Strangers in the Blind: Identifying Appropriate Mentees and Mentors for Waterfowl Hunter Recruitment

Consequences of the decline in hunting participation in the United States are well documented (Council to Advance Hunting and Shooting Sports 2016; Responsive Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation 2017; Price Tack et al. 2018), with similar declines and consequences in waterfowl hunting participation (Vrtiska et al. 2013). In response to these declines, a nationwide movement, coined “recruitment, retention, and reactivation” (R3) and focused on strategically increasing and diversifying participation in and support for shooting sports, hunting, and angling, has occurred (U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2012; Council to Advance Hunting and Shooting Sports 2016). Recruitment refers to increasing participation with new participants, retention pertains to ensuring that existing participants continue their engagement, and reactivation is focused on reengaging lapsed individuals to participate again. In line with this movement, state fish and wildlife agencies and nongovernmental organizations have invested heavily into the implementation of numerous R3 programs and opportunities (Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports 2016; Responsive Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation 2017). Although the success of these R3 programs may not have reached maturity or has not fully integrated all necessary components (Byrne and Dunfee 2018), there remains a need for increased efficiency and effectiveness in R3 programs.

Introduction to the hunting experience by parents or other family members has been the traditional pathway into hunting (Ryan and Shaw 2011; Responsive Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation 2017). Recruitment, retention, and reactivation programs, such as youth mentor hunts and outdoor skills camps, attempt to simulate this social component to hunting and build a mentor–mentee relationship (Ryan and Shaw 2011; Larson et al. 2014). Although successful or unsuccessful mentor–mentee relationships depend on several complex factors (Hudson 2016), a critical initial step may be missed in typical R3 programs by failing to match compatible mentors and mentees (Armstrong et al. 2002; Hobson et al. 2009). Indeed, mentor relationships are an important factor when measuring satisfaction and intention to continue to hunt in youth waterfowl hunters (Everett and Nelson 2016). Purdy et al. (1989) and Quartuch et al. (2017) found that family, friends, and coworkers were important in social support for adult hunters in New York. Comparing and identifying different compatible mentees and mentors may assist in creating more effective waterfowl hunting R3 programs by avoiding initial uncomfortable relationships.

For example, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation developed a Hunter Apprentice Program in the 1980s to provide multiple personal apprenticeship experiences between youth apprentice hunters and adult hunters and foster access to a community supporting youth interested in hunting. An evaluation after the program found that youth matched with adult mentors for hunting were no more involved in hunting after the program than were youth in a control group (Purdy et al. 1989). Researchers attributed the relative inefficacy of the program to an inability to replicate the full set of conditions that produce the family-initiated, experience-rich traditional pathway into hunting (Purdy et al. 1989). Indeed, it can take years to develop the values and social norms of hunting culture through socialization (Littlefield and Ozanne 2011). Replicating the traditional socialization into hunting through a family member will likely fail within the context of a single program. Therefore, efforts to understand hunter recruitment need to engage broader social influences that extend beyond immediate family and mentors. Thus, here, we sought to survey waterfowl hunters and nonwaterfowl hunters across several Midwestern states and identify through a series of questions whether individuals would likely accept certain types of mentees and mentors, respectively, for waterfowl hunting. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that there would be a preference to those individuals that had a greater social connection than to those who did not (family and friends; Ryan and Shaw 2011; Responsive Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation 2017).

We surveyed hunters and anglers in Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming (Hinrichs et al. 2021b). We required states that wished to participate in the study to have electronic license systems that contained email addresses, license and stamp types, permit year, and birth year information. We only sampled those individuals who provided email addresses in their states’ respective electronic license systems. We needed license type and purchase year to develop purchase histories, and we needed birth year to comply with the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Institution Review Board age requirements. Participating states and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln signed data sharing agreements with each individual state to ensure data security and appropriate use of data. All protocols and survey instruments were approved by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Institutional Review Board (approval number 20160215880 EX).

The combination of license, permit, and stamp requirements for hunting or angling varied among states. Therefore, based on each states’ respective license and permit requirements, we developed two waterfowl hunter and four nonwaterfowl hunter a priori groups based on license, permit, and stamp purchase histories from 2012 to 2016 (Hinrichs et al. 2021a). We classified waterfowl hunters based on purchase frequency of the necessary combination of licenses and stamps as avid waterfowl hunters (i.e., purchased the appropriate licenses and stamps four or more times between 2012 and 2016) and sporadic waterfowl hunters (i.e., purchased the appropriate licenses and stamps one to three times between 2012 and 2016). We did not consider federal waterfowl stamps in the breakdown because this information did not exist in state electronic license systems. Nonwaterfowl hunter a priori groups consisted of anglers (i.e., only purchased a fishing license between 2012 and 2016), big game hunters only (i.e., only purchased a big game license between 2012 and 2016), small game hunters only (only purchased a small game hunting license between 2012 and 2016), and combination users (i.e., purchased a combination of licenses between 2012 and 2016).

In total, we selected 70,931 individuals to be included in the survey. We drew a stratified random sample of approximately 2,000 individuals from the six a priori groups in each state. Some groups did not allow us to draw 2,000 individuals; in those cases, we drew the entire sample (Table 1). We sent email invitations to an online survey created with Qualtrics (Qualtrics XM, Provo, UT) to hunters and anglers and used a tailored design method of invitation letter and reminders to maximize the number of responses (Dillman et al. 2014). The survey link was active between May and June 2018 and again from August to September 2018. We opened the survey during the two periods to maximize the number of respondents to the survey. We sent email reminders on Monday and Wednesday mornings at 0600 hours central time to all nonrespondents starting 1 week after the initial invitation. We sent a total of four reminders between May and June 2018 and three reminders between August and September 2018. We used responses from the later round of the survey mailing to gauge nonresponse bias. The use of the second or final wave to measure nonresponse bias reflects extrapolation methods, which assume that individuals that respond after reminders are more likely to be similar to nonrespondents (Filion 1975; Armstrong and Overton 1977).

We asked avid and sporadic waterfowl hunters how likely (1 = not all likely, 5 = very likely) they would be to mentor six categories of new waterfowl hunters. Mentee categories included a family member, youth who they knew, any youth, friend, coworker, and someone they did not know. If an individual selected that they were not likely to mentor one of the six types of mentees, we asked them a follow-up question to understand why they did not want to accept new hunters. Response options for each type of mentee included “time consuming,” “added competition,” “more responsibility,” “do not want to disappoint,” “increased workload,” “I do not have the skills,” “I would rather focus on my own hunting,” “I would feel uncomfortable,” and “other.”

We asked nonwaterfowl hunters the following question, which was measured on a five-point scale (1 = not at all likely, 5 = very likely): “If you were to go waterfowl hunting for the first time, how likely would you be willing to hunt with a mentor who is a…” There were five different mentor options provided: family, friend, coworker, agency personnel, or a stranger. If an individual selected that they were not likely to accept one of the five mentors, we asked them a follow-up question to understand why they did not want to accept the mentor: “If you are not willing to have a person as a mentor, why?” The respondents chose among the following answers: “do not want to be seen as failing,” “do not want to be disappointed,” “do not feel I need one,” “I already have the skills,” “I would rather focus on other activities,” “I would feel uncomfortable,” or “other.”

We used descriptive statistics to understand who waterfowl hunters (N = 5,441) would accept as a mentee and who nonwaterfowl hunters (N = 2,725) would accept as a mentor for waterfowl hunting and if not willing, the reason why. We grouped responses by the type of mentee or mentor and the response (i.e., likely and very likely). We calculated percentages of responses for each mentee and mentor type. We did the same thing for each respondent who selected that they were not willing to accept a mentee or mentor.

We used ordinal regression to compare likelihood of acceptance described in Bilder and Loughin (2014). We used two separate models with post hoc Bonferroni-corrected P values to compare mentor likelihood of hunter acceptance and mentee likelihood of hunter acceptance using the ordinal, emmeans, multcomp, and multcompView packages in R (Hothorn et al. 2008; Christensen 2022; R Development Core Team 2022; Graves et al. 2023; Lenth et al. 2023). We retained partially completed questionnaires in our analysis, and we withheld hunter responses from the analysis only if there were missing response data for the corresponding model.

We received 10,084 completed or partially completed surveys, of which 7,768 were usable for analysis. We sent 12,864 surveys to undeliverable addresses. We included the 6,072 hunters who opted out of the survey. After adjusting for undeliverable surveys, invalid respondents, and individuals who chose to opt out of the survey, the response rate (minimum response rate; The American Association for Public Opinion Research 2016) was 19.5%. Overall, there were no large differences between responses from early and late respondents. Because of the similarity between early and late respondents in our measures and no indication of no‐response bias (Cramer’s V < 0.1), we included the later responses to the survey in the analyses (Cohen et al. 2013; Hinrichs et al. 2021b).

Waterfowl hunters were more likely to accept a family member (93%), youth they know (92%), friend (93%), coworker (87%), or any youth (82%) as a mentee than a person who they did not know (63%; Figure 1; Table 2; Data S1). In general, the most prominent responses for reasons why waterfowl hunters would not accept a mentee were “I do not have the skills” and “other” (Figure 2). “Time consuming,” “I do not have the skills,” and “I would feel uncomfortable” were the most selected responses for someone they did not know.

Nonwaterfowl hunters were more likely to accept a friend (76%), family member (70%), and coworker (44%) as a mentor than agency personnel (27%) or a stranger (10%; Figure 3; Table 2; Data S2). In general, the most prominent responses for the reasons why nonwaterfowl hunters would not accept a mentor were “I would feel uncomfortable,” “I would rather focus on other activities,” or “other” (Figure 4). “I would feel uncomfortable” was the most selected response for someone they did not know (37%). “I would rather focus on other activities” was the most selected response for agency personnel (26%) and friend (34%). “Other” was the most selected choice for family (55%) and coworker (43%).

Our hypotheses about preferences for direct social connections between mentees and mentors (i.e., family, friend; Purdy et al. 1989; Quartuch et al. 2017) were supported by our results. The moderate acceptance of coworkers as mentees or mentors likely depends on the social connection between individuals at their place of employment. Relationships between those willing to accept a coworker as a mentor may be on a similar level to those of a friend than those not willing. Unfortunately, we did not explore this relationship in our survey. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that although family remains an important aspect of recruiting and retaining new hunters (Responsive Management and National Shooting Sports Foundation 2017; Vayer et al. 2021), hunter recruitment programs or campaigns coupling friends or coworkers may be as successful.

Although the low acceptance of a stranger as a mentee or mentor was not surprising, we anticipated a slightly greater acceptance of agency personnel as mentors. Recent surveys of waterfowl hunters indicated a relatively high level of trust for state wildlife agencies and conservation organizations (National Flyway Council and Wildlife Management Institute 2006; Patton 2018). Although it appears there is an overall trust in agencies and organizations to manage wildlife populations, that trust does not translate into allowing for more personal interactions such as mentor–mentee relationships. The low acceptance of agency personnel and strangers as mentors should be an indication to agencies and organizations that recruitment programs that do not consider initial social connections between mentors and mentees may be ill advised (Bryne and Dunfee 2018). Given the response of being “uncomfortable” with strangers as mentors, initial efforts in recruitment programs need to consider having or increasing interactions between mentors and mentees before any hunt taking place. Future research is needed to elucidate the degree of social connection between mentors and mentees.

Considering that waterfowl hunters and nonhunters want a mentee or mentor that they know, programs that first establish a relationship between the mentor and mentee may be more successful than those that may simply pair up individuals. This may be especially important when considering programs targeted at nontraditional individuals (Quartuch et al. 2017; Vayer et al. 2021). This might be accomplished most effectively in a community-style approach (Ryan and Shaw 2011). Further, continued engagement between mentor and mentee appears to be important to the growth of mentee hunters (Littleton and Ozanne 2011; Bryne and Dunfee 2018).

Waterfowl hunting requires highly specialized skills and equipment compared with other leisure activities (Schroeder et al. 2012). Thus, our results should not be generalized to other types of hunting activity. Because many waterfowl hunters did not consider themselves as “having the skills” to be a mentor, agencies or organizations may need to identify mentoring skills and educate or promote those skills to waterfowl hunters. Unfortunately, the exploration of proper skills to be a mentor was beyond the scope of our study. Nonetheless, we believe this to be an important and fruitful endeavor for future research.

Similar to Vayer et al. (2021), many of our respondents expressed a desire to focus on other activities. We did not explore motivations or constraints to help explain their responses, and our sampling frame was different than Vayer et al. (2021). Thus, we are uncertain if the motivations and constraints (e.g., lack of skills and moral barriers) were the same or different from those surveyed by Vayer et al. (2021). Because we had a limited set of categories of reasons for individuals not willing to accept a mentee or mentor, this also restrained our ability to explore potential constraints. However, about 10–20% of respondents indicated that they did not feel that they needed a mentor to engage in waterfowl hunting. Further investigation is needed as to who, why, and what these individuals may need to participate in waterfowl hunting. Further interactions may also exist between the willingness of individuals to be mentored and the experience levels of mentees in other hunting activities. Our nonwaterfowl group consisted of anglers, big game hunters, and small game hunters. Similar equipment is required for hunting waterfowl and small game. Those hunters with experience hunting pheasant or quail, for example, may be more willing to accept a mentor than an angler with no hunting experience.

Engaging a new individual in hunting typically requires another individual to make them aware and pique their interest. Our results indicate that R3 programs that do not consider a close social connection (i.e., use agency personnel or strangers) as an initial step may not be as successful as those that do. Such programs need to incorporate activities, such as multiple training or skills (e.g., duck calling) sessions, that help build social connections between mentors and mentees. Also, mentors and mentees will need to participate in multiple activities to allow mentees to build an identity and a network of other hunters to remain engaged in the hunting culture (Ryan and Shaw 2011; Quartuch et al. 2017; Bryne and Dunfee 2018). Finally, acceptance of mentors may be affected by the mentor’s level of experience hunting waterfowl. Although we were unable to capture this in our research, mentees may be intimidated by waterfowl hunters with greater experience, or, alternatively, mentees may be more confident learning to hunt from experienced waterfowl hunters.

Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supplemental material. Queries should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Data S1. Microsoft Excel file containing data from the results of our 2018 survey of hunters and anglers in Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming. These data include variables for waterfowl hunters pertaining to the generation and likelihood of mentoring any youth, a coworker, family, a friend, someone they do not know, and a youth they know (1 = not at all likely, 2 = somewhat likely, 3= moderately likely, 4 = likely, and 5 = very likely).

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-23-012.S1 (67 KB XLSX)

Data S2. Microsoft Excel file containing data from the results of our 2018 survey of hunters and anglers in Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming. These data include variables for nonwaterfowl hunters pertaining to the generation and likelihood of accepting mentorship from agency personnel, a coworker, family, a friend, and someone they do not know (1 = not at all likely, 2 = somewhat likely, 3= moderately likely, 4 = likely, and 5 = very likely).

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-23-012.S2 (144 KB XLSX)

Reference S1. Byrne R, Dunfee M. 2018. Evolution and current use of the Outdoor Recreation Adoption Model. Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports. Available: https://cahss.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/08/RB_Evolution-and-Current-Use-of-the-ORAM_FINAL.pdf (May 2023).

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-23-012.S3 (711 KB PDF) and https://cahss.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/RB_Evolution-and-Current-Use-of-the-ORAM_FINAL.pdf (711 KB PDF)

Reference S2.Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports. 2016. National hunting and shooting sports action plan. Washington, D.C.: Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-23-012.S4 (4.8 KB PDF) and https://cahss.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/National-Hunting-and-Shooting-Sports-Action-Plan-3-11-16-2.pdf (4.7 MB PDF)

Reference S3. National Report National Flyway Council and Wildlife Management Institute. 2006. National duck hunter survey, 2005 national report. Minnewaska, Indiana: D.J. Case and Associates.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-23-012.S5 (1.7 KB PDF) and https://djcase.com/sites/default/files/chronicle-files/ducksurvey_national.pdf (1.714 MB PDF)

Reference S4.Patton S. 2018. National survey of waterfowl hunters: nationwide and flyway comparisons. St. Paul, Minnesota: Report to the National Flyway Council from the Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and University of Minnesota.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-23-012.S6 (6.4 KB PDF) and https://nawmp.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/National%20Waterfowl%20Hunter%20Survey.pdf (6.2 MB PDF)

Reference S5. Purdy KG, Decker DJ, Brown TL. 1989. New York’s new hunters: influences on hunting involvement from beginning to end. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources, Human Dimensions Research Unit, HDRU Publication 89-3.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-23-012.S7 (931 KB PDF) and https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/43240 (11.2 MB PDF)

Reference S6.U.S. Department of the Interior, Environment Canada, and Environment and Natural Resources Mexico. 2012. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: people conserving waterfowl and wetlands. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-23-012.S8 (2.7 KB PDF) and https://nawmp.org/document/2012-nawmp-plan-people-conserving-waterfowl-and-wetlands (2.6 MB PDF)

Members of the Human Dimensions of Wildlife Laboratory at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln provided reviews, comments, and helpful discussions that improved the quality of this manuscript. We would like to acknowledge the Journal reviewers and Associate Editor for their insightful contributions and suggestions to improve the quality of this manuscript. C.J.C. was supported by Hatch funds through the Agricultural Research Division at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration project W-120-T, administered by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Additional funding for this project was provided by Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration W-130-R, administered by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

Any use of trade, product, website, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.