Alaska State Report

Alaska State Report

Acknowledgements

This project was administered by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) and

the Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (MAFWA). The Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies (AFWA) sponsored the project under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2015 Multistate

Conservation Grants Program (Grant number: F15AP00726). Additional funding support was provided

by contributions from participating state fish and wildlife agencies. The authors would like to thank the

following individuals for their contributions to this effort: Dean Smith, Larry Kruckenberg, Deb

VonDeBur, Cathy Campbell, Carolyn Boyd, Andrea Criscione, and Alison Lanier, with a special thanks

to Mark Burch of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

We would also like to thank the following individuals who assisted with preparing various materials (e.g.,

tables, figures) for the reports generated as part of the overall project: Stacy Armbruster (Colorado State

University) and Shelby Carlson (The Ohio State University).

America’s Wildlife Value Study Team

Lead Investigators:

Michael Manfredo and Tara Teel, Colorado State University

Alia Dietsch, The Ohio State University

Co-investigators:

Jeremy Bruskotter, The Ohio State University

Mark Duda, Responsive Management: Mail Survey Data Collection

Andrew Don Carlos, Colorado State University: Project Manager for Public Survey

Leeann Sullivan, Colorado State University: Project Manager for Agency Culture Survey

Project Advisers:

David Fulton, U.S. Geological Survey and University of Minnesota

Lou Cornicelli, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Loren Chase, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Suggested Citation

Dietsch, A.M., Bright, A.D., Don Carlos, A.W., Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Sullivan, L. (2018). State

report for Alaska from the research project entitled “America’s Wildlife Values.” Fort Collins, CO:

Colorado State University, Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources.

Cover photo credit: Andrew Don Carlos

i

Executive Summary

The information contained in this summary highlights findings from a survey of residents living in the state

of Alaska as part of the project entitled “America’s Wildlife Values: Understanding Trends in Public Values

toward Wildlife as a Key to Meeting Current and Future Wildlife Management Challenges.” This multi-

state project sought to explore the values, attitudes, and beliefs of residents across the U.S. in relation to

fish and wildlife management. Such information can help agency decision-makers to understand more about

the public’s interest in fish and wildlife-related issues and their perspectives on management of the state’s

fish and wildlife.

Specific findings from this report include:

In total, Alaska received 937 responses to the survey. Of those responses, 631 were from mail

surveys (11% response rate) and 306 were from web-based panels.

The breakdown of wildlife value orientations in your state is as follows1.

o Traditionalist: 43%

o Mutualist: 18%

o Pluralist: 29%

o Distanced: 10%

Nearly 70% of respondents reported feeling that they share many of the same values as your state

fish and wildlife agency regarding the management of fish and wildlife.

Survey respondents held the following beliefs about funding for your state fish and wildlife

agency:

o 13% view current funding as primarily coming from hunting and fishing license sales.

18% of respondents believe this should be the funding model used in the future.

o 75% view current funding as coming from a mix of hunting and fishing license sales &

public tax dollars.


o 12% view current funding as primarily coming from public tax dollars.


A majority of respondents (65%) expressed trust in your agency to do what is right for fish and

wildlife in the state.

Additional information on each of these findings and more can be found within this report. Detailed

frequencies for each survey item by wildlife value orientations and by current participation in hunting and

fishing during the 12 months prior to respondents taking the survey are also included in the report.

Information about the comparison of your state to other states and information about trends in your state

can be found separately in the Multistate Report on Wildlife Values in America, to be available October,

2018.

1 For definitions of these terms, see page 1 of the attached report.

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i

Wildlife Value Orientations .......................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 1: Wildlife value orientations in your state.................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Percent of each wildlife value orientation type who are current hunters/anglers ...................... 2

Figure 3: Wildlife value orientations by gender ....................................................................................... 2

Figure 4: Wildlife value orientations by age groups ................................................................................. 3

Figure 5: Wildlife value orientations by income groups ........................................................................... 3

Figure 6: Wildlife value orientations by education ................................................................................... 3

Figure 7: Percent of individuals by group who believed they shared values with agency ........................ 4

Fish and Wildlife-related Recreation ............................................................................................................ 5

Figure 8: Participation and interest in wildlife-related recreation............................................................. 5

Figure 9: Fishing participation and future interest by wildlife value orientation ...................................... 5

Figure 10: Hunting participation and future interest by wildlife value orientation .................................. 5

Figure 11: Wildlife viewing participation and future interest by wildlife value orientation .................... 6

Recruitment and Reactivation ................................................................................................................... 6

Issue-Specific Attitudes ................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 12: Agreement with statements towards fish and wildlife management ....................................... 7

Figure 13: Agreement with statements about management by wildlife value orientation ........................ 7

Figure 14: Agreement with statements about management by hunting/fishing participation ................... 8

Figure 15: Agreement with statements about lethal removal by wildlife value orientation ..................... 8

Figure 16: Agreement with statements about lethal removal by hunting/fishing participation ................ 8

Funding for Fish and Wildlife Management ................................................................................................. 9

Figure 17: Current and future funding for fish and wildlife management ................................................ 9

Figure 18: Funding for fish and wildlife management by wildlife value orientation ............................... 9

Figure 19: Funding for fish and wildlife management by hunting/fishing participation ........................ 10

Public Trust ................................................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 20: Trust in federal and state government and state fish and wildlife agency ............................. 11

Figure 21: Trust in government by wildlife value orientation type ........................................................ 11

Figure 22: Trust in government by hunting/fishing participation ........................................................... 12

Support for Hunting as a Source of Local, Organic Meat .......................................................................... 13

Figure 23: Support for hunting as a source of local, organic meat ......................................................... 13

Figure 24: Support for hunting as a source of local, organic meat by wildlife value orientation ........... 13

iii

Figure 25: Support for hunting as a source of local, organic meat by hunting/fishing participation ...... 14

Limitations to Participation in Hunting ...................................................................................................... 15

Figure 26: Percent breakdown of hunter demand types in Alaska .......................................................... 16

Figure 27: Mean age of hunter demand types ......................................................................................... 16

Figure 28: Mean strength of factors that limit participation in hunting; Hunters ................................... 17

Figure 29: Mean strength of factors that limit participation in hunting; Interested Former Hunters ...... 18

Figure 30: Mean strength of factors that limit participation in hunting; Potential New Hunters ............ 19

Figure 31: Mean strength of factors that limit participation in hunting; Disinterested Former Hunters. 20

Figure 32: Mean strength of factors that limit participation in hunting; Non-Hunters ........................... 21

Descriptive Tables for Items by WVO and Current Hunting/Fishing Participation ....Error! Bookmark not

defined.

Table 1: Percent of respondents who believed that they shared similar values to their state fish and

wildlife agency ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Table 2: Percent of respondents who believed that we should strive for a society that emphasizes

environmental protection over economic growth ................................................................................... 22

Table 3: Percent of respondents who believed that private property rights are more important than

protecting declining or endangered fish and wildlife .............................................................................. 23

Table 4: Percent of respondents who believed that local communities should have more control over

the management of fish and wildlife ....................................................................................................... 23

Table 5: Percent of respondents who believed that the earth is getting warmer mostly because of human

activity such as burning fossil fuels ........................................................................................................ 23

Table 6: Percent of respondents who believed that wolves that kill livestock should be lethally removed

................................................................................................................................................................ 24

Table 7: Percent of respondents who believed that if a black bear attacks a person, that bear should be

lethally removed regardless of the circumstances ................................................................................... 24

Table 8: Percent of respondents who believed that coyotes that kill pets in residential areas should be

lethally removed...................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 9: Percent of respondents who believed that current funding for fish and wildlife management is

provided by hunting and fishing license fees vs. public tax dollars ........................................................ 25

Table 10: Percent of respondents who believed that future funding for fish and wildlife management

should be provided by hunting and fishing license fees vs. public tax dollars ....................................... 25

Table 11: Percent of respondents who trust their federal government .................................................... 26

Table 12: Percent of respondents who trust their state government ....................................................... 26

Table 13: Percent of respondents who trust their state fish and wildlife agency .................................... 26

Table 14: Percent of respondents who were more supportive of hunting because of game being a source

of local, organic meat .............................................................................................................................. 27

iv

Table 15: Percent of respondents who recently started hunting because of game being a source of local,

organic meat ............................................................................................................................................ 27

Table 16: Percent of respondents who do not hunt now but are interested in hunting in the future

because of game being a source of local, organic meat .......................................................................... 27

Table 17: Identification, description and breakdown of Alaskan respondents for hunter demand types.

................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Table 18: Comparison of hunter demand types by age ........................................................................... 28

Table 19: The extent to which “lack of interest in hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 20: The extent to which “lack of interest in outdoor activities” limits Alaskan respondents’

participation in hunting ........................................................................................................................... 29

Table 21: The extent to which “fear of the outdoors” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 22: The extent to which “fear of getting lost” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 23: The extent to which “hunting is too difficult” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 31

Table 24: The extent to which “effort required to go hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation

in hunting ................................................................................................................................................ 31

Table 25: The extent to which “poor health” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting ...... 32

Table 26: The extent to which “physical disability” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting

................................................................................................................................................................ 32

Table 27: The extent to which “my opposition to hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 33

Table 28: The extent to which “concern over wounding wildlife” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 29: The extent to which “no need ore desire for wildlife as food” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 30: The extent to which “planning required to go hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 31: The extent to which “lack of knowledge about where to hunt” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 32: The extent to which “lack of knowledge about wildlife” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 33: The extent to which “lack of general outdoor skills” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation

in hunting ................................................................................................................................................ 36

Table 34: The extent to which “lack of comfort with firearms” limits Alaskan respondents’


v

Table 35: The extent to which “lack of skill with firearms” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 36: The extent to which “lack of skill to process harvested wildlife for consumption” limits

Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting ........................................................................................ 37

Table 37: The extent to which “not enough leisure time” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 38

Table 38: The extent to which “other people’s opposition to hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 39: The extent to which “needing someone to teach me how to hunt” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 40: The extent to which “lack of friends and family to hunt with” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 41: The extent to which “lack of wildlife to hunt” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 42: The extent to which “distance to hunting areas” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 43: The extent to which “lack of transportation” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 44: The extent to which “access to lands for hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation

in hunting ................................................................................................................................................ 41

Table 45: The extent to which “crowding at hunting areas” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 42

Table 46: The extent to which “conflict with other users” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 42

Table 47: The extent to which “timing of hunting seasons” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting .................................................................................................................................................... 43

Table 48: The extent to which “hunting regulations are too restrictive” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 49: The extent to which “complex rules and regulations” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 50: The extent to which “too difficult to identify a legal animal to harvest” limits Alaskan

respondents’ participation in hunting ...................................................................................................... 44

Table 51: The extent to which “having the right kind of equipment” limits Alaskan respondents’


Table 52: The extent to which “amount of gear required to go hunting in Alaska” limits Alaskan

respondents’ participation in hunting ...................................................................................................... 45

Table 53: The extent to which “cost of equipment” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting

................................................................................................................................................................ 46

vi

Table 54: The extent to which “cost of licenses and permits” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation

in hunting ................................................................................................................................................ 46

Table 55: The extent to which “travel costs” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting ...... 47

Table 56: Mean limitations for Hunters in Alaska .................................................................................. 48

Table 57: Mean limitations for participation in hunting for Interested Former Hunters in Alaska ........ 49

Table 58: Mean limitations for participation in hunting Potential New Hunters in Alaska .................... 50

Table 59: Mean limitations for participation in hunting for Disinterested Former Hunters in Alaska ... 51

Table 60: Mean limitations for participation in hunting for Non-Hunters in Alaska.............................. 52

APPENDIX A: Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 54

APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................................. 56

Survey Instrument ....................................................................................................................................... 56

1

Wildlife Value Orientations

Wildlife value orientations represent the different overarching themes in a person’s patterns of thought

about wildlife, and can be used to identify different “types” of people (Bright et al., 2000). Characterizing

segments of the public in this manner allows for a better understanding of the diversity of publics that

exists as well as anticipation of how different groups of people will respond to proposed management

strategies and programs.

These orientation types are calculated based on responses to a variety of survey items that represent four

belief dimensions: (1) social affiliation and (2) caring, which form the mutualism orientation, and (3)

hunting and (4) use of wildlife, which form the domination orientation. Means for all items within the

mutualist and domination orientation are computed and respondents are segmented into one of four value

orientation types by comparing their scores on domination and mutualism simultaneously (high scores

were defined as > 4.50 whereas low was defined by a score of ≤ 4.50). For more information on the

calculation of wildlife value orientations, see Teel & Manfredo (2009).

When applied to people as a classification,

Traditionalists:

Score high on the domination orientation and low on the mutualism orientation

Believe wildlife should be used and managed for human benefit

Mutualists:

Score high on the mutualism orientation and low on the domination orientation

Believe wildlife are part of our social network and that we should live in harmony

Pluralists:

Score high on both the domination and mutualism orientations

Prioritize these values differently depending on the specific context

Distanced individuals:

Score low on both the domination and mutualism orientations

Often believe that wildlife-related issues are less salient to them

Below is a detailed account of wildlife value orientation types in your state using our measurements

(available in Appendix B to this report). Throughout this report, responses to additional items such as

attitudes, trust, and participation in wildlife-related recreation will be explored by your state’s current

wildlife value orientation types to give you a feel for how these value types differ in their views on fish

and wildlife management.2

2 We also measured respondents’ views on three additional scales: 1) social values including whether they hold materialist (i.e., financial

security) or post-material (i.e. social affiliation) values; 2) the extent to which they anthropomorphized animals (i.e., attributed human traits to animals); and 3) the degree to which they perceived other people in their state as ascribing to a strict set of social norms (i.e., respect of socially

agreed-upon practices). These data will be explored across states in relation to wildlife value orientations in our Multistate Report.

2

Figure 1: Wildlife value orientations in your state

Figure 2: Percent of each wildlife value orientation type who are current hunters/anglers

Figure 3: Wildlife value orientations by gender

43%

18%

29%

10%

Traditionalist

Mutualist

Pluralist

Distanced

42%

69%

47%

83%

58%

31%

53%

17%

0%

50%

100%

Traditionalist Mutualist Pluralist Distanced

Hunter/Angler

Non-Hunter/Angler

60%

42%52%

29%

40%

58%48%

71%

0%

50%

100%


Female

Male

3

Figure 4: Wildlife value orientations by age groups

Figure 5: Wildlife value orientations by income groups

Figure 6: Wildlife value orientations by education

30%37% 43%

28%

39%33%

29%

40%

30% 30% 28% 33%

0%

50%

100%


55+ years old

35-54 years old

18-34 years old

12%19% 24%

36%15%

27%25%

16%42%

32%33%

33%

28%21% 17% 15%

3% 1% 1% 0%

0%

50%

100%


$250,000+

$100,000 to < $250,000

$50,000 to < $100,000

$25,000 to < $50,000

< $25,000

1% 4% 1% 3%

29% 22%35%

41%

18% 23%

20%14%

30% 27%

29% 18%

22% 25%16%

23%

0%

50%

100%


Advanced Degree

4-year College Degree

Associates Degree/Trade School

High School or Equivalent

< High School Diploma

4

Figure 7: Percent of individuals by group who believed they shared values with agency

70%

74%

55%

73%

64%63%

77%

0%

50%

100%


Wildlife Value Orientation Type Non-Hunter/Angler Hunter/AnglerAll Respondents

5

Fish and Wildlife-Related Recreation

Having up-to-date information about fish and wildlife-related recreation is vitally important for fish and

wildlife management professionals to understand the interests of the public in their states. On this survey,

we asked residents from your state to indicate whether they had ever participated in hunting, fishing, and

wildlife viewing and if they had participated in these same activities during the past year. Additionally,

we asked residents if they had any interest in participating in these activities in the future. Responses to

these questions are provided below.

Figure 8: Participation and interest in fish and wildlife-related recreation

Figure 9: Fishing participation and future interest by wildlife value orientation

Figure 10: Hunting participation and future interest by wildlife value orientation

86%

42%

84%

52%

22%

62%66%

41%

86%

0%

50%

100%

Past Participation Current Participation Future Interest

Fishing

Hunting

Wildlife Viewing

95%

51%

87%80%

28%

73%

83%

48%

91%

70%

18%

72%

0%

50%

100%

Fish Ever Fish Currently Fish Interest

Traditionalist

Mutualist

Pluralist

Distanced

66%

33%

73%

27%

7%

32%

53%

23%

69%

28%

6%

47%

0%

50%

100%

Hunt Ever Hunt Currently Hunt Interest

Traditionalist

Mutualist

Pluralist

Distanced

6

Figure 11: Wildlife viewing participation and future interest by wildlife value orientation

Recruitment and Reactivation

Many state fish and wildlife agencies are interested in recruiting more people to participate in fish and

wildlife-related recreation, and reactivating those who are not current participants but have participated in

such activities in the past. Below is the percent of respondents from these two categories who have

expressed interest in future participation in fish and wildlife-related recreation.

Fishing

84% of respondents are interested in fishing in the future. Of those,

49% actively participate in fishing.

43% have fished but not in the past year.

9% have never fished before.

Hunting

62% of respondents are interested in hunting in the future. Of those,

35% actively participate in hunting.

36% have hunted but not in the past year.

28% have never hunted before.

Wildlife Viewing

86% of respondents are interested in wildlife viewing in the future. Of those,

46% actively participate in wildlife viewing.

29% have participated in wildlife viewing but not in the past year.

24% have never participated in wildlife viewing before.

67%

41%

86%

71%

46%

84%

68%

42%

88%

46%

31%

83%

0%

50%

100%

View Ever View Current View Interest

Traditionalist

Mutualist

Pluralist

Distanced

7

Issue-Specific Attitudes

Respondents’ attitudes towards different fish and wildlife management issues were also measured in this

survey. For each statement, respondents were asked to rate their agreement from strongly disagree to

strongly agree. Below are charts indicating agreement with each of these statements by wildlife value

orientation type and current hunting/fishing participation. Detailed frequencies for these data can be found

at the end of this report.

Figure 12: Agreement with statements about fish and wildlife management

Statement Texts:

a. Protection/Growth: We should strive for a society that emphasizes environmental protection over economic growth.

b. Property/Wildlife: Private property rights are more important than protecting declining or endangered fish and wildlife.

c. Local Control: Local communities should have more control over the management of fish and wildlife.

d. Climate Change: The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels.

e. Wolves Lethal: Wolves that kill livestock should be lethally removed.

f. Bears Lethal: If a black bear attacks a person, that bear should be lethally removed regardless of the circumstances.

g. Coyotes Lethal: Coyotes that kill pets in residential areas should be lethally removed.

Figure 13: Agreement with statements about fish and wildlife management by wildlife value orientation

60%

27%

63% 61%

41%50% 48%

0%

50%

100%

39% 38%

69%

43%

83%

15%

52%

75%78%

26%

66%

74%

53%

9%

48%

68%

0%

50%

100%

Protection/Growth (a) Property/Wildlife (b) Local Control (c) Climate Change (d)

Traditionalist

Mutualist

Pluralist

Distanced

8

Figure 14: Agreement with statements about fish and wildlife management by current hunting/fishing

participation

Figure 15: Agreement with statements about lethal removal by wildlife value orientation

Figure 16: Agreement with statements about lethal removal by current hunting/fishing participation

63%

23%

61%66%

56%

32%

65%

55%

0%

50%

100%

Protection/Growth (a) Property/Wildlife (b) Local Control (c) Climate Change (d)

Non-Hunter/Angler

Hunter/Angler

59%63% 60%

17%23% 26%

38%

55% 53%

21%

33%

21%

0%

50%

100%

Wolves that kill livestock (e) Bears that attack humans (f) Coyotes that kill pets (g)

Lethal Removal of:

Traditionalist

Mutualist

Pluralist

Distanced

35%

46%43%

48%55% 54%

0%

50%

100%

Wolves that kill livestock (e) Bears that attack humans (f) Coyotes that kill pets (g)

Lethal Removal of:

Non-Hunter/Angler

Hunter/Angler

9

Funding for Fish and Wildlife Management

Respondents also provided their views on how fish and wildlife management is currently funded, and

how management should be funded in the future on a 7-point scale ranging from entirely funded by

hunting and fishing license fees (license fees) to equally funded by license fees and public tax funds

(public taxes) to entirely funded by public taxes. Here we provide a 3-category reduced summary of how

each item was answered by respondents with different wildlife value orientations and by current hunting

and fishing participation so that “mostly” represents the 2 points on either tail of the 7-point scale, and the

midpoint represents the 3 middle response options.

Figure 17: Current and future funding for fish and wildlife management

Figure 18: Funding for fish and wildlife management by wildlife value orientation

13%18%

75% 74%

12%8%

0%

50%

100%

Perceptions of Current Funding (a) Preference for Future Funding (b)

Mostly License Fees

License Fees & Public Taxes

Mostly Public Taxes

13% 12% 7%21%

75% 79%76%

66%

12% 9%16% 13%

0%

50%

100%


Current Funding

License Fees Fees & Taxes Public Taxes

7% 7% 9% 11%

77% 74% 73% 70%

16% 19% 18% 18%

0%

50%

100%


Future Funding


10

Figure 19: Funding for fish and wildlife management by current hunting/fishing participation

12% 11%

75% 75%

12% 13%

0%

50%

100%

Non-Hunter/Angler Hunter/Angler

Current Funding


8% 8%

70%80%

22%13%

0%

50%

100%

Non-Hunter/Angler Hunter/Angler

Future Funding


11

Public Trust

Public trust in government is an important indicator for understanding public perceptions. In the United

States, trust at all levels of government has been declining since the 1960s, which may be indicative of

broad changes in how people view government and governing agencies (Chanley et al., 2000). We

asked residents from your state to rate their trust in the federal government to do what is right for your

country, state government to do what is right for your state, and state fish and wildlife agency to do what

is right for fish and wildlife management in your state on a scale ranging from “almost never” to “almost

always.” The figures below indicate the percentage of respondents who expressed trust in these governing

bodies “most” or “all” of the time.

Figure 20: Trust in federal and state government and state fish and wildlife agency

Figure 21: Trust in government by wildlife value orientation

28%

40%

65%

0%

50%

100%

Federal Government

State Government

Fish & Wildlife Agency

21%

37%

70%

23%

30%

49%

37%

51%

70%

48%

38%

63%

0%

50%

100%

Federal Government State Government Fish & Wildlife Agency

Traditionalist

Mutualist

Pluralist

Distanced

12

Figure 22: Trust in government by current hunting/fishing participation

31%

41%

65%

26%

39%

66%

0%

50%

100%

Federal Government State Government Fish & Wildlife Agency

Non-Hunter/Angler

Hunter/Angler

13

Support for Hunting as a Source of Local, Organic Meat

Residents were given the following prompt: “Recently, there has been increased attention to the idea that

hunting can provide a good way for people to obtain antibiotic-free, organic meat from a local source.

We’d like to know if this idea is at all related to your current views about hunting and participation in the

activity.” Respondents were asked to respond “yes” or “no” to indicate if this idea was related to their

current views about and participation in hunting. Responses to the prompt are presented below for all

residents, by wildlife value orientation, and by current hunting/fishing participation .

Figure 23: Support for hunting as a source of local, organic meat

Figure 24: Support for hunting as a source of local, organic meat by wildlife value orientation

22%

10%

22%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

More Supportive Recently Started Hunting Interest in Future Hunting

14%

7%

19%25%

3%

14%

32%

20%

30%

20%

4%

28%

0%

50%

100%


Traditionalist

Mutualist

Pluralist

Distanced

14

Figure 25: Support for hunting as a source of local, organic meat by current hunting/fishing participation

21%

7%

25%23%

13%19%

0%

50%

100%


Non-Hunter/Angler

Hunter/Angler

15

Limitations to Participation in Hunting

The Alaska-specific questions attempted to identify the most important factors that may limit Alaskans’

participation in hunting. For this section, Alaskans were categorized into one of five groups based on

whether they (a) had ever hunted in the past, (b) hunted in the previous 12 months, and (c) were interested

in hunting in the future. The categories created from these survey items were the following.

Hunters - Respondents who indicated that they had participated in hunting in the previous 12 months

and were interested in continuing to hunt in the future.

Interested Former Hunters - Respondents who indicated that they had participated in hunting in the

past, did not participate in the previous 12 months, and were interested in hunting in the future.

Potential New Hunters - Respondents who indicated that they had never participated in hunting in the

past, did not participate in the previous 12 months, and were interested in participating in the future.

Disinterested Former Hunters - Respondents who indicated that they had participated in hunting in

the past, did not participate in the previous 12 months, and were NOT interested in participating in

the future.

Non-Hunters - Respondents who indicated that they had never participated in hunting and were not

interested in participating in the future.

16

Figure 26: Percent breakdown of hunter demand types in Alaska

Figure 27: Mean age of hunter demand types

Hunters, 21%

Interested Former

Hunters, 23%

Potential New

Hunters, 17%

Disinterested

Former Hunters,

8%

Non-Hunters,

31%

40.0

43.845.1

46.7

55.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Potential New

Hunters

Hunters Interested Former

Hunters

Non-Hunters Disinterested Former

Hunters

17

Figures 28 – 32 provide the top 15 most limiting factors that may prevent someone from hunting in the

state of Alaska for each hunter demand type. Respondents were asked the extent to which each of 37

potential factors may limit Alaskans’ participation in hunting using a scale of 1 (‘not at all limiting’)

through 5 (‘very limiting’). All 37 of the factors are shown, in order of strength and for each hunter type

in tables 56 - 60.

Figure 28: Mean strength of factors that limit participation in hunting; Hunters

1.64

1.64

1.71

1.72

1.73

1.79

1.89

1.92

1.92

1.93

2.07

2.07

2.12

2.25

2.36

2.39

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

15. Lack of friends and family to hunt with

15. Having the right kind of equipment

14. Amount of planning required to go hunting

13. Timing of hunting seasons

12. Lack of knowledge about where to hunt

11. Amount of gear required to go hunting in

Alaska

10. Effort required to go hunting

8. Hunting regulations are too restrictive

8. Too difficult to identify a legal animal to

harvest

7. Access to lands for hunting

5. Distance to hunting areas

5. Cost of equipment

4. Crowding at hunting areas

3. Complex rules and regulations

2. Travel costs

1. Not enough leisure time

Mean Limitaton for Hunting Particpation

18

Figure 29: Mean strength of factors that limit participation in hunting; Interested Former Hunters

2.00

2.00

2.02

2.02

2.03

2.04

2.06

2.08

2.08

2.15

2.22

2.34

2.48

2.54

2.77

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00


14. Hunting regulations are too restrictive


12. Access to lands for hunting


Alaska


9. Timing of hunting seasons



harvest

6. Lack of interest in hunting

5. Complex rules and regulations

4. Distance to hunting areas


2. Travel costs



19

Figure 30: Mean strength of factors that limit participation in hunting; Potential New Hunters

2.33

2.35

2.39

2.43

2.46

2.48

2.49

2.49

2.61

2.63

2.67

2.69

2.70

2.83

2.94

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

15. Lack of comfort with firearms



12. Lack of skill with firearms




8. Lack of knowledge about wildlife to hunt in

Alaska


Alaska

6. Travel costs



3. Needing someone to teach me how to hunt

2. Lack of skill to process harvested wildlife for

consumption



20

Figure 31: Mean strength of factors that limit participation in hunting; Disinterested Former Hunters

1.88

1.88

1.88

1.89

1.98

1.99

2.01

2.03

2.14

2.18

2.27

2.29

2.61

2.75

3.51

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

13. Poor health


harvest



Alaska


10. Travel costs





consumption

5. Hunting is too difficult


3. Concern over wounding wildlife

2. No need or desire for wildlife as food



21

Figure 32: Mean strength of factors that limit participation in hunting; Non-Hunters

2.42

2.47

2.50

2.50

2.54

2.60

2.62

2.72

2.84

2.87

2.94

2.99

3.07

3.33

3.91

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

15. Hunting is too difficult


12. My opposition to hunting

12.Travel costs


Alaska





6. Concern over wounding wildlife

5. No need or desire for wildlife as food

4. Lack of comfort with firearms

3. Lack of skill with firearms


consumption



22

Descriptive Tables for Items by Wildlife Value Orientation and Current

Hunting/Fishing Participation

The information contained in the following tables below provides a more detailed look at the findings in

the figures above. Responses to each item are provided below, and a copy of the survey instrument used

to measure each of these items is available in Appendix B.

Table 1: Percent of respondents who believed that they shared similar values to their state fish and

wildlife agency

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree Neither

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

All Respondents 6.5% 12.4% 11.5% 45.2% 24.3%

Non-Hunters/Anglers 6.5% 13.3% 17.4% 45.2% 17.6%

Hunters/Anglers 6.3% 11.5% 5.0% 45.5% 31.7%

Traditionalists 5.4% 11.2% 9.2% 48.2% 26.0%

Mutualists 10.5% 23.8% 10.5% 40.7% 14.5%

Pluralists 4.8% 9.9% 12.1% 42.1% 31.1%

Distanced 8.7% 3.3% 22.8% 48.9% 16.3%

Table 2: Percent of respondents who believed that we should strive for a society that emphasizes

environmental protection over economic growth

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree Neither

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

All Respondents 7.3% 15.8% 17.2% 26.9% 32.9%


Hunters/Anglers 7.0% 20.7% 16.4% 23.9% 32.0%


Mutualists 6.5% 1.8% 8.3% 30.4% 53.0%

Pluralists 1.5% 8.4% 11.7% 31.9% 46.5%

Distanced 5.4% 12.0% 29.3% 18.5% 34.8%

23

Table 3: Percent of respondents who believed that private property rights are more important than

protecting declining or endangered fish and wildlife

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree Neither

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

All Respondents 29.8% 27.4% 15.5% 16.0% 11.2%


Hunters/Anglers 25.0% 27.9% 14.9% 17.1% 15.1%


Mutualists 50.9% 20.5% 13.5% 11.1% 4.1%

Pluralists 37.0% 28.6% 8.8% 11.0% 14.7%

Distanced 30.4% 38.0% 22.8% 7.6% 1.1%

Table 4: Percent of respondents who believed that local communities should have more control over the

management of fish and wildlife

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree Neither

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

All Respondents 4.3% 13.3% 19.5% 35.1% 27.8%


Hunters/Anglers 6.4% 13.9% 14.8% 32.5% 32.5%


Mutualists 5.3% 14.8% 27.8% 34.3% 17.8%

Pluralists 3.0% 11.5% 19.6% 34.1% 31.9%

Distanced 8.6% 18.3% 25.8% 38.7% 8.6%

Table 5: Percent of respondents who believed that the earth is getting warmer mostly because of human

activity such as burning fossil fuels

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree Neither

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

All Respondents 15.0% 10.2% 14.1% 23.7% 37.0%


Hunters/Anglers 20.1% 10.9% 14.0% 20.8% 34.2%


Mutualists 8.2% 4.1% 12.9% 19.9% 55.0%

Pluralists 5.9% 8.4% 11.7% 24.5% 49.5%

Distanced 9.8% 7.6% 14.1% 39.1% 29.3%

24

Table 6: Percent of respondents who believed that wolves that kill livestock should be lethally removed

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree Neither

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

All Respondents 19.8% 21.2% 17.5% 23.7% 17.7%


Hunters/Anglers 17.8% 18.7% 15.5% 24.5% 23.6%


Mutualists 40.1% 25.6% 16.9% 10.5% 7.0%

Pluralists 19.0% 26.0% 16.8% 22.0% 16.1%

Distanced 17.4% 30.4% 31.5% 13.0% 7.6%

Table 7: Percent of respondents who believed that if a black bear attacks a person, that bear should be

lethally removed regardless of the circumstances

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree Neither

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

All Respondents 14.0% 21.3% 14.4% 20.5% 29.9%


Hunters/Anglers 11.0% 21.3% 12.4% 21.3% 33.9%


Mutualists 34.1% 24.0% 18.6% 13.2% 10.2%

Pluralists 11.0% 21.2% 12.8% 21.6% 33.3%

Distanced 13.0% 29.3% 25.0% 16.3% 16.3%

Table 8: Percent of respondents who believed that coyotes that kill pets in residential areas should be

lethally removed

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree Neither

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

All Respondents 13.5% 22.1% 16.6% 24.8% 22.9%


Hunters/Anglers 10.8% 20.0% 15.5% 25.9% 27.7%


Mutualists 30.6% 23.5% 20.0% 18.2% 7.6%

Pluralists 12.1% 21.3% 13.6% 27.9% 25.0%

Distanced 15.2% 33.7% 30.4% 15.2% 5.4%

25

Table 9: Percent of respondents who believed that current funding for fish and wildlife management is

provided by hunting and fishing license fees vs. public tax dollars

Entirely by

hunting &

fishing

license fees

Both

license fees

& public

taxes

Entirely by

public tax

funds

All Respondents 6.3% 6.5% 11.9% 49.4% 14.1% 8.4% 3.5%

Non-Hunters/Anglers 8.2% 4.0% 13.0% 49.7% 12.8% 7.8% 4.6%

Hunters/Anglers 4.3% 9.3% 10.6% 49.1% 15.4% 9.0% 2.3%

Traditionalists 4.1% 8.1% 12.7% 47.3% 15.2% 11.4% 1.3%

Mutualists 4.7% 4.1% 14.2% 52.1% 12.4% 7.7% 4.7%

Pluralists 9.7% 6.7% 10.1% 54.5% 11.6% 3.7% 3.7%

Distanced 9.3% 3.5% 10.5% 36.0% 19.8% 10.5% 10.5%

Table 10: Percent of respondents who believed that future funding for fish and wildlife management

should be provided by hunting and fishing license fees vs. public tax dollars

Entirely by

hunting &

fishing

license fees

Both

license fees

& public

taxes

Entirely by

public tax

funds

All Respondents 9.5% 8.1% 10.9% 53.3% 10.3% 4.7% 3.3%

Non-Hunters/Anglers 14.4% 7.9% 9.0% 51.3% 9.4% 3.3% 4.8%

Hunters/Anglers 4.3% 8.3% 12.8% 55.6% 11.3% 6.1% 1.6%

Traditionalists 6.8% 9.6% 14.4% 51.3% 10.9% 6.3% 0.8%

Mutualists 15.3% 4.1% 7.1% 59.4% 7.1% 4.7% 2.4%

Pluralists 9.3% 8.5% 8.5% 54.4% 10.4% 2.6% 6.3%

Distanced 11.5% 6.9% 10.3% 44.8% 14.9% 4.6% 6.9%

26

Table 11: Percent of respondents who trust their federal government

Almost

never

Only some

of the time

Most of the

time

Almost

always

All Respondents 21.0% 50.6% 23.7% 4.6%

Non-Hunters/Anglers 20.1% 48.9% 25.9% 5.2%

Hunters/Anglers 21.9% 52.6% 21.4% 4.1%

Traditionalists 19.5% 60.0% 18.0% 2.5%

Mutualists 26.2% 51.2% 17.4% 5.2%

Pluralists 20.1% 42.5% 29.5% 7.8%

Distanced 20.0% 32.2% 44.4% 3.3%

Table 12: Percent of respondents who trust their state government

Almost

never

Only some

of the time

Most of the

time

Almost

always

All Respondents 10.1% 50.3% 33.7% 5.9%


Hunters/Anglers 11.3% 50.3% 35.9% 2.5%


Mutualists 14.1% 56.5% 25.9% 3.5%

Pluralists 9.0% 40.1% 40.1% 10.9%

Distanced 10.1% 51.7% 34.8% 3.4%

Table 13: Percent of respondents who trust their state fish and wildlife agency

Almost

never

Only some

of the time

Most of the

time

Almost

always

All Respondents 5.9% 28.6% 52.8% 12.7%


Hunters/Anglers 6.1% 27.9% 56.1% 9.9%


Mutualists 13.5% 37.4% 38.6% 10.5%

Pluralists 3.0% 27.4% 51.9% 17.8%

Distanced 10.3% 26.4% 51.7% 11.5%

27

Table 14: Percent of respondents who were more supportive of hunting because of game being a source of

local, organic meat

No Yes

All Respondents 78.1% 21.9%

Non-Hunters/Anglers 78.9% 21.1%

Hunters/Anglers 77.1% 22.9%

Traditionalists 85.6% 14.4%

Mutualists 75.5% 24.5%

Pluralists 68.4% 31.6%

Distanced 79.8% 20.2%

Table 15: Percent of respondents who recently started hunting because of game being a source of local,

organic meat

No Yes








Table 16: Percent of respondents who do not hunt now but are interested in hunting in the future because

of game being a source of local, organic meat

No Yes








28

For the remaining descriptive tables, the two groups representing participation in hunting/angling are

replaced by the five groups in the hunter demand type, described in tables 17 and 18 below.

Table 17: Identification, description and breakdown of Alaskan respondents for hunter demand types.

Hunter Demand Type Description Percent of

Population

Hunters

Respondents who indicated that they had participated in hunting

in the previous 12 months and were interested in continuing to

hunt in the future.

21.2%

Interested Former

Hunters

Respondents who indicated that they had participated in hunting

in the past, did not participate in the previous 12 months, and

were interested in hunting in the future.

22.8%

Potential New

Hunters

Respondents who indicated that they had never participated in

hunting in the past, did not participate in the previous 12 months,

and were interested in participating in the future

17.4%

Disinterested Former

Hunters

Respondents who indicated that they had participated in the past,

did not participate in the previous 12 months, and were NOT

interested in participating in the future.

8.0%

Non-Hunters Respondents who indicated that they had never participated in

hunting and were not interested in participating in the future. 30.6%

Table 18: Comparison of hunter demand types by age

Mean Age of Hunter Demand Types

Potential

New Hunters Hunters

Interested

Former Hunters

Non-

Hunters

Disinterested

Former Hunters

F-

value

p-

value

Age 40.0a 43.8ab 45.1ab 46.7b 55.9c 12.91 < .001

a, b, c Mean ages with different superscripts are significantly different at p < .05 using one-way

analysis of variance and Scheffe’s post hoc tests for multiple comparisons.

29

Table 19: The extent to which “lack of interest in hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 38.3% 13.5% 12.7% 12.5% 22.9% 2.68

Hunters 79.4% 9.7% 6.9% 4.1% 0.0% 1.36

Interested Former

Hunters 43.9% 25.0% 10.8% 13.3% 7.0% 2.15

Potential New

Hunters 33.4% 19.4% 21.3% 16.6% 9.3% 2.49


Hunters 16.7% 10.2% 16.3% 18.9% 37.9% 3.51

Non-Hunters 15.0% 4.7% 10.0% 14.6% 55.6% 3.91

Traditionalists 52.0% 15.7% 7.1% 10.2% 14.9% 2.20

Mutualists 23.0% 8.7% 15.5% 15.6% 37.1% 3.35

Pluralists 34.2% 12.8% 17.8% 15.2% 20.1% 2.74

Distanced 19.4% 15.5% 17.5% 9.3% 38.3% 3.32 1 The mean is based on a scale of 1 to 5; with 1 = not at all limiting, 2 = slightly limiting, 3

= moderately limiting, 4 = quite limiting, and 5 = very limiting,

Table 20: The extent to which “lack of interest in outdoor activities” limits Alaskan respondents’

participation in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 65.1% 15.1% 8.0% 6.2% 5.5% 1.72

Hunters 87.3% 7.0% 3.8% 0.6% 1.2% 1.21

Interested Former

Hunters 76.2% 13.5% 4.2% 5.0% 1.0% 1.41

Potential New

Hunters 56.0% 20.5% 8.7% 7.1% 7.6% 1.90


Hunters 65.2% 14.0% 3.7% 11.0% 6.1% 1.79

Non-Hunters 48.3% 18.8% 14.6% 7.5% 10.8% 2.14


Mutualists 64.9% 14.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.1% 1.76

Pluralists 59.5% 14.7% 9.9% 9.6% 6.2% 1.88



30

Table 21: The extent to which “fear of the outdoors” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 73.5% 11.6% 6.9% 3.9% 4.2% 1.54

Hunters 82.7% 12.2% 1.9% 1.9% 1.2% 1.27

Interested Former

Hunters 82.7% 8.5% 4.7% 2.1% 2.1% 1.32

Potential New

Hunters 60.1% 14.8% 10.1% 8.5% 6.6% 1.87


Hunters 78.8% 12.9% 1.6% 2.0% 4.7% 1.41

Non-Hunters 66.4% 11.7% 10.7% 4.8% 6.5% 1.73


Mutualists 72.8% 13.2% 9.2% 2.8% 2.0% 1.48

Pluralists 69.2% 10.0% 8.1% 7.4% 5.4% 1.70



Table 22: The extent to which “fear of getting lost” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 60.2% 20.3% 9.3% 5.7% 4.5% 1.74

Hunters 69.4% 22.9% 4.0% 3.5% 0.2% 1.42

Interested Former

Hunters 68.0% 17.6% 9.6% 2.3% 2.4% 1.54

Potential New

Hunters 50.5% 22.6% 10.2% 11.1% 5.6% 1.99


Hunters 65.0% 24.3% 3.0% 2.9% 4.8% 1.58

Non-Hunters 54.0% 16.4% 14.1% 6.8% 8.7% 2.00


Mutualists 56.2% 22.2% 14.6% 2.6% 4.4% 1.77

Pluralists 55.3% 19.5% 9.9% 10.4% 4.9% 1.90



31

Table 23: The extent to which “hunting is too difficult” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 49.8% 20.7% 12.1% 9.2% 8.3% 2.06

Hunters 62.6% 23.9% 6.7% 4.5% 2.4% 1.60

Interested Former

Hunters 57.5% 20.6% 16.1% 5.0% 0.8% 1.71

Potential New

Hunters 34.6% 30.3% 18.4% 8.6% 8.1% 2.25


Hunters 50.8% 11.2% 13.9% 8.7% 15.4% 2.27

Non-Hunters 44.9% 16.2% 7.5% 14.3% 17.0% 2.42


Mutualists 47.3% 21.6% 7.1% 14.2% 9.8% 2.18

Pluralists 45.5% 17.4% 17.8% 9.2% 10.2% 2.21



Table 24: The extent to which “effort required to go hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 39.2% 23.0% 15.9% 9.9% 11.9% 2.32

Hunters 46.6% 29.6% 15.5% 4.8% 3.5% 1.89

Interested Former

Hunters 40.0% 31.1% 14.4% 10.1% 4.4% 2.08

Potential New

Hunters 29.6% 25.2% 24.6% 10.8% 9.8% 2.46


Hunters 48.9% 13.1% 12.9% 10.8% 14.3% 2.29

Non-Hunters 37.1% 13.8% 13.6% 11.1% 24.4% 2.72


Mutualists 44.5% 20.4% 11.6% 6.9% 16.6% 2.31

Pluralists 34.5% 24.2% 16.3% 11.1% 13.9% 2.46



32

Table 25: The extent to which “poor health” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 66.4% 13.0% 9.3% 6.2% 5.2% 1.71

Hunters 73.4% 13.9% 6.9% 4.2% 1.7% 1.47

Interested Former

Hunters

64.6% 17.5% 10.0% 4.5% 3.4% 1.64

Potential New

Hunters

56.5% 11.8% 11.2% 12.7% 7.8% 2.04


Hunters

62.0% 11.7% 11.4% 6.5% 8.5% 1.88

Non-Hunters 71.1% 10.7% 8.5% 3.0% 6.6% 1.63


Mutualists 67.5% 16.2% 8.3% 2.4% 5.6% 1.63

Pluralists 56.3% 12.1% 11.7% 14.4% 5.5% 2.01



Table 26: The extent to which “physical disability” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 72.6% 9.2% 5.8% 7.3% 5.2% 1.63

Hunters 76.1% 12.4% 4.9% 4.5% 2.1% 1.44

Interested Former

Hunters 75.1% 7.4% 9.3% 5.1% 3.1% 1.54

Potential New

Hunters 62.1% 8.1% 6.5% 17.7% 5.7% 1.97


Hunters 70.4% 11.9% 1.0% 8.7% 8.0% 1.72

Non-Hunters 76.9% 8.6% 4.1% 2.4% 8.1% 1.56


Mutualists 74.2% 6.4% 6.0% 6.7% 6.6% 1.65

Pluralists 65.3% 8.2% 7.3% 11.5% 7.6% 1.88



33

Table 27: The extent to which “my opposition to hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 67.6% 10.7% 8.0% 4.5% 9.1% 1.77

Hunters 92.4% 3.8% 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% 1.16

Interested Former

Hunters 86.1% 6.6% 4.2% 0.2% 2.6% 1.27

Potential New

Hunters 59.8% 14.8% 13.1% 4.2% 8.1% 1.86


Hunters 66.2% 17.7% 3.3% 8.4% 4.4% 1.67

Non-Hunters 42.9% 14.5% 13.6% 7.5% 21.5% 2.50


Mutualists 35.7% 11.9% 15.1% 10.5% 26.9% 2.81

Pluralists 67.4% 12.7% 6.4% 7.2% 6.3% 1.72



Table 28: The extent to which “concern over wounding wildlife” limits Alaskan respondents’


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 50.8% 16.3% 12.9% 7.3% 12.8% 2.15

Hunters 65.2% 18.2% 10.3% 3.5% 2.8% 1.61

Interested Former

Hunters 66.8% 17.7% 8.4% 5.9% 1.3% 1.57

Potential New

Hunters 49.9% 19.4% 11.9% 8.0% 10.8% 2.10


Hunters 40.5% 13.1% 14.8% 8.2% 23.5% 2.61

Non-Hunters 32.7% 12.9% 16.4% 10.6% 27.4% 2.87


Mutualists 27.2% 7.7% 12.4% 13.4% 39.3% 3.30

Pluralists 43.5% 16.5% 21.6% 10.1% 8.3% 2.23



34

Table 29: The extent to which “no need ore desire for wildlife as food” limits Alaskan respondents’


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 56.7% 10.0% 11.7% 7.6% 14.0% 2.12

Hunters 86.1% 6.5% 3.6% 1.2% 2.6% 1.28

Interested Former

Hunters 73.6% 9.4% 8.3% 5.0% 3.7% 1.56

Potential New

Hunters 49.0% 17.9% 11.7% 10.7% 10.8% 2.16


Hunters 42.3% 5.5% 12.7% 13.5% 26.0% 2.75

Non-Hunters 32.7% 9.7% 17.6% 11.0% 29.0% 2.94


Mutualists 34.1% 14.1% 10.2% 12.6% 28.9% 2.88

Pluralists 54.6% 9.0% 13.3% 7.6% 15.6% 2.20



Table 30: The extent to which “planning required to go hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation

in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 43.9% 22.4% 15.2% 11.0% 7.6% 2.16

Hunters 56.0% 26.8% 10.2% 4.4% 2.6% 1.71

Interested Former

Hunters 44.5% 24.7% 17.8% 9.7% 3.2% 2.02

Potential New

Hunters 30.0% 34.3% 16.3% 9.0% 10.4% 2.35


Hunters 47.4% 15.5% 19.3% 11.0% 6.8% 2.14

Non-Hunters 43.6% 10.1% 15.5% 17.5% 13.3% 2.47


Mutualists 53.1% 14.9% 10.4% 9.8% 11.8% 2.12

Pluralists 35.9% 25.5% 14.1% 15.7% 8.7% 2.36



35

Table 31: The extent to which “lack of knowledge about where to hunt” limits Alaskan respondents’


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 43.3% 18.7% 17.6% 9.7% 10.7% 2.26

Hunters 56.4% 25.3% 10.9% 4.3% 3.2% 1.73

Interested Former

Hunters 45.7% 24.8% 16.9% 9.0% 3.6% 2.00

Potential New

Hunters 27.0% 17.5% 27.6% 15.3% 12.6% 2.69


Hunters 55.2% 14.8% 14.7% 2.1% 13.1% 2.03

Non-Hunters 40.4% 11.1% 16.0% 13.1% 19.4% 2.60


Mutualists 47.3% 10.6% 17.1% 10.0% 15.0% 2.35

Pluralists 38.4% 17.7% 22.9% 11.8% 9.3% 2.36



Table 32: The extent to which “lack of knowledge about wildlife” limits Alaskan respondents’


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 56.6% 16.2% 10.6% 10.1% 6.4% 1.94

Hunters 74.3% 15.2% 5.4% 3.6% 1.5% 1.43

Interested Former

Hunters 69.7% 14.8% 6.8% 6.8% 1.9% 1.57

Potential New

Hunters 34.4% 19.9% 18.2% 17.4% 10.2% 2.49


Hunters 65.1% 11.7% 13.8% 2.8% 6.6% 1.74

Non-Hunters 47.2% 16.7% 12.3% 13.4% 10.4% 2.23


Mutualists 55.3% 12.4% 13.9% 11.1% 7.3% 2.01

Pluralists 48.9% 17.3% 12.1% 14.4% 7.3% 2.14



36

Table 33: The extent to which “lack of general outdoor skills” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation

in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 55.8% 18.9% 9.7% 9.4% 6.3% 1.91

Hunters 78.9% 15.2% 1.3% 4.3% 0.3% 1.32

Interested Former

Hunters 62.7% 25.7% 6.1% 4.0% 1.5% 1.56

Potential New

Hunters 42.7% 20.2% 20.0% 10.9% 6.2% 2.18


Hunters 60.3% 16.8% 8.8% 5.3% 8.9% 1.86

Non-Hunters 42.2% 16.5% 12.85% 15.6% 12.9% 2.40


Mutualists 57.1% 15.2% 10.7% 7.3% 9.6% 1.97

Pluralists 49.5% 21.7% 8.4% 15.4% 5.0% 2.05



Table 34: The extent to which “lack of comfort with firearms” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation

in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 56.6% 11.5% 9.4% 8.7% 13.8% 2.11

Hunters 82.3% 7.9% 3.5% 4.6% 1.7% 1.36

Interested Former

Hunters 72.1% 12.4% 7.7% 2.2% 5.6% 1.57

Potential New

Hunters 42.7% 14.9% 19.8% 11.4% 11.2% 2.33


Hunters 71.8% 9.2% 5.4% 1.8% 11.8% 1.73

Non-Hunters 32.6% 11.8% 10.2% 14.3% 31.1% 2.99


Mutualists 41.1% 14.0% 13.5% 10.5% 21.0% 2.56

Pluralists 50.4% 13.7% 13.0% 11.6% 11.2% 2.19



37

Table 35: The extent to which “lack of skill with firearms” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 54.4% 12.5% 9.1% 8.1% 15.9% 2.19

Hunters 78.9% 8.2% 4.7% 3.9% 4.4% 1.47

Interested Former

Hunters 68.3% 17.4% 5.9% 3.7% 4.8% 1.59

Potential New

Hunters 39.5% 21.1% 11.0% 14.4% 14.1% 2.43


Hunters 71.2% 7.4% 7.7% 1.3% 12.3% 1.76

Non-Hunters 32.5% 7.8% 14.3% 11.0% 34.4% 3.07


Mutualists 43.4% 16.8% 9.4% 7.8% 22.6% 2.49

Pluralists 49.6% 12.2% 11.7% 12.4% 14.0% 2.29



Table 36: The extent to which “lack of skill to process harvested wildlife for consumption” limits Alaskan

respondents’ participation in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 41.8% 15.0% 14.9% 11.6% 16.7% 2.47

Hunters 69.7% 16.8% 5.8% 1.7% 6.0% 1.57

Interested Former

Hunters 51.2% 20.4% 15.5% 9.4% 3.5% 1.94

Potential New

Hunters 26.9% 14.4% 24.2% 17.8% 16.8% 2.83


Hunters 48.6% 18.9% 12.8% 5.7% 14.1% 2.18

Non-Hunters 23.3% 8.5% 14.7% 18.6% 34.8% 3.33


Mutualists 35.8% 10.8% 14.5% 14.6% 24.3% 2.81

Pluralists 38.1% 16.4% 17.6% 12.9% 15.0% 2.50



38

Table 37: The extent to which “not enough leisure time” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 38.1% 18.2% 20.8% 12.2% 10.7% 2.39

Hunters 32.7% 23.5% 22.6% 14.6% 6.7% 2.39

Interested Former

Hunters 24.7% 19.6% 24.3% 16.9% 14.4% 2.77

Potential New

Hunters 34.2% 21.1% 22.7% 15.2% 6.7% 2.39


Hunters 57.6% 10.2% 16.3% 5.1% 10.8% 2.01

Non-Hunters 50.6% 13.8% 17.6% 7.6% 10.4% 2.13


Mutualists 47.8% 19.3% 15.2% 9.7% 8.1% 2.11

Pluralists 32.7% 16.4% 21.7% 13.5% 15.7% 2.63



Table 38: The extent to which “other people’s opposition to hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 77.9% 9.2% 6.9% 3.8% 2.2% 1.43

Hunters 89.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.8% 0.0% 1.22

Interested Former

Hunters 79.9% 10.5% 3.8% 1.4% 4.4% 1.40

Potential New

Hunters 66.1% 15.0% 10.9% 6.3% 1.7% 1.62


Hunters 85.0% 7.8% 5.5% 0.7% 1.0% 1.25

Non-Hunters 74.4% 9.7% 7.9% 5.1% 2.9% 1.52


Mutualists 69.3% 13.6% 11.2% 3.9% 1.9% 1.56

Pluralists 70.1% 8.2% 9.5% 6.8% 5.4% 1.69



39

Table 39: The extent to which “needing someone to teach me how to hunt” limits Alaskan respondents’


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 54.9% 15.0% 11.9% 8.3% 9.9% 2.03

Hunters 80.5% 10.0% 5.3% 3.5% 0.6% 1.34

Interested Former

Hunters 65.7% 11.9% 9.5% 7.2% 5.7% 1.75

Potential New

Hunters 23.3% 27.3% 21.0% 13.2% 15.2% 2.70


Hunters 71.3% 6.2% 16.3% 2.9% 3.3% 1.61

Non-Hunters 44.2% 16.4% 12.2% 9.1% 18.0% 2.40


Mutualists 47.8% 15.1% 17.3% 6.8% 13.0% 2.22

Pluralists 48.4% 16.5% 14.0% 10.6% 10.6% 2.19



Table 40: The extent to which “lack of friends and family to hunt with” limits Alaskan respondents’


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 51.3% 18.2% 14.0% 8.2% 8.3% 2.04

Hunters 60.7% 22.9% 10.2% 4.4% 1.8% 1.64

Interested Former

Hunters 51.5% 16.3% 16.9% 7.3% 8.1% 2.04

Potential New

Hunters 29.1% 27.6% 19.5% 14.1% 9.8% 2.48


Hunters 70.8% 13.4% 4.7% 3.0% 8.1% 1.64

Non-Hunters 52.4% 10.5% 14.4% 9.8% 12.8% 2.20


Mutualists 58.5% 10.9% 13.6% 8.9% 8.1% 1.97

Pluralists 46.7% 17.1% 13.2% 9.9% 13.1% 2.26



40

Table 41: The extent to which “lack of wildlife to hunt” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 68.7% 15.9% 8.4% 3.4% 3.6% 1.57

Hunters 67.2% 22.0% 7.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.48

Interested Former

Hunters 67.9% 14.3% 8.0% 5.3% 4.5% 1.64

Potential New

Hunters 56.4% 22.7% 10.5% 8.1% 2.2% 1.77


Hunters 84.8% 3.8% 6.7% 0.6% 4.1% 1.35

Non-Hunters 72.4% 12.6% 8.8% 1.1% 5.1% 1.54


Mutualists 75.7% 9.9% 8.9% 3.1% 2.3% 1.46

Pluralists 60.8% 16.4% 6.8% 7.1% 8.8% 1.87



Table 42: The extent to which “distance to hunting areas” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 48.1% 19.4% 17.0% 9.0% 6.5% 2.06

Hunters 39.7% 30.9% 15.5% 10.1% 3.9% 2.07

Interested Former

Hunters 34.5% 24.0% 24.2% 8.3% 9.1% 2.34

Potential New

Hunters 44.2% 21.6% 10.7% 16.8% 6.6% 2.20


Hunters 66.6% 16.0% 14.2% 0.8% 2.4% 1.56

Non-Hunters 60.5% 8.2% 16.8% 7.1% 7.3% 1.92


Mutualists 58.2% 7.1% 18.3% 11.7% 4.7% 1.98

Pluralists 46.3% 19.6% 11.7% 12.7% 9.6% 2.20



41

Table 43: The extent to which “lack of transportation” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 63.8% 14.1% 9.3% 5.6% 7.2% 1.78

Hunters 69.0% 17.3% 5.7% 2.8% 5.2% 1.58

Interested Former

Hunters 56.3% 17.4% 10.9% 8.2% 7.2% 1.92

Potential New

Hunters 51.7% 17.9% 15.5% 7.6% 7.2% 2.01


Hunters 78.2% 1.9% 9.2% 3.8% 7.0% 1.59

Non-Hunters 68.3% 10.4% 7.3% 4.9% 9.2% 1.76


Mutualists 66.4% 10.8% 7.9% 5.3% 9.5% 1.81

Pluralists 59.9% 13.5% 10.2% 7.7% 8.7% 1.92



Table 44: The extent to which “access to lands for hunting” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 54.7% 18.7% 13.9% 6.5% 6.3% 1.91

Hunters 48.9% 25.6% 12.7% 8.8% 4.0% 1.93

Interested Former

Hunters 49.2% 21.6% 15.5% 5.9% 7.9% 2.02

Potential New

Hunters 42.9% 26.1% 15.5% 7.4% 8.0% 2.12


Hunters 71.5% 8.6% 10.8% 8.0% 1.1% 1.59

Non-Hunters 66.1% 10.0% 12.1% 4.7% 7.2% 1.77


Mutualists 63.1% 14.8% 10.4% 8.3% 3.4% 1.74

Pluralists 48.6% 17.1% 16.7% 6.2% 11.4% 2.15



42

Table 45: The extent to which “crowding at hunting areas” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 53.1% 20.4% 16.4% 5.2% 5.0% 1.88

Hunters 39.7% 27.5% 20.0% 7.2% 5.6% 2.12

Interested Former

Hunters 55.1% 14.8% 18.7% 5.8% 5.6% 1.92

Potential New

Hunters 49.7% 23.1% 21.2% 2.4% 3.6% 1.87


Hunters 54.9% 26.1% 9.0% 3.4% 6.6% 1.81

Non-Hunters 64.3% 14.1% 11.6% 5.5% 4.5% 1.72


Mutualists 62.2% 14.5% 14.8% 4.2% 4.2% 1.74

Pluralists 49.1% 23.4% 13.6% 5.6% 8.4% 2.01



Table 46: The extent to which “conflict with other users” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 63.9% 16.2% 10.7% 4.3% 4.8% 1.70

Hunters 62.1% 26.2% 7.4% 3.5% 0.7% 1.55

Interested Former

Hunters 61.6% 20.0% 11.3% 2.6% 4.6% 1.68

Potential New

Hunters 62.2% 12.5% 11.4% 8.6% 5.3% 1.82


Hunters 67.3% 15.8% 8.1% 1.9% 7.0% 1.66

Non-Hunters 67.7% 9.2% 13.5% 2.2% 7.3% 1.72


Mutualists 61.4% 17.8% 10.4% 4.5% 5.8% 1.76

Pluralists 60.5% 14.2% 8.9% 6.7% 9.7% 1.91



43

Table 47: The extent to which “timing of hunting seasons” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 54.5% 20.7% 14.0% 7.4% 3.4% 1.84

Hunters 54.4% 26.6% 11.6% 7.0% 0.5% 1.72

Interested Former

Hunters 43.6% 24.2% 20.5% 6.2% 5.6% 2.06

Potential New

Hunters 45.6% 21.5% 16.1% 10.0% 6.9% 2.11


Hunters 72.2% 14.7% 10.2% 1.7% 1.1% 1.45

Non-Hunters 64.2% 15.5% 11.1% 6.7% 2.6% 1.68


Mutualists 59.3% 17.4% 14.6% 5.7% 3.1% 1.76

Pluralists 46.0% 23.2% 14.1% 11.6% 5.1% 2.07



Table 48: The extent to which “hunting regulations are too restrictive” limits Alaskan respondents’


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 53.8% 20.7% 12.2% 7.3% 6.1% 1.91

Hunters 49.2% 28.1% 10.9% 5.3% 6.4% 1.92

Interested Former

Hunters 50.2% 20.1% 15.4% 8.4% 6.0% 2.00

Potential New

Hunters 47.4% 17.3% 19.2% 12.8% 3.3% 2.07


Hunters 67.9% 21.6% 2.7% 0.6% 7.2% 1.58

Non-Hunters 59.8% 18.6% 9.7% 4.7% 7.2% 1.81


Mutualists 62.9% 18.2% 12.7% 4.6% 1.6% 1.64

Pluralists 50.4% 16.9% 11.5% 10.7% 10.5% 2.14



44

Table 49: The extent to which “complex rules and regulations” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation

in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 45.3% 19.6% 17.9% 9.5% 7.7% 2.15

Hunters 36.9% 29.3% 15.2% 9.2% 9.3% 2.25

Interested Former

Hunters 42.3% 20.6% 19.3% 8.9% 8.9% 2.22

Potential New

Hunters 44.1% 14.8% 21.4% 13.5% 6.2% 2.23


Hunters 50.1% 26.9% 15.8% 4.2% 2.9% 1.83

Non-Hunters 54.0% 13.1% 18.0% 6.8% 8.1% 2.02


Mutualists 54.9% 21.5% 19.4% 2.7% 1.6% 1.75

Pluralists 41.7% 16.6% 17.8% 12.6% 11.3% 2.35



Table 50: The extent to which “too difficult to identify a legal animal to harvest” limits Alaskan


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 46.7% 23.1% 14.9% 8.3% 7.1% 2.06

Hunters 49.1% 26.5% 11.4% 9.6% 3.4% 1.92

Interested Former

Hunters 42.6% 27.9% 15.6% 7.0% 6.9% 2.08

Potential New

Hunters 42.6% 21.1% 19.9% 8.6% 7.7% 2.18


Hunters 52.2% 22.4% 15.8% 4.6% 5.0% 1.88

Non-Hunters 50.4% 19.1% 11.7% 8.5% 10.3% 2.09


Mutualists 48.7% 23.4% 23.0% 3.2% 1.7% 1.86

Pluralists 44.5% 16.4% 17.0% 9.9% 12.2% 2.29



45

Table 51: The extent to which “having the right kind of equipment” limits Alaskan respondents’


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 47.5% 15.6% 16.0% 9.2% 11.7% 2.22

Hunters 62.8% 18.6% 11.9% 5.3% 1.4% 1.64

Interested Former

Hunters 52.7% 16.8% 18.2% 6.5% 5.8% 1.96

Potential New

Hunters 28.7% 16.0% 27.7% 14.9% 12.7% 2.67


Hunters 58.7% 15.5% 13.4% 4.2% 8.2% 1.88

Non-Hunters 41.7% 12.4% 11.9% 10.5% 23.6% 2.62


Mutualists 49.0% 16.5% 16.5% 9.2% 8.9% 2.13

Pluralists 42.8% 11.1% 16.0% 13.2% 16.9% 2.50



Table 52: The extent to which “amount of gear required to go hunting in Alaska” limits Alaskan


Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 45.2% 16.8% 17.0% 10.9% 10.1% 2.24

Hunters 58.1% 17.7% 15.4% 4.5% 4.4% 1.79

Interested Former

Hunters 47.6% 19.5% 20.6% 6.5% 5.8% 2.03

Potential New

Hunters 29.4% 19.5% 21.9% 19.2% 10.0% 2.61


Hunters 58.4% 15.0% 10.8% 10.9% 4.8% 1.89

Non-Hunters 40.5% 13.9% 14.9% 12.4% 18.3% 2.54


Mutualists 42.7% 24.8% 12.8% 10.7% 9.0% 2.18

Pluralists 37.8% 16.9% 17.0% 16.0% 12.3% 2.48



46

Table 53: The extent to which “cost of equipment” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 35.5% 18.2% 17.2% 13.6% 15.5% 2.55

Hunters 43.0% 23.7% 21.7% 6.4% 5.3% 2.07

Interested Former

Hunters 32.2% 23.5% 19.4% 13.7% 11.2% 2.48

Potential New

Hunters 22.5% 19.0% 18.5% 22.3% 17.6% 2.94


Hunters 57.8% 7.7% 19.5% 8.9% 6.1% 1.98

Non-Hunters 34.8% 13.4% 11.7% 13.2% 27.0% 2.84


Mutualists 38.6% 19.8% 15.7% 8.0% 18.0% 2.47

Pluralists 29.9% 13.5% 16.5% 22.3% 17.8% 2.84



Table 54: The extent to which “cost of licenses and permits” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in

hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 48.4% 20.2% 12.9% 8.2% 9.3% 2.08

Hunters 66.5% 20.3% 6.0% 1.9% 5.3% 1.59

Interested Former

Hunters 49.7% 24.9% 13.3% 5.5% 6.7% 1.95

Potential New

Hunters 35.9% 25.1% 20.0% 12.1% 6.9% 2.29


Hunters 57.5% 19.9% 11.4% 5.1% 6.1% 1.82

Non-Hunters 44.0% 14.4% 14.5% 11.4% 15.8% 2.41


Mutualists 48.9% 25.9% 5.0% 8.3% 11.9% 2.08

Pluralists 42.8% 16.9% 17.3% 10.6% 12.4% 2.33



47

Table 55: The extent to which “travel costs” limits Alaskan respondents’ participation in hunting

Not at all

Limiting

Slightly

Limiting

Moderately

Limiting

Quite

Limiting

Very

Limiting

Mean1

All Respondents 37.4% 18.7% 17.4% 12.2% 14.2% 2.47

Hunters 36.5% 23.7% 16.9% 13.2% 9.7% 2.36

Interested Former

Hunters 29.0% 25.6% 21.9% 9.6% 14.0% 2.54

Potential New

Hunters 33.3% 16.0% 20.0% 15.8% 15.0% 2.63


Hunters 54.1% 15.6% 16.5% 4.8% 9.0% 1.99

Non-Hunters 43.3% 13.0% 13.3% 11.1% 19.2% 2.50


Mutualists 42.7% 25.9% 5.0% 8.3% 11.9% 2.30

Pluralists 33.5% 14.5% 19.9% 16.5% 15.6% 2.66



48

Table 56: Mean limitations for Hunters in Alaska

Limitation Mean1

1. Not enough leisure time 2.39

2. Travel costs 2.36

3. Complex rules and regulations 2.25

4. Crowding at hunting areas 2.12

5. Distance to hunting areas 2.07

5. Cost of equipment 2.07

7. Access to lands for hunting 1.93

8. Hunting regulations are too restrictive 1.92

8. Too difficult to identify a legal animal to harvest 1.92

10. Effort required to go hunting 1.89

11. Amount of gear required to go hunting in Alaska 1.79

12. Lack of knowledge about where to hunt 1.73

13. Timing of hunting seasons 1.72

14. Amount of planning required to go hunting 1.71

15. Lack of friends and family to hunt with 1.64

15. Having the right kind of equipment 1.64

17. Concern over wounding wildlife 1.61

18. Hunting is too difficult 1.60

19. Cost of licenses and permits 1.59

20. Lack of transportation 1.58

21. Lack of skill to process harvested wildlife for consumption 1.57

22. Conflict with other users 1.55

23. Lack of wildlife to hunt 1.48

24. Poor health 1.47

24. Lack of skill with firearms 1.47

26. Physical disability 1.44

27. Lack of knowledge about wildlife to hunt in Alaska 1.43

28. Fear of getting lost 1.42

29. Lack of interest in hunting 1.36

29. Lack of comfort with firearms 1.36

31. Needing someone to teach me how to hunt 1.34

32. Lack of general outdoor skills 1.32

33. No need or desire for wildlife as food 1.28

34. Fear of the outdoors 1.27

35. Other people’s opposition to hunting 1.22

36. Lack of interest in outdoor activities 1.21

37. My opposition to hunting 1.16 1 The mean is based on a scale of 1 to 5; with 1 = not at all limiting, 2 = slightly

limiting, 3 = moderately limiting, 4 = quite limiting, and 5 = very limiting,

49

Table 57: Mean limitations for participation in hunting for Interested Former Hunters in Alaska

Limitation Mean1



































35. Other people’s opposition to hunting 1.40


37. My opposition to hunting 1.27 1 The mean is based on a scale of 1 to 5; with 1 = not at all limiting, 2 = slightly


50

Table 58: Mean limitations for participation in hunting Potential New Hunters in Alaska

Limitation Mean1


































34. My opposition to hunting 1.86



37. Other people’s opposition to hunting 1.62 1 The mean is based on a scale of 1 to 5; with 1 = not at all limiting, 2 = slightly


51

Table 59: Mean limitations for participation in hunting for Disinterested Former Hunters in Alaska

Limitation Mean1







































52

Table 60: Mean limitations for participation in hunting for Non-Hunters in Alaska

Limitation Mean1













12.Travel costs 2.50


























53

References Cited

Bright, A. D., Manfredo, M. J., & Fulton, D. C. (2000). Segmenting the public: An application of value

orientations to wildlife planning in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1), 218-226.

Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in

government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 239-256.

Teel, T. L., & Manfredo, M. J. (2009). Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife

conservation. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 128-139.

54

APPENDIX A: Methodology

55

Data for this study were collected using a self-report survey. The survey instrument is included in

Appendix B. The mode of data collection was selected following the review of results from two separate

pilot studies during which telephone, mail and email panel methods were tested and compared. A mail

survey with an online option was chosen for the final data collection. Mail surveys were administered in

all 50 U.S. states between 2017 and 2018. To account for lower than expected response rates for the mail

survey, sampling in each state was supplemented using an email panel survey. The email panel method

showed similar results to the mail survey method in our pilot studies. Upon completion of the first email

panel, analysis showed significant underrepresentation of certain racial and ethnic categories. As a result,

one final email panel round of data collection was conducted in an effort to boost response in

underrepresented categories. Both email panels were conducted in the Spring of 2018. For final analysis,

mail and email panel data were merged for a state and then weighted to better reflect the state’s

population. Each state was weighted separately with variables including age categories, gender,

race/ethnic category and participation in hunting and angling. If a state had opted for a stratified

geographic sample, state population estimates were weighted to reflect the relative proportion of the

state’s population in each stratum. A detailed description of the study methodology can be found at

www.wildlifevalues.org.

Data Collection Details for Alaska

For the mail survey, a random sample of 6466 households in Alaska was obtained from a commercial

sampling firm (Survey Sampling International LLC). Sampled households received three mailings: a full

survey questionnaire and cover letter (with an option to complete the survey electronically using a unique

identification code); a follow-up reminder postcard; and a second full mailing including the survey

questionnaire and cover letter. In an attempt to achieve relatively equal representation of males and

females, the cover letter requested that the questionnaire be completed by the adult (age 18 or over) in the

household who had the most recent birthday. Our sampling design also over-sampled those under age 35

and under-sampled those age 55 and older to help correct for the disproportionately high response rates

typical among those over 55. A total of 631 usable questionnaires were received (541 paper and 90

online) from respondents contacted by mail. The Post Office returned 783 surveys marked as non-

deliverable yielding an overall adjusted response rate of 11% for the mail survey.

An email panel sample of 306 Alaska respondents was recruited by a commercial sampling firm

(Qualtrics LLC). Respondents were recruited via email invitation. Screening criteria were employed to

ensure that the sample was representative of gender and age proportions within the Alaska population.

Data Weighting Procedure

Upon the completion of data collection, responses were weighted to better reflect the state’s population

characteristics, including:

1) Race/Ethnicity Categories using estimates compiled by the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation based

on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016 American Community Survey;

2) Participation in wildlife-related recreation using estimates obtained from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated

Recreation;

3) Gender using estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016 American Community Survey; and

4) Age Category using estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016 American Community

Survey.

56

APPENDIX B

Survey Instrument

57

58

59

60

61

62

Documents

Alaska State Report