Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-6

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Deer Hunting in the
United States: An Analysis
of Hunter Demographics
and Behavior
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-6
Deer Hunting in the
United States: An Analysis
of Hunter Demographics
and Behavior
Addendum to the 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
December 2004
Jerry Leonard
Division of Federal Assistance
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arlington VA
This report is intended to complement the National and State Reports for the
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
The conclusions in this report are the author’s and do not represent official positions
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The author thanks Sylvia Cabrera, Richard Aiken, Tim Hess, Benito Perez, and
Jim Greer for valuable input into the analysis.
2 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Part One—Participation and Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Deer Hunting Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
General Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Geographic Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Part Two—Contrasting Activities of Deer and Non-Deer Hunters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Public and Private Land Hunting Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Wildlife-Watching Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Part Three—Deer Hunter Behavior Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Primitive Weapons Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
License Purchasing Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Part Four—Nonlicensed Deer Hunter Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Calculated Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 3
Introduction
Deer hunting is unquestionably the
most popular form of hunting in the U.S.
According to the 2001 National Survey
of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation (FHWAR), there
were 10.3 million deer hunters in 2001,
which is more than four times greater
than the second most hunted species:
turkey. For individuals over 16 years of
age, nearly 1 in every 20 Americans and
8 in 10 hunters hunted deer in 2001, and
their hunting-related expenditures while
seeking deer totaled nearly $10.7 billion.1
This report seeks to provide information
about deer hunter demographic
characteristics, spending pattern, use of
primitive weapons, land ownership and
leasing behavior, and license purchasing
pattern. It is intended to be used as an
informational tool by resource managers,
academics, product manufacturers, and
other interested parties. To help clarify
and make the information contained
herein useful, this report often employs
a contrasting style that compares deer
hunters to non-deer hunters.2
Report Organization
The report is organized into four parts:
Part One: The “Participation and
Demographics” section examines the
size and geographic dispersion of the
deer hunting population. Additionally, for
widely used demographic features such
as income, age, gender, education, and
geographic location, the distribution of
the U.S. population is compared to that of
both deer and non-deer hunters.
Part Two: The “Contrasting Hunting
Activities of Deer and Non-Deer
Hunters” section contrasts additional
characteristics of deer and non-deer
hunters. These additional characteristics
are applicable only to hunters and include
hunter expenditures, hunting land
ownership and leasing pattern, and the
wildlife-watching pattern of hunters.
Part Three: The “Deer Hunter Behavior
Patterns” section provides a detailed
analysis of several aspects of deer hunter
behavior. The use of primitive weapons,
land ownership and leasing pattern,
and license purchasing behavior are all
examined.
Part Four: Lastly, in the “Nonlicensed
Deer Hunter Model” section, a logit
regression model is used to identify
the impact that numerous deer hunter
characteristic variables have on the
probability that a hunter will hunt
without a hunting license.
All reported data contained herein are
from the 2001 FHWAR.3 Consequently,
all participation, dollar expenditures,
and hunting behavior statistics are
representative of 2001. Additionally, all
data represents persons age 16 years and
older.
1 “Economic Importance of Hunting in
America,” International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, 2002 .
2 Deer hunters can hunt species other
than deer, but they must hunt deer to be
categorized as such.
3 FHWAR documents are available on the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service webpage:
http://federalaid.fws.gov/surveys/
surveys.html.
Steve Van Riper/USFWS
4 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Part One–Participation and
Demographics
Deer Hunting Participation
Deer is clearly the species of choice for
the majority of hunters in the U.S. Table
1 indicates that 79% or 10.3 million of the
13.0 million hunters in the U.S. hunted
for deer. Turkey is the second most
hunted species at 2.5 million. Behind
turkey hunting, squirrel and rabbit follow
at around 2 million each and then several
bird species at 1 to 1.5 million.
The third and the fourth columns of
Table 1 are included to provide additional
information on other hunting activities of
deer hunters. The third column entitled
“Hunters Who Also Hunt Deer” indicates
the number of hunters seeking each of
the different species that also hunt deer.
For example, this chart indicates that
there were 910 thousand elk hunters
in the U.S., and 656 thousand of these
elk hunters also hunt deer. The fourth
column entitled “Percent Deer Hunters”
indicates the percent of hunters seeking
each particular species who also hunt
deer. In other words, it measures the
proportion of other species hunters that
hunt deer. Following this example, the
656 thousand elk hunters that also hunt
deer represent 72% of all elk hunters.
Table 1. All Hunters and Deer Hunters by Species Type: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
All Hunters
Percent of
All Hunters
Hunters
Who Also
Hunt Deer
Percent
Deer
Hunters
Total, All Hunters 13,034 100%
Big Game
Deer 10,272 79% 10,272 100%
Elk 910 7% 656 72%
Bear 360 3% 309 86%
Turkey 2,504 19% 2,203 88%
Moose 65 (Z) *27 *41%
Other Big Game 498 4% 410 82%
Small Game
Rabbit 2,099 16% 1,654 79%
Quail 992 8% 562 57%
Grouse 1,011 8% 755 75%
Squirrel 2,119 16% 1,772 84%
Pheasant 1,723 13% 1,065 62%
Other Small Game 526 4% 358 68%
Migratory Bird
Geese 1,000 8% 669 67%
Duck 1,589 12% 979 62%
Dove 1,450 11% 964 67%
Other Migratory Bird 225 2% 116 51%
Other Animals
Groundhog 276 2% 239 87%
Raccoon 263 2% 172 65%
Fox 140 1% 121 86%
Coyote 530 4% 435 82%
Other Animals 130 1% 82 63%
*Estimate based on a small sample size.
(Z) Less than 0.5 percent.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 5
The “Percent Deer Hunters” column
reveals that other species hunters
are also avid deer hunters. With the
exception of Moose at 41%, over 50%
of hunters for other species are also
deer hunters. As seen in Table 1, for the
remainder of the Big Game species (Elk,
Bear, Turkey, and Other Big Game), more
than 80% of the hunters also hunt deer.
Turkey hunters are the most likely to also
be deer hunters. With few exceptions,
migratory bird hunters typically have the
lowest crossover into deer hunting. About
51% to 67% of migratory bird hunters
(Geese, Duck, Dove, and Other Migratory
Bird) also hunt deer.
There is one additional question of
interest with respect to the other species
hunting activity of deer hunters. Given
the ample crossover of other species
hunters into deer hunting, one might be
inclined to ask the question: how many
hunters seek deer and nothing else?
While it is not evident in Table 1, about
4.3 million or 42% of deer hunters hunt
deer and nothing else.
Tables 2 and 3 contain state-by-state
estimates of deer hunting participation.
Table 2 contains the number of all-species
hunters and deer hunters by state. Table
3 contains the total days of deer hunting
that occurred within each state, along
with the total of all hunting days, and
percent of all hunting days spent hunting
deer.
Table 2. All Hunters and Deer Hunters, by State Where Hunting Occurred: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Deer Hunters
All Hunters Number Percent
U.S. Total 13,034 10,272 79%
AK 93 19 20%
AL 423 379 90%
AR 431 314 73%
AZ 148 63 43%
CA 274 *84 *31%
CO 281 99 35%
CT 45 *26 *59%
DE 16 11 67%
FL 226 *156 *69%
GA 417 332 80%
HI 17 *7 *44%
IA 243 133 55%
ID 197 125 63%
IL 311 238 77%
IN 290 215 74%
KS 291 140 48%
KY 323 231 72%
LA 333 207 62%
MA 66 56 84%
MD 145 126 87%
ME 165 145 88%
MI 754 667 89%
MN 597 475 80%
MO 489 373 76%
MS 357 289 81%
MT 229 155 68%
NC 295 207 70%
ND 139 74 53%
NE 173 78 45%
NH 78 67 86%
NJ 135 111 83%
NM 130 75 58%
NV 47 *24 *52%
NY 714 651 91%
OH 490 417 85%
OK 261 199 76%
OR 248 183 74%
PA 1,000 932 93%
RI *8 *5 *63%
SC 265 207 78%
SD 209 68 33%
TN 359 228 64%
TX 1,201 860 72%
UT 198 139 70%
VA 355 313 88%
VT 100 92 92%
WA 227 157 69%
WI 660 597 90%
WV 284 259 91%
WY 133 66 50%
*Estimate based on a small sample size.
6 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Among other things, Table 2 reveals
that deer hunting is a prominent activity
in nearly every state. At least 50% of
hunters in all but a few states hunt
deer, and there are 21 states in which
deer hunting participation is greater
than 75%. Pennsylvania has the highest
proportion of deer hunters while Texas
has the largest number. Conversely,
Alaska has the lowest proportion of deer
hunters while Rhode Island has the
fewest number.
Table 3. Days All Hunting and Deer Hunting, by State Where Hunting Occurred: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Days of Deer Hunting
Days All Hunting Number Percent
U.S. Total 228,368 133,457 58%
AK 1,146 183 16%
AL 7,616 6,309 83%
AR 8,411 4,792 57%
AZ 1,694 556 33%
CA 3,426 *904 *26%
CO 2,610 625 24%
CT 766 *479 *63%
DE 226 155 69%
FL 4,693 *2,930 *62%
GA 7,973 5,769 72%
HI *316 *83 *26%
IA 3,989 1,346 34%
ID 2,100 837 40%
IL 4,522 3,146 70%
IN 5,000 2,593 52%
KS 3,647 1,295 36%
KY 4,664 2,281 49%
LA 6,442 4,250 66%
MA 1,158 610 53%
MD 1,799 1,298 72%
ME 2,469 1,918 78%
MI 8,994 6,266 70%
MN 8,437 4,587 54%
MO 6,606 3,783 57%
MS 8,481 6,690 79%
MT 2,442 1,075 44%
NC 7,526 4,747 63%
ND 1,635 554 34%
NE 2,204 662 30%
NH 1,459 1,001 69%
NJ 3,120 2,742 88%
NM 1,667 399 24%
NV 490 *154 31%
NY 13,187 9,133 69%
OH 10,233 4,062 40%
OK 5,642 2,979 53%
OR 2,947 1,528 52%
PA 13,955 7,413 53%
RI *104 *56 *54%
SC 4,744 3,507 74%
SD 2,425 474 20%
TN 6,651 3,665 55%
TX 14,081 8,298 59%
UT 2,455 789 32%
VA 5,818 4,059 70%
VT 1,510 1,118 74%
WA 2,951 1,122 38%
WI 9,653 7,052 73%
WV 5,166 2,707 52%
WY 1,304 476 37%
*Estimate based on a small sample size.
USFWS
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 7
A comparison of the estimates in Tables
2 and 3 reveals several interesting points.
The percent of hunters that hunt deer
from Table 2 (79%) and the percent of
hunting days spent deer hunting from
Table 3 (58%) indicate that deer hunting
is substantially less prominent as a
proportion of all hunting days in the U.S.
When days are considered, deer hunting
makes up the majority of hunting activity
in 31 states and represents more than 75%
of all hunting activity in only 3 states.
General Demographic Characteristics
Tables 4 to 6 address the distribution
of the U.S., deer hunter, and non-deer
hunter populations among widely used
demographic characteristics such as
income, age, gender, education, and
geographic location. All tables follow a
similar format. The first two columns
present the distribution of the U.S.
population among the demographic
variables of interest. The first column
“Number” indicates the distribution in
quantity, and the second column “Percent”
presents the proportion of total individuals
that appear in each respective category
of the demographic variable. Thus, in
Table 4, the second column indicates that
4% of the U.S. population 16 years or
older is either 16 or 17. The “Number”
and “Percent” columns within the Deer
Hunter and Non-Deer hunter categories
are handled similarly. The “Percent of U.S.
Population” under Deer Hunters and Non-
Deer hunters indicates the proportion of
the U.S. population that participates in
each activity category. For example, row
two of Table 4 reveals that 6% of the U.S.
population age 16 and 17 hunt deer, and
1% hunt species other than deer.
Figure 1: Percent of Hunters Who Sought Deer
Small sample
≤ 60 percent
60–75 percent
≥ 75 percent
Table 4. Age Distribution of U.S. Population, Deer Hunters, and Non-Deer Hunters: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Population Deer Hunters Non-Deer Hunters
Age Number Percent Number Percent
Percent of
U.S. Population Number Percent
Percent of
U.S. Population
U.S. Total 212,298 100% 10,272 100% 5% 2,762 100% 1%
16-17 7,709 4% 475 5% 6% 110 4% 1%
18-24 22,234 11% 994 10% 5% 256 9% 1%
25-34 35,333 17% 1,879 18% 5% 534 19% 2%
35-44 44,057 21% 2,848 28% 7% 702 25% 2%
45-54 40,541 19% 2,212 22% 6% 609 22% 2%
55-64 25,601 12% 1,151 11% 5% 298 11% 1%
65+ 36,823 17% 713 7% 2% 253 9% 1%
Age
There are several important similarities
in the age distribution of deer hunters
and non-deer hunters in Table 4. The age
category with the greatest number of
participants and the proportional level
of participation is the same for both
deer and non-deer hunters: 35-44 years.
Likewise the age category with the least
number of participants and the percent
of participation is also the same:
16-17 years.
8 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
There is one important difference in the
age distribution of deer and non-deer
hunters. The proportion of hunters over
the age of 65 is noticeably lower for
deer hunters. While 9% of all non-deer
hunters are over 65, only 7% of deer
hunters are in this segment. As baby
boomers increasingly surpass 65, this
alone indicates an impending change in
deer hunting participation. However, the
“Percent of the U.S. Population” column
is even more telling. The percent of the
U.S. population 55-64 years old that deer
hunts is 5%, but it falls to 2% for those
over 65. This represents a 58% decline
in the participation rate. The obvious
implication, provided that this pattern
persists, is that deer hunting will likely
experience more dramatic declines in
participation than hunting for other
species.
Gender
The gender distribution for deer and
non-deer hunters is very similar. Figure
2 reveals that about 90% of both deer and
non-deer hunters are males. Only about
10% of both are female. Nevertheless,
there are a sizable number of female deer
hunters, close to one million.
Education
Deer hunting is a popular activity for
all educational backgrounds, as shown
in Figure 3. At 45%, nearly half of
all deer hunters have at least some
college. Another 41% have a high school
education, and 14% have less than a high
school education.
Despite the widespread appeal of deer
hunting, non-deer hunters are likely
to have more years of education. The
proportion of deer hunters with 4 years
of college or more is 20%. Meanwhile,
32% of non-deer hunters have 4 years
of college or more. While non-deer
hunters are likely to have more years
of education, both deer and non-deer
hunters have a higher proportion with
12 or more years of education than the
entire U.S. population.
Figure 2. Gender Distribution of U.S. Population, Deer Hunters, and Non-Deer Hunters
16 Years of Age and Older: 2001
􀀮􂸀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀁆􄘀 􀀧􂜀􀁆􄘀􀁎􄸀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀁆􄘀
􀀔􁐀􀀘􁠀􀀅􀔀
􀀙􁤀􀀑􁄀􀀅􀔀 􀀙􁤀􀀐􁀀􀀅􀔀
􀀕􁔀􀀒􁈀􀀅􀔀
􀀙􁤀􀀅􀔀 􀀑􁄀􀀐􁀀􀀅􀔀
􀀶􃘀􀀏􀼀􀀴􃐀􀀏􀼀􀀁􀄀􀀱􃄀􀁐􅀀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁍􄴀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀 􀀥􂔀􀁆􄘀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀 􀀯􂼀􀁐���􀁏􄼀􀀎􀸀􀀥􂔀􀁆􄘀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀱􃄀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁄􄐀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀
􀀑􁄀
􀀓􁌀􀀑􁄀
􀀕􁔀􀀑􁄀
􀀗􁜀􀀑􁄀
􀀙􁤀􀀑􁄀
􀀒􁈀􀀑􁄀􀀑􁅆
Figure 3. Education Distribution of U.S. Population, Deer Hunters, and Non-Deer Hunters
16 Years of Age and Older: 2001
􀀶􃘀􀀏􀼀􀀴􃐀􀀏􀼀􀀁􀄀􀀱􃄀􀁐􅀀􀁑􅄀􀁖􅘀􀁍􄴀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀 􀀥􂔀􀁆􄘀􀁆���􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀 􀀯􂼀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀀎􀸀􀀥􂔀􀁆􄘀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀀩􂤀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀑􁄀􀀎􀸀􀀒􁈀􀀒􁈀􀀁􀄀􀁚􅨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀 􀀒􁈀􀀓􁌀􀀁􀄀􀁚􅨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀 􀀒􁈀􀀎􀸀􀀔􁐀􀀁􀄀􀁚􅨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀁐􅀀􀁇􄜀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁍���􀁍􄴀􀁆􄘀􀁈􄠀􀁆􄘀 􀀕􁔀􀀁􀄀􀁚􅨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀁐􅀀􀁇􄜀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁆􄘀􀁈􄠀􀁆􄘀 􀀖􁘀􀀁􀄀􀁚􅨀􀁆􄘀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀀁􀄀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀀁􀄀􀁎􄸀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀁐􅀀􀁇􄜀􀀁􀄀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀􀁍􄴀􀁍������􀁆􄘀􀁈􄠀􀁆􄘀
􀀑􁄀
􀀒􁈀􀀑􁄀
􀀓􁌀􀀑􁄀
􀀔􁐀􀀑􁄀
􀀕􁔀􀀑􁄀
􀀖􁘀􀀑􁄀
􀀱􃄀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁄􄐀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀
􀀑􁄀􀀕􁔀􀀅􀔀 􀀑􁄀􀀔􁐀􀀅􀔀
􀀑􁄀􀀒􁈀􀀅􀔀
􀀓􁌀􀀕􁔀􀀅􀔀
􀀔􁐀􀀑􁄀􀀅􀔀
􀀒􁈀􀀘􁠀􀀅􀔀
􀀒􁈀􀀓􁌀􀀅􀔀
􀀒􁈀􀀕􁔀􀀅􀔀
􀀒􁈀􀀙􁤀􀀅􀔀
􀀑􁄀􀀖􁘀􀀅􀔀
􀀑􁄀􀀓􁌀􀀅􀔀
􀀑􁄀􀀙􁤀􀀅􀔀
􀀑􁄀􀀐􁀀􀀅􀔀
􀀗􁜀􀀅􀔀
􀀑􁄀􀀓􁌀􀀅􀔀
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 9
Income
In general, the percent of the U.S.
population that hunts deer increases as
income increases (Table 5). For the high
end of the income spectrum, $75,000 or
more, the participation rate dips back
down. Despite this dip, deer hunting
participation is positively correlated
with income. At 7%, the participation
rate for deer hunting is highest for
individuals with household incomes from
$40,000-49,999.
The income distribution for non-deer
hunters is similar to that of deer hunters,
but there are a few differences. Like deer
hunting, non-deer hunting is positively
correlated with income. However, the
proportion of the U.S. population that
participates in non-deer hunting does not
dip back down as it does for deer hunting.
The participation rate continues to rise
even at the high end of the income range.
Consequently, it is not surprising that
the proportion of hunters with incomes
of $75,000 or more is higher for non-deer
hunters than for deer hunters: 26% and
18% respectively.
Geographic Regions
Table 6 displays the distribution of deer
and non-deer hunters by the U.S. Census
Bureau’s geographic regions. At 9%,
the participation rate for deer hunting,
shown in the “Percent of U.S. Population”
column, is highest in the West North
Central region. For non-deer hunting
the participation rate reaches a high of
3% in both the West North Central and
Mountain regions. Incidentally, the West
North Central is also the region with the
highest participation rate for fishing.
Table 6 reveals some differences in the
geographic dispersion of deer hunters
and non-deer hunters. A substantially
higher proportion of deer hunters than
non-deer hunters are located in the
Middle Atlantic and East North Central
regions. Combined, these regions account
for 35% of deer hunters. However, only
17% of non-deer hunters are located
in these regions. Non-deer hunters
are more heavily concentrated in the
Mountain and Pacific regions. They
account for 28% of non-deer hunters
compared to 11% of deer hunters.
Table 5. Income Distribution of U.S. Population, Deer Hunters, and Non-Deer Hunters: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Population Deer Hunters Non-Deer Hunters
Region Number Percent Number Percent
Percent of
U.S. Population Number Percent
Percent of
U.S. Population
U.S. Total 212,298 100% 10,272 100% 5% 2,762 100% 1%
Not Reported 57,606 27% 1,965 19% 3% 528 19% 1%
Under $10,000 10,594 5% 320 3% 3% 82 3% 1%
$10-$19,999 15,272 7% 594 6% 4% 159 6% 1%
$20-$24,999 10,902 5% 504 5% 5% 125 5% 1%
$25-$29,999 11,217 5% 593 6% 5% 132 5% 1%
$30-$34,999 11,648 6% 714 7% 6% 143 5% 1%
$35-$39,999 9,816 5% 561 6% 6% 158 6% 2%
$40-$49,999 16,896 8% 1,154 11% 7% 215 8% 1%
$50-$74,999 31,383 15% 1,989 19% 6% 506 18% 2%
$75-$99,999 17,762 8% 1,034 10% 6% 335 12% 2%
$100,000 or More 19,202 9% 845 8% 4% 381 14% 2%
10 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Table 6. Geographic Distribution of U.S. Population, Deer Hunters, and Non-Deer Hunters: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
U.S. Population Deer Hunters Non-Deer Hunters
Region Number Percent Number Percent
Percent of
U.S. Population Number Percent
Percent of
U.S. Population
U.S. Total 212,298 100% 10,272 100% 5% 2,762 100% 1%
New England 10,575 5% 342 3% 3% 44 2% (Z)
Middle Atlantic 29,806 14% 1,515 15% 5% 119 4% (Z)
East North Central 34,082 16% 2,062 20% 6% 359 13% 1%
West North Central 14,430 7% 1,251 12% 9% 459 17% 3%
South Atlantic 39,286 19% 1,557 15% 4% 319 12% 1%
East South Central 12,976 6% 915 9% 7% 248 9% 2%
West South Central 23,337 11% 1,536 15% 7% 452 16% 2%
Mountain 13,308 6% 631 6% 5% 389 14% 3%
Pacific 34,498 16% 464 5% 1% 374 14% 1%
(Z) Less than 0.5 percent.
Figure 4. Percent of Population that Hunts Deer in the Bureau of Census Regions
􀀷􃜀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀭􂴀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀
􀀕􁔀􀀅􀔀
􀀷􃜀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀮􂸀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀀀􀀣􂌀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀
􀀙􁤀􀀅􀔀
􀀷􃜀􀁅􄔀􀁓����􀁔􅐀
􀀳􃌀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀
􀀣􂌀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀
􀀗􁜀􀀅􀔀
􀀥􂔀􀁁􄄀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀳􃌀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀
􀀣���􀁅���􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀
􀀗􁜀􀀅􀔀
􀀳􃌀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀
􀀡􂄀􀁔􅐀􀁌􄰀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀
􀀔􁐀��􀔀
􀀥􂔀􀁁􄄀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀮􂸀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀀀􀀣􂌀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀
􀀖􁘀􀀅􀔀
􀀭􂴀􀁉􄤀􀁄􄐀􀁄􄐀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀
􀀡􂄀􀁔􅐀􀁌􄰀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀
􀀕􁔀􀀅􀔀
􀀮􂸀􀁅􄔀􀁗􅜀
􀀥􂔀􀁎􄸀􀁇􄜀􀁌􄰀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀
􀀓􁌀􀀅􀔀
􀀰􃀀􀁁􄄀􀁃􄌀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀
􀀑􁄀􀀅􀔀
􀀭􂴀􀁉􄤀􀁄􄐀􀁗􅜀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀳􃌀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀
􀀮􂸀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀����􄄀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀
􀀢􂈀􀁍􄴀􀁂􄈀􀁔􅐀􀁌􄰀􀁂􄈀
􀀸􃠀􀁂􄈀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁈􄠀􀁕􅔀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀀪􂨀􀁅􄔀􀁂􄈀􀁉􄤀􀁐􅀀
􀀰􃀀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀􀁈􄠀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀
􀀤􂐀􀁂􄈀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁇􄜀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁊􄨀􀁂􄈀
􀀩􂤀􀁂􄈀􀁘􅠀􀁂􄈀􀁊􄨀􀁊􄨀
􀀯􂼀􀁆����􀁗􅜀􀁂􄈀􀁅􄔀􀁂􄈀
􀀶􃘀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁉􄤀
􀀢􂈀􀁓􅌀􀁊􄨀􀁛􅬀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀
􀀯􂼀􀁆􄘀􀁘􅠀􀀁􀄀􀀮􂸀􀁆􄘀􀁙􅤀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀁐􅀀
􀀤􂐀􀁐􅀀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁂􄈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀
􀀸􃠀􀁚􅨀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁈􄠀
􀀮􂸀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀
􀀯􂼀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀
􀀥􂔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀 􀀮􂸀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀
􀀪􂨀􀁐􅀀􀁘􅠀􀁂􄈀
􀀸􃠀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁄􄐀􀁐���􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀
􀀰􃀀􀁉􄤀􀁊􄨀􀁐􅀀
􀀬􂰀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀􀁖􅘀􀁄􄐀􀁌􄰀􀁚􅨀
􀀷􃜀􀁊􄨀􀁓􅌀􀁈􄠀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀����􄨀􀁂���
􀀵􃔀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀁆􄘀􀁆􄘀
􀀨􂠀􀁆􄘀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁈􄠀􀁊􄨀􀁂􄈀
􀀪􂨀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁊��􀁔􅐀
􀀮􂸀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀁐􅀀􀁖􅘀􀁓􅌀􀁊􄨀
􀀴􃐀􀁐􅀀􀁖􅘀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀
􀀥􂔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀
􀀯􂼀􀁆􄘀􀁃􄌀􀁓􅌀􀁂􄈀􀁔􅐀􀁌􄰀􀁂􄈀
􀀬􂰀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀􀁂􄈀􀁔􅐀
􀀰􃀀􀁌􄰀􀁍􄴀􀁂􄈀􀁉􄤀􀁐􅀀􀁎􄸀􀁂􄈀 􀀢􂈀􀁓􅌀􀁌􄰀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀􀁂􄈀􀁔􅐀
􀀵􃔀􀁆􄘀􀁙􅤀􀁂􄈀􀁔􅐀
􀀢􂈀􀁍􄴀􀁂􄈀􀁃􄌀􀁂􄈀􀁎􄸀􀁂􄈀
􀀪􂨀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀􀁊􄨀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀
􀀭􂴀􀁐􅀀􀁖􅘀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁊􄨀􀁂􄈀􀁏����􀁂􄈀
􀀮􂸀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀁊􄨀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀁊􄨀􀁑􅄀􀁑􅄀􀁊􄨀
􀀴􃐀􀁐􅀀􀁖􅘀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀
􀀤􂐀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀����􅀀􀁍􄴀��􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀
􀀯􂼀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁉􄤀􀀁􀄀􀀤􂐀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁐􅀀􀁍􄴀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁂􄈀
􀀧􂜀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁊􄨀􀁅􄔀􀁂􄈀
􀀸􃠀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀􀁕􅔀􀀁􀄀􀀷􃜀􀁊􄨀􀁓􅌀􀁈􄠀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁊􄨀􀁂􄈀
􀀥􂔀􀁆􄘀􀁍􄴀􀁂􄈀􀁘􅠀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁆􄘀
􀀯􂼀􀁆􄘀􀁘􅠀􀀁􀄀􀀫􂬀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁆􄘀􀁚􅨀
􀀤􂐀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀁄􄐀􀁕􅔀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀁖􅘀􀁕􅔀
􀀳􃌀􀁉􄤀􀁐􅀀􀁅􄔀􀁆􄘀􀀁􀄀􀀪􂨀􀁔􅐀􀁍􄴀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀
􀀮􂸀􀁂􄈀􀁔􅐀􀁔􅐀􀁂􄈀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁔􅐀􀁆􄘀􀁕􅔀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀
􀀯􂼀􀁆􄘀􀁘􅠀􀀁􀄀􀀩􂤀􀁂􄈀􀁎􄸀􀁑􅄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁊􄨀􀁓����􀁆􄘀
􀀷􃜀􀁆􄘀􀁓􅌀􀁎􄸀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁕􅔀
􀀮􂸀􀁂􄈀􀁓􅌀􀁚􅨀􀁍􄴀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁅􄔀
􀀱􃄀􀁆􄘀􀁏��􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀��􅨀􀁍􄴀􀁗􅜀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀􀁊􄨀􀁂􄈀
􀀮􂸀􀁂􄈀􀁊􄨀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀
􀀁��􀀁􀄀􀀁􀄀􀀁􀄀 􀀯􂼀􀁆􄘀􀁘􅠀􀀁􀄀􀀺􃨀􀁐􅀀􀁓􅌀􀁌����
􀀮􂸀􀁊􄨀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁊􄨀􀁈􄠀􀁂􄈀􀁏􄼀
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 11
While the previous section compares
deer and non-deer hunters to the
U.S. population, this section focuses
exclusively on deer and non-deer hunter
populations. Comparisons are made
between the population of deer hunters
and non-deer hunters. It is important
to remember that deer hunters may
also engage in other types of hunting,
and most will. As discussed in the
participation section above, only 42% of
deer hunters hunt deer and nothing else.
Expenditures
A basic summary of hunting days,
trips, and hunting expenditures is
shown in Table 7. Trip expenditures
are directly related to hunting trips.
They include but are not limited to
food, drink, lodging, and transportation
fees. Equipment expenditures include
both hunting equipment such as rifles,
ammunition, and hunting dogs, and
auxiliary equipment that was used
primarily for hunting rather than
fishing such as camping equipment,
clothing, and taxidermy costs. Special
equipment includes purchases such as
boats, campers, trucks, and cabins that
were used primarily for hunting. Other
expenditures include those associated
with books, membership dues, licenses,
land leasing, and land ownership.
Some highlights of Table 7 include
the following. The average number of
hunting days for all hunters is 18. Deer
hunters average a slightly higher 20
days, while non-deer hunters are lower at
10 days. Mean number of trips has a very
similar pattern: deer hunters are higher
than the average for all hunters, and
substantially higher than that for non-deer
hunters. It must be reiterated that
the days and trips of deer hunters can be
spent hunting species other than deer.
A considerable portion of the average
20 days of hunting by deer hunters is
spent hunting other species.
Total expenditures of deer and non-deer
hunters are $20.6 billion. Deer hunters
are responsible for $17.8 billion, or
86% of the total. This amount differs
considerably from the $10.7 billion spent
on deer hunting pointed out above. The
difference occurs because a portion of
the $17.8 billion spent by deer hunters
is spent while seeking species other
than deer. Non-deer hunters account for
$2.8 billion. Per person spending of deer
hunters is greater than that of non-deer
hunters for all expenditure categories:
Trip, Equipment, Special Equipment,
and Other. Per person spending of
deer hunters in a particular category
is defined as the total spending of deer
hunters therein divided by the total
number of deer hunters.
While per person expenditures of deer
hunters are greater in all categories,
they are dramatically higher for “Special
Equipment” and “Other.” Per person,
deer hunters spend $423 on “Special
Equipment,” while non-deer hunters
spend only $90 per person. Similarly,
deer hunters spend $429 per person
on “Other” equipment, and non-deer
hunters spend $212.
Further inspection into the differences
in “Special Equipment” expenditures
reveals that deer hunters spend more for
nearly every type of special equipment.
They spend more on boats, campers,
trucks, motorbikes or 4-wheelers, and
cabins.
Part Two–Contrasting Hunting Activities
of Deer and Non-Deer Hunters
Table 7. Deer and Non-Deer Hunter Days, Trips, and Expenditures: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. In thousands except for means and per person
expenditures.)
All Hunters Deer Non-Deer
Hunters 13,034 10,272 2,762
Days of Hunting 228,368 *200,216 28,152
Mean Days of Hunting 18 20 10
Trips 200,125 176,140 23,985
Mean Hunting Trips 16 17 9
Total Hunting Expenditures 20,611,025 17,780,591 2,830,434
Trip 5,252,391 4,297,479 954,913
Per Person Trip 403 418 346
Equipment 5,764,554 4,723,654 1,040,900
Per Person Equipment 442 460 377
Special Equipment 4,596,942 4,348,665 248,277
Per Person Special Equipment 353 423 90
Other 4,997,137 4,410,793 586,344
Per Person Other 383 429 212
*Includes days spent hunting species other than deer.
Note: Trip includes expenditures directly related to hunting trips, which includes but is not limited to
food, drink, lodging, and transportation fees. Equipment includes both hunting equipment such as rifles,
ammunition, and hunting dogs, and auxiliary equipment that was used primarily for hunting such as
camping equipment, clothing, and taxidermy costs. Special Equipment includes purchases such as boats,
campers, trucks, and cabins that were used primarily for hunting. Other includes those associated with
books, membership dues, licenses, land leasing, and land ownership. Per person spending is defined as the
total spending divided by the total number of deer hunters or non-deer hunters.
12 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Table 8 provides additional detail on
“Other” expenditures, which include
those associated with books, membership
dues, licenses, land leasing, and land
ownership. It indicates that the principal
differences between deer and non-deer
hunters arise due to disparities in land
leasing and land ownership spending. Per
person, deer hunters spend more than
twice the amount of non-deer hunters
on land ownership and more than three
times the amount on land leasing. Deer
hunters are substantially more likely
to both own and lease land for hunting
than non-deer hunters, and this greater
propensity to lease and own is evident in
their higher expenditures.
Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing
As mentioned above, deer hunters have a
higher propensity to both lease and buy
land used primarily for hunting. Table 9
indicates the proportion of deer hunters
and non-deer hunters that both own and
lease hunting land. While 10% of deer
hunters own land used primarily for
hunting, only 3% of non-deer hunters do
the same. Similarly, 9% of deer hunters
and 3% of non-deer hunters lease land.
Table 8. Deer and Non-Deer Hunter Other Expenditures: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. In thousands except for per-person.)
Deer Non-Deer
Expenditure Categories 10,272 2,762
Magazines, books 66,879 17,652
Per Person 7 6
Membership Dues 199,310 44,368
Per Person 19 16
Land Ownership 2,994,916 356,473
Per Person 292 129
Land Leasing 575,475 49,027
Per Person 56 18
Licenses 574,213 118,825
Per Person 56 43
Note: Per person spending is defined as the total spending divided by the total number of deer hunters or
non-deer hunters.
Table 9. Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing by Deer and Non-Deer Hunters: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Deer
Hunters
Percent
Deer
Hunters
Non-Deer
Hunters
Percent
Non-Deer
Hunters
Total Hunters 10,272 100.0% 2,762 100.0%
Own Land for Hunting
Does Own 976 10% 85 3%
Does Not Own 9,219 90% 2,625 95%
Lease Land for Hunting
Does Lease 893 9% 90 3%
Does Not Lease 9,302 91% 2,620 95%
Note: Detail does not add to total because of nonresponse.
Mike Hemming/USFWS
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 13
Public and Private Land Hunting Days
Given the higher propensity of deer
hunters to both own and lease land
for hunting, one might suspect that
they would hunt a higher proportion
of hunting days on private land than
non-deer hunters. This is the case and
is displayed in Table 10. Deer hunters
spend 77% of their hunting days on
private land, while non-deer hunters
spend 72%. Interestingly, both deer and
non-deer hunters spend more than 70%
of days on private land even though only
a relatively small percentage either own
or lease land for the primary purpose
of hunting. The results in Table 10 also
reveal the importance of public lands
on overall hunting activity. About one
quarter of all days spent hunting occurs
on public lands.
Wildlife-Watching Pattern
The wildlife-watching patterns of both
deer and non-deer hunters are displayed
in Table 11. Wildlife watching around
the home denotes that hunters closely
observed, fed, or photographed wildlife
within a one-mile radius of their homes
or maintained natural areas around their
home for which benefit to wildlife was
an important concern. Wildlife watching
away from home refers to hunters
who took trips at least one mile from
their homes for the primary purpose of
observing, photographing or feeding
wildlife.
The wildlife-watching patterns of both
deer and non-deer hunters are quite
similar. About 55% of both participated in
around-the-home wildlife watching, and
about 30% of both took wildlife-watching
trips away from home.
Table 10. Private Land and Public Land Hunting Days for Deer and Non-Deer
Hunters: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Deer Non-Deer
Total Hunting Days 140,467 100% 112,573 100%
Private Land 107,794 77% 80,655 72%
Public Land Days 32,673 23% 31,919 28%
Note: Days of hunting by deer hunters include days for hunting species other than deer.
Table 11. Wildlife-Watching Patterns of Deer Hunters, and Non-Deer Hunters: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Deer
Hunters
Percent
Deer
Hunters
Non-Deer
Hunters
Percent
Non-Deer
Hunters
Total 10,272 100% 2,762 100%
Around-the-Home Watching
Participates 5,842 57% 1,444 52%
Does Not Participate 4,412 43% 1,311 47%
Wildlife-Watching Trips
Participates 3,202 31% 803 29%
Does Not Participate 7,056 69% 1,957 71%
Note: Detail does not add to total because of nonresponse.
Note: Wildlife Watching includes observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife around the home or on
trips away from home.
14 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
This section provides additional analysis
of deer hunter behavior. A variety of
behaviors will be analyzed including
primitive weapons usage, land ownership
and leasing pattern, and license
purchasing pattern.
Primitive Weapons Use
The 2001 FHWAR Survey can be used to
gain a better understanding of hunters’
usage of primitive weapons. For the
purpose of this report, primitive weapon
refers to muzzleloader “primitive”
rifle and archery (bow and arrow).
Non-primitive refers to conventional,
non-muzzleloader rifles or pistols.
Resource managers could potentially use
primitive weapons restrictions to improve
overall satisfaction of hunters, increase
or decrease hunting participation, or
improve hunting safety. Consequently,
it is important to understand hunting
behavior with respect to primitive
weapons usage.
There is an important aspect about
the data available from the 2001
FHWAR Survey that affects the type of
comparisons that can be made between
users of different types of weapons. The
questions of whether or not a primitive
weapon was used are phrased in such a
way that they do not exclude a hunter
from participating in non-primitive forms
of hunting. For example, in the archery
question, hunters are asked the question
of whether or not they hunted with a
bow and arrow from January 1, 2001 to
December 31, 2001. Consequently, the
comparisons made here are between rifle
hunters only and hunters who use both
rifle and archery, or just archery.
Tables 12 and 13 refer to archery,
muzzleloader, and archery/muzzleloader
hunters. Given the manner in which the
questions are asked, archery refers to
hunters that used archery equipment and
possibly used conventional, non-primitive
rifles or pistols. Likewise, muzzleloader
refers to hunters that used muzzleloader
rifles and possibly used non-primitive
rifles or pistols. Archery/muzzleloader
refers to hunters that have used both
archery and muzzleloader equipment
and possibly used non-primitive rifles
or pistols. Rifle/pistol refers to those
hunters that only participate in non-primitive
rifle or pistol hunting.
Table 12 indicates that over 19% of deer
hunters use archery equipment and about
10% use muzzleloader rifles. Another
9.4% use both archery equipment
and muzzleloader rifles. All totaled,
nearly 40% hunt with at least one of the
primitive weapons. With nearly 4 hunters
in 10 using a primitive weapon, it is clear
that these hunting methods are critical
components of overall hunting behavior.
When hunting expenditures, days, and
trips are considered, the importance
of primitive weapons methods is even
more evident. Table 13 summarizes
deer hunter behavior for each. These
are expenditures, days, and trips of
deer hunters who may or may not seek
species other than deer. Consequently,
the measures of hunting activity include
that for other species. Archery hunters
and muzzleloader hunters average
more than twice the days as rifle/pistol
hunters, while archery/muzzleloader
hunters average nearly three times the
Part Three–Deer Hunter
Behavior Patterns
USFWS
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 15
number of days. Mean number of hunting
trips bears a similar pattern. It is not
surprising that hunters who use primitive
weapons participate a greater number
of days and trips than conventional rifle
hunters. Often hunters that use archery
or muzzleloader weapons will participate
in both primitive and non-primitive,
conventional rifle hunting. Many states
have primitive weapons seasons that
precede the conventional weapons
season, and hunters will participate in
both. As well, allowable hunting seasons
for primitive weapons are often greater
in length than the conventional rifle-only
season, which results in greater potential
days to hunt.
Given the higher average number
of trips and days of both archery
and muzzleloader hunters, it is not
surprising that their trip expenditures
per person are higher than conventional
rifle hunters. Per person, archery
hunters spend nearly twice as much
as conventional rifle hunters on trips.
However, at $752, archery/muzzleloader
hunters spend the most on trips per year.
Expenditures for equipment follow a
similar pattern. Hunters that participate
in archery hunting spend more than
twice that of rifle/pistol only on average.
It is important to recall that archery
hunters in the context used here refers to
those hunters that participate in archery
hunting and possibly participate in
conventional rifle hunting. If it is common
that archery hunters participate in both,
it is not surprising that they spend more
per person on equipment. A similar logic
follows for archery/muzzleloader hunters.
Provided that they often participate
in conventional rifle hunting, it is not
surprising that they spend the most
per person because they are buying
equipment related to all three types of
hunting.
Closer inspection of the “Other”
expenditures category reveals where the
key differences lie. Archery and archery/
muzzleloader hunters have substantially
higher other expenditures due to greater
spending on land ownership and land
leasing. Per person, archery hunters
spend the most with $557 for ownership
and $91 for leasing, which compares
to $146 and $47 for conventional rifle
hunters.
Table 12. Hunting Methods of Deer Hunters: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands. )
Weapon Hunters Percent
Total 10,272 100.0%
Archery 1,999 19.5%
Muzzleloader 1,020 9.9%
Archery/Muzzleloader 966 9.4%
Rifle/Pistol Only 6,288 61.2%
Table 13. Deer Hunter Days, Trips, and Expenditures by Weapon Type: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. In thousands except for means and per-person
expenditures.)
Archery Muzzleloader
Archery/
Muzzleloader
Rifle/
Pistol Only
Hunters 1,999 1,020 966 6,288
Days of Hunting 52,995 27,680 37,113 82,427
Mean Days of Hunting 27 27 39 13
Trips 47,470 22,933 35,375 70,362
Mean Hunting Trips 24 23 37 11
Total Hunting Expenditures 4,695,406 2,057,708 2,616,765 8,410,713
Trip 1,156,602 370,695 726,414 2,043,768
Per Person Trip 579 363 752 325
Equipment 1,399,870 511,510 771,351 2,040,923
Per Person Equipment 700 501 799 325
Special Equipment 603,270 674,554 *348,563 2,722,278
Per Person Special Equipment 302 661 *360 433
Other 1,535,664 500,949 770,436 1,603,744
Per Person Other 768 491 798 255
*Based on a Small Sample Size
Note: Per person spending is defined as the total spending divided by the total number of deer hunters or
non-deer hunters.
16 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing
Knowledge of the practice of owning or
leasing land for the primary purpose
of hunting is valuable for a number of
reasons. Greater ownership of land
intended for the primary purpose of
hunting could imply increased wildlife
habitat or improvements in existing
habitat. Alternatively, an increase in the
number of hunters who own or lease land
for the primary purpose of hunting could
imply easier access to prime deer habitat,
which possibly entails greater hunting
pressure on a given deer population.
Table 14 summarizes the deer hunter
ownership and land leasing pattern for
numerous demographic characteristics.
Land owned or leased for the primary
purpose of hunting in Table 14 is not
necessarily used for hunting deer; it
may be used for seeking other species;
however, it must be owned or leased
by someone who hunts deer. Each row
indicates the number of hunters that
participated in the activity named by
both the row and the column. Beneath
the number of participants is the
percent of each row that participated in
the activity named by the column. For
example, the first row and first column
in Table 14 indicates that there were
294 thousand hunters who participated
in archery hunting and owned land.
This 294 thousand represents 14.7% of
all hunters that participated in archery
hunting. Summing the number of hunters
across the columns yields more than
1.999 million hunters. This is because
some hunters both owned land and leased
land for hunting. Likewise, summing the
percentages across the columns yields
greater than 100%. It is also possible
that the sum of percentages across
the columns will be less than 100% if
nonresponse to the own and land lease
question is high enough. Nevertheless,
the row percentages are useful to make
comparisons of ownership or lease
pattern across different row categories.
For instance, the row for rifle/pistol
only indicates that 436 thousand, or
6.9%, of hunters who used rifle/pistol
weapons owned land. Comparing the
two proportions together indicates that
hunters who use archery equipment are
about twice as likely to own hunting land
as those who hunt by rifle/pistol methods.
Close inspection of the data in Table 14
reveals much about the characteristics of
hunters who own or lease land.
Table 14. Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing and Selected Characteristics of
Deer Hunters: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Own Land Lease Land
Neither Own
nor Lease Total
Archery 294 205 1,526 1,999
14.7% 10.3% 76.3%
Muzzleloader 113 90 832 1,020
11.1% 8.9% 81.5%
Archery/Muzzleloader 133 146 707 966
13.8% 15.1% 73.2%
Rifle/Pistol Only 436 452 5,371 6,288
6.9% 7.2% 85.4%
Age
16-17 ** ** 450 475
** ** 94.9%
18-24 *31 *48 915 994
3.1% 4.8% 92.0%
25-34 148 154 1,579 1,879
7.9% 8.2% 84.0%
35-44 256 227 2,366 2,848
9.0% 8.0% 83.1%
45-54 267 263 1,688 2,212
12.1% 11.9% 76.3%
55-64 151 122 898 1,151
13.1% 10.6% 78.0%
65+ 107 72 540 713
15.0% 10.0% 75.8%
Education
0-11 years 88 154 1,195 1,442
6.1% 10.7% 82.8%
12 years 388 325 3,520 4,205
9.2% 7.7% 83.7%
1-3 years of college 259 178 2,175 2,612
9.9% 6.8% 83.3%
4 years of college 181 143 994 1,302
13.9% 11.0% 76.3%
5 years or more of college 61 92 553 712
8.5% 12.9% 77.7%
Geography
New England 29 ** 310 342
8.4% ** 90.6%
Middle Atlantic *179 *79 1,285 1,515
*11.8% *5.2% 84.9%
East North Central 271 *66 1,723 2,062
13.1% *3.2% 83.5%
West North Central 107 *28 1,107 1,251
8.6% *2.2% 88.5%
South Atlantic 128 189 1,235 1,557
8.2% 12.1% 79.4%
East South Central 98 134 692 915
10.7% 14.7% 75.6%
West South Central 140 377 1,034 1,536
9.1% 24.6% 67.3%
Mountain *17 ** 603 631
*2.7% ** 95.6%
Pacific ** ** 446 463
** ** 96.3%
continues
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 17
Weapon
As previously mentioned, archery
hunters are substantially more likely to
own land. At 13.8%, archery/muzzleloader
hunters are nearly as likely to own
land as archery hunters. Muzzleloader
hunters are in the middle with 11.1%.
Archery/muzzleloader hunters are the
most likely to lease at 15.1%. As with
owning land, rifle/pistol only hunters are
also the least likely to lease land at 7.2%.
Archery and muzzleloader hunters fall
in the middle with leasing percentages of
10.3% and 8.9% respectively.
Age
Ownership of hunting land is positively
correlated with age. As age goes up, deer
hunters are more likely to own land for
hunting. A little over three percent of
deer hunters aged 18-24 own hunting
land, and 15% of deer hunters over 65
own hunting land. Moreover, the percent
of hunters that own hunting land goes up
for every age category. Relatively large
increases in ownership rates are seen in
the 25-34 age bracket and the 45-54 age
bracket.
Leasing appears positively correlated
with age from 18 to 54. Beyond 54 years,
the proportion that lease goes down.
Combined with the increase in the
proportion of ownership for these age
groups discussed above, these results
are suggestive of a “graduation” of sorts,
where hunters move from land leasing to
land ownership as they age.
Education
Land ownership is generally positively
correlated with education. The proportion
of hunters who own land increases as
years of education increases. This is
true for all but the 5 years or more of
college category. Hunters with 12 years
of education own land at a 9.2% rate. The
rate of ownership climbs substantially
for hunters with 4 years of college up to
13.9%. However, for hunters with 5 years
or more of college the percent that own
land falls substantially to 8.5%.
Leasing is most likely for the two
extremes of the education distribution.
Hunters in the 0-11 years category
lease at a 10.7% rate. The proportion
of hunters that lease then goes down
as education goes up, until the 4 years
of college category is reached, where
it climbs from 6.8% to 11.0%. The
proportion that leases climbs once
again for the 5 years or more of college
category, up to 12.9%.
Table 14. Hunting Land Ownership and Leasing and Selected Characteristics of
Deer Hunters: 2001 – continued
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)
Own Land Lease Land
Neither Own
nor Lease Total
Income
Under $10,000 *31 ** 284 320
9.8% ** 88.6%
$10-$19,999 *42 *61 491 594
*7.1% *10.3% 82.6%
$20-$24,999 *40 *30 434 503
*8% *6.1% 86.3%
$25-$29,999 *45 *26 526 593
*7.6% *4.4% 88.8%
$30-$34,999 *55 *46 616 714
*7.7% *6.4% 86.3%
$35-$39,999 *47 *41 473 561
*8.3% *7.3% 84.3%
$40-$49,999 71 108 992 1,154
6.2% 9.3% 86.0%
$50-$74,999 194 212 1,610 1,989
9.7% 10.7% 81.0%
$75-$99,999 142 148 763 1,034
13.8% 14.3% 73.8%
$100,000 or More 131 131 598 845
15.5% 15.5% 70.7%
Total Hunting Days
≤5 112 *86 2,474 2,672
4.2% *3.2% 92.6%
6 to 12 300 165 2,196 2,654
11.3% 6.2% 82.8%
13 to 25 215 233 2,061 2,485
8.7% 9.4% 82.9%
>25 346 408 1,669 2,346
14.7% 17.4% 71.1%
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Outside MSA 429 286 3,645 4,339
9.9% 6.6% 84.0%
50,000 to 249,999 111 84 1,057 1,256
8.8% 6.7% 84.2%
250,000 to 999,999 164 238 1,498 1,890
8.7% 12.6% 79.2%
1,000,000 or more 273 285 2,235 2,786
9.8% 10.2% 80.2%
*Estimate based a on small sample size.
**Sample size too small to report data reliably.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple response and nonresponse.
18 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Geography
There are wide variations in ownership
and lease pattern based on the
geographic region where the hunter
resides. It is likely that the availability
of public hunting land within a region
will have an impact on the degree of
ownership and leasing activity. Hunters
probably participate in owning land or
leasing land to gain hunting rights to
prime deer habitat, and areas with a
greater level of public lands in which
hunting is permissible probably provide
hunters with greater access opportunities
to deer habitat. Consequently, a greater
quantity of huntable public lands likely
reduces the need to purchase or lease for
access. As well, other factors such as the
use pattern of the land for purposes other
than hunting, the terrain, and regional
differences in the level of deer hunting
participation could have an impact.
Comparisons of the proportion of
public lands, as shown in Table 15, with
the ownership and leasing pattern in
Table 14 are generally supportive of a
relationship between the two. Given the
high proportion of public lands in both
the Mountain and Pacific regions, it is not
surprising to find that both have a small
percentage of hunters who own or lease
land for hunting. This can be ascertained
by considering the relatively high
percentage of hunters in the Mountain
and Pacific regions that neither own
nor lease. In both regions more than
95% of hunters neither own nor lease.
Alternatively, the West South Central
has a low proportion of public lands and
a high percentage of hunters who either
own or lease land. The South Atlantic
and East South Central also both have
a relatively low proportion of lands that
are publicly owned and a relatively high
proportion of deer hunters who either
own or lease. One glaring exception
to the relationship is in New England,
which has the lowest proportion of public
lands and also has relatively few deer
hunters who own or lease land primarily
for hunting. This discrepancy is likely
due to other factors, particularly the
finding in Table 8 that it has the lowest
participation rate for both all hunting and
deer hunting. Such a low participation
rate of hunters in New England indicates
reduced hunting pressure in available
access areas.
Another interesting feature of Table 14 is
the proportion of hunters that lease land
in the West South Central. Almost 1 out
of 4 deer hunters in the Region lease land
primarily for hunting.
Income
Ownership of land primarily used for
hunting is prominent at all income
levels. The average ownership rate
for all income levels is 9.5%, and most
of the income strata are close to this
average. Only those with incomes of
$40,000-$49,999 and $75,000 or more are
substantially different from the average.
It is understandable that the higher
income hunters would be more likely to
own hunting land, but why those in the
$40,000-$49,999 segment are less likely is
unknown.
Leasing is generally positively correlated
with income. As income increases,
generally, the proportion of hunters who
lease hunting land increases.
Total Hunting Days
Total hunting days in Table 14 refers
to days of hunting for all species, not
just deer. Additionally, the intervals
for hunting days are chosen to roughly
distribute the days in quartiles. Roughly
one quarter of the data lies in each
interval. Leasing is positively correlated
with hunting days: an increase in one
is accompanied by an increase in the
other. This is perhaps not surprising, but
the magnitudes of the proportions are
instructive. Those who hunt more than
25 days are nearly three times as likely
to lease land, 17.4%, than those who hunt
between 6 to 12 days, 6.2%, and more
than five times likely to lease land than
those that hunt 5 or fewer days, 3.2%.
There is some apparent relationship
between likelihood of owning hunting
land and hunting days. The percentage
of hunters that own hunting land goes up
as hunting days go up, at least over some
range. Those who are the least likely to
own hunting land hunt the fewest days,
while those who are the most likely to
own hunting land hunt the most days.
However, in the intervening number of
days, the relationship is less clear. Those
that hunt from 6 to 12 days are more
likely to own hunting land than those that
hunt 13 to 25 days.
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
“The general concept of a metropolitan
or micropolitan statistical area is that
of a core area containing a substantial
population nucleus, together with
adjacent communities having a high
degree of economic and social integration
with that core . . . Each metropolitan
statistical area must have at least
one urbanized area of 50,000 or more
inhabitants.”4 Consequently, classification
by MSA type provides information on the
population of hunters’ residences. The
categories of MSA that are listed in Table
14 indicate whether the hunter lived in
a MSA of various sizes or lived outside
of a MSA, which indicates a more rural
residency.
Ownership of land for the primary
purpose of hunting does not appear
related to population of hunter
residences. Deer hunters from MSAs of
all sizes and those that do not reside in a
MSA are all approximately equally likely
to own hunting land.
Leasing of hunting land, however, does
appear related to the population of
hunter residences. Hunters that reside
outside MSAs lease land the least, 6.6%.
Hunters residing in MSAs with 50,000-
249,999 people lease at a rate of 6.7%,
and those residing in MSAs with 250,000-
999,999 people lease at a rate of 12.6%.
For those residing in MSAs of 1 million
or more, the percent leasing does fall
back down to 10.2%, but it is still greater
than the rate for the smaller MSAs and
outside MSAs. Consequently, there is a
loosely positive correlation between MSA
and rate of leasing.
Table 15. Proportion of U.S. Census
Regions that are Publicly Owned
(Federal and State)
New England 6%
Middle Atlantic 26%
East North 13%
West North Central 10%
South Atlantic 16%
East South Central 11%
West South Central 7%
Mountain 58%
Pacific 80%
Source: National Wilderness Institute 1995
4 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division,
Population Distribution Branch
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 19
License Purchasing Behavior
Revenue from the sale of hunting licenses
is an important source of funding for
the resource management activities of
state fish and game agencies. However,
over the last several years, there has
been a decline in overall license sales.
Consequently, it is perhaps more
important now than in previous years to
minimize nonlicensed hunting behavior.
Knowledge of the characteristics and
behavior of hunters that hunt without
licenses could be useful in this regard.
Fortunately this behavior can be analyzed
with survey data from the 2001 FHWAR.
The 2001 FHWAR queries hunters
about whether they purchased a hunting
license and whether they were exempt
from the requirement to purchase a
hunting license through the following two
questions:
“Did you buy a license to hunt in
2001? This could be a license that you
bought or was bought for you.”
“Some hunters were exempt from
buying a license in 2001 because of
their age, because they had a lifetime
or free license, or some other reason.
Were you exempt from buying a
hunting license in any state in which
you hunted in 2001?”
Using both of these questions it is
possible to identify those hunters that
did not purchase any license and were
not exempt from the requirement to
do so. To the extent that deer hunters
responded truthfully and accurately
to these two questions, those that are
nonlicensed and nonexempt can be
considered noncompliant. All states have
a general hunting license requirement for
deer hunters. Most states do have some
exemptions, but unless an exemption
is applicable, a license is required.
Consequently, if a deer hunter answered
that he or she did not buy a license and
was not exempt, then that hunter can be
considered likely noncompliant. For the
purposes of this analysis, those hunters
that answered “no” to both questions are
considered likely noncompliant. However,
it is important to remember that these
nonlicensed and nonexempt hunters are
only noncompliant if they understood and
answered both questions correctly. While
the remainder of this report refers to
these individuals as noncompliant, this is
not necessarily the case.
There is one notable aspect of the
exemption question above that may
have caused some errant responses. The
question does not specifically identify
landowner or tenant exemption as a
potential reason why a hunter was not
required to purchase a license. Many
states have some form of landowner or
tenant exemption from the requirement
to purchase hunting licenses. The forms
of these regulations vary. Some apply to
small game only, whereas some also apply
to deer hunting. The acreage operated
by a landowner or tenant to qualify
for an exemption differs substantially.
In one state a free deer permit can be
obtained by landowners of 5 or more
acres, while in another an exemption is
granted for owners or operators of 160
acres of agricultural land. Technically,
landowners or tenants who were exempt
from the requirement of purchasing a
hunting license should have answered
yes to the exemption question. If all
landowners or tenants who had an
exemption because of their landowner
status answered correctly, then none
of them would have been identified as
nonlicensed and nonexempt. However,
some may have answered incorrectly
because landowner or tenant exemption
is not specifically identified. Due to this
potential for an errant response, one of
the characteristics analyzed in Table 16
is whether hunting occurred in a state
where a landowner or tenant exemption
was available.
Table 16 summarizes the license
purchasing pattern for numerous deer
hunter characteristics. It follows the
same format as that of Table 14 discussed
above. A queried hunter must have
answered both the question regarding
license purchase and the question
regarding exemption to be included in
this table; and to be considered “Did Not
Buy and Not Exempt” the hunter must
have answered “no” to each. It is possible
that hunters were exempt from the
necessity to purchase some licenses and
not others. Consequently, the hunters
can answer that they were exempt from
buying a license and they also purchased
a license. These responses appear in
“Bought and Exempt.” This analysis will
focus on the fourth column: “Did Not Buy
and Not Exempt,” as they are seen as the
likely noncompliant hunters.5
5 The questions about license purchases
and exemption are not species specific. As
a result, it is possible that a hunter could
have purchased a license for some species,
but not all species for which there was a
requirement. Consequently, there is the
possibility that some deer hunters may have
been compliant in purchasing a license for
another species, and not for deer.
PhotoDisc
20 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Overall, the data suggest that there
were about 824,000 noncompliant deer
hunters in 2001. This represents about
8% of all deer hunters. Furthermore,
the data suggest that the rate of
noncompliance varies widely among
different groupings of deer hunters.
The following analyzes the relationship
between noncompliance and numerous
deer hunter characteristics.
There is an apparent relationship
between the type of weapons that hunters
use and the rate of noncompliance. Rifle/
pistol only hunters are 1.5 and 2.3 times
more likely to be noncompliant than
muzzleloader and archery/muzzleloader
hunters respectively. Muzzleloader and
archery/muzzleloader hunters are the
least likely to be non-compliant, at less
than 5% for each, while archery lies in the
middle with 6.1%.
There is an apparent negative correlation
between age and noncompliance.
As age goes up, the proportion that
is noncompliant goes down. The
proportion of noncompliant hunters
drops substantially after 24 years of
age. Hunters 16 to 24 years old have a
noncompliance rate around 11%, and
thereafter, with the exception of the 55 to
64 category, the rate falls to around 7%.
Noncompliance is common across all
educational levels. The only sharp
deviation from the 8% mean level of
noncompliance is for those who fall in the
5 years or more of college category. At
4.2%, their rate of noncompliance is about
one half the overall average. Those with
the highest level of noncompliance have
1-3 years of college, but those with four
years of college are very close.
To gain a better understanding of how
geographic region affects the likelihood
of hunting without a license, Table 16
indicates the geographic region where
hunting occurred, not hunter residence.
The change to hunter destination was
deemed necessary for the purposes of
the regression modeling discussed below.
One notable difference between hunter
residence and hunting occurrence is that
more than one region is permitted for the
latter. In other words, while all hunters
report a residency in only one region,
some participate in hunting in multiple
regions.
Table 16. License Purchasing and Selected Characteristics of
Deer Hunters: 2001
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands. )
Did Not
Buy and
Exempt
Bought
and Not
Exempt
Bought
and
Exempt
Did Not
Buy and
Not Exempt Total
Archery 103 1,623 126 123 1,999
5.2% 81.2% 6.3% 6.1%
Muzzleloader 80 805 84 *48 1,020
7.8% 78.9% 8.2% 4.7%
Archery/Muzzleloader 97 727 94 *41 966
10.0% 75.3% 9.7% *4.3%
Rifle/Pistol Only 295 4,879 435 611 6,288
4.7% 77.6% 6.9% 9.7%
Age
16-17 ** 345 70 54 475
** 72.8% 14.8% 11.3%
18-24 ** 790 66 109 994
** 79.4% 6.7% 11.0%
25-34 65 1,566 93 141 1,879
3.5% 83.4% 5.0% 7.5%
35-44 119 2,274 202 220 2,848
4.2% 79.8% 7.1% 7.7%
45-54 90 1,805 150 141 2,212
4.1% 81.6% 6.8% 6.4%
55-64 *63 876 91 111 1,151
*5.5% 76.1% 7.9% 9.7%
65+ 213 377 *66 *48 713
29.9% 52.9% *9.2% *6.8%
Education
0-11 years 86 1,123 114 109 1,442
6.0% 77.9% 7.9% 7.5%
12 years 255 3,311 285 326 4,205
6.1% 78.7% 6.8% 7.8%
1-3 years of college 113 2,026 191 243 2,612
4.3% 77.6% 7.3% 9.3%
4 years of college 60 1,034 84 117 1,302
4.6% 79.4% 6.5% 9.0%
5 years or more of college 60 539 *66 *30 712
8.5% 75.7% *9.2% *4.2%
Geography
New England 25 353 29 *40 422
6.0% 83.7% 6.9% *3.3%
Middle Atlantic *55 1,369 143 *56 1,623
3.4% 84.4% 8.8% *3.4%
East North Central *508 6,205 644 *728 8,085
*6.3% 76.8% 8.0% *9.0%
West North Central *53 1,006 91 83 1,232
*4.3% 81.6% 7.4% 6.7%
South Atlantic 142 975 155 217 1,489
9.6% 65.5% 10.4% 14.6%
East South Central 66 749 92 149 1,055
6.3% 70.9% 8.7% 14.1%
West South Central 125 1,101 146 168 1,540
8.1% 71.5% 9.5% 10.9%
Mountain *14 636 *31 39 720
*2.0% 88.3% *4.3% 5.4%
Pacific *41 349 ** *45 446
*9.2% 78.2% ** *10.0%
continues
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 21
Noncompliance varies dramatically by
geographic region. In New England,
noncompliance is the lowest at 3.3%.
Middle Atlantic is a close second at 3.4%.
Mountain and West North Central round
out those that have noncompliance of less
than the national average, while East
North Central is close to the average. In
the South Atlantic, noncompliance climbs
to 14.6%, and East South Central is close
at 14.1%. West South Central and Pacific
also have noncompliance greater than
the national average, at 10.9% and 10%
respectively.
Income appears to have a negative
correlation with noncompliance over
a portion of its range. At 13.2% those
with incomes under $10,000 are the
most likely to be noncompliant. Between
$10,000-24,999 the proportion declines to
around 10.4%. Beyond $25,000, with few
exceptions, the rate of noncompliance
is not substantially different than the
mean of 8%. This substantial drop in the
noncompliance rate after $24,999 and the
relatively flat rate thereafter suggests
that the effect of increasing incomes on
noncompliance is reduced after a certain
threshold of income is attained.
Somewhat surprisingly, the rate of
noncompliance appears to differ
substantially by gender. Female hunters
have twice the rate of noncompliance as
male hunters. For females the rate of
noncompliance is 15.2%, while 7.3% of
males are noncompliant.
Not surprisingly, the noncompliance rate
is negatively correlated with hunting
days. At 14.8%, those who hunt fewer
than 6 days are more than 4 times as
likely to be noncompliant than those who
hunt over 25 days, 3.6%. For 6-25 days,
the rate of noncompliance is around 6.5%.
Table 16. License Purchasing and Selected Characteristics of
Deer Hunters: 2001 – continued
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands. )
Did Not
Buy and
Exempt
Bought
and Not
Exempt
Bought
and
Exempt
Did Not
Buy and
Not Exempt Total
Income
Under $10,000 ** 246 ** 42 320
** 76.6% ** 13.2%
$10-$19,999 68 438 *21 *62 594
11.5% 73.8% *3.5% *10.4%
$20-$24,999 *34 408 ** *57 504
*6.7% 81.0% ** *11.2%
$25-$29,999 *44 452 *51 *46 593
*7.4% 76.2% *8.6% *7.8%
$30-$34,999 *48 534 *76 *56 714
*6.7% 74.9% *10.6% *7.8%
$35-$39,999 *51 *454 *43 *12 561
*9.1% 80.8% *7.7% *2.2%
$40-$49,999 *41 931 98 82 1,154
*3.6% 80.7% 8.5% 7.1%
$50-$74,999 78 1,674 130 107 1,989
3.9% 84.2% 6.5% 5.4%
$75-$99,999 *53 790 102 *90 1,034
*5.1% 76.4% 9.8% *8.7%
$100,000 or More *38 677 *60 *66 845
*4.4% 80.1% *7.1% *7.8%
Gender
Male 542 7,341 714 687 9,371
5.8% 78.3% 7.6% 7.3%
Female 33 692 *25 137 901
3.6% 76.8% *2.8% 15.2%
Total Hunting Days
≤5 172 1,941 155 392 2,661
6.5% 73.0% 5.8% 14.8%
6 to 12 140 2,163 172 177 2,651
5.3% 81.6% 6.5% 6.7%
13 to 25 127 2,009 181 161 2,478
5.1% 81.1% 7.3% 6.5%
>25 *135 1,893 *228 84 2,340
*5.8% 80.9% *9.8% 3.6%
Land Lease/Own
Own Land 74 652 91 *50 867
8.5% 75.2% 10.5% *5.8%
Lease Land 60 639 *78 ** 784
7.7% 81.5% *10.0% **
Own and Lease ** 78 ** ** 109
** 72.1% ** **
Neither Own nor Lease 432 6,661 547 767 8,435
5.1% 79.0% 6.5% 9.1%
Public/Private Land
Public and Private Land 81 1,733 175 107 2,115
3.8% 81.9% 8.3% 5.0%
Private Only 402 4,879 436 535 6,309
6.4% 77.4% 6.9% 8.5%
Public Only 72 1,231 117 100 1,529
4.7% 80.5% 7.6% 6.5%
continues
22 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
There is an apparent relationship
between the hunting land leasing/
ownership pattern and the rate of
noncompliance. At 9.1%, those who
have the highest rate of noncompliance
are hunters that neither own nor lease
hunting land. Those who own hunting
land have a 5.8% noncompliance rate.
Noncompliance varies slightly between
public or private land hunting. If only
private land is used by the hunter, then
the rate of noncompliance is the highest
at 8.5%. If public and private land are
used by the hunter then noncompliance
drops to 5%. For public land only hunters,
the rate of noncompliance is in the middle
at 6.5%.
There is perhaps some relationship
between the rate of noncompliance and
MSA residency. Whether or not a hunter
resides in or outside of a MSA appears
relevant. Hunters who live outside
MSAs have a notably lower rate of
noncompliance than those who do reside
in MSAs. Within different size MSAs,
however, there is little variation in the
rate of noncompliance.
The rate of noncompliance does not
appear to differ appreciably between
hunters that hunt in a state where a
landowner exemption was available and
those that did not. To be considered
“Potential Exemption Available” the
hunter must reside and hunt in a state
where a landowner or tenant exemption
was available. The exemption must also
have applied to deer hunting and must
have applied to all fees for licenses,
permits, or tags. In other words, if
there was the potential that a deer
hunter could have hunted deer for no fee
whatsoever because of their landowner
or tenant status, their hunting activity
is considered “Potential Exemption
Available.”
Table 16. License Purchasing and Selected Characteristics of
Deer Hunters: 2001 – continued
(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands. )
Did Not
Buy and
Exempt
Bought
and Not
Exempt
Bought
and
Exempt
Did Not
Buy and
Not Exempt Total
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Outside MSA 248 3,413 349 299 4,339
5.7% 78.7% 8.0% 6.9%
50,000 to 249,999 63 998 *69 114 1,256
5.0% 79.4% *5.5% 9.0%
250,000 to 999,999 116 1,435 154 161 1,890
6.1% 75.9% 8.2% 8.5%
1,000,000 or more 149 2,187 167 251 2,786
5.3% 78.5% 6.0% 9.0%
Landowner Exemption State
Potential Exemption Available 214 4,666 416 413 5,709
3.7% 81.7% 7.3% 7.2%
Exemption Not Available 361 3,367 323 410 4,461
8.1% 75.5% 7.2% 9.2%
*Estimate based a on small sample size.
**Sample size too small to report data reliably.
Note: Detail does not add to total because of multiple response and nonresponse.
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 23
The descriptive statistics contained in
Table 16 and the adjoining discussion
address variations in the rate of
license noncompliance and numerous
deer hunter characteristics. As noted,
numerous variables appear to have
some relationship with noncompliance.
Sometimes these relationships are
expected based on basic economic
principles. For example, it is not
surprising to find that the number of
hunting days has a decidedly negative
correlation with rate of noncompliance.
The more days hunted, the more likely
a hunter is to encounter compliance
enforcement personnel, such as a game
warden. This increased chance of “being
caught” translates into a higher expected
cost of hunting without a license. In
other cases, the relationships do not
have a readily apparent economic logic,
such as the finding that hunters with 4
years of college have a higher rate of
noncompliance than those with 12 years
of school.
However, the use of descriptive statistics
alone is not the appropriate method
to test the validity of a relationship
between the various deer hunter
characteristics with noncompliance.
There are interrelationships among the
characteristic variables themselves that
can act to conceal the effect of each on
noncompliance. For example, as noted
above, deer hunters that participate in
primitive weapons hunting have a lower
rate of noncompliance than those that use
conventional rifles and pistols only, and
those who hunt a greater number of days
have a higher rate of noncompliance than
those who hunt fewer days. Additionally,
it was also noted above that deer hunters
who participate in primitive weapons
hunting also tend to hunt a greater
number of days than those that do not.
Consequently, it is difficult to determine
the effect that type of weapons used and
hunting days has on the noncompliance
independently. Logit regression is
appropriate to separate the effects of
hunting days, ownership pattern, income
and other variables on the probability
of hunting license compliance. The logit
model helps eliminate the confounding
effects of the correlation between
hunting days and type of weapons used.
Consequently, the effect of each on the
probability of noncompliance can be
isolated more effectively. Moreover, the
logit regression method is appropriate
for situations where the dependent
variable is a dichotomous choice, such as
compliance or noncompliance.
More specifically, the logit regression
used here models the logarithm of
the odds ratio that an individual was
noncompliant (hunted without a license)
as a function of a set of explanatory
variables or hunter characteristics.
The logit regression is described by the
following two equations.
(1)
(2)
where:
Pi = Probability that the ith individual
hunted without a license (i.e., “yes”)
Xi = Vector of explanatory variables
β = Vector of coefficients to be estimated
All individuals that reported an
exemption from the requirement to
purchase a hunting license were excluded
in the modeling analysis. Consequently,
the modeling procedure addresses the
probability that a nonexempt hunter will
hunt without a license. When considering
only the nonexempt hunters, those that
hunt without licenses are considered
noncompliant. However, the qualifying
remarks made above concerning likely
noncompliance are still applicable.
Variables
The explanatory variables that are
used in the logit regression model are
contained in Table 17. The variables
used in the regression were selected
from a large set of potential explanatory
variables through a combination of
Stepwise Model Fitting and use of the
likelihood ratio test6. These variable
selection methods aid discovery of
unexpected relationships. Some of the
variables entered into the regression
appear in the same form as seen in
Table 16: PUB_PRIV, WEAPON,
GENDER, and the geographic regions
where hunting occurs. Other variables
address the same socioeconomic or
hunting characteristic, but they are in
different form. The form of the variables
is changed to facilitate more effective
model fitting or to simplify the results.
These altered variables are as follows.
LEASE indicates whether a hunter
leased land for the purpose of hunting.
EDUC indicates whether the hunter had
5 or more years of college. AGECLASS
indicates whether a hunter was 55 years
or older. INCOME indicates whether
a hunter had an income of between
$29,999 and $75,000. BIN_HUNTDAYS
puts total hunting days in interval form.
Several other species variables were
not included in Table 16, but were found
to have a significant relationship with
noncompliance.
Part Four–Nonlicensed
Deer Hunter Model
6 Consult author for additional information on
other model specifications, list of variables
that were not included in the final regression,
and information on Stepwise Model Fitting.
24 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Most of the variables contained in Table
17 are nominal variables. Each nominal
variable used in the logit model has a
base or reference case. The reference
case is given a value of 0 in the estimated
equation. Consequently, the calculated
coefficient for the reference case is
embodied in the coefficient for the
intercept term. The reference case for
each nominal variable is given by the
first level for each in Table 17. Thus, the
reference case is as follows:
Hunting Days ≤ 5
Under 55 Years of Age
Middle Income (Greater than $29,999
and Less than $75,000)
Private Land Only
Male
Do Not Lease Hunting Land
Rifle/Pistol Only
Less Than 5 Years of College
Education
Hunting occurred in New England,
East North Central, West North
Central, or Mountain States
No Duck Hunting
No Coyote Hunting
No Other Big Game Hunting
No Bear Hunting
No Squirrel Hunting
Every variable value other than the
reference case has a coefficient. Each of
these coefficients indicate the change in
the log odds ratio from equation 2 that
occurs when the value of the respective
nominal variable is different than the
reference case. For example, since
“Rifle/Pistol Only” is the reference case
for WEAPON, each of the other levels
of WEAPON (Archery, Muzzleloader,
and Archery/Muzzleloader) will have a
coefficient. The coefficient for “Archery”
will indicate the change in the log
odds due to the hunter using archery
equipment instead of using rifle/pistol
only equipment. The same will also be
the case for the “Muzzleloader” and
“Archery/Muzzleloader” coefficients.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Table 17. Logit Regression Explanatory Variables
BIN_HUNTDAYS Nominal Variable with 3 Levels
1 to 5
6 to 25
>25
AGECLASS Indicator variable with 2 values
Under 55
55 Years Old or More
INCOME Indicator variable with 2 values
Middle Income (Greater than 29,999 and Less than 75,000)
Not Middle Income (Less than 30,000 or More than 74,999)
PUB_PRIV Nominal Variable with 3 Levels
Private Only
Public Only
Public and Private
SEX Indicator variable with 2 values
Male
Female
LEASE Indicator Variable with Levels
Do Not Lease Land
Lease Land
WEAPON Nominal Variable with 4 Levels
Rifle/Pistol Only
Archery/Muzzleloader
Archery
Muzzleloader
EDUC Indicator variable with 2 values
Under 5 Years of College
5 or More Years of College
S_ATLAN Indicator variable with 2 values
Did Not Hunt In South Atlantic
Hunted
W_SOUTHCENT Indicator variable with 2 values
Did Not Hunt In West South Central
Hunted
E_SOUTHCENT Indicator variable with 2 values
Did Not Hunt In East South Central
Hunted in East South Central
PACIFIC Indicator variable with 2 values
Did Not Hunt In Pacific
Hunted
SPECIES_DUCK Indicator variable with 2 values
Did Not Hunt
Hunted
SPECIES_COYOTE Indicator variable with 2 values
Did Not Hunt
Hunted
SPECIES_OtherBG Indicator variable with 2 values
Did Not Hunt
Hunted
SPECIES_BEAR Indicator variable with 2 values
Did Not Hunt
Hunted
SPECIES_SQUIRREL Indicator variable with 2 values
Did Not Hunt
Hunted
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 25
Results
The results from the logistic regression
procedure are presented in Table 18. A
negative number in the estimation column
indicates that the variable in question
has a negative relationship with the
likelihood that one will be noncompliant.
Additionally, the Pr > ChiSq column
indicates the probability that the
relationship between each variable
and the target variable (likelihood of
noncompliance) occurs by chance. A Pr
> ChiSq of less than 0.05 is considered
strongly statistically significant, while
a value of less than 0.1 is considered
significant. An example will serve to
explain the particulars of Table 21.
The table indicates that the estimate
for muzzleloader is -0.6452. Since the
base case for WEAPON is “Rifle/Pistol
Only,” the negative result indicates that,
all other things equal, hunters that use
muzzleloader weapons are less likely to
hunt without a license than hunters that
use only traditional rifles/pistol weapons.
Additionally, the Pr > ChiSq indicates a
probability of 0.0278, which is significant.
This significance indicates that there is
greater than a 97.22% probability that the
relationship between “Muzzleloader” and
noncompliance did not occur by chance.
Geography
The base geographic regions are New
England, East North Central, West
North Central, or Mountain States. The
effect of hunting in any of these regions
on the likelihood of noncompliance
is captured in the intercept variable.
Consequently, coefficients on the other
geographic region variables (S_ATLAN,
W_SOUTHCENT, E_SOUTHCENT,
and PACIFIC) indicate the change in
likelihood of noncompliance that occurs
when hunting occurs in one of these
respective regions rather than New
England, East North Central, West
North Central, or Mountain States.
The geographic regions results indicate
the following. As evidenced by the
positive coefficients, hunters in the
South Atlantic, West South Central,
East South Central and Pacific are all
more likely to hunt without a license
than those in base regions. Moreover,
the results are highly significant. The
hunters in the East South Central
States are the most likely to hunt
without a license, all other things equal.
At 1.53, its coefficient is larger than
those for South Atlantic, West South
Central, and Pacific.
Hunting Days
Hunting a greater number of days leads
to a reduced rate of noncompliance.
The reference case is hunting days ≤ 5.
Consequently, the negative coefficients
for both 6 to 25 and >25 indicate that
hunters with more than 5 days of hunting
are less likely to be noncompliant.
Moreover, because the coefficient for >25
is larger in absolute value than that for
6 to 25, the negative impact of increased
hunting days is greater the more days
the hunter participates. All hunting days’
coefficients are strongly significant,
which indicates a high probability that
the relationship between days and
noncompliance did not occur by chance.
Public or Private Land Hunting
Hunters that use only private land are
more likely to hunt without a license
than those that use at least some public
land. Private land only is the reference
case, so the negative coefficients for
both “Public Only” and “Public and
Private” indicate that hunters in both
of these categories are less likely to be
noncompliant. Additionally, those that use
both public and private land are the least
likely to be noncompliant. It is uncertain
why hunters that use only private land
Table 18. Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates of Logit Regression
Variable Value Estimate Standard Error Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq
Intercept -2.25 0.19 138.57 <.0001
BIN_HUNTDAYS 6 to 25 -0.77 0.16 21.35 <.0001
BIN_HUNTDAYS >25 -1.50 0.28 26.80 <.0001
AGECLASS 55 Years Old or More 0.50 0.19 6.82 0.00
INCOME Middle Income -0.40 0.14 7.25 0.00
PUB_PRIV Pub Only -0.28 0.20 1.88 0.17
PUB_PRIV Pub and Priv -0.95 0.26 13.51 0.00
SEX Female 0.89 0.19 20.11 <.0001
LEASE Lease Land -1.89 0.53 12.77 0.00
WEAPON Archery/Muzzleloader -1.12 0.48 5.45 0.01
WEAPON Archery -0.19 0.23 0.74 0.38
WEAPON Muzzleloader -0.64 0.29 4.83 0.02
EDUC 5 or More Years of College -1.44 0.52 7.40 0.00
S_ATLAN Hunted 1.41 0.20 49.21 <.0001
W_SOUTHCENT Hunted 1.48 0.24 36.40 <.0001
E_SOUTHCENT Hunted 1.53 0.20 54.70 <.0001
PACIFIC Hunted 1.34 0.27 23.98 <.0001
SPECIES_DUCK Hunted -0.61 0.35 3.07 0.07
SPECIES_COYOTE Hunted 0.69 0.41 2.76 0.09
SPECIES_OtherBG Hunted 0.91 0.38 5.75 0.01
SPECIES_BEAR Hunted -1.85 1.03 3.19 0.07
SPECIES_SQUIRREL Hunted 0.38 0.22 2.99 0.08
26 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
are the most likely to be noncompliant;
however, it is probably due in part to
the decreased chance of encountering
compliance enforcement personnel when
using private land.
Gender
All other things equal, women are
substantially more likely to hunt without
a license than male hunters. This result
could indicate a problem with the survey
instrument. Women are possibly more
likely to go on a trip that they consider
a hunting trip but does not involve them
carrying a weapon. The FHWAR Survey
question to discern hunting participation
does specifically instruct respondents
to “not include as hunting occasions
when you only observed others hunt or
when you only scouted.” Nevertheless,
there could be some errant responses. If
females have a greater propensity to err
in this regard, it could explain why they
are more likely to be noncompliant. The
results could also indicate that females
are more likely to go on a hunting trip
where they have limited access to a
weapon. In other words, a female may go
on a hunting trip with her husband who
will be the one “officially” carrying the
weapon, but she may have access to the
weapon if a good opportunity for a shot
arises. As a result, the couple may only
carry one license, even though they are
both actually hunting.
Lease Land
The results indicate that hunters
who lease land are less likely to be
noncompliant than those who do not
lease. Those that do not lease land
include those who own land primarily
used for hunting and those who neither
own nor lease land for hunting7. There
are a variety of possible explanations
for why those who lease land are less
likely to be noncompliant. One potential
explanation is peer pressure. Hunting
leases are often made by a group of
individuals with a landowner. The group
of hunters is often friends or colleagues,
so individual hunters within the group
would probably not wish to be viewed as
irresponsible by the remaining members.
Another possible explanation involves
landowner requirements. It is possible
that by requiring evidence of hunting
licenses for lessees, the landowner acts
as surrogate enforcement representative
of fish and wildlife agencies. Lastly,
some states have required that lessors
maintain a record book that documents
the lessees hunting on their land. It is
possible that the maintenance of such a
book could encourage increased hunting
license compliance because it is used as a
reference tool by enforcement personnel.
Whatever the reason, it is clear those
hunters who lease hunting land are less
likely to hunt without a license than those
who do not.
Weapon
In general, people who hunt with
primitive weapons are less likely to be
noncompliant than those who do not.
Those hunters that participated in both
archery and muzzleloader hunting are
the least likely to be noncompliant,
followed by those that participate in
muzzleloader hunting. Those that
participated in archery hunting but not
muzzleloader hunting are also less likely
to be noncompliant, but the coefficient
is not significant, so there is a relatively
high probability that the relationship
could have occurred by chance.
There are several possible explanations
for why hunters using primitive weapons
are less likely to be noncompliant. Often
primitive weapon hunts occur for safety
reasons. In densely populated regions,
where hunting with high powered
rifles may endanger others, primitive
weapons restrictions are often employed.
Enforcement may be easier in these
dense population regions than in more
remote regions. Another potential reason
is that primitive weapon hunts generally
occur prior to or after the general rifle
season when hunting participation is
high. The lower participation in the
primitive weapon seasons implies
increased probability that a given
hunter will be checked for appropriate
licensing by law enforcement personnel.
Consequently, there may be increased
pressure to be appropriately licensed.
7 Other models considered but not presented
here suggest additionally that those who
lease land are significantly more likely to be
noncompliant than those who own land for
the primary purpose of hunting.
USFWS
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 27
Income
Hunters with household incomes between
$30,000 and $75,000 are less likely to be
noncompliant than those at the higher or
lower end of the income distribution. It is
not surprising that those with incomes of
over $29,999 have decreased likelihood of
noncompliance than hunters with lower
incomes. Those with higher incomes not
only have an increased ability to afford
hunting licenses, they also probably have
a higher opportunity cost of being caught
hunting without a license. However, it
is somewhat more puzzling to find that
those with incomes of over $75,000 are
more likely to be noncompliant than
hunters in the middle income range. A
possible explanation is that hunters in
the high end of the income distribution
are more likely to hunt on private game
ranches where hunting without licenses
may be more common8.
Age
When hunters are over 55 years old
they are more likely to be noncompliant.
Numerous other specifications for age
were tried, but only an indicator form
to capture the upper end of the age
spectrum proved significant. Possibly
the over 55 indicator variable indicates
errant responses to the exemption
question. Despite the fact that age
is clearly identified as a reason for a
possible exemption, some hunters may
have answered no exemption when they
should not have.
Other Species Variables
Interestingly, there are several other
species variables that are relatively
good indicators of a hunter’s likelihood
of hunting without a license. All other
things equal, those that also hunt duck or
bear are less likely to be noncompliant,
while those that hunt coyote, squirrel,
or other big game are more likely to be
noncompliant. Other big game includes
species such as antelope, caribou, bison,
and more exotic African species that
appear on game ranches. It does not
include other big game species for which
hunting activity is specifically queried
such as elk, turkey, moose, and sheep.
Calculated Probabilities
The results in Table 18 can be used to
directly calculate the probability that
a nonexempt hunter will hunt without
a license if appropriate values for the
explanatory variables are known. To
refrain from delving into a discussion
about how to use the results, several
tables are created that exhibit the results
of the regression procedure. Tables
19 and 20 show the probability that a
nonexempt male hunter will hunt without
a license. Table 19 addresses the base
geographic regions: New England, East
North Central, West North Central, and
Mountain. Table 20 displays the results
for the Pacific region, which are very
similar to those for the South Atlantic,
East South Central, and West South
Central9.
Each cell in Tables 19-20 contains the
probability that a nonexempt hunter
who hunts in the manner suggested by
the row and column of the table will hunt
without a license. For example, the first
row and first column of Table 19 indicates
the following: an under 55 hunter in
the base geographic regions, who has
a middle income, hunts for 1 to 5 days,
does not lease land, hunts only on private
land, only uses rifle/pistol weapons, and
only hunts deer has a 6.5% probability of
hunting without a license. However, if the
hunter is otherwise the same, but hunts
coyote also, he has a 12.3% probability
of noncompliance. This is displayed in
the first row and second column from
the left in Table 19. When displayed
in this manner, the importance of the
other species hunted variables on license
buying behavior is evident.
In Table 20 the probabilities for the
Pacific region are displayed. The
probabilities in the Pacific region, as well
as those for the South Atlantic, East
South Central, and West South Central
regions are substantially higher than
the base case. The difference in the
probabilities underscores the importance
of hunting region on license buying
behavior.
The probabilities that appear in Tables
19-20 are calculated directly from the
modeling process. They are intended to
convey an understanding of how different
categorical variables affect the decision
to hunt without a license. Consequently,
there is no requirement that actual deer
hunters fulfill every combination of
categorical variables displayed. There
may not be any hunters in the Pacific
Region that use muzzleloader weapons
and also hunt duck and squirrel. Even
if there are no hunters that fulfill
the specifications of a given cell, the
probabilities are still shown to impart an
understanding of the categorical variable
impacts. The species combinations shown
in the tables, however, were not chosen
at random. These are some of the more
common combinations of the significant
species variables.
8 Other specifications of income were
attempted. Contact author for further
information on alternative specifications.
9 Because of their similarity to Pacific, the
South Atlantic, East South Central, and
West South Central probability tables are
not displayed, but they can be obtained upon
request.
28 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Table 19. Probability of Hunting without License: New England, East North Central, West North Central, and Mountain
Under 55 Years Old 55 Years Old or More
Hunting
Days Lease Land
Public or
Private Land Weapon Deer
Deer
Coyote
Deer
Duck
Deer
Duck
Squirrel
Deer
Bear
Deer
Other
BG
Deer
Squirrel
Deer
Squirrel
Coyote Deer
Deer
Coyote
Deer
Duck
Deer
Duck
Squirrel
Deer
Bear
Deer
Other
BG
Deer
Squirrel
Deer
Squirrel
Coyote
Middle Income
1 to 5 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 6.5% 12.3% 3.6% 5.2% 1.1% 5.2% 9.3% 17.0% 10.3% 18.8% 5.9% 8.4% 1.8% 8.4% 14.4% 25.3%
Muzzleloader 3.5% 6.8% 1.9% 2.8% 0.6% 2.8% 5.1% 9.7% 5.7% 10.8% 3.2% 4.6% 0.9% 4.6% 8.1% 15.1%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 5.0% 9.5% 2.8% 4.0% 0.8% 4.0% 7.1% 13.4% 7.9% 14.8% 4.5% 6.4% 1.3% 6.4% 11.2% 20.3%
Muzzleloader 2.7% 5.2% 1.5% 2.1% 0.4% 2.1% 3.9% 7.5% 4.3% 8.3% 2.4% 3.5% 0.7% 3.5% 6.2% 11.8%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 2.6% 5.1% 1.4% 2.1% 0.4% 2.1% 3.8% 7.3% 4.2% 8.2% 2.3% 3.4% 0.7% 3.4% 6.1% 11.5%
Muzzleloader 1.4% 2.7% 0.8% 1.1% 0.2% 1.1% 2.0% 4.0% 2.3% 4.4% 1.2% 1.8% 0.4% 1.8% 3.3% 6.4%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 1.0% 2.1% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 1.5% 3.0% 1.7% 3.3% 0.9% 1.3% 0.3% 1.3% 2.5% 4.8%
Muzzleloader 0.5% 1.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 1.6% 0.9% 1.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.7% 1.3% 2.6%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 1.2% 0.7% 1.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 1.0% 1.9%
Muzzleloader 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 1.0%
6 to 25 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 3.1% 6.1% 1.7% 2.5% 0.5% 2.5% 4.5% 8.6% 5.0% 9.6% 2.8% 4.0% 0.8% 4.0% 7.2% 13.5%
Muzzleloader 1.7% 3.3% 0.9% 1.3% 0.3% 1.3% 2.4% 4.7% 2.7% 5.3% 1.5% 2.2% 0.4% 2.2% 3.9% 7.6%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 2.4% 4.6% 1.3% 1.9% 0.4% 1.9% 3.4% 6.6% 3.8% 7.4% 2.1% 3.1% 0.6% 3.1% 5.5% 10.5%
Muzzleloader 1.2% 2.5% 0.7% 1.0% 0.2% 1.0% 1.8% 3.6% 2.0% 4.0% 1.1% 1.6% 0.3% 1.6% 3.0% 5.8%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 1.2% 2.4% 0.7% 1.0% 0.2% 1.0% 1.8% 3.5% 2.0% 3.9% 1.1% 1.6% 0.3% 1.6% 2.9% 5.7%
Muzzleloader 0.6% 1.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.9% 1.1% 2.1% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 1.5% 3.1%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 0.5% 1.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.7% 1.4% 0.8% 1.6% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 1.2% 2.3%
Muzzleloader 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 1.2%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.9%
Muzzleloader 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5%
>25 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 1.5% 3.0% 0.8% 1.2% 0.2% 1.2% 2.2% 4.4% 2.5% 4.9% 1.4% 2.0% 0.4% 2.0% 3.6% 7.0%
Muzzleloader 0.8% 1.6% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 1.2% 2.3% 1.3% 2.6% 0.7% 1.1% 0.2% 1.1% 1.9% 3.8%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 1.2% 2.3% 0.6% 0.9% 0.2% 0.9% 1.7% 3.3% 1.9% 3.7% 1.0% 1.5% 0.3% 1.5% 2.7% 5.4%
Muzzleloader 0.6% 1.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.8% 1.0% 2.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 1.5% 2.9%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.6% 1.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.7% 1.0% 1.9% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 1.4% 2.8%
Muzzleloader 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.5% 1.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 1.5%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 1.1%
Muzzleloader 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.6%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4%
Muzzleloader 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
continues
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 29
Table 19. Probability of Hunting without License: New England, East North Central, West North Central, and Mountain – continued
Under 55 Years Old 55 Years Old or More
Hunting
Days Lease Land
Public or
Private Land Weapon Deer
Deer
Coyote
Deer
Duck
Deer
Duck
Squirrel
Deer
Bear
Deer
Other
BG
Deer
Squirrel
Deer
Squirrel
Coyote Deer
Deer
Coyote
Deer
Duck
Deer
Duck
Squirrel
Deer
Bear
Deer
Other
BG
Deer
Squirrel
Deer
Squirrel
Coyote
Not Middle Income
1 to 5 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 9.5% 17.3% 5.3% 7.6% 1.6% 7.6% 13.3% 23.5% 14.7% 25.7% 8.5% 12.0% 2.6% 12.0% 20.2% 33.6%
Muzzleloader 5.2% 9.9% 2.9% 4.2% 0.9% 4.2% 7.4% 13.9% 8.3% 15.4% 4.7% 6.7% 1.4% 6.7% 11.7% 21.0%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 7.3% 13.6% 4.1% 5.8% 1.2% 5.8% 10.3% 18.7% 11.4% 20.6% 6.5% 9.3% 2.0% 9.3% 15.9% 27.6%
Muzzleloader 3.9% 7.6% 2.2% 3.2% 0.6% 3.2% 5.7% 10.8% 6.3% 12.0% 3.5% 5.1% 1.1% 5.1% 9.0% 16.6%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 3.9% 7.5% 2.1% 3.1% 0.6% 3.1% 5.6% 10.6% 6.2% 11.7% 3.5% 5.0% 1.0% 5.0% 8.8% 16.3%
Muzzleloader 2.1% 4.1% 1.1% 1.6% 0.3% 1.6% 3.0% 5.8% 3.4% 6.5% 1.8% 2.7% 0.5% 2.7% 4.8% 9.3%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 1.5% 3.1% 0.8% 1.2% 0.2% 1.2% 2.2% 4.4% 2.5% 4.9% 1.4% 2.0% 0.4% 2.0% 3.6% 7.1%
Muzzleloader 0.8% 1.6% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 1.2% 2.4% 1.3% 2.6% 0.7% 1.1% 0.2% 1.1% 1.9% 3.8%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.6% 1.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.7% 1.0% 2.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 1.4% 2.8%
Muzzleloader 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.9% 0.5% 1.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 1.5%
6 to 25 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 4.6% 8.8% 2.5% 3.7% 0.7% 3.7% 6.6% 12.4% 7.4% 13.7% 4.1% 5.9% 1.2% 5.9% 10.4% 18.9%
Muzzleloader 2.5% 4.8% 1.3% 2.0% 0.4% 2.0% 3.6% 6.9% 4.0% 7.7% 2.2% 3.2% 0.6% 3.2% 5.7% 10.9%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 3.5% 6.8% 1.9% 2.8% 0.6% 2.8% 5.0% 9.6% 5.6% 10.7% 3.1% 4.5% 0.9% 4.5% 8.0% 14.9%
Muzzleloader 1.9% 3.7% 1.0% 1.5% 0.3% 1.5% 2.7% 5.3% 3.0% 5.9% 1.7% 2.4% 0.5% 2.4% 4.4% 8.4%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 1.8% 3.6% 1.0% 1.4% 0.3% 1.4% 2.6% 5.2% 3.0% 5.8% 1.6% 2.4% 0.5% 2.4% 4.3% 8.2%
Muzzleloader 1.0% 1.9% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 1.4% 2.8% 1.6% 3.1% 0.9% 1.3% 0.3% 1.3% 2.3% 4.5%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 0.7% 1.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 1.1% 2.1% 1.2% 2.3% 0.6% 0.9% 0.2% 0.9% 1.7% 3.4%
Muzzleloader 0.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 1.1% 0.6% 1.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.8%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.9% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.7% 1.3%
Muzzleloader 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.7%
>25 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 2.3% 4.5% 1.2% 1.8% 0.4% 1.8% 3.3% 6.4% 3.7% 7.2% 2.0% 3.0% 0.6% 3.0% 5.3% 10.2%
Muzzleloader 1.2% 2.4% 0.7% 1.0% 0.2% 1.0% 1.8% 3.5% 2.0% 3.9% 1.1% 1.6% 0.3% 1.6% 2.9% 5.6%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 1.7% 3.4% 0.9% 1.4% 0.3% 1.4% 2.5% 4.9% 2.8% 5.5% 1.5% 2.2% 0.5% 2.2% 4.1% 7.8%
Muzzleloader 0.9% 1.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.7% 1.3% 2.6% 1.5% 2.9% 0.8% 1.2% 0.2% 1.2% 2.2% 4.3%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.9% 1.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.7% 1.3% 2.6% 1.5% 2.9% 0.8% 1.2% 0.2% 1.2% 2.1% 4.2%
Muzzleloader 0.5% 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.7% 1.4% 0.8% 1.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 1.1% 2.2%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 0.3% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 1.0% 0.6% 1.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.8% 1.7%
Muzzleloader 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.9%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.6%
Muzzleloader 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%
30 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
Table 20. Probability Hunting without License: Pacific Region, Male Hunters
Under 55 Years Old 55 Years Old or More
Hunting
Days Lease Land
Public or
Private Land Weapon Deer
Deer
Coyote
Deer
Duck
Deer
Duck
Squirrel
Deer
Bear
Deer
Other
BG
Deer
Squirrel
Deer
Squirrel
Coyote Deer
Deer
Coyote
Deer
Duck
Deer
Duck
Squirrel
Deer
Bear
Deer
Other
BG
Deer
Squirrel
Deer
Squirrel
Coyote
Middle Income
1 to 5 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 21.2% 35.1% 12.7% 17.6% 4.1% 17.6% 28.3% 44.2% 30.7% 47.1% 19.3% 26.0% 6.5% 26.0% 39.4% 56.6%
Muzzleloader 12.4% 22.1% 7.1% 10.1% 2.2% 10.1% 17.1% 29.3% 18.9% 31.8% 11.2% 15.6% 3.5% 15.6% 25.4% 40.6%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 16.8% 28.8% 9.8% 13.8% 3.1% 13.8% 22.8% 37.2% 25.0% 40.0% 15.2% 20.9% 5.0% 20.9% 32.8% 49.5%
Muzzleloader 9.6% 17.5% 5.4% 7.7% 1.6% 7.7% 13.4% 23.7% 14.9% 25.9% 8.6% 12.1% 2.7% 12.1% 20.4% 33.9%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 9.4% 17.2% 5.3% 7.6% 1.6% 7.6% 13.1% 23.3% 14.5% 25.5% 8.4% 11.9% 2.6% 11.9% 20.0% 33.4%
Muzzleloader 5.1% 9.8% 2.8% 4.1% 0.8% 4.1% 7.4% 13.7% 8.2% 15.2% 4.6% 6.6% 1.4% 6.6% 11.6% 20.8%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 3.9% 7.5% 2.1% 3.1% 0.6% 3.1% 5.6% 10.6% 6.2% 11.8% 3.5% 5.0% 1.0% 5.0% 8.9% 16.4%
Muzzleloader 2.1% 4.1% 1.1% 1.6% 0.3% 1.6% 3.0% 5.9% 3.4% 6.5% 1.8% 2.7% 0.5% 2.7% 4.9% 9.3%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 1.5% 3.0% 0.8% 1.2% 0.2% 1.2% 2.2% 4.4% 2.5% 4.9% 1.4% 2.0% 0.4% 2.0% 3.6% 7.0%
Muzzleloader 0.8% 1.6% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 1.2% 2.3% 1.3% 2.6% 0.7% 1.1% 0.2% 1.1% 1.9% 3.8%
6 to 25 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 11.0% 19.9% 6.3% 8.9% 1.9% 8.9% 15.4% 26.7% 17.0% 29.1% 9.9% 13.9% 3.1% 13.9% 23.0% 37.5%
Muzzleloader 6.1% 11.5% 3.4% 4.9% 1.0% 4.9% 8.7% 16.0% 9.7% 17.7% 5.5% 7.8% 1.7% 7.8% 13.6% 24.0%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 8.5% 15.7% 4.8% 6.9% 1.4% 6.9% 12.0% 21.5% 13.3% 23.5% 7.6% 10.8% 2.3% 10.8% 18.3% 31.1%
Muzzleloader 4.6% 8.9% 2.6% 3.7% 0.8% 3.7% 6.7% 12.5% 7.4% 13.9% 4.2% 6.0% 1.2% 6.0% 10.5% 19.1%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 4.5% 8.7% 2.5% 3.6% 0.7% 3.6% 6.5% 12.3% 7.3% 13.6% 4.1% 5.8% 1.2% 5.8% 10.3% 18.7%
Muzzleloader 2.4% 4.8% 1.3% 1.9% 0.4% 1.9% 3.5% 6.8% 3.9% 7.6% 2.2% 3.2% 0.6% 3.2% 5.7% 10.8%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 1.8% 3.6% 1.0% 1.4% 0.3% 1.4% 2.6% 5.2% 3.0% 5.8% 1.6% 2.4% 0.5% 2.4% 4.3% 8.3%
Muzzleloader 1.0% 1.9% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 1.4% 2.8% 1.6% 3.1% 0.9% 1.3% 0.3% 1.3% 2.3% 4.5%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.7% 1.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 1.0% 2.1% 1.2% 2.3% 0.6% 0.9% 0.2% 0.9% 1.7% 3.3%
Muzzleloader 0.4% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 1.1% 0.6% 1.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.8%
>25 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 5.7% 10.7% 3.1% 4.5% 0.9% 4.5% 8.1% 15.0% 9.0% 16.6% 5.1% 7.3% 1.5% 7.3% 12.7% 22.5%
Muzzleloader 3.1% 5.9% 1.7% 2.4% 0.5% 2.4% 4.4% 8.5% 4.9% 9.4% 2.7% 3.9% 0.8% 3.9% 7.1% 13.2%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 4.3% 8.3% 2.4% 3.4% 0.7% 3.4% 6.2% 11.7% 6.9% 13.0% 3.9% 5.6% 1.2% 5.6% 9.8% 17.9%
Muzzleloader 2.3% 4.5% 1.3% 1.8% 0.4% 1.8% 3.3% 6.5% 3.7% 7.2% 2.1% 3.0% 0.6% 3.0% 5.4% 10.3%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 2.3% 4.4% 1.2% 1.8% 0.4% 1.8% 3.3% 6.3% 3.7% 7.1% 2.0% 2.9% 0.6% 2.9% 5.3% 10.1%
Muzzleloader 1.2% 2.4% 0.6% 0.9% 0.2% 0.9% 1.7% 3.4% 2.0% 3.8% 1.1% 1.6% 0.3% 1.6% 2.8% 5.5%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 0.9% 1.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.7% 1.3% 2.6% 1.5% 2.9% 0.8% 1.2% 0.2% 1.2% 2.1% 4.2%
Muzzleloader 0.5% 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.7% 1.4% 0.8% 1.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 1.1% 2.2%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.3% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 1.0% 0.6% 1.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 1.6%
Muzzleloader 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.9%
continues
Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior 31
Table 20. Probability Hunting without License: Pacific Region, Male Hunters – continued
Under 55 Years Old 55 Years Old or More
Hunting
Days Lease Land
Public or
Private Land Weapon Deer
Deer
Coyote
Deer
Duck
Deer
Duck
Squirrel
Deer
Bear
Deer
Other
BG
Deer
Squirrel
Deer
Squirrel
Coyote Deer
Deer
Coyote
Deer
Duck
Deer
Duck
Squirrel
Deer
Bear
Deer
Other
BG
Deer
Squirrel
Deer
Squirrel
Coyote
Not Middle Income
1 to 5 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 28.7% 44.7% 17.9% 24.2% 5.9% 24.2% 37.1% 54.2% 39.9% 57.1% 26.4% 34.5% 9.4% 34.5% 49.3% 66.1%
Muzzleloader 17.4% 29.8% 10.2% 14.3% 3.2% 14.3% 23.6% 38.3% 25.8% 41.1% 15.8% 21.6% 5.2% 21.6% 33.8% 50.6%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 23.2% 37.7% 14.0% 19.3% 4.5% 19.3% 30.7% 47.0% 33.2% 50.0% 21.2% 28.3% 7.2% 28.3% 42.2% 59.4%
Muzzleloader 13.7% 24.1% 7.9% 11.1% 2.4% 11.1% 18.8% 31.8% 20.7% 34.4% 12.4% 17.1% 3.9% 17.1% 27.7% 43.4%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 13.4% 23.7% 7.7% 10.9% 2.4% 10.9% 18.5% 31.3% 20.3% 33.8% 12.1% 16.8% 3.8% 16.8% 27.2% 42.8%
Muzzleloader 7.5% 14.0% 4.2% 6.0% 1.3% 6.0% 10.6% 19.3% 11.8% 21.2% 6.7% 9.6% 2.1% 9.6% 16.4% 28.2%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 5.7% 10.8% 3.2% 4.6% 0.9% 4.6% 8.1% 15.1% 9.0% 16.6% 5.1% 7.3% 1.5% 7.3% 12.7% 22.6%
Muzzleloader 3.1% 6.0% 1.7% 2.4% 0.5% 2.4% 4.4% 8.5% 5.0% 9.5% 2.7% 4.0% 0.8% 4.0% 7.1% 13.3%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 2.3% 4.4% 1.2% 1.8% 0.4% 1.8% 3.3% 6.4% 3.7% 7.1% 2.0% 2.9% 0.6% 2.9% 5.3% 10.1%
Muzzleloader 1.2% 2.4% 0.7% 1.0% 0.2% 1.0% 1.7% 3.4% 2.0% 3.9% 1.1% 1.6% 0.3% 1.6% 2.9% 5.6%
6 to 25 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 15.6% 27.1% 9.1% 12.8% 2.8% 12.8% 21.4% 35.3% 23.4% 38.0% 14.2% 19.5% 4.6% 19.5% 30.9% 47.3%
Muzzleloader 8.9% 16.3% 5.0% 7.2% 1.5% 7.2% 12.5% 22.2% 13.8% 24.3% 8.0% 11.3% 2.5% 11.3% 19.0% 32.1%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 12.2% 21.8% 7.0% 9.9% 2.1% 9.9% 16.9% 29.0% 18.6% 31.5% 11.0% 15.4% 3.5% 15.4% 25.1% 40.3%
Muzzleloader 6.8% 12.8% 3.8% 5.5% 1.1% 5.5% 9.7% 17.7% 10.7% 19.4% 6.1% 8.7% 1.9% 8.7% 15.0% 26.1%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 6.6% 12.5% 3.7% 5.3% 1.1% 5.3% 9.4% 17.3% 10.5% 19.1% 6.0% 8.5% 1.8% 8.5% 14.7% 25.7%
Muzzleloader 3.6% 7.0% 2.0% 2.9% 0.6% 2.9% 5.2% 9.9% 5.8% 11.0% 3.2% 4.6% 1.0% 4.6% 8.3% 15.3%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 2.7% 5.3% 1.5% 2.2% 0.4% 2.2% 3.9% 7.5% 4.4% 8.4% 2.4% 3.5% 0.7% 3.5% 6.3% 11.9%
Muzzleloader 1.4% 2.8% 0.8% 1.1% 0.2% 1.1% 2.1% 4.1% 2.3% 4.6% 1.3% 1.9% 0.4% 1.9% 3.4% 6.6%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 1.1% 2.1% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 1.5% 3.0% 1.7% 3.4% 0.9% 1.4% 0.3% 1.4% 2.5% 4.9%
Muzzleloader 0.6% 1.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 1.6% 0.9% 1.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.7% 1.3% 2.6%
>25 Do Not Lease Private Only Rifle/Other Only 8.2% 15.3% 4.6% 6.6% 1.4% 6.6% 11.6% 20.9% 12.9% 22.9% 7.4% 10.5% 2.3% 10.5% 17.8% 30.3%
Muzzleloader 4.5% 8.6% 2.5% 3.6% 0.7% 3.6% 6.5% 12.2% 7.2% 13.5% 4.0% 5.8% 1.2% 5.8% 10.2% 18.6%
Public Only Rifle/Other Only 6.3% 11.9% 3.5% 5.1% 1.0% 5.1% 9.0% 16.5% 10.0% 18.2% 5.7% 8.1% 1.7% 8.1% 14.0% 24.6%
Muzzleloader 3.4% 6.6% 1.9% 2.7% 0.6% 2.7% 4.9% 9.4% 5.5% 10.5% 3.1% 4.4% 0.9% 4.4% 7.9% 14.6%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 3.3% 6.5% 1.8% 2.7% 0.5% 2.7% 4.8% 9.2% 5.4% 10.2% 3.0% 4.3% 0.9% 4.3% 7.7% 14.3%
Muzzleloader 1.8% 3.5% 1.0% 1.4% 0.3% 1.4% 2.6% 5.1% 2.9% 5.6% 1.6% 2.3% 0.5% 2.3% 4.2% 8.1%
Lease Land Private Only Rifle/Other Only 1.3% 2.6% 0.7% 1.1% 0.2% 1.1% 1.9% 3.8% 2.2% 4.3% 1.2% 1.7% 0.3% 1.7% 3.1% 6.1%
Muzzleloader 0.7% 1.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 1.0% 2.0% 1.2% 2.3% 0.6% 0.9% 0.2% 0.9% 1.7% 3.3%
Pub and Priv Rifle/Other Only 0.5% 1.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 1.5% 0.8% 1.7% 0.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.7% 1.2% 2.4%
Muzzleloader 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.9% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.7% 1.3%
32 Deer Hunting in the United States: An Analysis of Hunter Demographics and Behavior
This report has presented a wide array of
information on deer hunter demographics
and behavior patterns, from general
participation levels to deer hunter license
purchasing patterns. Much of the report
uses comparisons with non-deer hunters
to help better illuminate the behavior and
activities of deer hunters.
The comparison and contrasts among
deer and non-deer hunters reveals
numerous differences between the two.
Beyond 65 years of age, deer hunter
participation rates are notably lower.
Deer hunters tend to have fewer years
of education. Deer hunters tend to
spend more on hunting, particularly for
special equipment, land leasing, and land
ownership. Deer hunters are more likely
to own land and hunt on privately owned
land. Lastly, deer hunters have a lower
proportion of hunters in the highest
income brackets.
As well, there are several similarities
between deer and non-deer hunters.
The wildlife watching behavior and the
gender distribution of both are roughly
the same. Additionally, even among
those variables where differences exist,
the similarity of the two groups is often
greater than their differences. Both deer
and non-deer hunting participation tend
to increase with income levels, and both
are popular activities for individuals of all
education levels.
After comparing deer hunters with
non-deer hunters, the report analyzes
weapons usage, land ownership, and
license purchasing pattern of deer
hunters. Nearly 40% of deer hunters
hunt with at least one of the primitive
weapons, and those that use primitive
weapons, on average, participate more
days and spend more money than those
who do not. Both hunting land ownership
and leasing have a positive correlation
with age and the use of primitive
weapons, and both have a negative
relationship with the amount of public
land available. However, income, hunting
days, and metropolitan residency have a
stronger relationship with land leasing
than ownership. Several variables appear
associated with reduced probability of
hunting without a license: use of primitive
weapons, increased income, more
hunting days, land ownership or leasing,
and residence outside metropolitan
areas. Additionally, license purchasing
noncompliance varies dramatically by
geographic region.
In an effort to isolate the impact of
numerous potential variables on license
noncompliance, logit regression was
used. The results of the logit regression
reveal that numerous variables do have
a statistically significant impact on the
probability of noncompliance. Most of
the conclusions from the logit regression
modeling are generally in line with
intuition and economic logic.
Summary
The results of the logit model are used to
calculate the approximate probabilities
of male deer hunters hunting without a
license. The probabilities impart some
understanding of how various hunter
characteristics affect noncompliance.
The probability of hunting without a
license changes dramatically as hunting
days change, as other species hunted
change, whether muzzleloader weapons
are used, if public land is used, and as
geographic region of where hunting takes
place changes. Whether a hunter is over
55 and whether he or she has a middle
income have more subtle impacts on the
probability of hunting without a license.
PhotoDisc
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Division of Federal Aid
Washington, DC 20240
http://federalaid.fws.gov
December 2004
Cover: Photodisc