Executive Summary

General Information

This report describes responses to questions from the “2020 Hunter Satisfaction” survey. The “2020 Hunter Satisfaction” survey was a tool to analyze Nebraska hunters’ perspectives on the attributes that are important to their hunting season, how hunters feel these attributes performed when afield, and how importance and performance of attributes affect their overall satisfaction. We provide information regarding the design and implementation of the survey as well as summarized responses to questions relating to demographics, participation in various hunting activities, questions pertaining to importance and performance of hunt-specific attributes, and overall satisfaction with hunting experiences. We also include statistical tests to assess differences in the between residents and non-residents, hunters who reside in a rural or urban area, and hunters who grew up in a rural or urban area. General summaries of responses, Importance grid analyses (IGA) and Penalty-Reward-Contrast analyses (PRCA) are depicted for hunters who engaged in the following hunting activities: deer, waterfowl, upland game, Spring turkey, and Fall turkey.

Nebraska Hunter Satisfaction Project Objectives

  1. Gather information about current Nebraska hunters and better understand hunting behavior
  2. Measure the importance and performance of hunt-specific attributes and satisfaction with hunting experiences
  3. Assess longitudinal changes in importance of hunt-specific attributes

Mode Selection

The stakeholders involved had several meetings to design the survey instrument that would properly meet the objectives. A web survey was used to determine the views of Nebraska hunters. Using this vehicle to collect information allows researchers to generalize results to a larger population. Email invitations were sent to a sample of hunters who purchased a hunting license, turkey permit, deer permit, Nebraska waterfowl stamp, or any combination in the 2019-2020 hunting year. Invitations were distributed on July 6, 2020. Reminder emails were sent to non-respondents on July 13 and 15, 2020. A final reminder was sent on the final day of the survey period, July 21, 2020.

Design and Item Selection

The design and fielding of the survey was accomplished by the Human Dimensions Lab in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln School of Natural Resources and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. A separate questionnaire was distributed for each type of hunting activity. Each questionnaire consisted of items pertaining to attributes affiliated with the respective type of hunting activity. For the small game questionnaire, hunters were specifically asked whether they participated in upland-game hunting (pheasant, quail, and grouse). Questionnaires included attributes that addressed the importance and actualization of experiences related to the respective type of hunting activity. All hunting activities included the following attributes: seeing the respective game type, opportunities to shoot the respective game type, harvesting the respective game type, hunting in favorable weather conditions, not seeing other hunters, no interference from other hunters, access to private land, access to public land, and hunting with other people.

Additional activity-specific attributes were included for each type of hunting experience based on existing literature on deer (Hautaluoma and Brown 1978, Hammitt et al. 1990, Gigliotti 2000, Manfredo et al. 2004, Kerr 2017, Pang 2017), waterfowl (Vaske et al. 1986, Brunke and Hunt 2007), upland-game (Hayslette et al. 2001, Frey et al. 2003), and turkey (Hazel et al. 1990, Wynveen et al. 2005, Schroeder et al. 2018) hunters. Attribute importance was measured on a five-point scale of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Respondents were also asked to rate how well each experienced attribute met expectations, ranging from 1 (far below expectations) to 5 (far exceeded expectations). Overall satisfaction with their hunting experience was also measured on a 5-point scale of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).

Analyses

Assessing effects of importance and performance on satisfaction involves two types of analyses. Importance Grid Analysis compares explicit rating to implicit importance ratings derived by multiple regression of overall satisfaction on attribute performance ratings (Matzler and Sauerwein 2002, Matzler et al. 2003). Originally employed by Vavra (1997), IGA was used to describe attributes as either excitement, performance, or basic typologies. However, the value of IGA for classifying attributes has since been discounted, and IGA is currently recognized for the ability to distinguish between explicit and implicit importance of attributes (Smith and Deppa 2009, Mikulić and Prebežac 2011). Explicit importance reflects a rational assessment of how one expects an attribute to affect satisfaction, while implicit importance reflects the experiential-based impact of an attribute on satisfaction. IGA delineates differences between hunters’ “expectations of an attributes’ relevancy to a desired end” (i.e., explicit importance) compared to “experiential information gained from one’s real-time encounter” (i.e., implicit importance) (Smith and Deppa 2009, Schroeder et al. 2018).

Explicit importance is calculated by taking the mean rating of each attribute importance as measured from the questionnaire. Implicit importance is derived from multiple linear regression coefficients (performance values of each attribute as the independent variables and overall satisfaction as the dependent variable). Explicit means and implicit coefficients are then plotted, and attributes above the fit line have higher than expected levels of implicit performance. Attributes below the line are experiences that have a lower than expected effect on satisfaction.

Penalty-Reward-Contrast Analysis is described as the three-factor theory in that it identifies the following three factors to customer satisfaction: basic factors, performance factors, and excitement factors (Deng 2007, Deng et al. 2008, Kim et al. 2014). Basic factors will induce dissatisfaction if expectations with a given attribute are not met, but will not increase satisfaction if expectations are met or exceeded. Basic factors can be viewed as the minimum requirements for a product or experience. Performance factors will increase satisfaction if expectations are fulfilled or exceeded and dissatisfaction if expectations are not fulfilled. Excitement factors will increase satisfaction if delivered but do not cause dissatisfaction if they are missing. For example, the three-factory theory can be applied in the airline service industry. Safety can be viewed as a basic factor insofar as passengers expect to be safe during the flight. If safety expectations are met, then safety attributes will not induce customer dissatisfaction; nor will customers become more satisfied with their experience based on safety attributes alone. However, if passengers feel unsafe, lack of safety will induce dissatisfaction. Expediency in retrieving baggage after the flight might be viewed as a performance factor. If passengers must wait longer than expected to retrieve their baggage, they will become dissatisfied, but if they can claim their baggage more quickly than expected, passengers will be more satisfied with their experience. Quality or price of snacks and beverages during the flight may be viewed as an excitement factor. If the quality of snacks is excellent, passengers will be more satisfied, but lack of quality will not induce dissatisfaction.

Conducting the PRCA incorporates a 3-step process, which examines influence on overall satisfaction at high and low-performance levels. In step 1, a simple linear regression is performed, and significant factors (performance ratings; 1 to 5) are recoded into Penalty and Reward dummy variables. If a respondent answered that, the performance of an attribute was a “1,” their Penalty value would be a “1” and their Reward value would be a “0.” A rating of a “5” for a performance attribute would result in a Penalty value of “0” and a Reward value of “1.” A performance of rating of “2,” “3,” or “4” would result in a “0” for both Penalty and Reward values. Step 2 consists of a multiple regression with the dummy variables used, independent variables and overall satisfaction with the hunting experience as the dependent variable. The third step is classification of attributes (basic, performance, excitement, or unimportant). An attribute is considered basic if the Penalty variable is significant and the reward variable is not significant, performance if both Penalty and Reward variables are significant, and excitement if the only the Reward variable is significant. Attribute is considered unimportant if neither Penalty nor Reward variables are significant.

Survey population

Questionnaires were sent to 3,007 deer hunters, 3,854 waterfowl hunters, 2,794 upland-game hunters, 2,769 Spring turkey hunters, and 2,712 Fall turkey hunters. A total of approximately 15136 questionnaires were distributed. Adjusted response rates for the individual survey questionnaires was 26%, 14%, 17%, 23%, and 20%, respectively. The overall adjusted response rate to the survey project was 20%.

Deer Hunter Survey Responses Per Day

There were 3007 invited to participate in the deer hunter survey; 211 were invalid email addresses, and 716 completed the survey (a response rate of 25.6%). Time to take the survey ranged from 1.9 to 61.3 mins, with a mean of 10.4 mins.

The average age of the deer hunter population was 46.18 and the average age of the sample was 47.73 (t = -5.5, df = 3256.61, p = 0). In the deer hunter population; 9% of hunters were female, and 7% of the hunters in the sample were female (\(\chi^2\) = 9.45, df = 1, p = 0). The mean age of hunters who responded to the survey was 52.28 (SD = 14.19) and mean age of hunters who did not respond to the survey was 46.3 (SD = 15.06). The proportion of female hunters in the group who responded to the survey was 4.47% and the proportion of female hunters in the non-respondent group was 8.25%

Relative non-response bias is the proportion of the population characteristic of interest that the bias represents (Callegaro et al. 2015). Relative non-response bias is calculated as the difference in mean of the value of interest from respondents and from non-respondents. The difference is multiplied by the proportion of non-respondents relative to respondents and then the value of interest is divided by the mean of the entire sample population. The relative non-response bias for age was 9.53% and the relative non-response bias for gender was 39.19%.

Percentage of responses per day for the deer hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.

Percentage of responses per day for the deer hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.

Waterfowl Hunter Survey Responses Per Day

There were 3854 invited to participate in the waterfowl survey; 250 were invalid email addresses and 506 completed the survey (a response rate of 14%). Time to take the survey ranged from 1.6 to 100.4 mins, with a mean of 9.6 mins.

The average age of the waterfowl hunter population was 43.42 and the average age of the sample was 44.11 (t = -2.75, df = 5398.76, p = 0.01). In the waterfowl hunter population 4% of hunters were female, and 4% of the hunters in the sample were female (\(\chi^2\) = 4.3, df = 1, p = 0.04). The mean age of hunters who responded to the survey was 48.8 (SD = 14.08) and mean age of hunters who did not respond to the survey was 43.4 (SD = 14.27). The proportion of female hunters in the group that responded to the survey was 2.37% and the proportion of female hunters in the non-respondent group was 3.88%

Relative non-response bias is the proportion of the population characteristic of interest that the bias represents (Callegaro et al. 2015). Relative non-response bias is calculated as the difference in mean of the value of interest from respondents and from non-respondents. The difference is multiplied by the proportion of non-respondents relative to respondents and then the value of interest is divided by the mean of the entire sample population. The relative non-response bias for age was 10.63% and the relative non-response bias for gender was 35.63%.

Percentage of responses per day for the waterfowl hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.

Percentage of responses per day for the waterfowl hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.

Upland Game Hunter Survey Responses Per Day

There were 2794 invited to participate in the upland game survey 250 were invalid email addresses, and 426 completed the survey (a response rate of 16.7%). Time to take the survey ranged from 1 to 1310.5 mins, with a mean of 12.2 mins.

The average age of the upland game hunter population was 54.83 and the average age of the sample was 53.7 (t = 3.34, df = 2999.38, p = 0). In the upland game hunter population 10% of hunters were female and 6% of the hunters in the sample were female (\(\chi^2\) = 48.98, df = 1, p = 0). The mean age of hunters who responded to the survey was 55.38 (SD = 15.28) and mean age of hunters who did not respond to the survey was 53.4 (SD = 18.04). The proportion of female hunters in the group who responded to the survey was 3.29%, and the proportion of female hunters in the non-respondent group was 6.38%

Relative non-response bias is the proportion of the population characteristic of interest that the bias represents (Callegaro et al. 2015). Relative non-response bias is calculated as the difference in mean of the value of interest from respondents and from non-respondents. The difference is multiplied by the proportion of non-respondents relative to respondents and then the value of interest is divided by the mean of the entire sample population. The relative non-response bias for age was 3.13% and the relative non-response bias for gender was 44.35%, as there were 0 females who completed the survey.

Percentage of responses per day for the upland game hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.

Percentage of responses per day for the upland game hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.

Spring Turkey Hunter Survey Responses Per Day

There were 2769 invited to participate in the survey; 173 were invalid email addresses and 596 completed the survey (a response rate of 23%). Time to take the survey ranged from 1.6 to 212.1 mins, with a mean of 11.1 mins.

The average age of the spring turkey hunter population was 44.1 and the average age of the sample was 44.58 (t = -1.49, df = 4037.02, p = 0.14). In the spring turkey hunter population, 7% of hunters were female and 6% of the hunters in the sample were female (\(\chi^2\) = 5.89, df = 1, p = 0.02). The mean age of hunters who responded to the survey was 48.72 (SD = 15.42) and mean age of hunters who did not respond to the survey was 43.44 (SD = 15.25). The proportion of female hunters in the group who responded to the survey was 4.7%, and the proportion of female hunters in the non-respondent group was 6.4%

Relative non-response bias is the proportion of the population characteristic of interest that the bias represents (Callegaro et al. 2015). Relative non-response bias is calculated as the difference in mean of the value of interest from respondents and from non-respondents. The difference is multiplied by the proportion of non-respondents relative to respondents and then the value of interest is divided by the mean of the entire sample population. The relative non-response bias for age was 9.29% and the relative non-response bias for gender was 22.1%.

Percentage of responses per day for the spring turkey hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.

Percentage of responses per day for the spring turkey hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.

Fall Turkey Hunter Survey Responses Per Day

There were 2712 invited to participate in the fall turkey survey; 189 were invalid email addresses, and 513 completed the survey (a response rate of 20.3%). Time to take the survey ranged from 1.6 to 126.2 mins, with a mean of 9.9 mins.

The average age of the fall turkey hunter population was 51.22 and the average age of the sample was 51.02 (t = 0.5, df = 5938.45, p = 0.61). In the fall turkey hunter population, 5% of hunters were female and 4% of the hunters in the sample were female (\(\chi^2\) = 2.6, df = 1, p = 0.11). The mean age of hunters who responded to the survey was 55.08 (SD = 14.61) and mean age of hunters who did not respond to the survey was 50.07 (SD = 16.05). The proportion of female hunters in the group who responded to the survey was 3.12%, and the proportion of female hunters in the non-respondent group was 4.37%

Relative non-response bias is the proportion of the population characteristic of interest that the bias represents (Callegaro et al. 2015). Relative non-response bias is calculated as the difference in mean of the value of interest from respondents and from non-respondents. The difference is multiplied by the proportion of non-respondents relative to respondents and then the value of interest is divided by the mean of the entire sample population. The relative non-response bias for age was 7.96% and the relative non-response bias for gender was 24.48%.

Percentage of responses per day for the spring fall hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.

Percentage of responses per day for the spring fall hunter survey. Values above bars represent number of individual responses submitted on each date.

Survey Section 1: Self-Identity

Hunting Importance

How important is XXXX hunting to you compared to other types of hunting?
Percentage of hunting type importance responses for each satisfaction survey. Bars represent the stated importance of hunting the game type of the respective survey respondents (i.e. How important deer hunting is to the deer hunter sample). Values above bars represent number of individual responses.

Percentage of hunting type importance responses for each satisfaction survey. Bars represent the stated importance of hunting the game type of the respective survey respondents (i.e. How important deer hunting is to the deer hunter sample). Values above bars represent number of individual responses.

Deer Hunting Importance

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
Deer hunting is my most important hunting activity 85 52.1 295 53.8 380 53.4







Deer hunting is one of several important hunting activities to me 76 46.6 245 44.7 321 45.1







Deer hunting is less important to me than some of my other hunting activities 2 1.2 6 1.1 8 1.1







Deer hunting is one of my least important hunting activities 0 0.0 2 0.4 2 0.3







Total 163 100.0 548 100.0 711 100.0

Waterfowl Hunting Importance

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
Waterfowl hunting is my most important hunting activity 1 14.3 121 24.2 122 24.1







Waterfowl hunting is one of several important hunting activities to me 5 71.4 276 55.3 281 55.5







Waterfowl hunting is less important to me than some of my other hunting activities 1 14.3 69 13.8 70 13.8







Waterfowl hunting is one of my least important hunting activities 0 0.0 30 6.0 30 5.9







No Response 0 0.0 3 0.6 3 0.6







Total 7 100.0 499 100.0 506 100.0

Upland Game Hunting Importance

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
Upland Game hunting is my most important hunting activity 52 39.4 66 22.6 118 27.8







Upland Game hunting is one of several important hunting activities to me 58 43.9 157 53.8 215 50.7







Upland Game hunting is less important to me than some of my other hunting activities 15 11.4 49 16.8 64 15.1







Upland Game hunting is one of my least important hunting activities 6 4.5 20 6.8 26 6.1







No Response 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.2







Total 132 100.0 292 100.0 424 100.0

Spring Turkey Hunting Importance

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
Turkey hunting is my most important hunting activity 12 18.2 42 8.0 54 9.1







Turkey hunting is one of several important hunting activities to me 49 74.2 407 77.1 456 76.8







Turkey hunting is less important to me than some of my other hunting activities 4 6.1 70 13.3 74 12.5







Turkey hunting is one of my least important hunting activities 1 1.5 9 1.7 10 1.7







Total 66 100.0 528 100.0 594 100.0

Fall Turkey Hunting Importance

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
Turkey hunting is my most important hunting activity 20 18.7 20 4.9 40 7.8







Turkey hunting is one of several important hunting activities to me 70 65.4 271 66.9 341 66.6







Turkey hunting is less important to me than some of my other hunting activities 15 14.0 92 22.7 107 20.9







Turkey hunting is one of my least important hunting activities 2 1.9 20 4.9 22 4.3







No Response 0 0.0 2 0.5 2 0.4







Total 107 100.0 405 100.0 512 100.0

When Hunting

Which type of hunter best describes you?

Percentage of hunt frequency responses for each satisfaction survey. Bars represent when survey respondents hunted their respective game type (i.e. When deer hunters hunted for deer). Values above bars represent number of individual responses.

Percentage of hunt frequency responses for each satisfaction survey. Bars represent when survey respondents hunted their respective game type (i.e. When deer hunters hunted for deer). Values above bars represent number of individual responses.

When Deer Hunters are Hunting

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
Hunt opening weekend only 6 3.7 19 3.5 25 3.5







Hunt opening weekend & the first couple of weekends thereafter (no more than 5 days hunting total in the season) 15 9.2 81 14.8 96 13.5







Hunt occasionally throughout the season 28 17.2 121 22.1 149 21.0







Hunt as many days as I can throughout the entire season 114 69.9 326 59.5 440 61.9







No Response 0 0.0 1 0.2 1 0.1







Total 163 100.0 548 100.0 711 100.0

When Waterfowl Hunters are Hunting

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
Hunt opening weekend only 0 0.0 6 1.2 6 1.2







Hunt opening weekend & the first couple of weekends thereafter (no more than 5 days hunting total in the season) 0 0.0 18 3.6 18 3.6







Hunt occasionally throughout the season 4 57.1 250 50.1 254 50.2







Hunt as many days as I can throughout the entire season 3 42.9 223 44.7 226 44.7







No Response 0 0.0 2 0.4 2 0.4







Total 7 100.0 499 100.0 506 100.0

When Upland Game Hunters are Hunting

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
Hunt opening weekend only 4 3.0 7 2.4 11 2.6







Hunt opening weekend & the first couple of weekends thereafter (no more than 5 days hunting total in the season) 5 3.8 21 7.2 26 6.1







Hunt occasionally throughout the season 54 40.9 159 54.5 213 50.2







Hunt as many days as I can throughout the entire season 68 51.5 104 35.6 172 40.6







No Response 1 0.8 1 0.3 2 0.5







Total 132 100.0 292 100.0 424 100.0

When Spring Turkey Hunters are Hunting

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
Hunt opening weekend only 0 0.0 3 0.6 3 0.5







Hunt opening weekend & the first couple of weekends thereafter (no more than 5 days hunting total in the season) 5 7.6 44 8.3 49 8.2







Hunt occasionally throughout the season 11 16.7 251 47.5 262 44.1







Hunt as many days as I can throughout the entire season 50 75.8 229 43.4 279 47.0







No Response 0 0.0 1 0.2 1 0.2







Total 66 100.0 528 100.0 594 100.0

When Fall Turkey Hunters are Hunting

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
Hunt opening weekend only 8 7.5 4 1.0 12 2.3







Hunt opening weekend & the first couple of weekends thereafter (no more than 5 days hunting total in the season) 12 11.2 22 5.4 34 6.6







Hunt occasionally throughout the season 35 32.7 235 58.0 270 52.7







Hunt as many days as I can throughout the entire season 51 47.7 142 35.1 193 37.7







No Response 1 0.9 2 0.5 3 0.6







Total 107 100.0 405 100.0 512 100.0

Where Hunting

Which best describes how you hunt?

Percentage of hunting location responses for each satisfaction survey. Bars represent where survey respondents hunted their respective game type (i.e. Where deer hunters hunted for deer). Values above bars represent number of individual responses.

Percentage of hunting location responses for each satisfaction survey. Bars represent where survey respondents hunted their respective game type (i.e. Where deer hunters hunted for deer). Values above bars represent number of individual responses.

Where Deer Hunters Hunt

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
I hunt the same areas every year, and rarely hunt new areas 56 34.4 331 60.4 387 54.4







I tend to hunt the same areas each year, but often make trips to new areas to hunt 77 47.2 165 30.1 242 34.0







I hunt familiar areas and new areas with equal frequency 21 12.9 28 5.1 49 6.9







I don’t have favorite hunting areas, but hunt wherever the opportunity arises 9 5.5 24 4.4 33 4.6







Total 163 100.0 548 100.0 711 100.0

Where Waterfowl Hunters Hunt

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
I hunt the same areas every year, and rarely hunt new areas 3 42.9 187 37.5 190 37.5







I tend to hunt the same areas each year, but often make trips to new areas to hunt 2 28.6 188 37.7 190 37.5







I hunt familiar areas and new areas with equal frequency 1 14.3 42 8.4 43 8.5







I don’t have favorite hunting areas, but hunt wherever the opportunity arises 1 14.3 80 16.0 81 16.0







No Response 0 0.0 2 0.4 2 0.4







Total 7 100.0 499 100.0 506 100.0

Where Upland Game Hunters Hunt

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
I hunt the same areas every year, and rarely hunt new areas 25 18.9 116 39.7 141 33.3







I tend to hunt the same areas each year, but often make trips to new areas to hunt 77 58.3 101 34.6 178 42.0







I hunt familiar areas and new areas with equal frequency 19 14.4 37 12.7 56 13.2







I don’t have favorite hunting areas, but hunt wherever the opportunity arises 11 8.3 38 13.0 49 11.6







Total 132 100.0 292 100.0 424 100.0

Where Spring Turkey Hunters Hunt

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
I hunt the same areas every year, and rarely hunt new areas 19 28.8 201 38.1 220 37.0







I tend to hunt the same areas each year, but often make trips to new areas to hunt 29 43.9 215 40.7 244 41.1







I hunt familiar areas and new areas with equal frequency 15 22.7 63 11.9 78 13.1







I don’t have favorite hunting areas, but hunt wherever the opportunity arises 3 4.5 49 9.3 52 8.8







Total 66 100.0 528 100.0 594 100.0

Where Fall Turkey Hunters Hunt

Response Non-residents (N) Non-residents (%) Residents (N) Residents (%) Both Residencies (N) Both Residencies (%)
I hunt the same areas every year, and rarely hunt new areas 44 41.1 167 41.2 211 41.2







I tend to hunt the same areas each year, but often make trips to new areas to hunt 38 35.5 133 32.8 171 33.4







I hunt familiar areas and new areas with equal frequency 16 15.0 54 13.3 70 13.7







I don’t have favorite hunting areas, but hunt wherever the opportunity arises 9 8.4 49 12.1 58 11.3







No Response 0 0.0 2 0.5 2 0.4







Total 107 100.0 405 100.0 512 100.0

Survey Section 2: Frequency of Hunting Type

Frequency of Participation

How often do you participate in each of the following hunting activities within the state of Nebraska?

Deer (e.g. White-tailed, Mule)