Hunter Motivation

This survey is horribly worded and I really can't see any use in it. Did you consult any hunters when writing your questions?

The opening paragraph specifically says it is a survey about trophy hunting but then wants motivating factors aside from trophy quality included in it. Under the current climate trophy hunting is a label which the anti-hunting community is more than happy to demonize on a level with racism. Here you are perfectly happy to combine all motives under your specific title of trophy hunting and I find that offensive.

I for one in no way believe hunting is an action which needs justification and I think this survey is compelling hunters to do just that. That isn't science it is social manipulation.

Good day sir.
 
The opening paragraph does not even mention the word "trophy".



Hunter Motivation
The purpose of this research is to identify what motivates individuals to hunt for sport, and is being conducted as part of Lillian Lilly's work in a graduate program at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. The survey should take no more than 5 minutes to complete. Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may skip any question or stop at any time. Your answers are entirely confidential and completely anonymous. Only complete this survey if you are at least 18 years of age.
If you have any questions, you can contact Lillian Lilly at [email protected] or graduate advisor Kevin Matteson at [email protected]. If you have questions or concerns about the rights of research subjects, you may contact the Research Compliance Office at Miami University at (513) 529-3600 or [email protected].


We weren't asked if we see any value in the survey. We were asked to participate. If you don't want to then don't.
 
I am going to have to agree with tristate. This survey was written by someone who does not hunt nor understands the motivation for us hunters. In research it is better to have no data than bad data.
 
Nvb,

Read that first sentence in the opening paragraph and try to explain how a person can ask you for your motivation while telling you what they think your motivation is, "sport". It's a rigged circular question which the poster has all ready assumed the answer for you. As for the words sport and trophy they are joined at the hip. Go check with USFWS forms for importing " sport hunted trophies".

This person has either neglected their research or is setting people up.
 
Now 'THERE'S A PAIR'!

NVB & Tri Arguing!











[font color="blue"]She put a Big F.U. in My Future,Ya She's got a
way with Words[/font]
 
> Now 'THERE'S A PAIR'!
>
>
>NVB & Tri Arguing!
>

Kinda makes ya a little jealous eh elk assassin?


"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
I'm not arguing. Tri said the word trophy was used. That is incorrect. I merely pointed it out. Then Tri blew some bull$hit smoke in the air instead of just admitting he misspoke.
 
>> Now 'THERE'S A PAIR'!
>>
>>
>>NVB & Tri Arguing!
>>
>
>Kinda makes ya a little jealous
>eh elk assassin?
>
>
>"Courage is being scared to death
>but
>saddling up anyway."

No tail!

Me & NVB can agree to Disagree,then to disagree to agree...................................................................................................................!:D










[font color="blue"]She put a Big F.U. in My Future,Ya She's got a
way with Words[/font]
 
>Trophy was used twice in the
>survey.


Yes, but Tri said

"The opening paragraph specifically says it is a survey about trophy hunting but then wants motivating factors aside from trophy quality included in it."

His statement is simply not true Beanman. And then he says "sport" and "trophy" are joined at the hip. Also not always true. One can trophy hunt without being sporting at all (like hunting in a closed unit, or behind a high fence). Just as one can hunt for sport without consideration of a trophy (bird hunting can be very sporting yet not involve a "trophy"). But rather than admitting he was wrong he chose to deflect and broaden his argument so as to ma k e his point seem valid. That is Tri's typical tactic.

The important question is who completed the survey?
 
Why is that the important question?

I recognize the cue words and lingo before you do NVB. No big deal. Sometimes I forget that not everyone makes the same word jumps I do. You don't deal with this anti-hunting garbage like I do. I may even be a little over sensitive about those words. If you want to get hung up on my mistakes that's fine. I make them all the time so you are going to be busy and have a lot to do.

BUT IF YOU THINK THIS SURVEY IS ANYTHING LESS THAN A BACKSTABBING ATTACK ON YOU AND HUNTING YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELF.
 
It seems to me the results will be very unscientific and meaningless. Anybody can have access to the survey, even anti hunters and non hunters.

You can't just throw a survey out on the internet and expect to draw any kind of accurate conclusions. You need to poll verifiable licensed hunters, probably through a State Fish and Game Department. Unless of course it's not intended to obtain accurate information, but some form of entertainment. I suspect that is the case here.
 
"I'm going to make up a survey, throw it up on a bunch of hunting websites, and then sit back with my bong and get a few laughs."

That's what we have here, so go ahead and fight over it guys. I'm sure they will enjoy.
 
Longun, you don't need a bong....you're doing quite well without it. I'm waiting for your next 200"er.
 
I googled Lillian Lilly, who is supposedly running this survey,
She is an adjunct professor, an honorary unpaid volunteer position. I've been in the University system long enough to recognize that means she is either not good enough to be a paid professor or is a trustfunder who doesn't need to work. This survey will not benefit hunters, most likely it will go the opposite way.
 
I find it puzzling that the last answer option in several questions is French language 'autre' instead of English language 'other.' When I go to the web site it is in a French language version of Google for some reason.

I agree the survey seems fishy, and not because it has an unexplained French language element to it.
 
Hi folks!

I appreciate all of your feedback and I'm sorry if any of you found the survey at all offensive (that was not the intent!). As you can tell I'm not a hunter, I am a wildlife conservationist that thinks hunters get a bad rep in the conservation community. Many environmentalists struggle to understand the benefits of hunting, and I developed this survey to (hopefully) prove with data that hunters are motivated by something other than a 'barbaric thirst for blood'. This might be a common sense thing to hunters (I come from a family of hunters), but its not to a lot of conservationists.

My use of the term "sport hunting" is defined as 'hunting for leisure/recreation'. Since I know it is a hot term, I chose to avoid it in the questions and instead use "leisure/recreation." My study is analyzing sport hunters, so those that make 75+% of their income from hunting (commercial hunters) or get 75+% of their diet from hunting (subsistence hunters) will be excluded from this study (same with those that say they don't hunt. Believe me, non-hunters still take this survey for some reason).

The addition of the word "Trophy" was not part of my original survey design but was added at the suggestion of my father who is a hunter. He claimed, "trophy hunters will often just kill one animal a year, but are very picky about the one they kill," which I thought could be valuable for my data set.

A little background on myself. No, i am not a adjunct professor, however I'm am a very poor graduate student at the University of Miami (perhaps you found the wrong Linkedin?). I recently returned from field work in Namibia, where I worked with farmers to help implement big cat-friendly farming practices. There, I learned the biological and conservational importance of Big Game Hunting, and felt this knowledge valuable to share with the world (as it is a large component of this paper).

A lot of conservationists can't grasp why anyone hunts. The point of this survey is to prove that hunters care a lot more about the environment than the generally closed-minded conservation-community might assume.

Sorry for the confusion! If you still don't believe me, don't worry about the survey, its not a huge deal :)
 
Lillian, I owe you an apology. Sometimes the internet is useful for searches and sometimes I get off track. I try hard not to be a Manny (you'll have to search this forum to get that) so I offer you my sincerest apology for getting it wrong and then spreading misinformation.

One thing you might wish to consider updating in your next survey about hunters and conservation is asking what conservation groups do we donate money and time to and why? Many of us serious hunters are also serious conservationists which no question in your survey would uncover. That's something that the non hunting crowd needs to be aware of. I'm a life member and former committee member of the RMEF, a life member of DU, which I'm sure you will recognize as the largest private conservator of wetlands in North America, which not only benefit waterfowl but all species in general (including insects which I add since I am an Entomologist). I am also a contributing member of The Nature Conservancy and have been involved in some research funded by them. Saving habitat is ultimately what conservation is about since hunting in North America is managed quite well by professional wildlife biologists (mostly).

Magnetic Island is a pretty cool place hey? I collected insects there about 35 years ago.
 
AHHH!!! I definitely planned on adding that question and completely forgot!

That would have been INCREDIBLY helpful!

I'll add it now and maybe I'll be able to get some information from future survey takers. Thanks for the reminder!
 
I too apologize. You'll have to forgive us as we get trolled pretty regular by anti hunters.

I did take survey earlier. If you are doing graduate research, I would implore you to give it the chance to be as accurate as possible. That would take much more effort and be expensive, and I understand that. Maybe too much depending on your resources.

I recall taking a similar survey that was distributed by the California Fish & Wildlife. It was a paper survey taken by licensed hunters only. You might contact the various States to see if they have data that they would be willing to share.

Best of luck to you. We need all the conservation friends we can get.
 
I "clicked" and I "control clicked" but I could not access the survey. I'm a technological marvel. In any event, I agree with BeanMan. Often times, the value of hunting is compared with other outdoor uses, and the number of hunters is compared with the number of "other" outdoor users. This overlooks the fact that we hunters constitute a fair number of those other users as well. We bicycle, we own cameras and film wildlife, we camp. We belong to the Audubon Society, contribute to the National Wildlife Federation, etc. The point is, we are not in competition for access with as many other users as some would suggest.

As I cannot see the survey, I do not know what options you give for motive, but one that is almost always overlooked is the fact that any meal acquired in a sustainable manner from undisturbed wild lands is far less destructive than any meal grown by agricultural means on lands from which all wildlife has been eliminated in order to establish orchards, row crops, etc. For many, it is this realization--that wildlife exists only where wild lands remain intact--that inspires us to hunt rather than rely upon foods grown or raised on mono-cultural wastelands serving no species besides mankind. In this sense, we are all conservators of land and wildlife, and the term "subsistence" hunter really should apply to all who hunt with the intent to consume what they kill--and that is the vast majority.

I certainly do not believe that the term "recreation" describes the motives of most hunters accurately. I could "recreationally" hunt ground squirrels or coyote with greater ease than deer, and fire a lot more shots in the process, but I don't care to eat them and so have no interest. I believe this is true for most of the hunters I know.
 
Dear mccowalr

The information about yourself and father is the type of communications that allows others to understand to whom they are hearing from and, the background, intent for the survey, etc...

However, the survey is so poorly written, I see nothing in it that would give you tools to argue "Against", any group.

My suggestion is to sit down with Kevin, your adviser, then return to this forum and ask for specific help in writing a new, accurate survey that individuals on this forum, assist you with.

If you happen to be from another Country and wish to extract good information, the individuals here may be all Heart and Ears to help you. There are many highly educated individuals here and they will understand.

Jagerdad :)
 
There are many motivations to hunt. Read the last portion of Michael Pollan's book "The Omnivore's Dilemma." This book describes several different modes of obtaining food: (1) factory food (factory grain farms fed to factory livestock turned into fast good or pre-packaged food); (2) agrarian farming; and (3) hunting-gathering. Pollan, an upper east side New Yorker by birth and a resident of the San Francisco Bay area today, is not your typical hunter. Yet he speaks articulately about the joys and integrated sense of being that are experienced by hunters.

Read Jose Ortega y Gassett's short book "Meditations on Hunting." Gassett was a Spanish philosopher at his peak before the Spanish Civil War.

But now speaking for myself. Hunting makes me one with nature, holistically, in a way no other activity I know of does. I am not merely in the outdoors ? I am part of the outdoors, one of its elements. It feels very natural. I feel as hunters must have felt 5000 years ago, 30000 years ago. We have the same desires and the same problems. We need first to find the animal which we hunt. Naturally, these animals want to survive so they have evolved to be highly sensitive to any disturbances or danger signs and to avoid predators like man. This makes finding the animal difficult. You have to study your animal, you have to ?solve the problem of the animal? ? of finding the animal and getting close to the animal. This is the same problem the stone-age man would have had to solve. It is natural because I want food, and elk meat is very excellent food, rich in protein, and it is a lot of food. When I kill an elk I feel a great fullness of satisfaction. Sure, I can buy as much beef as I want at the store, but there is still a great satisfaction in killing an animal that you are going to eat yourself. Like the stone-age man, I have to care for this dead animal to get it on the table to eat ? and I do all of this myself. I skin it, I cut the elk up into big chunks, I carry this 4 miles back to my truck, I haul it home in coolers, I then cut it up into smaller packages and put it in the freezer. I later thaw the meat out and cook it in various ways myself. Sure, there are some differences in my process from the stone-age routine, extra steps, extra technologies involved, but I DO do all the steps in the stone-age routine.

It is just a different way of being in the outdoors. It feels different. Backpacking seems conventional and very confined by comparison. In backpacking you stay on the trails; in hunting you get off the trails and see the country from viewpoints you'll never see from the trails or right next to the trails. You get well off the trail back into the woods and trees. You go into that steep nasty canyon and walk up it ? which you would avoid in backpacking ? in order to hunt in it. In hunting you are up at 4 AM and walking in the dark at 5 AM to get to your hunting spot. You are sitting in the dark watching the dawn arrive. You are sitting for long periods of time with your gun in your lap, alert for the magical appearance out of nowhere of the hunted animal. You SEE differently under these circumstances. Partly because you have so much time on your hands ? literally hours sitting in the same place looking upon the same scenery ? looking actively. You are listening differently. You are smelling differently, more acutely. At the end of the day, you hunt until 30 minutes after the sun goes down. Then you are finding your way back to camp in the dark ? walking under the stars, but walking in the dark. Yes, you use your flashlight as needed, but most often you don't need it so you turn it off. With your flashlight on you only see a small circle about 8 feet in diameter close to your feet and you are blinded to anything else. At least if you walk with your flashlight off you can see something outside of that pool of light from your flashlight. This too is different. Walking through the woods, off the trails, in the dark. You have to walk differently, more cautiously.

I think any experienced hunter would confirm many of my observations above. I'm sure they would all confirm that they see differently as a result of hunting. Maybe we don't have this vision in our suburban neighborhoods, but the vision comes back when we are in the woods. Likewise with our other senses. This mode of being is very satisfying. You feel more alive.
 
Good read Alsatian. Hunters do get to experience the woods and wildlife in much different ways than the typical 'stick to trails during daytime' user. I tried to convey that when I answered the survey with very long paragraphs. A typical conservation minded hiker won't go for a afternoon snooze in the woods and wake up when a pine marten walks up your chest and stares into your eyes and then freaks out because it didn't know you were alive until that 6" eye contact. Or the robin that landed on my knocked arrow while I was sitting silently near a water hole. It actually started singing before it realized something was odd.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom