement, intrinsic motivation, and self-esteem from family and personal perspectives. In the
case of flow indicators (Table 5.75), the Bonferroni correction was able to correct for p-values

	
  

148

Table 5.75. Relationship between channels of flow, anxiety, apathy, and boredom to flow
indicators during the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt (n=84 hunts).
Flow
(n = 41)

Anxiety
(n = 19)

Boredom
(n = 21)

Apathy
(n = 3)

Involvement

0.17a

-0.69b

0.46a

-1.25b

Intrinsic Motivation

0.01

0.03

-0.18

0.96

1.16

Merging of Action and Awareness

-0.04

0.01

0.10

-0.24

0.15

Self-Esteem
Personal Expectations

-0.08

-0.26

0.48

-0.69

2.79*

Peer Expectations

0.19

-0.04

-0.32

-0.09

1.23

Family Expectations

0.14

-0.07

-0.18

-0.18

0.53

Concentration on the Task at Hand

0.15

0.04

-0.22

-0.72

1.19

Paradox of Control

0.19

-0.14

-0.16

-0.05

1.08

Flow Indicators

Model
F
8.13**

Note. Values represent mean z scores. Row means with disparate subscripts are significantly
different based on a Bonferroni correction (p < .05).
*p < .05., **p < .01.
and were found to be significant for the four channels as they related to involvement during the
hunting experience.
Consistent with H1, youth hunter’s flow channel experiences that were significantly
related to the mood indicators were how relaxed, strong and excited one felt during the hunting
experience. However, inconsistent with H1, flow was not considered to be the prominent channel
during the hunts. Instead, boredom was the dominant channel among the three mood indicators.
Additionally, mood indicators of being happy, active, proud, sociable and friendly were not
statistically significant. The post-hoc comparison indicated that variances differed statistically at
p < .05 for mood indicators of relaxed, strong, and excitement. Due to small sample size, a post-

	
  

149

Table 5.76. Relationship between channels of flow, anxiety, apathy, and boredom to mood
indicators during the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt (n=84 hunts).
Flow
(n = 41)

Anxiety
(n = 19)

Boredom
(n = 21)

Happy

0.17

-0.35

0.12

-0.89

2.11

Active

0.01

-0.23

0.13

0.40

0.58

Proud

0.21

-0.07

-0.32

-0.13

1.36

Relaxed

0.05

-0.60

0.42

-0.03

3.84*

Strong

0.14

-0.59

0.31

-0.23

3.40*

Sociable

-0.03

-0.05

0.12

-0.19

0.16

Excited

0.07

-0.63

0.50

-0.63

5.35**

Friendly

-0.02

-0.04

0.11

-0.73

0.63

Mood Indicators

Apathy
(n = 3)

Model
F

Note. Values represent mean z scores. Row means with disparate subscripts are significantly
different based on a Bonferroni correction (p < .05).
*p < .05., **p < .01.
hoc Bonferroni correction was calculated. In the case of mood indicators (Table 5.76), however
the Bonferroni correction was unable to correct for p-values.
Therefore, although one flow indicator (involvement) and three mood indicators (relaxed,
strong, and excited) were able to successfully predict one of the flow channels (boredom), I
reject H1 in favor of the null hypothesis (Ho1) that states that there is no association between
youth firearm deer hunting experiences and respondents’ perceived mood, flow indicators, level
of skill, and perceived challenge using the four-channel model.
Frequency of Channels Among Hunting Experiences
	
  
Hypothesis 2 states that there is a positive relationship between respondents’ levels of
“flow” and “anxiety” and experiences of hearing, seeing, shooting at, and harvesting white-tailed

	
  

150

deer during the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt (Table 5.77). In support
of H2, the Chi-Square Test of Association revealed that flow and anxiety channels exhibited a
significant and positive relationship related to hearing deer and other animals, and seeing whitetailed deer. Consistent with H2, flow and anxiety measurement stages were the major channels
for youth describing their experience of seeing white-tailed deer (Table 5.77). Three of eight
measurement stages of the hunt were significant to providing either flow or anxiety experiences
of young hunters. Due to a limited number of deer harvested (legal bucks and does) and few or
no values in any of the four flow channels, a chi-square test of association for shooting at deer,
harvesting bucks, and other antlerless white-tailed deer was not possible. I can conclude that
there is enough statistical evidence to support H2. Consequently, I reject the null hypothesis 2
(Ho2) that states that there is no association between youth firearm deer hunter experiences of
hearing deer and other animals, and seeing white-tailed deer relative to the flow and anxiety
constructs of the four-channel model (Massimini & Carli, 1988).

	
  

151

Table 5.77. Chi-Square Test of Association for differences in frequency of channels during
Michigan’s youth firearm white-tailed deer hunting experience and hearing deer and other
animals, and seeing and shooting at deer (n=84 hunts).
Measurement Stage

Flow
(n=41)

Anxiety
(n=19)

Boredom
(n=21)

Apathy
(n=3)

χ²

Hearing Deer and Other Animals

25
(42.4%)

12
(20.3%)

21
(35.6%)

1
(1.7%)

10.22*

Seeing White-tailed Deer

36
(55.3%)

16
(24.6%)

10
(15.4%)

3
(4.7%)

14.56*

Shooting at White-tailed Deer

21
(72.4%)

2
(6.9%)

6
(20.7%)

0
(0.0%)

12.52*

Total Frequency
41
19
21
3
Note. The Chi-Square Tests of Association is reported measurement stage of the hunt and the
four channel model.
*p < .05.

	
  

152

Intention to Continue Hunting and its Relationship to Flow
Hypothesis (H3) states that a positive relationship exists between participants’ ability
to achieve various levels of “flow” under hunting conditions and intention to continue
hunting. A discriminant analysis was used to examine which components were the best
indicators of “flow” and nonflow experiences (Table 5.78). A pooled-within-group
correlation between discriminating variables and canonical discriminant functions was used
to display results. Consistent with H3, there was one component of the discriminant analysis
that could be correlated with youth hunters that had flow experiences. Correlation within the
flow channel was significant for amount of white-tailed deer seen during the youth deer
hunting experience. These data, then, are consistent with the previous hypothesis (H2) of
seeing white-tailed deer. Additionally, on a Likert scale (1 – Very Bad to 5 –Very Good),
youth hunters rated seeing deer during their hunting experiences at 3.54 (S.D. – 1.45) (Table
5.79). Inconsistent with H3, the discriminant analysis revealed there was no discriminating
ability between participants who had various levels of “flow” and their intention to continue
hunting (Table 5.79). Therefore, I fail to reject the null hypothesis 3 (Ho3) that states that
there is no association between participants that have various levels of “flow” and their
intention to continue hunting. Additionally, the high percentages of respondents that
indicated intention to continue hunting in the circumstances measured, made it difficult to
apply hypothesis testing and a discriminant analysis statistical procedure.

	
  

153

Table 5.78. Summary of experience measures of youth hunters with discriminant analysis (n=84
hunts).

Youth Hunters’…

Unstandardized
Canonical
Function
Coefficients

Rating of the hunt

0.449

0.424

-0.069 (10)

0.154

Preparation for the hunt

-0.313

-0.319

0.140 (8)

0.646

Comfort level on the hunt

0.547

0.461

0.270 (6)

2.395

-0.552

-0.843

-0.525 (1)

9.046**

Time spent with partner

0.467

0.457

0.279 (4)

2.546

Intend to archery hunt

0.444

0.277

0.276 (5)

2.500

Intend to firearm hunt

0.065

0.059

-0.046 (11)

0.070

Would hunt if a Saturday
firearm opener

0.491

0.377

0.279 (3)

2.554

Intent to hunt for other
game

0.722

0.473

0.296 (2)

2.869

Intend to go trapping

-0.290

-0.123

-0.138 (9)

0.623

Intend to hunt in future

-1.094

-0.239

-0.179 (7)

1.049

Amount of deer seen

Standardized
Canonical
Function
Coefficients

Group centroid low

-0.640

Group centroid high

0.610

Wilks’ Lambda

0.715**

Canonical Correlation

0.534

*p < .05., **p < .01.

	
  

154

Discriminant
Loading
Absolute
(Rank)

F
Ratio

Table 5.79. Comparison of experience measures during youth participating in the Michigan
Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt (n=84 hunts).
	
  
Standard
Variable (Youth Hunters…)
Mean
Deviation
F Value
Rating of the hunt

4.17

0.85

0.154

Preparation for the hunt

3.69

0.93

0.646

Comfort level on the hunt

3.98

0.81

2.395

Amount of deer seen

3.05

1.45

9.046**

Time spent with partner

4.33

0.93

2.546

*p < .05., **p < .01.

	
  

155

CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this exploratory study was to determine if participation in recreational
hunting activities (i.e. the Michigan Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt) resulted in “flow”
experiences and if those experiences were related to behavioral intentions to continue hunting in
the future. I utilized the framework of flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) and the four-channel
model of “flow” (Massimini & Carli, 1988) during a hunting activity (Michigan’s Special Youth
Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt, September 22 and 23, 2012). Additionally, flow theory was
used to determine if: involvement; intrinsic motivation; merging of action and awareness;
family-, peer-, and self-esteem expectations; concentration of task at hand; and paradox of
control were potential predictors of “flow” during a special youth white-tailed deer hunt. A
purposeful sample of youth deer hunters (ages 12 to 16) were examined utilizing: (1) a
Background Survey administered at the youth’s respective Michigan Hunter Education course,
(2) the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) Hunting Survey during the hunt, and (3) the
Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey as a post-hunt instrument. Hypothesis testing was
used to determine if: youth hunters had varying levels of “flow” experiences during the hunt;
were more apt to experience “flow” when hearing, seeing, shooting at, or harvesting a deer; and
were more likely to participate, have positive experiences, and continue hunting in the future due
to these “flow” experiences.
This chapter is organized in the following sections: (1) Summary of Sampling Methods
(2) Summary of Procedures; (3) Summary of Findings; (4) Conclusions; (5) Discussion and
Implications; and (6) Recommendations for future research.

	
  

156

Summary of Sampling Methods
The sample was selected from nine Michigan Hunter Education classes from August 11,
2012 to September 16, 2012. Due to instrument questions being related to personal beliefs and
feelings regarding a youth’s hunting experience, I felt it best to attend each of the Hunter
Education courses and meet with parents/guardians, youth, and respective Hunter Education
instructors. The goal of attending each of the courses was to develop a shared trust among
instructors, parents/guardians, and youth in an effort to ensure higher survey response and more
authentic answers to questions from youth. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks to this
methodological approach is the small sample size that was ultimately achieved. An additional
limitation of this methodology included the number of hours expended on the miles traveled to
Hunter Education classes (1742 miles) to acquire the sample of youth data analyzed. Although
time and resource intensive, the personal relationships developed with Hunter Education
instructors, parents/guardians, and youth far outweighed the monetary costs of capital (human
and physical) invested in the study. Another limitation to this study was the bias toward south
and central Michigan Hunter Education classes. To minimize non-response, parents and
guardians of participants were phoned and e-mailed the week prior (September 17, 2012) to the
Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt (September 22 and September 23,
2012) to remind respondents that they had indicated an interest in participating in the study.
Additionally, parents and guardians of non-respondent participants were phoned and e-mailed on
September 24, September 28, and October 15, 2012 to remind youth to please fill out and return
the surveys to the researcher. I believe my involvement in Hunter Education classes contributed
to the response rates of young participants in this exploratory study.

	
  

157

Summary of Procedures
Sample subjects were volunteers from Hunter Education courses around the State of
Michigan. Of the 182 invited to participate, 98 (53.8%) youth ages 12 to 16 years of age assented
(with parental consent) to be a part of the study by participating in the Background Survey at
their respective Hunter Education classes. Of the sample of 98 respondents, 51 (52.0%) youth
participated in the second and third set of questionnaires in the study by hunting and filling out at
least one ESM Hunting Survey during Michigan’s Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer
Hunt (September 22 and 23, 2012), and the Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey at the
conclusion of their hunt. Upon compilation of all data returned from youth hunters, 43 of the
original 51 respondents to the Background Survey, at least one ESM Hunting Survey, and
Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey were determined to be complete and provide valid
and reliable data for analysis and hypothesis testing.
The Michigan Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt survey instruments were developed
and tested for reliability and validity prior to the study. Professionals within the Hunter
Education community were asked to review the instruments. Additionally, ten youth subjects
ages 12 to 16 were administered the Michigan Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt survey
instruments prior to the beginning of the study. Youth subjects’ scores were tested using a
Cronbach’s Alpha statistical procedure and were determined to be reliable for future use in the
Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt study.
Youth subjects participated in the study while at their Michigan Hunter Education course
and during the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt, September 22 and 23,
2012. Youth respondents that assented to participate in the study were administered the
Background Survey at their respective Michigan Hunter Education course, then participated in

	
  

158

the study based on the frequency that each respondent went hunting during the Michigan Special
Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt. The Experience Sampling Method (ESM) was used to
obtain an immediate subject response to a youth’s hunting experiences. Each youth respondent
filled out the ESM Hunting Experience Survey following the hunt by completing the appropriate
survey based on the day and time. This approach was chosen to minimize safety concerns and to
ensure minimal distractions during the hunt. Upon completion of the Michigan Special Youth
Firearm White-tailed Hunt, youth respondents mailed results to the researcher. A limitation to
this application of the ESM methodology may include the timing in which respondents filled out
the survey, however this was not measured. Research by Hektner et al. (2007) suggest that ESM
surveys should be filled out during or very soon after the experience, however not compromising
safety and the experience of the hunt with young hunters was believed to be more important.
Descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing of data were conducted using IBM SPSS v.
19.0. Small sample size was an important consideration and limitation of parametric statistical
techniques in this study. Although sample sizes were small in this exploratory study, prior
research suggests that ESM studies can be conducted with a small number of respondents
(Hektner et al., 2007). Hektner et al. (2007) suggests that ANOVA, Chi-Square, and other similar
statistical techniques are appropriate for analysis of ESM data. Sample sizes less than 50 have
been used successfully in several outdoor recreation studies (Hektner et al., 2007; Jones et al.,
2000; McIntyre and Roggenbuck, 1998).
Summary of Findings
This exploratory study of “flow” and the potential for hunter recruitment in youth
Michigan firearm deer hunters addressed three objectives including: (1) determining levels of
“flow” by youth hunters during a Michigan white-tailed deer hunting experience; (2) determining

	
  

159

if “flow” could be a predictor of hearing, seeing, shooting at, or harvesting deer; and (3)
determining if “flow” and non-flow experiences can classify participation in the hunt, experience
in the hunt, and intention to continue hunting in the future.
Each of the 22 ESM Hunting Experience scale items was scored across five point Likertscales. Frequency and level of “flow” occurrences were obtained from participants’ response to
the ESM Hunting Survey instrument. Challenge and skill scale scores were used to determine
when and to what extent “flow” occurred. “Flow” scores were computed by taking the youth
respondents’ perceived challenge score and dividing it by the respondents’ perceived skill score.
Z-scores were then calculated from the “flow” score calculations, and flow constructs to control
for individual response bias. Of the 43 respondents that participated in 84 hunts during the course
of the two-day Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt, there were 41
occurrences of “flow,” 19 occurrences of “anxiety,” 21 occurrences of “boredom,” and 3
occurrences of “apathy.” Raw “flow” scores calculated to z-scores ranged from -6.38 to 4.73,
where negative z-scores are below the group mean and positive scores are above the group mean.
A comparison between the original 98 Background Surveys (Tables 5.1 to 5.14) that were
returned (non-respondents) and the 43 Background Surveys (Tables 5.15 to 5.28) within the
completed results yielded few differences between responses to questions among the respondents
and non-respondents of the complete surveys. Of the eight unusable packets of questionnaires
that were returned by respondents, four of the respondents cited that they were not able to hunt
because they: “went squirrel hunting instead,” “had no time with DAD,” “had a broken ankle,”
or “were sick.”
Of the 43 youth that participated in this exploratory study, 88.4% of respondents
indicated that they had hunted prior to taking their Hunter Education course (81.4% male and

	
  

160

18.6% female), with an average age of 12.81 (SD – 1.07). Additionally, youth were more likely
to hunt with their dad when they could both shoot (78.9%) and not shoot (97.4%), than any other
adult measured in this study. Of the youth sampled (n=43), 54.8% indicated that their best friend
also hunts while 79.1% of youth indicated that they had watched a TV, DVD, or video about
deer hunting or gamed about deer hunting in the past year. These results imply that youth relate
to multimedia through videos and gaming more so than their best friend in the context of this
sample.
Of the recreational activities measured in the Background Survey, males most often
indicated that they “Really Enjoyed” hunting (73.5%), whereas females most often indicated
camping (88.9%) as their choice of recreational enjoyment. Additionally, on average, both males
(4.65, SD – 0.65) and females (4.67, SD – 0.71) rated hunting as the most favorable activity as
compared to other recreational activities measured in this exploratory study. These results
suggest that both males and females were focused on the youth hunting experience and that they
had achieved their end goal after they had taken their Hunter Education course.
Youth females rated their previous activity experiences higher than their male
counterparts on all constructs measured except gaming and being in the outdoors. This suggests
that females in this sample are more likely to enjoy “doing” while taking part in outdoor
recreational experiences than males in this study. Additionally, females were more likely to
enjoy camping (4.78, SD – 0.67) followed by shooting sports (4.67, SD – 0.50) and hunting
(4.67, SD – 0.71). These results are consistent with research that suggest that females are more
likely to enjoy camping, wall climbing, and other outdoor activities that promote “doing” while
in the outdoors (Kamal, Khadir, & Yunus, 2010). For example, providing young females with
hunting experiences that engage in “doing” activities may be appropriate. Furthermore, these

	
  

161

results suggest that gaming is important to young males, however, on average, gaming was rated
the lowest of any activities in the Background Survey for both males and females.
During the youth hunting experience on Saturday and Sunday (September 22 and 23,
2012), youth hunters hunted Saturday PM more often than any other hunting time, where males
saw an average of 4.78 deer and females saw an average of 1.67 deer. Although the Sunday PM
hunting time was the least prescribed to by females, on average they saw more deer (3.00) than
any other hunt period Based on the data and comments made by youth participants, the Saturday
PM hunt was most hunted due to weather conditions and number of deer seen. The Saturday AM
hunting period and Sunday AM and PM hunts were less favorable to hunters due to cited factors
such as church, other family commitments, and weather.
Male youth hunters were more likely to hunt on their own property, while females
indicated that they most often hunted on a relative’s property. While hunting, youth were most
likely to be thinking about hunting. Interestingly, a significant portion of female (27.8%)
respondents in the study thought about nature most often during their hunting experiences. This
result may imply that females are more intrinsically motivated when participating in the hunting
experience.
Of both the four hunting periods (Saturday AM, Saturday PM, Sunday AM, and Sunday
PM), youth shot at 29 white-tailed deer (25 male hunters, 4 female hunters), harvesting 16 deer
(15 male hunters, 1 female hunter) with 12 legal bucks (11 male hunters, 1 female hunter) being
harvested, 3 bucks with antlers smaller than 3” (3 male hunters), and one doe (1 male hunter).
These data suggests that although management of antlerless deer is an important consideration
and component of wildlife management, the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer

	
  

162

Hunt may serve as a cultural event to get youth out and have an opportunity to harvest their first
“buck.”
In general males and females that harvested deer “Enjoyed” or “Really Enjoyed” the
experiences of finding and field dressing the animal after the harvest. This suggests that it is not
just about shooting a deer, but the activities that occur after the hunt and harvest, which supports
the work of Langenau and Mellon (1980).
Experience Sampling Method questions provided ratings from youth on their perceived
“flow” experiences related to feelings, interest, and mood levels during the four youth hunt
periods. Females rated “importance of the hunt,” “wish they had been doing something else,”
“the hunt as an interesting experience,” “alignment with goals for the future,” “enjoyment of the
hunt,” “feeling as though they were doing the best they could do,” “feeling in control of the
hunt,” and “feeling better about themselves during the hunt” higher than their male counterparts.
Males rated the “challenge of the hunt,” and that they would “talk to a friend or family member
about their hunting experience” higher than females. Ratings were the same for perceived “skill
of the hunt” and “belief that they were getting better at hunting.”
In this exploratory research without significance testing, mood ratings measured during
each of the hunt periods indicated that males rated their “happiness” and “strength” higher than
females. Whereas, females rated their perceived levels of “activeness,” “pride,” “relaxation,”
“sociability,” “excitement,” and “friendliness” higher than their male counterparts. Overall, total
perceived “happiness” (4.30, SD – 0.70) and “excitement” (4.18, SD – 0.89) ratings were highest
among all mood indicators measured suggesting that youth respondents that participated in this
study were enjoying the hunting experiences and indicated this through their rating of the various
hunt periods. Additionally, these ratings were also reflective of scores from previous questions

	
  

163

about perceived enjoyment of their specific hunting experiences during Michigan’s Special
Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt.
Youth ratings of their overall hunting experience and satisfaction were measured using
the Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey. The results suggest that youth rated their
overall experience of the youth hunt high (4.17, SD – 0.85) on a scale of 1 to 5. Males (4.32, SD
– 0.81) rated their overall experience of the hunt higher than females (3.50, SD – 0.76). These
ratings by males and females are inversely proportional to the ratings of the hunting experience
in the ESM Hunting Survey, suggesting that further methodological research needs to occur to
determine the reliability of these instruments in other recreational hunting venues (e.g.,
Michigan’s Special Youth Waterfowl Hunt). Of the 16 white-tailed deer harvested by 43 youth
hunting participants, 15 deer were harvested by 35 male respondents (34.3%), whereas, females
only harvested one deer (12.5%) out of 8 respondents. Given that males were more successful,
these results may suggest that extrinsic factors of success on the hunt are important. However,
the small sample size is a limitation of this research.
Females rated questions about the “overall hunting experience,” “preparation,” and
“comfort level” during the hunt higher than males. However, males rated the “number of deer
seen” and “time spent with their hunting partner” as more important than females. These results
may suggest that females enjoyed the hunting experience based on factors associated to the
intrinsic motivation of the hunt, whereas males were more focused on the extrinsic factors
related to number of deer seen, and opportunity to dialogue with their hunting partner.
Youth participants in this study were asked questions related to their intention to continue
hunting in the future. Of the youth that responded to this question, 54.8% intended to go hunting
during Michigan’s archery season. Interestingly, males (63.6%) intended to hunt during the

	
  

164

archery season more than females (25.0%). Of the 42 respondents, youth indicated an intention
to go hunting the opening day of firearm deer season (69.1%), with a high percentage of non“yes” responses indicating “maybe” (28.6%). Further, youth respondents also indicated an
intention to go hunting on the opening day of firearm deer season if it opened on a Saturday
closest to November 15 (78.6%), with 19.0% of youth indicating that they “may” go hunting on
this same day. Of the youth respondents that answered questions about their overall intention to
continue hunting for other game, males (71.4%) indicated a stronger intention to hunt for other
wild game versus females (25.0%). This suggests that males may be more likely to hunt other
forms of wild game, whereas females are more centric to hunting white-tailed deer. This may
also imply that females may be an excellent target audience for recruitment of future hunters
with a focus on deer hunting. Finally, opportunities to recruit male youth populations to hunting
may be more appropriate in areas other than deer hunting such as waterfowl, turkey, bear, or
other small game hunting opportunities.
Finally, of the 43 youth participants in this study, 41 (97.6%) of 42 indicated that they
intended to hunt in the future. Of those respondents, 100% of females indicated that they
intended to hunt in the future. The only other response indicated “maybe” due to school
responsibilities that may influence other youth participants from hunting in the future. This study
suggests that Michigan’s Special Youth Firearm Deer Hunt was a positive overall experience
that may provide youth with the support needed to hunt in the future. Due to the small sample
size, generalizations of statements across the larger population of youth hunters that participate
in Michigan’s Special Youth Firearm Deer Hunt is not possible, however it does provide the
impetus for future research to reinforce and support this exploratory study and methodological
approach. Future research may be possible through utilization of Michigan Department of

	
  

165

Natural Resources Apprentice and/or Junior Hunting License data as a sample to apply this study
methodology.
Hypothesis 1 was not supported by the findings that the four-channel model significantly
predicted 2 of 8 flow indicators and 3 of 9 mood indicators. However the similarity in means
between the flow and boredom channels in the involvement indicator, suggest that even if the
challenge of the hunt exceeded the skill of the young hunter, the quality of the experience in the
boredom state was no different than the flow state. This similarity in means also indicates that
youth hunters of this purposeful sample are experiencing sensations of flow and boredom
common in typical white-tailed deer hunting scenarios where “blind” or stand hunting in
Michigan is a standard hunting technique. Additionally, the quality of the experience in the
boredom state was very similar to the flow state. These results suggest that unless young hunters
are constantly hearing and seeing white-tailed deer and other animals while hunting, the boredom
channel may be a prominent feature that characterizes a youth’s deer hunting experiences.
Consequently, youth may lose interest in white-tailed deer hunting if not provided with flow-like
hunting experiences (e.g., hearing deer and other animals, and seeing deer) on a regular basis.
This factor may be related to the autotelic personality of youth and their desire to repeat
enjoyable experiences such as certain types of hunting where the frequency of seeing game is
high (e.g., waterfowl) or is combined with seeing more game and physically pursuing the game
(e.g., grouse, woodcock, pheasants, rabbits). Additionally, the notion of the linkage between the
flow model and involvement through repeated enjoyable experience is directly related to a
youth’s relationship between the flow and boredom channels and inversely related to the anxiety
and apathy channels during youth leisure activities that are framed by flow experiences (Bassi
and Delle Fave, 2004).

	
  

166

Hypothesis 2 was partially supported by the findings that the “flow” channel experiences
using the four-channel model could significantly predict the ability to hear deer and other
animals, and see white-tailed deer. The working hypothesis stated that there is a positive
relationship between respondents’ levels of “flow” and “anxiety” and experiences of hearing,
seeing, shooting at, and harvesting white-tailed deer during the Michigan Special Youth Firearm
White-tailed Deer Hunt. Two of eight measurement stages of the hunt supported the hypothesis
that either flow or anxiety experiences could be attributed to whether a young person is hearing
deer or other animals, and seeing deer. These results are consistent with research conducted by
Jones et al. (2000) suggesting that experiences characterized by flow and anxiety are much more
prominent in situations where perceived challenge and skill of the participant is heightened, and
boredom is more apparent where perceived challenge and skill by the participant is low. These
results are also consistent with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975, 1990) research suggesting that there is
a strong linkage between autotelic dimensions of “flow” and experiences where adventure is
occurring through “hearing,” “seeing,” and “doing.” The results of this hypothesis also support
the work of Langenau and Mellon (1980) that indicate that young hunters are more likely to
enjoy hunting experiences if they are actively seeing deer. The results of H2 also support the use
of flow theory and the methodological approaches to special youth hunting experiences. These
results also provide an important framework for additional research where youth could be
measured in specific hunting experiences. These results also support the work of Decker &
Purdy (1986) that suggest another theoretical approach that supports a way to initiate new
hunters into a hunting experience by utilizing flow theory methodology as a way of measuring
intention and participation. Flow theory has the potential to provide a measure intention by
understanding enjoyment levels of young hunters. Understanding aspects of enjoyment from a

	
  

167

young person’s perspective may help parents, guardians, and mentors provide positive hunting
experiences.
Hypothesis 3 was not supported by the findings that “flow” channel experiences using the
four-channel model could significantly predict a youth’s intention to continue hunting in the
future. The results suggest that youth could not be classified within groups to predict “flow”
experiences based on the experience and intention to continue hunting in the future. In the case
of the 2012 Michigan Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt experience, utilizing the constructs
of overall experience and intention to continue hunting have little promise in predicting “flow.”
Only one of the dependent variables (amount of deer seen during the youth hunting experience)
was significant (p < .05). A pooled-within-group correlation between discriminating variables
and canonical discriminant functions was used to display results. The component of “amount of
deer seen” and their respective correlations were: -.843, (.534) with the respondents’ average
Likert scale score (1 –Very Bad to 5 – Very Good) of 3.54 (SD – 1.45). Although this is
important, and supports the work of Langenau and Mellon (1980), it does not support the
remaining dependent variables considered by H3. Further, the results of the discriminant analysis
suggest that there is no capacity to predict membership groups based on hunter satisfaction or the
hunting experience and intention to continue hunting in the future. These results suggest that
overall youth experience and satisfaction of a recreational activity are not conducive to
successful measurement of “flow” constructs as respondents are measuring experiences after the
experience has occurred. This further supports research conducted by Csikszentmihalyi (1975,
1990), Jones et al. (2000), and McIntyre and Roggenbuck (1998) that “flow” should be measured
during or very soon after the experience.

	
  

168

Finally, hearing and seeing deer is important! This research supports hypothesis 2 and the
work of hunter satisfaction research conducted by Langenau and Mellon (1980). In that research,
seeing deer was a critical component of overall satisfaction with the hunting experience. Based
on the findings and within the limitations of this exploratory Michigan Special Youth Whitetailed Deer Hunt study, the ability of hunting participation, experience on the hunt, and intention
to discriminate between “flow” and non-flow experiences was best indicated by a young
person’s success in seeing deer while on the hunt.
Conclusions
Descriptive statistical procedures suggest that there are differences in this sample based
on the results of the Background Survey, ESM Hunting Surveys, and Hunting Experience and
Satisfaction Surveys. In general, females were more attuned to the intrinsic motivation factors
highlighted within the ESM Hunting Surveys, whereas males were more likely to rate extrinsic
experiences higher while hunting. Results also suggest that females are more perceptive of
particular aspects of the overall experience and satisfaction of the hunt including preparation and
comfort. Additionally, these results suggest that young male hunting respondents rated seeing
deer and talking with their hunting partner as more important. Further, subjects were equally
likely to intend to deer hunt using archery equipment, go hunting the opening day of Michigan’s
Firearm Deer Season (November 15), and hunt white-tailed deer if the opening day of firearm
deer season were to always open on a Saturday (closest to November 15). Finally, of the 42
respondents in this study that answered that question about intention to hunt in future years, all
but one indicated that they intended to hunt in the future. Therefore, this study suggests that there
is predictive value to those young people that go hunting during Michigan’s Special Youth
White-tailed Deer Hunt and those that are also likely to become future hunters. For example, if a

	
  

169

youth and his or her mentor have a “positive” experience during the Michigan Special Youth
Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt, that same youth will likely intend to continue hunting in the
future. This finding provides support for Michigan’s Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer
Hunt and also supports the importance of this opportunity as an excellent way to recruit new
hunters for the future.
Based on the findings of the hypothesis testing in this research and within the limitations
of this exploratory study, “flow” experiences were not a viable predictor of intention to continue
hunting for youth during Michigan’s Special White-tailed Deer Youth Hunt. The implication of
flow theory to this hypothesis is important and supports the work of Csikszentmihalyi (1975,
1990), Jones et al. (2000), and McIntyre and Roggenbuck (1998) by stating that ESM
measurements should occur during the experiences being measured and not post-hoc. However,
the four-channel model (Massimini & Carli, 1988) has the potential to be a viable predictor of
youth hunting experiences when hearing deer and other game, and seeing white-tailed deer is a
significant feature of the hunt. This implication provides an opportunity to apply the fourchannel model and flow theory to other youth hunting experiences. Understanding and
quantifying flow theory based on a larger sample has the ability to inform future research that
may assist in understanding psychological constructs related to a youths’ desire to hunt in the
future.
A valid and reliable scale was developed to measure background, in-situ hunting
experiences, and intention to continue hunting for youth firearm white-tailed deer hunters.
Understanding youth experiences related to hunting has not been fully examined, however,
within this exploratory study, the indications are that this instrument has the potential to be
adapted to other youth hunting activities. However, individual ESM Hunting Survey results for

	
  

170

female enjoyment of the hunt and overall enjoyment of the hunt measured in the Hunting
Experience and Satisfaction Survey were contradictory. Therefore, additional testing of the three
instruments to other youth audiences in the context of hunting activities is merited to further
validate instrumentation.
Discussion and Implications
The method used to measure “flow” seemed to be problematic in certain instances. Youth
respondents who completed the ESM instruments may have only hunted one time during the
Michigan Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt. Therefore, as few as one “flow” measurement
may have occurred during the study. This occurrence may have been due to the youth
participants harvesting a deer during the first morning of the hunt or ancillary activities that may
have prevented the young hunter from going hunting the remainder of the Michigan Special
Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt. This is a limitation to the methodological approach used in this
exploratory study, however a larger sample applied in another hunting context may improve this
methodology in the future.
Although there was limited success in the hypothesis testing that flow theory could
explain continued participation in hunting, nearly all respondents indicated that they intended to
continue hunting in the future. Another major limitation of this research is the small sample size
that comprised this study preventing generalizations across larger populations of youth in
Michigan’s Special Youth White-tailed Deer Hunt. A recommendation for larger sample size
supports the work of Jones et al. (2000) and McIntyre and Roggenbuck (1998). Based on the
successful aspects of this study, future application should include development of research based
on a larger, more representative sample from a current Michigan youth license holder database.
Implementing this study in the future has the potential to support the positive aspects of

	
  

171

participants that are in “flow,” and are those individuals that are more likely to hear, see, and
shoot at deer. Additionally, application of this methodology should also be applied to other
special youth hunting experiences. Other applications of this research that should be considered
include Michigan’s Special Youth Waterfowl Hunt and various small game seasons (e.g.,
pheasant, grouse, woodcock, rabbits). Waterfowl hunting is often characterized by having many
opportunities to shoot at birds. Various small game hunting experiences are often framed by
situations where the hunter is walking and finding game and where dogs are often used to “flush”
game.
Weather conditions during the hunting experiences may have played an important part
influencing youth during this research. This confounding factor influenced the amount of data
collected during the study. Youth respondent and adult mentor perceptions of the weather were
important to subject response rates. Some youth respondents and adult mentors perceived the
weather to be a detriment to the hunting experience, while other youth respondents and adult
mentors perceived weather conditions as a benefit to the hunting experience. Weather conditions
sometimes determined when youth respondents and adult mentors chose to participate in the
study. If they were not hunting, they were not able to answer the ESM survey questions. Youth
cited weather as being the reason they did not go out on a particular hunting experience on nine
different occasions. Therefore, another limitation to a study that occurs only one weekend a year
like Michigan’s Special White-tailed Deer Hunt includes weather conditions that may keep
young hunters out of the field.
Youth respondents were examined in an assumed freely chosen, intrinsically motivated
activity. This study involved an event-contingent ESM approach where youth subjects responded
to questionnaires when it was safe and appropriate to do so. However, placing these limitations

	
  

172

on youth respondents also provided an opportunity for recall error to occur as well as the
potential to forget about the ESM Hunting Experience questionnaire all together. For example, a
youth may have hunted both Saturday morning and evening, but only remembered to fill out the
questionnaires Sunday evening. By not filling out the ESM Hunting Experience questionnaires
promptly following the hunting experience, the youth hunter may have forgotten significant
features of the hunt including, but not limited to, number of deer seen and particular aspects of
the hunt that may have been memorable to the overall experience. Although recall error may
have occurred, it was not measured.
The Background Survey, ESM Hunting Experience Survey, and Hunting Experience and
Satisfaction instruments proved to be a viable way to examine youth subjects in a purely
recreational context. However, the limited timeframe of this special youth hunt (2 days), was a
limitation to the success or failure of data collection through weather considerations, time
constraints and the commitment of youth and mentor hunting partners.
Theoretically, this research was a new and innovative way to apply flow theory utilizing
hunting from the context of a recreational activity and youth ages 12 to 16 as the sample age
range. Results suggest that this theoretical model can be expanded to include the ability to
predict youth “flow” occurrences as hearing deer and other game, and seeing, white-tailed deer.
The results of hypothesis 2 support measuring “flow” and merits further research on a larger
scale as well as application of flow theory in context of other recreational activities. However,
based on the results of the hypothesis testing in this study, there were several limitations by
utilizing flow theory. First, based on hypothesis 1, the four-channel model was not able to
adequately predict that youth hunters would likely be in a state of “flow” or “anxiety” as opposed
to a state of “boredom” or “apathy” while deer hunting. I believe that if youth were constantly

	
  

173

hearing and seeing game, results of the hypothesis testing may have been positive (e.g.,
woodcock, grouse, pheasants). However, since white-tailed deer hunting is typically an activity
where the hunter “sits” on-stand for long periods of time, this hypothesis should be revised in
future research to accommodate for this hunting technique. Second, flow theory could not
adequately explain differences among pooled-within-group factors as indicated by results of the
discriminant analysis. In this particular study and based on the sample, it was not possible to
model the overall experience and satisfaction after the hunt as a function of “flow.” These results
were largely due to the lack of a test hypothesis because nearly all respondents intending to go
hunting in the future. This is also important as it supports the notion that flow theory was
developed to measure in-situ recreational experiences (Hektner et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2000).
Overall, flow theory is an excellent theoretical model to assist in understanding specific events
for specific populations of people in an effort to provide more information about psychological
aspects of young people, but it is not without its limitations.
Methodologically, a series of valid and reliable instruments were developed and
implemented that successfully measured a variety of constructs related to a youth’s: (1) hunting
background, (2) experience during Michigan’s Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt,
and (3) overall experience and satisfaction of the hunting experience. Application of the ESM
informed the researcher about the opportunities that benefit young hunters through understanding
perceived feelings, interest, and mood during a hunting experience. This study also applied a
methodological approach that utilized open-ended questions about a youth’s experience during
the youth hunt, which provided the researcher an authentic youth voice to support quantitative
metrics of this exploratory study. Unfortunately, there was an inverse relationship between
female ESM Hunting and Hunting Experience and Satisfaction ratings, where enjoyment of the

	
  

174

hunt was rated. Therefore, additional testing of the instruments in other hunting venues needs to
be completed to determine validity and reliability of the items/scales for this particular question.
One of the major challenges and future implications of this type of research is the use of this
methodological approach for data collection at Michigan Hunter Education courses. Young
people and their parent(s) or guardian(s) in attendance at Hunter Education classes are there for
one reason, to get certified to hunt in Michigan! Therefore, utilization of Michigan Apprentice
Hunting License and Junior Hunting license data may be a more advantageous avenue to obtain a
sample in an effort to achieve a higher response rate and larger sample.
This exploratory research developed practical aspects for understanding youth whitetailed deer hunters (ages 12 to 16). This approach and methodology contributed to a better
understanding of a young hunters intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and intention to continue
hunting in the future. Practically speaking, this exploratory research and the processes used to
conduct this study can better inform state wildlife agencies in an effort to develop larger scale
research to understand youth hunters and thereby potentially providing additional involvement
opportunities for recruitment of Michigan’s youth hunting and non-hunting populations for the
future. Providing “flow”-like educational opportunities in Michigan Hunter Education courses
has the potential to leave everlasting impacts on young people. These positive educational
impacts may provide the impetus for a young person to become a hunter and continue hunting.
Examples of these experiences may include personal stories and anecdotal evidence by Hunter
Education instructors during class. Additionally, instructors may consider providing youth with
experiences such as going outdoors and hearing and seeing wildlife as part of the Hunter
Education course.

	
  

175

Recommendations
The application of flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) and the four-channel model of
“flow” (Massimini & Carli, 1988) to youth deer hunters in this exploratory study are both
innovative and groundbreaking. Surveying and analysis of responses by youth deer hunters about
their background experiences related to hunting, in-situ hunting experiences, and experiences
and satisfaction of the hunt at the conclusion of hunting experiences was a new way to
understand youth and their experiences during Michigan’s Special Youth Firearm White-tailed
Deer Hunt.
This study also adds to the current body of research that has been developed with regard
to young hunters experience and satisfaction in Michigan (Langenau & Mellon, 1980) and
hunting involvement research (Decker and Purdy, 1986). This exploratory research also has the
potential to be expanded on a larger scale and used by state wildlife agencies for decisionmaking purposes in the areas of hunter recruitment and providing opportunities to measure
initiation of hunting to youth populations.
Recommendations for the future include adaptation and implementation of this survey
methodology in hunting situations where “flow” occurs more often than a white-tailed deer
hunting experience that is characterized by constant states of “boredom” followed by fleeting
moments of “flow.” Forms of hunting where hunters and game are constantly on the “move” are
more indicative of experiences similar to rock climbing as cited by Csikzentmihalyi (1975).
These types of recreational hunting experiences may include rabbit, grouse, woodcock, and
pheasant hunting. In these situations, hunters are constantly on the move and game has the
potential to move at any point and time during the hunt. Additionally, turkey hunting may
provide a venue for implementation of this methodological approach. Turkey hunting may be

	
  

176

characterized by activities that include: finding, calling, setting up decoys, and responding to
calls from turkeys. Finally, the Michigan Special Youth Waterfowl Hunt provides an opportunity
to apply this methodological protocol in a setting centric to youth hunters and where hunters are
more likely to see more wildlife during the hunt and thus are more likely to experience situations
of “anxiety,” and “flow,” than that of “boredom” or “apathy.” The Michigan Special Youth
Waterfowl Hunt at managed waterfowl areas also provides an opportunity to pre-test
(Background Survey) youth at the check-in station prior to the hunt, then post-test (Hunting
Experience and Satisfaction Survey) youth as they provide hunt administrators with the
registration cards and harvested birds after the hunt. Additionally, upon completion of the
surveys, young hunters could place completed forms in the on-site drop-box to decrease potential
for non-response bias.
This exploratory research also recommends the utilization of existing secondary MDNR
data (Michigan Apprentice or Junior Hunting License) to frame a study with a larger, and more
representative random sample size. Applying this research methodology to Michigan Apprentice
Hunting License data would also provide a better understanding of those youth that purchase a
Michigan Junior Hunting License in successive years after the apprentice experience or dropout
of hunting after taking Michigan Hunter Education. Further, these data would be important in
determining youth retention and churn rates of young hunters in Michigan. Utilizing Michigan
Apprentice Hunting License data would also provide a better understanding of those youth that
take Michigan Hunter Education, or simply decide not to hunt after their Apprentice Hunting
experience.
This exploratory research suggests that there is a direct relationship between positive
youth-mentor relationships during the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt

	
  

177

experience and intention to continue hunting in the future. Therefore, I would recommend that
the MDNR consider development of additional special mentored youth opportunities to hunt in
Michigan. These opportunities may include special youth turkey, bear, and elk hunts.
Young hunters that participated in this study indicated a strong desire to go white-tailed
deer hunting on the opening day of Michigan’s firearm white-tailed deer season (November 15).
However, even more compelling, those same young hunters indicated that they would be more
likely go hunting if the opening day of the firearm white-tailed deer hunting season opened on a
Saturday that was closest to November 15. Although the purposeful sample was small, these
questions merit further study in a larger setting.
In Michigan, The Department of Natural Resources and Hunter Education certify
approximately 25,000 individuals annually. Of those 25,000, 12 to 16 year old youth make up
about 41% of Michigan Hunter Education graduates each year. Michigan Hunter Education
(MHE) provides opportunities for individuals to understand aspects of safe hunting, firearm
mechanics and understanding, firearm safety, hunting ethics, and wildlife conservation and
management. MHE instructors educate people both young and old in an effort to foster
successful and safe hunting experiences.
In this exploratory study several positive aspects were brought to bear that have the
ability to inform instructors about young people ages 12 to 16 and the ability to get them in the
field and keep them hunting over time. From the Background Survey data, and based on the
research from this exploratory study (Michigan’s Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer
Hunt), mentors are a significant feature of the hunt. Additionally, the Background Survey
suggests that an interested, trusted adult is an integral component of a youths’ participation in
hunting. I would recommend that instructors develop a mentorship program for their younger

	
  

178

graduates. It may be that we are losing potential hunters before they even have the opportunity to
hunt if there is no adult support.
Another important aspect that came from this research is that male and female youth may
think and feel differently about not only the hunting experience, but also the experiences that
lead up to the hunt. MHE instructors may want to consider developing their courses for specific
populations (e.g., female only) in an effort to structure learning based on age or gender of the
group. This educational methodology has the ability to provide young people with experiences in
the classroom that model their personal interests. For example, female youth respondents were
more attuned to the preparation and comfort of the hunt, enjoying nature as a component of the
hunt, and overall experience during their deer hunting experience than males. Providing Hunter
Education courses that are centric to white-tailed deer hunting and preparation of the hunt with a
mentor in the class has the ability to provide experiences that may be more interesting to
students. Experiential activities in a Hunter Education course may include taking females out on
a nature walk or providing opportunities to prepare for a hunt, whereas males were more
interested in aspects related to shooting, seeing deer, and talking with their mentor while hunting.
Therefore providing educational experiences that are more centric to the extrinsic factors of the
hunt may help to foster interest in male hunters. For example, instructors may have their students
learn how to score deer antlers, set traps, and work with firearms as ways to provide hands-on
experiences.
This research also provides insight into opportunities to apply the ESM methodology in
other venue besides Michigan Hunter Education courses. Currently the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources offers Recreation 101 or REC 101. Recreation 101 courses provide
introductory recreational topics taught by DNR staff and expert volunteers in specific areas of

	
  

179

interest at state parks throughout Michigan. Additionally, the Carl T. Johnson Hunt and Fish
Center in Cadillac, Michigan provides opportunities to learn more about hunting and fishing
through education and outreach. Finally many other Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Education and Outreach opportunities exist that may also be potential venues to apply this
methodological approach including: Archery in the Schools, Becoming an Outdoor Woman,
Exploring Bowhunting, and Recreational Archery Programs.
In summary, although hunter numbers have increased recently according to a preliminary
report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FHWAR, 2012), research suggests that as the
overall population continues to increase, the proportion of the population that hunts is likely to
decrease more so than the absolute number of hunters (Geist, 2006; Jacobson & Decker, 2006;
Organ & Fritzell, 2000; Zinn, Manfredo, & Barro, 2002). This exploratory research has provided
important information about young hunters that find “flow” when hearing deer and other
animals, and seeing white-tailed deer. This study also provides an excellent segue for future
research that provides the opportunity to assist in recruitment and retention efforts to ensure that
recreational hunting is viable and sustainable to Michigan’s future.

	
  

180

APPENDICES

	
  

181

Appendix A: Parental consent and youth assent form.
	
  
Measuring “Flow” and the Potential For Hunter Recruitment In Michigan Youth Firearm Deer
Hunters
PARENTAL CONSENT AND YOUTH ASSENT FORM
Study’s Purpose
Outdoor recreation and leisure are an important component of life in Michigan. The purpose of
this research is to collect data from youth at their Michigan Hunter Education class and while
they are taking part in the Michigan Special Youth Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt. The goal of
collecting this information is to better understand youth and their perceptions about hunting,
interest and challenge while hunting, satisfaction about the hunt, and intention to continue
hunting in the future.
What your son/daughter will do
As part of this study, you are being asked to give your permission for your son or daughter to
participate in this study. During this study we will be asking your son or daughter to fill out
questionnaires in a packet that you will receive. In this packet your son or daughter is being
asked to fill out surveys before, during and after the hunting experience. If necessary, please feel
free to assist your son or daughter by reading or clarifying the survey questions. When we say
“you” in this consent form we mean you or your child. You are giving permission to participate
in this research during the Michigan Hunter Education course and during Michigan’s special
youth white-tailed deer hunt on September 22 and 23, 2012.
Risks and Benefits
Your participation in this study does not entail any additional effort or time on your part. We
perceive that the risks associated with participating in this study are low. This study will benefit
the future of youth hunting in Michigan and participants in Michigan Hunter Education.
Privacy and Confidentiality
In the analysis and storage of the data, we will use a coding system that keeps your son or
daughters identity separate from their specific data. No individuals will be identified in the final
research reports or articles, nor will any quotes or paraphrases be attributed to individuals by
name. We will also be sure that contextual descriptions do not reveal your son or daughter’s
identity. The research data will be stored securely in locked files for three years and be made
available only to the researchers associated with this study. The privacy of your son or
daughter’s information will be protected to the maximum extent of the law.
Your Permission
Participating in this study is completely voluntary. You are under no pressure or obligation to
agree to have your son or daughter take part in this study. You may withdraw your permission at
any time without any penalties. If you agree to the terms of participation, please 1) enter your
name and your son or daughter’s name and, 2) return the form to the researchers.

	
  

182

Contact Information
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part
of it, or to report an injury please contact, Michael W. Everett (MSU, 140 Natural Resources
Building, 480 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824 or everettm@msu.edu or 517-432-0292) or
Dr. Chuck Nelson, Ph.D. (MSU, 142 Natural Resources Building, 480 Wilson Road, East
Lansing, MI, 48824 or nelsonc@msu.edu or 517-432-0272).
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University Human Research
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI, 48853.
Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.

Signature

Date

Signature of Assenting Child (12-16)

Date

You will be given a copy of this form to keep.
	
  

	
  

	
  

183

Appendix B: Letter to parents and youth participants explaining research.

Dear Parents,
Thank you for letting your child take part in this study. The goal of this research is to understand
youth hunting experiences. To do this I am asking for your support and your child’s
involvement. Please give your consent and your son or daughter’s assent by completing Consent
Form attached to this document.
At your child’s Michigan Hunter Education course I will be asking them to complete the
Background Survey. The goal of this survey is to understand your child by recording age and
gender, then ask about their interests related to outdoor activities and hunting.
The next part of the study will take place during the special youth firearm deer hunt, September
22 and 23, 2012. You will receive a packet at the Michigan Hunter Education course to be filled
out by your son or daughter during the youth hunt and immediately following the youth hunt.
There are directions for each of the surveys within the packet. If needed, please feel free to read
the survey questions or assist your son or daughter with any questions they have about the
survey.
During the Daily Hunting Survey phase of the study your child will be asked to fill out a survey
at noon and at 9:00 p.m. on both days. Additionally, while you and your child are hunting we
would ask that they utilize the Wildlife Inventory that is found for each day. I understand that
your son or daughter may not hunt both days. However, we hope that they go hunting at least
once. Please do not allow your child to take the survey when in a situation that may be
considered unsafe or if it is disruptive to the hunt.
Finally, your son or daughter will take the Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey after they
are done hunting. This may occur if they only hunt once or at the conclusion of the youth hunt
Sunday evening. The goal of this phase of the study is to understand information that is pertinent
to your child’s deer hunting experience and their future intentions about hunting.
After completion of the surveys, place them in the self-addressed, stamped envelope that is
provided.
Thank you in advance for your assistance,
Michael Everett
Michigan State University
140 Natural Resources Building
480 Wilson Road
East Lansing, MI 48824
e-mail: everettm@msu.edu

	
  

184

Appendix C: Background survey directions for youth firearm deer hunters.

Hello Youth Deer Hunters,
Thank you for taking the time to be a part of this study.
The purpose of this study is to better understand young hunters. I am collecting information
about your interests and skills based on your feelings at the current moment.
This survey should take less than 10 minutes for you to do.
Directions for You
- Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey while at your hunter safety course.
- Answer honestly: there are no right or wrong answers.
- If you have any questions please contact me at everettm@msu.edu or 517-581-5888

	
  

185

Appendix D: Background youth hunting interest survey.

Background Youth Hunting Interest Survey
The first three questions are being asked to create a coding system to preserve the
confidentiality of your name. Please answer the same way on all of the surveys.
1.
What are the first three letters of your favorite… athlete? (last name)___ ___ ___
2.
animal?
___ ___ ___
3.
food?
___ ___ ___
_____________________________________________________________________________
4.
5.
6.
7.

How old are you?
☐ 12 ☐ 13 ☐ 14 ☐ 15 ☐ 16
I am a…
☐ Male ☐ Female
Have you hunted with a firearm prior to taking this course?
If yes, who did you go with? (Check all those that apply)

☐ Yes ☐ No

☐ Mom
☐ Dad
☐ Brother
☐ Sister
☐ Grandparent
☐ Aunt
☐ Uncle
☐ Cousin
☐ Friend
☐ Neighbor
☐ Other (please specify) _____________________________
8.

Did you have a Michigan Apprentice Hunting License before taking the course?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure

9.

Have you ever gone hunting with others before you were able to shoot?
☐ Yes ☐ No

10.

If yes, who did you hunt with? (Check all those that apply)
☐ Mom
☐ Dad
☐ Brother
☐ Sister
☐ Grandparent
☐ Aunt
☐ Uncle
☐ Cousin
☐ Friend
☐ Neighbor
☐ Other (please specify) _____________________________
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure

11.

Does your best friend hunt?

12.

Did you watch a TV show, DVD, or video about deer hunting in the last year?
☐ Yes ☐ No

13.

If yes, how many hours per week do you watch these shows?
☐ < 1 hour
☐ 1-2 hours ☐ 2-3 hours ☐ 3-4 hours

14.

	
  

☐ > 4 hours

Did you do any gaming (PS, Xbox, Wii, Internet, etc.) about deer hunting in the last
year?
☐ Yes ☐ No

186

15.

If yes, how many hours per week did you play these games?
☐ < 1 hour
☐ 1-2 hours ☐ 2-3 hours ☐ 3-4 hours

☐ > 4 hours

Please rate the following statements about you. Circle the number that best describes you for
each activity.
Don’t
Really
Activity
Enjoy
Enjoy
16.
Being in the outdoors
1
2
3
4
5
17.
Watching wildlife
1
2
3
4
5
18.
Hunting
1
2
3
4
5
19.
Fishing
1
2
3
4
5
20.
Hiking
1
2
3
4
5
21.
Camping
1
2
3
4
5
22.
Shooting sports (archery, firearms, etc.)
1
2
3
4
5
23.
Sports
1
2
3
4
5
24.
Gaming (PS, Xbox, Wii, Internet, etc.)
1
2
3
4
5

	
  

187

Appendix E: ESM	
  hunting	
  survey	
  directions	
  for	
  youth	
  firearm	
  deer	
  hunters.	
  

Hello again Youth Deer Hunters,
Thank you for taking the time to be a part of this study.
The purpose of this study is to better understand hunters like you. My goal is to understand your
mood, interest, and challenge regarding your hunting experience. Please complete the survey at a
time when it is safe and appropriate. You are being asked to fill out this survey at noon and 9:00
p.m. on both Saturday, September 22 and Sunday, September 23 of the Michigan Special Youth
Firearm White-tailed Deer Hunt.
Additionally, in the survey booklet you will find a wildlife inventory. If you have time in the
field, please keep track of the wildlife that you see when you are out hunting. Note that there is
an AM and PM inventory for both Saturday and Sunday.
Each survey should take less than 10 minutes for you to do.
Directions for You
- Beginning at noon on September 22, 2012, please complete the Saturday noon survey
in the packet.
- Answer honestly: there are no right or wrong answers.
- While you are in the field hunting, take some time and count the wildlife you see. Write
down what you see on the wildlife inventory.
- Fill out the next survey at 9:00 p.m.
- Repeat the procedure on Sunday.
- There are several questions where you have the opportunity to write your response. We
want to hear from you so please tell us all about your hunt. If you need more room to
write, feel free to write on the back of the survey. Also, if you need help from your
parents to take the survey please feel free to ask them for assistance.
	
  

- If you have any questions please contact me at everettm@msu.edu or 517-581-5888.

	
  
	
  

	
  

188

Appendix F: ESM (AM/PM) Hunting Survey Instrument.

(Saturday AM, Saturday PM, Sunday AM, Sunday PM) Hunting Survey
The first three questions are being asked to create a coding system to preserve the confidentiality
of your name. Please answer the same way on all of the surveys.
1.
What are the first three letters of your favorite… athlete? (last name) ___ ___ ___
2.
animal?
___ ___ ___
3.
food?
___ ___ ___
______________________________________________________________________________
4.
5.
6.
7.

Did you hunt deer this (Sat AM, Sat PM, Sun AM, Sun PM)?
☐ No ☐ Yes (If yes go to Q6)
If no, what was the ONE main reason you didn’t hunt?
Do you plan to hunt anymore during this year’s youth firearm deer season?
☐ No ☐ Yes
What is the ONE most important reason for this?

If you did not hunt during this period, you are done with this questionnaire. If you did hunt,
please continue.
8.

If you did hunt, where did you spend most of your hunting time? (Check the most
appropriate box)
☐ Own property
☐ Relative’s property
☐ Friend’s property
☐ Public Land
☐ Other (please explain) ________________________

9.

What did you think about most often when hunting today? (Check the most appropriate
box)
☐ School
☐ Home
☐ Nature
☐ Family
☐ Friends
☐ Hunting
☐ Other (please explain) ________________________

10.

I saw ______ deer during this hunt.

11.

Did you hear deer or other animals that you couldn’t see?

12.

What other animals did you see besides deer today?____________________________

13.
14.

Did you shoot at a deer?
Did you hit a deer but could not find it?

☐ No ☐ Yes (If no go to Q21)
☐ No ☐ Yes

15.

Did you shoot and tag a deer this (AM/PM)?

☐ No ☐ Yes (If no go to Q21)

	
  

189

☐ No ☐ Yes

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Did the deer you tagged have one or both antlers 3” or longer?
☐ No ☐ Yes (If yes go to Q19)
Was it a deer with smaller antlers?
☐ No ☐ Yes (If yes go to Q19)
Was it a doe?
☐ No ☐ Yes
Very
Very
Bad Bad
OK Good Good
How would you rate the experience of
finding the deer after harvest?
1
2
3
4
5
How would you rate the experience of
field dressing the deer after harvest?

1

2

3

4

5

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

Very much
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4

Very much
5
5
5
5
5
5

Indicate how you felt about hunting this (AM/PM):
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

Not at all
How challenging was this hunting experience?
1
How important was this hunting experience to you? 1
How skilled did you feel on this hunt?
1
Did you wish you had been doing something else? 1
Was this hunting experience interesting?
1
How important is hunting to your future goals?
1
Will you talk about this hunt with friends?
1
Will you talk about this hunt with family?
1

Describe your interest level when hunting this AM/PM:
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.

Not at all
Did you enjoy this hunting experience?
1
Was this hunting experience interesting?
1
Did you do the best you could on this hunt?
1
Did you feel in control of this hunting experience? 1
Did you feel good about yourself when hunting?
1
Are you getting better at hunting?
1

Describe your mood as you reflect on the (morning/afternoon) hunt. Were you:
Not
Neither
Very
35.
Happy
1
2
3
4
5
36.
Active
1
2
3
4
5
37.
Proud
1
2
3
4
5
38.
Relaxed
1
2
3
4
5
39.
Strong
1
2
3
4
5
40.
Sociable
1
2
3
4
5
41.
Excited
1
2
3
4
5
42.
Friendly
1
2
3
4
5
43.
What was the ONE most interesting thing that happened during this hunting experience?

	
  

190

Appendix G: Youth hunt wildlife inventory.

(Saturday AM, Saturday PM, Sunday AM, Sunday PM) Wildlife Inventory
The first three questions are being asked to create a coding system to preserve the confidentiality
of your name. Please answer the same way on all of the surveys.
1.
What are the first three letters of your favorite… athlete? (last name)___ ___ ___
2.
animal?
___ ___ ___
3.
food?
___ ___ ___
In the space below place an ⁄	
 for each animal that you see. For example, if I see four deer I will
make a ⁄	
 for each deer seen (See below).
4. White-Tailed Deer
5. Wild Turkeys
6. Squirrels
(Example: ⁄⁄⁄⁄ = 4)

7. Rabbits

8. Raccoons

9. Opossums

10. Chipmunks

11. Geese or Ducks

12. Coyotes

13. Foxes

14. Songbirds
(e.g., Chickadees, Blue jays,
Cardinals, Robins)

15. Others

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

191

Appendix H: Hunting experience and satisfaction survey directions.
	
  
Hello again youth deer hunters,
You’re almost done!
This is the last part of the study. For part three of the study please take a few minute to provide
some information about your overall experience. I would like to see how many times you went
hunting and how you felt during the hunting experience.
This survey should take less than 10 minutes for you to do.
Directions for You
- Please take the hunting experience survey, which is located on the last page of your
packet.
- Answer honestly: there are no right or wrong answers.
- After you have completed the last survey, place the booklet in the self-addressed and
stamped envelope provided and put it in the U.S. Mail.
- If you have any questions please contact me at everettm@msu.edu or 517-581-5888.
	
  

	
  

192

Appendix I. Hunting experience and satisfaction survey instrument.
	
  
	
  
	
  
Hunting Experience and Satisfaction Survey
The first three questions are being asked to create a coding system to preserve the confidentiality
of your name. Please answer the same way on all of the surveys.
1.
What are the first three letters of your favorite… athlete? (last name)___ ___ ___
2.
animal?
___ ___ ___
3.
food?
___ ___ ___
_______________________________________________________________________________
For those who hunted one or more times during the youth firearm deer season September 22-23,
2012 please answer questions 4 to 13.
Very
Very
Bad Bad
OK Good Good
4.
Circle how you would rate your overall experience 1
2
3
4
5
during the youth deer hunt?
5.

What is the ONE most important reason for your rating in question #4? (Please answer in
the space below)
________________________________________________________________________

6.

Circle how you would rate your preparation for the 1
youth deer hunt?

7.

What is the ONE most important reason for your rating in question #6? (Please answer in
the space below)
________________________________________________________________________

8.

Circle how you would rate your level of comfort
during the youth deer hunt?

9.

What is the ONE most important reason for your rating in question #8? (Please answer in
the space below)
________________________________________________________________________

10.

Circle how you would rate the amount of deer you 1
saw during the hunt?

11.

What is the ONE most important reason for your rating in question #10? (Please answer
in the space below)

	
  

193

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

________________________________________________________________________
12.

Circle how you would rate the time you spent
hunting with your adult hunting partner?

1

2

3

4

5

13.

What is the ONE most important reason for your rating in question #12? (Please answer
in the space below)
________________________________________________________________________

Whether you hunted in the 2012 youth firearm season or not, please answer questions 14 to 22.
14.

Will you go deer hunting during the 2012 archery deer season?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Maybe

15.

Will you go firearm deer hunting on the opening day of the
firearm deer season, November 15th, 2012?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Maybe

16.

What is the ONE most important reason for your answer to the opening day of firearm
deer season question?
________________________________________________________________________

17.

If the regular opening day of firearm deer season were to always open on a Saturday,
would you be more likely to hunt on opening day?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Maybe

18.

Will you or have you gone hunting for other game in 2012?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Maybe
If yes, check all those you have or will hunt for:
☐ Rabbit
☐ Squirrel
☐ Grouse
☐ Pheasant
☐ Duck
☐ Goose
☐ Turkey
☐ Bear

19.

☐ Woodcock
☐ Coyote

20.

Will you go trapping in 2012?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Maybe

21.

Do you plan to continue to hunt in future years?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Maybe

22.

What is the ONE most important reason for your plans about hunting in the future?

______________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking the time to be a part of this study.

	
  

194

LITERATURE CITED

	
  

195

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, C. E., Brown, R. D., & B. J. Higginbotham. (2004). Developing a strategic plan for
future hunting participation in Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(4), 1156-1165.
doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[1156:DASPFF]2.0.CO;2
Aebischer, N. J. (2009). Gamebird Science, Agricultural Policy and Biodiversity Conservation in
Lowland Areas of the UK. In B. Dickson, J. Hutton, & W. M. Adams (Eds.),
Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp.
197-211). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch12
AFWA (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). (2011). Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies Core Concepts. On website:
http://jjcdev.com/~fishwild/?section=conservation_education_core_concepts.
Ardrey, R. (1976). The Hunting Hypothesis: A Personal Conclusion Concerning the
Evolutionary Nature of Man. New York, NY: Bantam Books Inc.
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2010). Impact of Extreme Weather Conditions on High Altitude
Climbers’ Goals and Quality of Experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(3), 469-488.
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2004). Adolescence and the Changing Context of the Optimal
Experience in Time: Italy 1986-2000. Journal of Happiness, 5, 155-179. doi:
10.1023/B:JOHS.0000035914.66037.b5
Bauer, J., & Herr, A. (2004). Hunting and Fishing Tourism. In K. Higginbottom, (Ed.), Wildlife
Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning (pp. 57-75). Common Ground Publishing
Pty Ltd, Altona, Vic. On website: http://SustainableTourism.Publisher-Site.com.
Bauer, J., & Giles, J. (2002). Recreational Hunting-An International Perspective, Wildlife
Tourism Research Report Series No.13. CRC, Sustainable Tourism. Australia: Goldcoast.
Boone and Crockett Club. (2008). Fair Chase Statement. Boone and Crockett Club, On Website,
http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntingEthics/ethics_fairchase.asp?area=huntingEthics.
Booth, V. R., & Cummings, D. H. M. (2009). The Development of a Recreational Hunting
Industry and its Relationship with Conservation in Southern Africa. In B. Dickson, J.
Hutton, & W. M. Adams (Eds.), Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural
Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp. 282-295). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch17

	
  

196

Borrie W. T., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1995). The use of verbal reports in outdoor recreation
research: Review, recommendations, and new directions. In J. L. Thompson, D. W.
Lime, B. Gartner, & W. M. Sames (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium, University of Minnesota Extension
Service, St. Paul, MN, 367-361.
Bruzzese, J. M., & Fisher, C. B. (2003). Assessing and Enhancing the Research Consent
Capacity of Children and Youth. Applied Developmental Science, 7(1), 13-26.
doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0701_2
Butler, M. J., Teaschner, A. P., Ballard, W. B., & McGee, B. K. (2005). Commentary: Wildlife
ranching in North America – arguments, issues and perspectives. The Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 33(1), 381-389.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/00917648(2005)33[381:CWRINA]2.0.CO;2
Chavez, E. J. (2008). Flow in Sport: A Study of College Athletes. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 28(1), 69-91.
Chiutsi, S., Mukoroverwa, M., Karigambe, P., & Mudzengi, B. K. (2011). The theory and
practice of ecotourism in Southern Africa. Journal of Hospitality Management and
Tourism, 2(2), 14-21.
Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Cleland, C. E. (1992). Rites of Conquest: The History and Culture of Michigan’s Native
Americans. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Condon, R. G., Collings, P., & Wenzel, G. (1995). The Best Part of Life: Subsistence Hunting,
Ethnicity, and Economic Adaptation among Young Adult Inuit Males. Arctic, 48(1), 3146.
Connelly, N. A., Brown, T. L., & Decker, D. J. (2003). Factors affecting response rates to natural
resource-focused surveys: Empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Society and
Natural Resources, 16(6), 541–547. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920309152
Cordain, L., Miller, J. B., Eaton, S. B., Mann, N., Holt, S. HA, & Speth J. D. (2000). Plantanimal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide huntergatherer diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71, 682-692.
Cornicelli, L., Fulton, D. C., Grund, M. D., & Fieberg, J. (2011). Hunter Perceptions and
Acceptance of Alternative Deer Management Regulations. Wildlife Society Bulletin,
35(3), 323-329. doi: 10.1002/wsb.51
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

	
  

197

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, NY:
Bookspan.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In
M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal Experience: Psychological
Studies of Flow in Consciousness (pp. 15-35). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Introduction to Part IV. In
M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (eds.), Optimal Experience: Psychological
Studies of Flow in Consciousness (pp. 251-265). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & J. Hunter. (2003). Happiness in Everyday Life: The Uses of Experience
Sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(2), 85-199. doi: 10.1023/A:1024409732742
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding Flow. The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1992). A response to the Kimiecik & Stein and Jackson papers. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology 4(2), 181-183. doi: 10.1080/10413209208406460.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Kleiber, D. A. Kleiber. (1991). Leisure and Self-Actualization. In B. L.
Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of Leisure, (pp. 91-102). State
College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience sampling
method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526-536. doi:
10.1097/00005053-198709000-00004.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the
teenage years. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented Teenagers: The Roots
of Success & Failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Da Silveira R., & Thorbjarnarson, J. B. (1999). Conservation implications of commercial
hunting black and spectacled caiman in the Mamiraua Sustainable Development Reserve,
Brazil. Biological Conservation, 88, 103-109. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00063207(98)00084-6
Davies, R., Hamman, K., & Magome, H. (2009). Does Recreational Hunting Conflict with
Photo-Tourism? In B. Dickson, J. Hutton, & W. M. Adams (Eds.), Recreational Hunting,
Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp. 233-251). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch14

	
  

198

Decloe, M. D., Kaczynski, A. T., & Havitz, M. E. (2009). Social Participation, Flow and
Situational Involvement in Recreational Physical Activity. Journal of Leisure Research,
41(1), 73-90.
Decker, D. J., Brown, T. L., & Siemer, W. F. (2001). Human Dimensions of Wildlife
Management in North America. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society.
Decker, D. J., Brown, T. L., & Gutierrez, R. J. (1980) Further insights into the multiplesatisfaction approach for hunter management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 8(4), 323-331.
Decker, D. J. & Purdy, K. G. (1986). Becoming a Hunter: Identifying Stages of Hunting
Involvement For Improving Hunter Education Programs. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14(4),
474-479.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2003). Optimal experience in work and leisure among teachers
and physicians: Individual and bio-cultural implications. Leisure Studies, 22, 323-342.
Dizard, J. E. (2003). Mortal stakes: Hunters and hunting in contemporary America. Amherst,
MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Dratch, P., & Kahn, R. (2011). Moving Beyond the Model. In L. Moore LaRoe (Ed.), The
Wildlife Professional. 5(2), (pp. 61-63). Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society.
Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1991). Research on Leisure Benefits: An
Introduction to This Volume. In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.),
Benefits of Leisure, (pp. 3-11). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Duda, M. D., Jones, M. F., & Criscione A. (2010). The Sportsman’s Voice, Hunting and
Fishing in America. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.
DOI:10.1080/10871209.2012.653599
Duda, M. D., Bissell, S. J., & Young, K. C. (1995). Factors related to hunting and fishing
participation in the United States. Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive Management.
Duffus D. A., & Dearden, P. (1990). Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: A
conceptual framework. Biological Conservation, 53(3), 213-231. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(90)90087-6
Eid M., & Diener, E. (1999). Intraindividual variability in affect: Reliability, validity, and
personal correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 662,-676. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.662
Elkington, J. (2007). Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21stCentury Business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37-51.
doi: 10.1002/tqem.3310080106

	
  

199

Ellis, G. D., Voelkl, J. E., & Morris, C. (1994). Measurement and analysis issues with
explanation of variance in daily experience using the flow model. Journal of Leisure
Research, 26(4), 337-356.
Enck, J. W., Decker, D. J., & Brown, T. L. (2000). Status of Hunter Recruitment and Retention
in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 817-824.
Fennell D., & Nowaczek, A. (2010). Moral and empirical dimensions of human––animal
interactions in ecotourism: deepening an otherwise shallow pool of debate. Journal of
Ecotourism, 9(3), 239-255. doi:10.1080/14724041003741519
Festa-Bianchet, M., & Lee, R. (2009). Guns, Sheep, and Genes: When and Why Trophy Hunting
May Be a Selective Pressure. In B. Dickson, J. Hutton, & W. M. Adams (Eds.),
Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp.
95-107). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch6
Fortier, J. (2009). The Ethnography of South Asian Foragers. The Annual Review of
Anthropology, 38, 99-114. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164345
Frawley, B. J. (2010). Michigan Deer Harvest Survey Report: 2009 Seasons. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Wildlife Report No. 3513.
Frawley, B. J. (2008). Michigan Deer Harvest Survey Report 2007 Season. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Report No. 3485.
Frawley, B. J. (2006). Demographics, Recruitment, and Retention of Michigan Hunters: 2005
Update. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Report No. 3462.
Frisina M.R., & Tareen, S. N. A. (2009). Exploitation Prevents Extinction: Case Study of
Endangered Himalayan Sheep and Goats. In B. Dickson, J. Hutton, & W. M. Adams
(Eds.), Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice
(pp. 142-156). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch9
Geist, V. (2006). The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation: A means of creating
wealth and protecting public health while generating biodiversity. In D. M. Lavigne
(Ed.), Gaining Ground: In Pursuit of Ecological Sustainability (pp. 285-293). Guelph
Ontario, Canada: International Fund for Animal Welfare and University of Limerick,
Ireland. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2007)61[306:GGIPOE]2.0.CO;2
Geist, V. (2010). The Carnivorous Herbivore: Hunting and Culture in Human Evolution. In N.
Kowalsky (Ed.), Hunting: Philosophy for Everyone (pp. 121-133). West Sussex, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell Publications, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
doi: 10.1002/9781444327694.ch10

	
  

200

Geist, V., Mahoney, S. P., & Organ, J. F. (2001). Why hunting has defined the North American
model of wildlife conservation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference, 66, 175–185.
Goodale T. L., & Cooper, W. (1991). Philosophical Perspectives on Leisure in EnglishSpeaking Countries. In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of
Leisure, (pp. 25-35). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Godbey, G. C., & Jung, B. (1991). Relations Between the Development of Culture and
Philosophies of Leisure. In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, and G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits
of Leisure, (pp. 37-45). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Groves, R. M. (1987). Research on Survey Data Quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, S156S172.
Hammitt, W. E., McDonald, C. D., & Patterson, M. E. (1991). Determinants of Multiple
Satisfaction for Deer Hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 18(3), 331-337.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience Sampling Method:
Measuring the Quality of Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hicks, J., Ramanathan, N., Kim, D., Monibi, M., Selsky J., Hansen, M., & Estrin, D. (2010).
AndWellness: An Open Mobile System for Activity and Experience Sampling. Wireless
Health, October 5-7, 1-10. doi: 10.1145/1921081.1921087
Hofer, D. (2002). The Lion’s Share of the Hunt. Trophy Hunting and Conservation, A Review of
the Legal Eurasian Tourist Hunting Market and Trophy Trade Under CITES. TRAFFIC
Europe.
Hogarth, R. M., Portell, M., & Cuxart, A. (2007). What Risks Do People Perceive in Everyday
Life? A Perspective Gained from the Experience Sampling Method (ESM). Risk
Analysis, 27(6), 1427-1439. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00978.x
Holin, D. & Lemons, T. (2010). Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in Lime
Village, Alaska, 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence:
Technical Paper No. 355, Anchorage, AK.
Howe C. Z., & Rancourt, A. M. (1990). The importance of definitions of selected concepts for
leisure inquiry. Leisure Sciences, 12(4), 395-406. doi:10.1080/01490409009513117
Humle T. & Kormos, R. (2011). Chimpanzees in Guinea and in West Africa. In T. Matsuzawa
et al. (Eds.), The Chimpanzees of Bossou and Nimba, Primatology Monographs (pp. 393401). Springer Scientific-Business Media B.V.
Ibrahim, H., & Cordes, K. A. (2002). Outdoor Recreation: Enrichment for a Lifetime,
Second Edition. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

	
  

201

Jacobson, C. I., & Decker, D. J. (2006). Ensuring the Future of State Wildlife Management:
Understanding Challenges of Institutional Change. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(2), 531536. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[531:ETFOSW]2.0.CO;2
Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure
Optimal Experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18,
17-35.
Jensen, C. R., & Guthrie, S. P. (2006). Outdoor Recreation in America, 6th Edition. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Jones B. T. B. (2009). Community Benefits from Safari Hunting and Related Activities in
Southern Africa. In B. Dickson, J. Hutton, & W. M. Adams (Eds.), Recreational Hunting,
Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp. 158-177). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch10
Jones, C. D., Hollenhorst, S. J., Perna, F., & Selin, S. (2000). Validation of the Flow Theory in
an On-Site Whitewater Kayaking Setting. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(2), 247-261.
Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the Measurement of Subjective WellBeing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3-24. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/089533006776526030
Kamal, A. A., Khamir, M. S. A., & Yunus, F. W. (2010). The Perception and Constraints
Towards Recreational Activity Among Female Students. International Journal of Sports
Management, Recreation & Tourism. 6, 62-75. doi: 10.5199/ijsmart-1791-874X-6d
Kerr, G. N., & Woods, A. (2010). New Zealand Big Game Hunting Values: A benefit transfer
study. Canterbury, NZ: Land Environment & People Research Report No. 23. Lincoln
University.
Kimiciek, J., & Stein, G. (1992). Examining flow experiences in sport contexts: conceptual
issues and methodological concerns. Journal of Applied Sports Psychology, 4, 144, 160.
doi:10.1080/10413209208406458
Knox, M. W. (2011). The Antler Religion. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 35(1), 45-48.
doi: 10.1002/wsb.5
Koppedrayer, K. (2010). Big Game and Little Sticks: Bowmaking and Bowhunting. In N.
Kowalsky (Ed.), Hunting: Philosophy for Everyone (pp. 198-209). West Sussex, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell Publications, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
doi: 10.1002/9781444327694.ch16
Kümpel, N. F., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Cowlishaw, G., & Rowcliffe, J. M. (2010). Incentives for
Hunting: The Role of Bushmeat in the Household Economy in Rural Equatorial Guinea.
Human Ecology, 38, 251-264. doi: 10.1007/s10745-010-9316-4

	
  

202

Lamprey, R. H., & Mugisha, A. (2009). The Re-Introduction of Recreational Hunting in
Uganda. In B. Dickson, J. Hutton, & W. M. Adams (Eds.), Recreational Hunting,
Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp. 212-232). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch13
Langenau, E. E., & Mellon, P. M. (1980). Characteristics and Behaviors of Michigan 12- to 18Year-Old Hunter. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(1), 69-78.
Lefevre, J. (1988). Flow and the quality of experience during work and leisure. In M.
Csikszentmihalyi, & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal Experience: Psychological
Studies of Flow in Consciousness (pp. 307-318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Leader-Williams, N. (2009). Conservation and Hunting: Friends or Foes. In B. Dickson, J.
Hutton, & W. M. Adams (Eds.), Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural
Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp. 9-24). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch1
Lewis, D. E., & Kaiser, H. F. (1991). Managerial Needs for Information on Benefits of Leisure.
In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of Leisure, (pp. 21-24).
State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Loveridge, A. J, Packer, C., & Dutton, A. (2009). Science and the Recreational Hunting of
Lions. In B. Dickson, J. Hutton, & W. M. Adams (Eds.), Recreational Hunting,
Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp. 109-124). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch7
Loveridge, A. J., Reynolds, J. E., & Milner-Guilland, E. J. (2006). Does sport hunting benefit
conservation? In D. Macdonald, & K. Service (Eds.), Key Topics in Conservation
Biology (pp. 224-240). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. doi:10.1080/00207230601100039
Mahoney, S. P. (2009). Recreational Hunting and Sustainable Wildlife Use in North America. In
B. Dickson, J. Hutton, & W. M. Adams (Eds.), Recreational Hunting, Conservation and
Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp. 255-281). Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch16
Manfredo, M. J., Fix, P. J., Teel, T. L., Smeltzer, J., & Kahn, R. (2004). Assessing demand for
big-game hunting opportunity: applying the multiple satisfaction concept. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 32(4), 1147-1155. doi: 10.2193/00917648(2004)032[1147:ADFBHO]2.0.CO;2
Mannell, R. C., Zuzanek, J., & Larson, R. (1988). Leisure states and “flow” experiences:
perceived freedom and intrinsic motivation hypotheses. Journal of Leisure Research,
20(4), 289-304.

	
  

203

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Massimini, F., & Carli, C. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In
M. Csikszentmihalyi, & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal Experience:
Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness (pp. 266-287). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Mazzullo, N. (2010). More than meat on the hoof? Social significance of reindeer among
Finnish Saami in rationalized pastoralist economy. In F. Stammler, & H. Takakura (Eds.),
Good to Eat, Good to Live with: Nomads and Animals in Northern Eurasia and Africa
(pp. 101-119). Tohoku University, Sendai: Center for Northeast Asian Studies.
McCullough D. R., & Carmen, W. J. (1981). Management Goals for Deer Hunter Satisfaction.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 10(1), 49-52.
McGee, J. B. (2010). Subsistence Hunting and Fishing in Alaska: Does Anilca’s Rural
Subsistence Priority Really Conflict with the Alaska Constitution? Alaska Law Review,
27(2), 221-255.
McIntyre, N., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1998). Nature/Person Transactions During An Outdoor
Adventure Experience: A Multi-Phasic Analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(4),
401-422.
McNeely, J. A., Kapoor-Vijay, P., Zhi, L., Olsvig-Whittaker, L., Sheikh, K. M., & Smith, A.T.
(2009). Conservation biology in Asia: the major policy challenges. Conservation Biology,
23, 805-810. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01284.x
Mehmood, S., Zhang, D., & Armstrong, J. (2003). Factors associated with declining hunting
license sales in Alabama. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8(4), 243-262.
doi:10.1080/716100423
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2011). Hunter Education. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. On website:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_39267---,00.html.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2011a). Apprentice Hunting License.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. On website:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10363_14518-32236--,00.html.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2011b). Today’s Hunter in Michigan:
A guide to hunting responsibly and safely. Kalkomey Enterprises Inc., Dallas, TX.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2011c). New Law Creates Mentored
Hunting for Youth for 2012 Season. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing,
MI. On website: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10363_58977-259924-,00.html.

	
  

204

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2011d). Time Zone A-Bear, Deer, Fall
Wild Turkey, Furbearer and Small Game Hunting Hours Table. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. On website:	
  
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Hunting_hours_Sept-March_329373_7.pdf.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2001). What is the Michigan Natural
Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF). Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing,
MI. On website: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-39002_16791-39513-,00.html.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2008). Michigan Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) – 2008-2012. Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. On website: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7153-37984-176508--,00.html.
Minzenberg, E., & Wallace, R. (2011). Amazonian agriculturalists bound by subsistence
hunting. Journal of Cultural Geography, 28(1), 99-121.
doi:10.1080/08873631.2011.548482
Mitchell, R. G. (1983). Mountain Experience: the psychology and sociology of adventure.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Muth, R. M., Dick, R. E., & Blanchard, K. A. (2001). Subsistence Use of Wildlife and Native
Peoples’ Wildlife Issues. In D. J. Decker, T. L Brown, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human
Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America (pp. 329-351). Bethesda, MD: The
Wildlife Society.
NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation). (2009). A portrait of Hunters and Hunting License
Trends: National Report. Southwick Associates/National Shooting Sports Foundation,
Newtown, CT.
NSSF/IHEA (National Shooting Sports Foundation and International Hunter Education
Association). (2000). Meeting the Challenge to Increase Participation in Hunting and
Shooting. Produced for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Federal Aid,
Newtown, CT. On website,
http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3dab37bc10ee.gripelements.com/documents/ttank
final.pdf, accessed October 13, 2009.
Nelson, M. P., Vucetich, J. A., Paquet, P.C., & Bump, J. K. (2011). An Inadequate Construct? In
L. Moore LaRoe (Ed.), The Wildlife Professional. 5(2), (pp. 58-60). Bethesda, MD: The
Wildlife Society.
Nijman, V. (2010). An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity
and Conservation, 19, 1101-1114. doi: 10.1007/s10531-009-9758-4

	
  

205

Organ, J. F., & Fritzell, E. K. (2000). Trends in Consumptive Recreation and the Wildlife
Profession. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 780-787.
Organ, J. F., Muth, R. M., Dizard, J. E., Williamson, S. J., & Decker, T. A. (1998). Fair Chase
and Humane Treatment: Balancing the Ethics of Hunting and Trapping. Transactions of
the 63rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Orlando, Florida,
20-24 March, 1998.
Ormrod, J. E. (1995). Educational psychology: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliff,
NJ: Merrill.
Parry, L., Barlow, J., & Peres, C. A. (2009). Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Secondary
Forests. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1270-1280. doi: 10.1111/j.15231739.2009.01224.x
Peloquin C., & Berkes, F. (2009). Local Knowledge, Subsistence Harvests, and SocialEcological Complexity in James Bay. Human Ecology, 37, 533-545. doi:
10.1007/s10745-009-9255-0
Peterle, T. J. (1977). Hunters, Hunting, Anti-Hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 5(4), 151-161.
Petersen, D. (2010). Heartsblood: Hunting, Spirituality, and Wildness in America. Raven’s Eye
Press, Durango, CO.
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. New York, NY:
Riverhead Trade.
Posewitz, J. (1994). Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethic and Tradition of Hunting. Helena, MT:
Falcon Guides.
Prayaga P., Rolfe, J., & Stoeckl, N. (2010). The value of recreational fishing in the Great
Barrier Reef, Australia: A pooled revealed preference and contingent behavior model.
Marine Policy, 34, 244-251. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.07.002
Regan, T. (2001). Defending Animal Rights. Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Reis H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday
experience. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social
and personality psychology (pp. 190-222). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Responsive Management. (2006). Sportsmen’s attitudes. Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive
Management.

	
  

206

Responsive Management/National Shooting Sports Foundation (RM/NSSF). (2008). The Future
of Hunting and Shooting Sports: Research-Based Recruitment and Retention Strategies.
Produced for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Grant Agreement CT-M-6-0.
Harrisburg, VA.
Riley S. J., Decker, D. J., Enck, J. W., Curtis, P. D., & Lauber, T. B. (2003). Deer populations
up, hunter populations down: Implications of interdependence of deer and hunter
population dynamics on management. Ecoscience, 10(4), 455-461.
Roggenbuck, J. W. (2004) Managing for Primitive Recreation in Wilderness. International
Journal of Wilderness. 10(3), 21-24.
Ryan, E. L., & Shaw B. (2011). Improving Hunter Recruitment and Retention. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(5), 311-317. doi:10.1080/10871209.2011.559530
Sasaki, S. (2010). Voices of Hunters on Socialist Modernisation: From a Case Study of the
Udehe in the Russian Far East. Inner Asia, 12, 177-197. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/146481710792710327
Scollon, C. N., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2003). Experience Sampling: Promises and
Pitfalls, Strengths and Weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 5-34. doi:
10.1023/A:1023605205115
Scruton, R. (2010). The Sacred Pursuit: Reflections on the Literature of Hunting. In N.
Kowalsky (Ed.), Hunting: Philosophy for Everyone (pp. 187-197). West Sussex, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell Publications, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
doi: 10.1002/9781444327694.ch15
Sharp, R., & Wollscheid, K. U. (2009). An Overview of Recreational Hunting in North America,
Europe and Australia. In B. Dickson, J. Hutton, & W.M. Adams (Eds.), Recreational
Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp. 25-38). Oxford,
UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch2
Schüler, J., & Brunner, S. (2009). The rewarding effect of flow experience on performance in a
marathon race. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 168–174.
doi: 10.1016/psychsport.2008.07.001
Siehl, G. H., & Kostmayer, P. H. (1991). Needs for Information on Leisure Benefits in the
Legislative Process. In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of
Leisure, (pp. 13-19). State College, PA, Venture Publishing, Inc.
Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics, 2nd Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Singer, P. (1995). Animal Liberation, 2nd Edition. London, UK: Pimlico.

	
  

207

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: D.
Appleton-Century Company.
Sodhi, N. S., Koh, L. P., Brook, B. W., & Ng, P. K. L. (2004). Southeast Asian biodiversity: an
impending disaster. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution. 19(12), 654-660. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.09.006
Stein, G., Kimiciek, J., Daniels, J., & Jackson, S. (1995). Psychological antecedents of flow in
recreational sport. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(2), 125-135. doi:
10.1177/0146167295212003
Swan, J. A. (1995). In Defense of Hunting. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Tegt, J., Mayer, J., Dunlap, J., & Ditchkoff, S. (2011). Plowing Through North America. In
L. Moore LaRoe (Ed.), The Wildlife Professional. 5(2), (pp. 36-39). Bethesda, MD: The
Wildlife Society.
Thompson, A. M., Rehman, L. A., & Humbert, M. L. (2005). Factors Influencing the Physically
Active Leisure of Children and Youth: A Qualitative Study. Leisure Sciences. 27(5), 421438. doi:10.1080/01490400500227324
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau (FHWAR). (2012). 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife Associated Recreation-Preliminary Findings. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau (FHWAR). (2007a). 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau (FHWAR). (2007b). 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife Associated Recreation-Michigan. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013). Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration-FY13 Budget
Justification. On website:
http://www.fws.gov/budget/2013/PDF%20Files%20FY%202013%20Greenbook/24.%20
Wildlife%20Restoration.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Southeast Region. (2010). Federal Aid Division-The PittmanRobertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. On website:
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html.
van Vleit, N., Nasi, R., & Taber, A. (2011). From the Forest to the Stomach: Bushmeat
Consumption from Rural to Urban Settings in Central Africa. In S. Shackleton et al.
(Eds.). Non-Timber Forest Products in the Global Context, Tropical Forestry 7 (pp. 129–
145). Berlin-Heidelberg, GE: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-17983-9_6

	
  

208

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey Research and Analysis: Application in Parks, Recreation and Human
Dimension. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.
Vercauteren, K. C., LaVelle, M. J., Seward, N. W., Fischer, J. W., & Phillips, G. E. (2007).
Fence-line Contact Between Wild and Farmed White-Tailed Deer in Michigan: Potential
for Disease Transmission. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(5), 1603-1606. doi:
10.2193/2006-179
Wall, B., & Child, B. (2009). When Does Hunting Contribute to Conservation and Rural
Development. In B. Dickson, J. Hutton, and W. M. Adams (Eds.), Recreational Hunting,
Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice (pp. 256-265). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch15
Winkler, R., & Warnke, K. (2012). The future of hunting: an age-period-cohort analysis of deer
hunter decline. Population and Environment, Original Paper, 1-21. doi: 10.1007/s11111012-0172-6
Wöran, B., & Arnberger, A. (2012). Exploring Relationships Between Recreation Specialization,
Restorative Environments and Mountain Hikers’ Flow Experience. Leisure Science, 34,
95-114. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2012.652502
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA). (2010). World Symposium
on the Ecologic and Economic Benefits of Hunting. Proceedings of the Symposium on
Hunting activities, Windhoek, Namibia, 14-17 September, 2009.
Zinn, H. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Barro, S. C. (2002). Patterns of Wildlife Value Orientations in
Hunters’ Families. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7, 147-162.
doi:10.1080/10871200260293324
Zuzanek, J. (1999). Experience sampling method: Current and potential research applications.
Paper presented at the Workshop on Time-use Measurement and Research, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C. On website,
http://www.lifestress.uwaterloo.ca/images/ESM.pdf, accessed October 24, 2011.

	
  

209