Wildlife Feeding & Baiting in North Carolina 2024 Page | 2 Collaborators Kathryn Jewell, Social Scientist, Conservation Policy & Analysis Chris Kreh, Assistant Chief, Game & Furbearers Program, Wildlife Management Division Jon Shaw, Coastal Operations Supervisor, Wildlife Management Division Carrie Ruhlman, Policy Development Manager, Conservation Policy & Analysis Brad Howard, Chief, Wildlife Management Division Cristina Watkins, Lead Social Scientist, Conservation Policy & Analysis Colleen Olfenbuttel, Game Mammal and Surveys Team Supervisor, Wildlife Management Division April Pope, Deer Biologist, Wildlife Management Division Chris Turner, Game Birds and Wildlife Health Team Supervisor, Wildlife Management Division Acknowledgements The collaborators would like to thank David Cobb, Joe Fuller and Moriah Boggess for their guidance and contributions to this project. This research was funded by a Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Grant Page | 3 Executive Summary The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) conducted a study in 2023 to understand the wildlife feeding and baiting habits of North Carolina hunters. For the purposes of this project, baiting referred to the intent of putting out food for hun ting, wildlife viewing, or photography and feeding referred to the intent of putting out food for supplemental nutrition and the animal’s benefit. This research focused on hunters who put out food for White - tailed Deer and/or Black Bear in North Carolina. Little is known about the extent to which food is being put on private property for the purpose of baiting and feeding, thus this research provided information on the type, volume, motivations, and geographic distribution of the food being put on the lands cape by deer and bear hunters. The study was conducted in 2023, with data collection occurring between October and December. Data were collected via an online survey hosted by Qualtrics XM, as well as a paper survey packet distributed through the mail. The questionnaire was developed by the Social Science Team and the Wildlife Management Division and pre - tested with cognitive interviews. The questionnaire was sent to 18,000 license holders with big game hunting privileges, and an additional 4,000 individuals who indicated they had hunted bears in 2020, 2021 or 2022 on the Bear E - Stamp Survey. In total, 4,758 hunters responded to the survey, for a response rate of 22 % . Select results are summarized below. Deer Hunters that Put Out Food for Deer • An estimated 215,734 deer hunters put out food for deer, which is 92% of all deer hunters. • 79% of deer hunters that put out food for deer reported baiting deer, either for hunting or wildlife viewing or photography. • Deer hunters are primarily putting out shelled corn (94%). • Over $51 million is spent annually by deer hunters on food for deer, with an economic impact of $69 million. • 93,089 deer hunters put out minerals or salt licks annually, with a total of 279,267 sites present across the state. • Deer hunters are spending $9.9 million on minerals and salt licks annually, with an economic impact of $9.4 million. • Food is being put out by deer hunters primarily during one or more months of the hunting season (September - December). • 64% of deer hunters that put out food for deer sometimes hunt deer with the use of food, while 28% always hunt deer with the use of food • 64% of deer hunters that put food out do so on private property they own, and 40% put food out on private property they lease or rent. Bear Hunters that Put Out Food for Bear • An estimated 24,901 bear hunters put out food for bear, which is 47% of all bear hunters. • 87% of bear hunters that put out food for bear are baiting for bear, either for hunting or wildlife viewing or photography. • Bear hunters are mostly putting out shelled corn (65%) and raw peanuts (57%). • Bear hunters are spending over $16 million to put out food for bears, with an economic impact of $18 million. • Food is primarily being put out by bear hunters during one or more months of the hunting season (October - December). Page | 4 • 53% of bear hunters that put out food for bear sometimes bear hunt with the use of food, while 34% always bear hunt with the use of food. • 68% of bear hunters are putting food out for bear in the Coastal Bear Management Unit. Baiting and feeding is a complex wildlife management issue in North Carolina due to its importance in hunting culture and prevalence on the landscape, as results show almost all deer hunters and about half of bear hunters engage in these practices. Hunter expenditures on food for wildlife also have a large economic impact for North Carolina. When comparing baiting versus feeding, the majority of deer hunters and bear hunters are baiting deer and bear rather than feeding. This research provides a good pictur e of the current baiting and feeding landscape and shows that any changes to regulations should be carefully considerate of the societal, economic and biological impacts that could arise. Definitions Baiting – Placing food on the land so that it attracts wildlife to increase hunter harvest or observation of specific species or individual animals. Baiting can occur anytime during the year. Feeding – Placing food on the land for it to be consumed by animals so that it improves animal health/fitness, increases the number of animals the land will support, or changes their movements and use of the land Food – Any food product that can be legally put out for deer or bear. Bear food must not be processed. Bear hunter – A licensed individual who reports hunting bears in the last 12 months Deer hunter – A licensed individual who reports hunting deer in the last 12 months Page | 5 Contents Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 6 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 6 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 10 Deer Hunting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 Bear Hunting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 12 Putting Out Food for Wildlife ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 13 Putting Out Food for Deer ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 14 Putting Out Food for Bears ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 23 Putting Out Food for Both Deer and Bears ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 Concerns Based Around Putting Out Food for Wildlife ................................ ................................ ...... 31 Hunters That Do Not Put Out Food for Deer or Bears ................................ ................................ ......... 32 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 33 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 34 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 35 Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 36 Appendix A: Additional Tables & Figures ................................ ................................ ............................. 36 Appendix B: Survey Instrument ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 52 Page | 6 Introduction North Carolina has a rich history of hunting heritage and tradition s that are closely linked with feeding and baiting wildlife . State laws and N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) regulations allow for feeding and baiting of terrestrial wildlife under various conditions . However, depending on the intended species, the regulations vary considerably. For the purposes of this research, baiting is defined as putting food on the landscape so that it attracts wildlife to increase hunter harvest or observation of specific species or individual animals. Feeding is defined as placing food on the landscape for it to be consumed by animals so that it improves animal health or fitness, increases the number of animals the land will support, or changes their movements and use of the land For simplicity, baiting refers to the intent of putting out food for hunting, wildlife viewing , or photography and feeding refers to the intent of putting out food for supplemental nutrition and the animal’s benefit When intent is not specified, feeding and baiting will be generally referred to as “putting out food” throughout this report. This research focuses on hunters that put out food for White - tailed Deer and/ or Black Bear in North Carolina, hereinafter referred to deer and/or bear T he use of food in d eer and b ear hunting is very common among hunters throughout the state but is prohibited on public lands However, there has been little re search on the subject and few efforts to quantitatively measure the type or amount of food being put on the landscape for wildlife. Research on deer hunters in 2016 found that the majority of them somewhat or strongly agreed with hunting deer over bait (Shaw et al., 2016) , however this study did not ask questions on prevalence or use. Thus, a study (this report ) was conducted to fill the knowledge gaps on feeding and baiting. This r esearch will provide baseline information for the type, volume, motivations and geographic distribution of the food being put on the landscape by deer and bear hunters. Results from this study will be used to inform WRC Staff, Commissioners and the public on the scope of feeding and baiting deer and bear by hunters in North Carolina. Knowing how, when, where, why , and by whom baiting and feeding occur will help inform future policy decisions. The specific objectives for this research are to: • Determine current wildlife feeding and baiting habits of North Carolina hunters, including the amount, frequency, duration, landscape distribution, methods of delivery, and types of bait/feed used • Determine motivations behind wildlife feeding and baiting • Estimate expenditures of North Carolina hunters who use feed or bait • Assess these objectives relative to species, property size, and region hunted within the state Methods Survey Development and Cognitive Interviews The study was conducted in 2023 with survey development taking place between March and August and survey implementation from October through December. The survey was developed collaboratively by the Social Science Team, Wildlife Management Division and the Director’s Office. Data were collected via mixed methods through an online and mail survey. The survey was hosted online by Qualtrics XM, as well as on a paper survey packet, distributed through the mail. For simplicity, the survey referred to baiting and feeding collectively as “ putting out food for wildlife ” to Page | 7 not influence respondents’ answers by assigning a baiting or feeding label while allowing the ir intention of putting out food to determine the distinction. Prior to implementation, cognitive interviews were conducted by the Social Scientists with eight North Carolina hunting license holders that reported hunting for deer or bear during the 202 2 - 2023 season. I nterviewees were identified by the Deer and Bear Biologists. Interviews were conducted over Microsoft Teams and lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. The interviewees were asked the survey questions and then asked to think out loud about why they answered the way they did Based on these interviews, sunflower seeds were added as a food option, orchards were added to the local farms sourcing option, and specific questions on how long respondents have fed bear or deer were added. Sampling Frame The population for this project include d North Carolina hunting license holders. In order to collect enough responses from both deer and bear hunters, two different samples were assembled. The first included a random sample of 18,000 license holders with big game privileges , acquired through the NC Wildlife Resources Commission’s Automated License and Vessel Information Network (ALVIN). Additionally, to ensure there were enough responses from bear hunters, 4,000 individuals that indicate d they hunted bears in 2020, 2021 or 2022 on the Bear E - Stamp Survey were also sampled. Data Collection A modified version of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman et al. 2014) was implemented to collect data via mixed methods. A combination of emails, postcards and a survey packet were used to solicit responses. The first email was sent on October 3 rd , 202 3 , followed by a push - to - web postcard the week of October 13 th . The second email was sent on October 24 th . Finally, a full survey packet was mailed the week of November 5 th . Data collection was open until January 1 st , 2024. Data Analysis Data from the mail and online surveys were combined and analyzed using Stata (Statacorp) for quantitative analysis and NVivo for qualitative analysis. Duplicate entries and those who had not hunted in the last 12 months were removed during data cleaning. Quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics, frequencies, and count data. On questions where respondents were asked to ente r a number (acreage, money spent, etc.) , outliers were removed by testing for the upper limit of 1.5 times the interquartile rang e. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques which include d grouping responses by themes so that only themes with more than 10% agreement were developed. This is standard to ensure only the most relevant themes are developed. Economic data were analyzed using IMPLAN and 2022 statistics. Page | 8 Economic Impact Assessment The economic impact of putting out food for deer and bear to North Carolina’s economy was estimated using survey - sourced data for an Input - Output model using IMPLAN software. This method has been used for economic impact assessments of outdoor recreation activities such as Reservoir Striped Bass and Bodie Bass fishing (Jewell et al., 2024), and hunting (Watkins & Jewell, 2023). It uses data collected from hunters on participation rates and food expenditures along with data on the North Carolina economy to generate multiplier effects (direct, indirect, and induced). This method was adapted for this project to examine costs at certain types of stores for putting o ut food for wildlife. Participation in putting out food for wildlife P articipation in putting out food for wildlife was estimated from results of this survey combined with estimates of deer and bear hunters from annual surveys (Hunter Observation Survey, Bear e - Stamp Survey). If respondents did not hunt in 12 months previous to when they took the survey, they were removed from the sample. Respondents were asked if they put out food for any wildlife, and if they did, which species they were intending to feed There are an estimated 234,494 deer hunters (2022 Hunter Harvest Survey 1 ) , and 52,981 bear hunters in North Carolina (2021 Bear e - Stamp Survey 2 ). Data f rom this survey indicate that 92% of deer hunters put out food for deer, which equates to an estimated 215,734 hunters per year putting out food for deer. Additionally, 47% of bear hunters indicated they put out food for bears , thus , it is estimated that 24,901 hunters per year are putting out food for bear. Sampling error describes the deviation in the sample from the population being measured. The maximum sampling error is calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the population by the square root of the size of the sample and multiplying by the Z - score value, which is based off the confidence interval of 95% (Dillman et al., 2014). 𝐵 = ( √ 𝑁 𝑝 ( 25 ) 𝑁 𝑠 − 25 𝑁 𝑝 − 1 ) ( 1 96 ) The sample size for deer hunters that put out food for deer is 3,124 with an estimated population of 215,734 ; therefore, the maximum possible sampling error for the entire sample of deer hunters who put out food for deer is 1.7%. The sample size for bear hunters that put out food for bear is 630, with 1 Retrieved on April 25 th , 2024 from: https://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species/Mammals/Whitetail - Deer#120671969 - hunter - harvest - survey - estimates 2 Retrieved on April 25 th , 2024 from: https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Hunting/Documents/Bear/NCWRC_Annual_Bear_Report_data_through_202 1.pdf Page | 9 an estimated population of 24,901 ; therefore, the maximum sampling error for the entire sample of bear hunters who put out food for bear is 3.85%. F eeding - Related Expenditures The questionnaire collected information on expenditures for putting out food for deer or bear at certain types of stores including s upercenters or grocery stores, sporting goods stores, gas stations, feed and seed stores, local farms, and “Other” stores. These were selected to match up with established IMPLAN categories corresponding with a variety of industr y sectors The question was asked separately for deer and bear feeding and also asked about putting out minerals or salt licks for deer. Annual food expenditures were calculated and then extrapolated to the entire deer or bear hunting populations. Multiplier Effects Feeding - related expenditures of hunters who put out food for deer or bear were organized into industry - specific sectors to determine secondary impacts resulting from those expenditures. These expenditures we re then entered into the input - output model , which uses the industry sectors and economic indicators to determine the overall impact of feeding deer and bear. The IMPLAN model generates three different kinds of impacts: direct, indirect, and induced. Direct impacts are the impacts to local industry, indirect impacts are from regional p urchases, and induced impacts are from household spending of income generated by feeding deer and bear. These measures, when combined with employment, labor income and value - added , estimate the total economic impact of hunters feeding deer and bear in Nort h Carolina. Page | 10 Results In total, 4,758 hunters responded to the survey. Most participants responded to the survey online from either emailed distributions (42%) , or push - to - web methods ( 36%, Appendix A.1 ). The remainder of participants (22%) responded through mailing back the full survey packet. The first question asked respondents to share what kind of activities they had participated in during the last 12 months in North Carolina ( Appendix A.2 ). In addition to hunting, about half of respondents (49%) participated in wildlife viewing, and 19% participated in wildlife photography. Next, respondents were asked to share what species they hunted for in North Carolina in the last 12 months ( Figure 1 ). Most respondents reported hunting for deer, as well as small game and Wild Turkey. Figure 1 : What species respondents hunted in North Carolina in the last 12 months (n = 4,747) Deer Hunting Respondents that indicated they hunted deer in North Carolina were asked a suite of questions regarding their deer hunting habits. The first question asked respondents to select which weapons they use to hunt deer ( Figure 2 ). The majority of respondents use guns to hunt deer, followed by blackpowder weapons. W eapons listed by respondents as “other weapons” included handguns, rifles, bows, and air rifles ( Appendix A.3 ). 29% 34% 43% 50% 50% 88% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Nongame species Bear Migratory Birds/Waterfowl Wild Turkey Small Game Deer Percentage of Respondents Page | 11 Figure 2 : Weapons used to hunt deer in North Carolina (n = 4,197) Respondents were then asked to share which four counties they hunt deer in the most ( Appendix A.4 ). The counties that respondents listed hunting the most were Beaufort, Bertie, Pender, Randolph , and Wilkes counties. Each respondents’ answers to those questions were assigned to a deer zone ( Figure 3 ). While most respondents reported hunting in multiple deer zones, the Southeastern and Central D eer Z ones individually had the next highest number of hunters. Figure 3 : Which d eer z one respondents hunt in (n = 4,164) Respondents also shared which kind of properties they hunted on while deer hunting ( Appendix A.5 ). The majority of respondents reported hunting only on private lands (79%), followed by most often private lands, but sometimes game lands (15%). Comparisons to deer zone and previous studies can be found in Appendix A. 6 and Appendix A. 7 Further, respondents were asked to share whether they still hunted, hunted with dogs, or both about equally ( Appendix A. 8 ). The majority of respondents reported only still hunting (86%). Comparisons to deer zone and previous studies can be found in Appendix A. 9 and Appendix A. 10 1% 29% 33% 52% 96% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Bow and arrow Crossbow Blackpowder Gun Percentage of Respondents 8% 14% 18% 21% 16% 23% Western Northwestern Central Southeastern Northeastern Multiple Page | 12 Bear Hunting Respondents that indicated they hunted bears in North Carolina in the last 12 months were asked a suite of questions about their bear hunting habits. The first question asked respondents to share which weapons they use to hunt bears ( Appendix A. 11 ). The majority of respondents reported using a gun (95%). Weapons listed by respondents as “o ther weapons ” include d handguns, rifles, falconry, air rifle and bows ( Appendix A. 12 ). Respondents were also asked to list which four counties they bear hunted in the most ( Appendix A. 13 ). The counties that bear hunters reported hunting in the most were Hyde, Beaufort, Bladen, Jones , and Craven counties. The counties hunted were assigned to the three Bear Management Units (BMUs , Figure 4 ). The majority of bear hunters reported hunting in the Coastal BMU , followed by the Mountain BMU Figure 4 : Which BMUs bear hunters hunt in (n = 1,635) Respondents also shared what kind of properties on which they hunt bear , and the majority of respondents shared they only hunt bear on private lands (77%), followed by most often hunting on private lands but also hunted on game lands (10% , Appendix A.1 4 ). Comparisons by BMU can be found in Appendix A. 15 Finally, bear hunter respondents were asked to share whether they still hunted, hunted with dogs, or some combination of both ( Figure 5 ). The majority of respondents only still or stand hunted , followed by only hunted with dogs. Comparisons by BMU can be found in Appendix A. 16 28% 9% 58% 2% 1% 1% <1% Mountains Piedmont Coastal Mountains and Coastal Piedmont and Mountains Piedmont and Coastal All three Page | 13 Figure 5 : Whether bear hunters still hunted, hunted with dogs, or a combination of both (n = 1,636) Putting Out Food for Wildlife All r espondents were asked to share whether they intentionally put out food for any kind of wildlife in North Carolina in the last 12 months. Most respondents (80 %) put out food for some kind of wildlife. For respondents who did put out food for wildlife, the majority put out food for deer, followed by songbirds and bears ( Figure 6 ). Other species respondents listed they put out food for included squirrels, hummingbirds and coyotes ( Appendix A.1 7 ). Respondents who put out food for deer and bear were compared against the species they previously reported to hunt. With this, 92% of deer hunters put out food for deer and 47% of bear hunters put out food for bear. Figure 6 : W ildlife species respondents put out food for in North Carolina (n = 3,746) 3% 6% 7% 22% 62% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Still/stand hunted and hunted with dogs about the same amount of time Most often hunted with dogs, but also still/stand hunted Most often still/stand hunted, but also hunted with dogs Only hunted with dogs Only still/stand hunted Percentage of Respondents 1% 2% 4% 5% 6% 10% 17% 43% 83% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Fox Waterfowl Feral Hog Raccoon Other Wild Turkey Bear Songbirds Deer Percentage of Respondents Page | 14 Putting Out Food for Deer Respondents that reported putting out food for deer were asked questions about their habits. R espondents were first asked to select all the types of food they put out for deer ( Figure 7 ). Most respondents put out shelled corn, followed by minerals or salt licks and cob corn. Because the question allowed for multiple response selection, results show that o n average respondent s that put out food for deer put out two types of food. Other types of food respondents listed included birdseed, acorns and pears ( Appendix A.1 8 ). Figure 7 : What type of food respondents put out for deer (n = 3,126) Respondents were asked how much , in pounds, of each type of food (excluding minerals and salt licks) they put out for deer per year, on average. This average was multiplied by the estimated number of users ( derived from the results shown in Figure 7 and the estimated total number of hunters who put out food for deer (i.e. 215,734) ) to determine the amount of food put out in North Carolina annually ( Table 1 ). Based on this, s helled corn has the highest number of estimated users, and thus , the highest quantity, in pounds , put out on the landscape. Ave rage amounts per type of food can be found in Appendix A.1 9 Further, each deer hunter puts out on average a total of 828 pounds of food for deer per year 3% 7% 7% 10% 12% 24% 42% 43% 94% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other Raw peanuts Sunflower seeds Protein feed Sweet potatoes Apples Cob corn Minerals or salt licks Shelled corn Percentage of Respondents Page | 15 Table 1 : Pounds put out on the landscape per type of food for deer Type of Food Estimated Number of Users Pounds Put Out on the Landscape Shelled corn 203,804 125,137,689 Cob corn 90,953 32,172,056 Apples 52,164 6,967,088 Sweet potatoes 25,543 19,950,389 Protein feed 21,120 5,439,126 Sunflower seeds 14,778 1,537,185 Raw peanuts 14,152 3,407,130 Other 6,343 489,330 To determine the economic impact of putting out food for deer in North Carolina (excluding minerals and salt licks), respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their annual spending on food for deer. It is estimated that h unters that put out food for deer spent $51,282,129.14 across North Carolina in 2023 ( Table 2 ). Table 2 : Hunter expenditures on food for deer Store Expenditures Sporting good stores $18,760,22 9 Local farms or orchards $18,078,509 Other stores $9,274,40 5 Gas stations $3,255,426 Feed and seed stores $1,622,3 20 Supercenters/Grocery stores $291,24 1 Total: $51,282,129 These expenditures related to putting out food for deer resulted in a total economic impact of $69,994,823.24 in 2023 ( Table 3 ). Putting out food for deer directly and indirectly supports 521 full - and part - time jobs across the state. The Social Accounting Matrix is 2.04, meaning that for every dollar hunters spent putting out food for deer $2.04 was returned to the state economy. Page | 16 Table 3 : Economic impact and s ummary of economic indicators of putting out food for deer in North Carolina Putting Out Food for Deer Expenditures $51,282,129 Total Economic Impact $69,994,823 Economic Indicators Labor Income $ 23,951,89 6 Value Added $ 36,315,07 9 Jobs Supported 52 1 Because minerals and salt licks ar e regulated separately in certain areas of North Carolina, they were analyzed separately in this research. Given that 43% of respondents put out minerals or salt licks for deer, it is estimated that 93,089 deer hunters put out minerals or salt licks every year. Respondents that use minerals or salt licks indicated having three sites , on average . This means there are an estimated 279,267 mineral or salt lick sites across the state placed by deer hunters Mineral or salt lick sites by deer zone can be found in Appendix A. 20 Respondents who use minerals and salt licks were asked about their expenditures related to putting out minerals or salt licks and reported to have spent an estimated $9,941,905.20 across North Carolina ( Table 4 ). Table 4 : Hunter expenditures o n minerals and salt licks put out for deer Store Expenditures Other stores $3,328,86 3 Supercenters/Grocery stores $2,496,64 7 Sporting goods stores $2,246,23 8 Feed and seed stores $1,397,26 6 Gas stations $ 4 72,892 Total: $9,941,905 These expenditures indicate a total economic impact of $9,495,687.12 ( Table 5 ). This economic impact is lower than the expenditures due to the retail margin s for t he industries involved in selling these goods . In the case of minerals and salt licks, th is indicates the entirety of the purchase does not stay in the region in which this analysis takes place (North Carolina) This is confirmed by the SAM of 0.48, meaning for every dollar spent on putting out minerals and salt licks in North Carolina, only $0.48 is returned to the state’s economy. Putting out minerals and salt licks supports 93.56 full - and part - time jobs in Nor th Carolina. Page | 17 Table 5 : Summary of economic indicators and impact of putting out minerals and salt licks for deer in North Carolina Putting Out Minerals and Salt Licks for Deer Expenditures $9,941,905.20 Total Economic Impact $9,495,687.12 Economic Indicators Labor Income $3,640,510.73 Value Added $5,311,080.92 Jobs Supported 93.56 Respondents were asked to select all the months of the year in which they put out food for deer ( Figure 8 ). Most respondents reported putting food out in November and October, followed by December and September. This is consistent with the deer hunting seasons in North Carolina. A breakdown of months by primary motivation for putting out food can be found in Appendix A. 21 Figure 8 : M onths of the year in which respondents reported putting out food for deer (n = 3,053) About half ( 47% ) of respondents indicated they only put out food for deer during one or more months of the hunting season (September - December). Conversely, only 1% of respondents indicated they put out food for deer only during one or more months that are not during the hunting season. The rest of the respondents (52%) indicated putting out food for deer in at least one month of the hunting season, and one month outside the hunting season. Respondents were also asked to share if they hunt deer with the use of food ( Figure 9 ). Most respondents indicated they hunt deer with the use of food sometimes, but not all the time. Only 8% of respondents that hunted deer indicated they do not hunt deer with the use of food. 32% 24% 18% 13% 13% 15% 21% 40% 70% 90% 91% 80% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Respondents Page | 18 Figure 9 : Percentage of respondents who hunt deer with the use of food (n = 3,001) To explore reasons why respondents choose to put out food for deer, they were asked to share the importance placed on a variety of reasons for putting out food for wildlife during the hunting season ( Figure 10 ), as well as outside the hunting season ( Figure 11 ). Respondents indicated the most important reasons for putting out food during the hunting season we re to increase the likelihood of deer staying on their property, to be more selective in their harvest, and to increase their chance of a harvest. Other reasons respondents listed as being important we re supplemental feeding, health of the herd, wildlife viewing or photography and keeping deer on the property . U sing food for hunting because that’s how they were taught to hunt was not at all important to respondents ( Appendix A. 2 2 ). 28% 64% 8% Yes, all the time Yes, sometimes No Page | 19 Figure 10 : Importance respondents place on reasons for putting out food for deer during the hunting season Respondents indicated that providing supplemental nutrition for fawning, lactation or antler growth and increasing the likelihood of deer staying on their property we re the two most important factors for putting food out for deer outside the hunting season. Other reasons respondents listed as being important we re supplemental feeding, health of the herd, wildlife viewing and photography, keeping deer on the property , and helping wildlife ( Appendix A. 2 3 ). 60% 61% 35% 20% 14% 5% 9% 5% 14% 5% 12% 14% 8% 9% 9% 6% 15% 7% 19% 26% 23% 26% 19% 17% 7% 9% 17% 25% 29% 32% 33% 35% 5% 18% 17% 15% 26% 27% 30% 38% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% That's how I was taught to hunt (n = 2,485) Other (n = 500) Because people around me bait (n = 2,606) For viewing or wildlife photography (n = 2,679) For scouting or trail cameras (n = 2,891) To increase my chance of a harvest (n = 2,877) To be more selective in my harvest (n = 2,776) To increase the likelihood of deer staying on my property (n = 2,835) Not at all important Slightly important Moderately important Very important Extremely important Page | 20 Figure 11 : Importance respondents place on reasons for putting food out for deer outside the hunting season To get a better understanding of whether respondents are baiting (putting out food to increase harvest or see the animal) or feeding (putting out food for supplemental nutrition), they were asked to select their single main motivation for putting out food for deer ( Figure 12 ). Respondent answers indicate the majority are baiting with 69% primarily putting out food for deer for hunting, and 10% putting out food for deer for wildlife viewing or photography. Further, 17% of respondents indicated primarily putting out food for deer to provide supplemental nutrition, which would be considered feeding. Other primary reasons respondents listed included descriptions of supplemental nutrition, viewing, hunting and inventory of animals ( Appendix A. 2 4 ). Motivations by deer zone can be found in Appendix A. 25 Figure 12 : Respondent’s single main motivation for putting out food for deer (n = 3,047) 58% 29% 19% 14% 11% 6% 16% 15% 10% 8% 10% 22% 22% 18% 19% 10% 20% 24% 29% 25% 17% 13% 20% 29% 36% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other (n = 283) For viewing or wildlife photography (n = 1,575) For scouting or trail cameras (n = 1,586) To increase the likelihood of deer staying on my property (n = 1,650) To provide supplemental nutrition for fawning, lactation or antler growth (n = 1,645) Not at all important Slightly important Moderately important Very important Extremely important 69% 10% 17% 3% For hunting (baiting) For wildlife viewing or photography (baiting) To provide supplemental nutrition (feeding) Other