Page 1 of 31 18 December 2024 1 RH : Steele and Lashley • Review of human dimensions of turkey hunting 2 Reviewing human dimensions of wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ) hunting research and 3 synthesizing future directions 4 5 Zachary T. Steele , University of Florida , Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation , 110 6 Newins - Ziegler Hall , Gainesville, FL 7 Marcus A. Lashley , University of Florida , Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation , 8 110 Newins - Ziegler Hall , Gainesville, FL 9 Correspondence : Zachary T. Steele , University of Florida , Department of Wildlife Ecology and 10 Conservation , 110 Newins - Ziegler Hall , Gainesville, FL . Email: steelez@ufl.edu 11 12 Abstract 13 Wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ) hunting has a rich history in the United States, and is 14 important culturally, economically, and for wildlife conservation. However, the turkey hunting 15 community faces critical issues related to recruiting young, diverse hunters, as well as shifts in 16 long - established hunting practices and regulations, the reasons for which could be explored using 17 a human dimensions perspective. To better understand the human dimensions of turkey hunting, 18 we conducted a systematic literature review. Our review yielded 3 0 studies from 198 5 to 202 3 , 19 detailing findings from 20 U.S. states , mostly in the S outheast . Only two stud ies focused on 20 turkey hunters in the w estern U .S. (Arizona and Idaho ). Demographic findings suggest that the 21 Page 2 of 31 average turkey hunter is older (~ 5 0 years old) than hunters overall (median = 35 – 44 years old) 22 and indicate less female participation (~ 9 4 % male) compared to hunters overall (77 % male). 23 Most studies assessed hunter satisfaction and hunt quality (5 8 %) or support for regulations ( 7 7 24 %) , and studies reported consistent concern among hunters regarding their safety All studies 25 were conducted using questionnaires and < 5 % of studies incorporated a theoretical framework 26 into their research. Expanding research to incorporate more qualitative interviews and mixed - 27 method approaches, as well as developing survey instruments to test theoretical frameworks, 28 could greatly benefit human dimensions of turkey hunting research. Conducting interviews or 29 using mixed - methods approaches may provide a deeper understanding of the barriers preventing 30 potential new hunters from becoming turkey hunters as well as exploring factors influencing 31 motivations and identity factors that could be useful to inform conservation and policy We 32 recommend incorporating more comprehensive human dimensions research approaches to help 33 address important issues facing wild turkey conservation and the hunting community 34 Keywords: hunters, social science, surveys, questionnaires, game species , demographics 35 36 Hunting and angling contribute significant funds to wildlife conservation through the 37 Pittman - Robertson Act , Duck Stamp Act , Dingell - Johnson Act , and sale of hunting and fishing 38 licenses ( Heffelfinger et al. 2013) . Hunting also provides critical means of population control of 39 native nuisance species and a tool for the management of invasive species ( Bender et al. 2019; 40 Hagen et al. 2018; Quirós - Fernández et al. 2017) . Despite the importance of hunting to wildlife 41 management and conservation, wildlife agencies and organizations are facing ongoing issues 42 related to recruiting young, diverse, and non - traditional pathways hunters ( NTPH; Vayer et al. 43 2021; von Furstenberg et al. 2023) While introductory hunting such as deer ( Odocoileus spp.) 44 Page 3 of 31 hunting may present less barriers when recruiting new hunters, barriers may be exacerbated for 45 introducing new hunters to more intricate forms of hunting such as wild turkey ( Meleagris 46 gallopavo ) hunting ( Harmel - Garza et al. 1999). 47 The wild turkey is native to many regions of North America, and several subspecies of 48 wild turkey have been introduced to new regions of North America, including Hawaii 49 (Chamberlain et al. 2022) . Hunting turkeys in North America dates back thousands of years, and 50 has strong cultural importance, especially in the e astern United States ( Dickson 2001; Watkins et 51 al. 2018) Turkey hunting is unique ly challenging in comparison to other forms of hunting 52 because of the turkey’s exceptional eyesight, intelligence, and vital locations (Dickson 1992) . As 53 a result, turkey hunting may be intimidating to novice hunters, and the average age of first - time 54 turkey hunters is commonly in their 30s (Harmel - Garza et al. 1999 ; Van Why et al. 2001) 55 Despite this barrier to new hunters, turkey hunting has the highest approval from the general 56 public among game species (tied with deer; Duda et al. 2019) and turkeys are the most frequently 57 targeted big game species behind only deer , with 2 - million hunters estimated to have target ed 58 turkeys according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 2016 National 59 Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife - Associated Recreation report ( USFWS 201 8b ) 60 However, the estimated number of turkey hunters decreased from 3.1 million in 2011 to 2 million 61 in 2016, and the estimated percentage of hunters that target turkeys also decreased from 27 % in 62 2011 to 22 % in 2016 (USFWS 201 8a ; 201 8b ) While these numbers were not included in the 63 most recent edition of the USFWS’s national survey report in 2022, this apparent decrease in 64 turkey hunting effort could be attributed to overall declines in estimated hunting participation 65 (USFWS 2018b) or may be partly attributed to shifts in regula tory practices aimed to counteract 66 apparent turkey population declines ( Chamberlain et al. 2022 ; Lovett 2023) 67 Page 4 of 31 While every state except Alaska has a turkey hunting season , the regulations for each of 68 these states vary considerably. For example, while these 49 states all have a s pring turkey season, 69 only 41 states offer a f all turkey season (NWTF 2024) . Fall turkey season in many states differs 70 largely from s pring season because either sex can be legally harvested in the f all , whereas in 71 Spring, typically only gobblers are harvested (except for bearded hens in some states) . For 72 example, nearly 50 % of the turkeys harvested during the 2023 f all t urkey s eason in Wisconsin 73 were hens (Lohr & Finger 2024) , whereas < 3 % of hens are harvested during spring hunting 74 seasons in most cases according to the published causes of mortality (Lashley et al. – In - 75 Review) Although historically turkeys were mainly hunted in f all (NWTF 2021 a ), many fall 76 turkey seasons have been suspended or cancelled since 2000 due to low participation and 77 concern about their impacts on the turkey population given a relatively high proportion of fall 78 harvests are female turkeys (Lovett 2023; NWTF 2024) Another important distinction between 79 states is what firearms can be used to target turkeys depending on the season (Fall or Spring) and 80 the type of land (public or private), with some states permitting turkey hunting with rifles in 81 some circumstances. For example, > 30 % of fall hunters and ~ 10 % of spring hunters in 82 Virginia reported that they typically target turkeys with a rifle (Valdez & White 2024). 83 The variety of state regulations and unique practices of turkey hunting have led to an 84 emphasis on hunter safety ( NWTF 2021b ), especially on high - use public lands. Like other avian 85 game species, t urkeys have excellent eyesight and can see in color (Barber et al. 2006) . As a 86 result, hunters are not required to wear hunter orange in most states because this would decrease 87 harvest success. For example, Eriksen et al. (1985) documented a large decrease in the success 88 rate of calling turkeys when wearing hunter orange. Despite this, P ennsylvania implemented 89 hunter orange requirements for turkey hunters in 1992 - 1993, but findings suggest ed that while 90 Page 5 of 31 the hunter orange requirements briefly reduced turkey hunting incidents, the number of incidents 91 increased again thereafter (NWTF 2005; Smith et al. 2005). These requirements were eventually 92 removed ( Casalena 2018; Liguori 2019). In 1991, the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) 93 formed the Wild Turkey Safety Task force to address safety concerns , with nationwide turkey 94 hunting incident rates as high as 8.1 per 100,000 participants in 1992 (NWTF 2021 b ) , and 95 studies in Michigan, Alabama, and Pennsylvania around this period of time indicat ing that 96 hunting incidents were highest for turkey hunting compared to other game species (Kantola et al. 97 1987; Langenau et al. 1985; Smith et al. 2005) . By 2005, the incident rate had decreased to 2.95 98 per 100,000 participants (NWTF 2021 b ). However, new hunting practices such as ‘reaping’, in 99 which a hunter moves behind a turkey fan or a decoy into the shooting range of a tom , and new 100 technology such as Tungsten Super Shot (TSS) shotgun ammunition that have a longer effective 101 range, have led to new safety concerns more recently (MDNR 2017; Miloshewski 2024; SCDNR 102 2018) 103 Since the 1980s, the rapidly changing turkey hunting landscape has led to an emphasis 104 from wildlife managers and researchers to document attitudes and perceptions of turkey hunters. 105 While state agencies typically collect critical information like hunter effort and success rates 106 from hunters for their annual turkey harvest reports , a human dimensions approach can be used 107 to collect information about hunters’ perceptions of changes to hunting regulations, use of 108 decoys, and why they prefer to hunt on public or private land. However, human dimensions of 109 wildlife research also use theoretical frameworks to examine people’s values, norms, and 110 behavioral intentions. Examples of these theoretical frameworks include value - belief - norm 111 theory (Stern 2000) , the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1985) , and the theory of reasoned 112 action ( Fishbein 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen 1975) . Applying these theoretical frameworks or 113 Page 6 of 31 constructs from these theories to human dimensions research allows for a deeper understanding 114 of how different variables (e.g., values, personal norms, attitudes) influence critical behaviors 115 such as mentoring young hunters and joining hunting organizations. Despite the cultural 116 significance of turkey hunting and the contributions of turkey hunting to wildlife conservation, 117 little information has been gathered about the extent of human dimensions of turkey hunting 118 research. To address this issue, we: 1) conducted a literature review to document historical 119 human dimensions of wild turkey research and assessed trends; and 2) identified gaps in the 120 literature to inform recommendations for future research directions for human dimensions of 121 wild turkey conservation and hunting research 122 METHODS 123 We conducted a systematic literature review by searching both peer - reviewed and ‘grey’ 124 literature ( e.g., nonpeer - reviewed conference proceedings, theses, dissertations, agency reports, 125 etc.). We used a multi - faceted approach to this review involving: 1) the use of search terms 126 “turkey hunters survey”, “turkey hunters questionnaire”, “turkey hunter interview”, “turkey 127 hunting human dimensions”, “turkey hunting survey”, and “turkey hunting social science” on 128 Google and Google Scholar to view publications published before August 2024; 2) reviewing 129 previous publications included in the Proceedings of the Wild Turkey Symposium; and 3) 130 examining the references of each publication we reviewed. To be included in the review, the 131 central focus of the publication needed to be the human dimensions of turkey hunting. For 132 example, we excluded state agency harvest reports that included several questions about 133 management preferences or hunting practices , state agency reports that provided supplemental 134 information to harvest reports while gathering some information about management preferences 135 or hunting practices (see Lohr & Finger 202 3 ; Lusk 202 2 ), and studies looking broadly at the 136 Page 7 of 31 hunting of multiple species (e.g., the hunting of deer, waterfowl, and turkey) Lastly, we 137 excluded publications focusing mainly on the impacts of the COVID - 19 global pandemic’s 138 impacts o n turkey hunting (see Phillips et al. 2024) 139 From our review, we compiled data regarding the following variables: 1) hunter age; 2) 140 hunter sex; 3) hunter race/ethnicity; 4 ) use of decoys; 5 ) state s included in the study ; 6 ) years of 141 turkey hunting experience ; and 7 ) reported safety concerns In addition, we also captured if the 142 study used any theoretical framework , who conducted the study (e.g., state agency, university 143 researchers, collaborative effort) , and what type of human dimensions research was conducted 144 (e.g., questionnaire, qualitative interview, mixed - methods, etc.) If a publication provided 145 findings from separate data collection in multiple states or findings from the same state across 146 several years of separate data collection , we included the data from this publication as multiple 147 data entries when compiling our data. For example, if a publication documented the findings 148 from separate questionnaires implemented in Texas in 2005, 2010, and 2015, we included this as 149 three entries for compiling data. If multiple publications were derived from the same survey 150 document, we only considered this as one data entry (e.g., Schroeder et al. 201 8a ; 2018 b ; 2019 151 or Maldonado 2017; Watkins et al. 2018; C hapagain et al. 2020 ). When compiling data for 152 reported safety concerns, we compiled data only from publications that asked similarly framed 153 questions. For example, we included questions addressing concern s for personal safety , if the 154 number of hunters afield presented a safety hazard , and concerns about being shot by another 155 hunter. When compiling percentages from data entries, a weighted average based on the sample 156 size is included (for data entries that reported sample size). 157 RESULTS 158 Page 8 of 31 Our review yielded a total of 3 0 publications , and 4 2 total data entries (Table S1) , 159 covering findings from 1985 – 202 3 . A total of 20 states were included and the majority were 160 southeastern states Arizona and Idaho were the only western state s represented in the literature 161 review. Out of the 4 2 total data entries, Missouri (n = 5), Mississippi (n = 4 ), Ohio (n = 4), and 162 Pennsylvania (n = 4) were the most represented (Figure 1). 163 Demographics and hunter characteristics 164 Most data entries (3 0 / 4 2 ) included the average age of respondents. From 1985 – 2000 (n 165 = 16), the compiled average age of hunters was 42 (Figure s 2 & 3 ). In contrast, from 200 1 – 2020 166 (n = 14), the compiled average age of hunters was 50 T he sex of respondents was captured in 18 167 of 4 2 studies ; only one data entry had a sample that was < 90 % male. Of the studies published in 168 the last decade (n = 10), 40 % reported race/ethnicity, of which on ly one study indicated a 169 sample that was < 90 % white. A total of 17 data entries reported the years of turkey hunting 170 experience for respondents. From 1985 – 2000 (n = 9), the compiled average years of turkey 171 hunting experience of hunters was 11 years, meanwhile from 200 1 – 2020 (n = 8 ) the compiled 172 average increased to 1 7 years. Of the studies that included both general hunting experience and 173 turkey hunting experience (n = 6), hunters had a compiled average of 11 years of turkey hunting 174 experience and a compiled average of 27 years of general hunting experience. 175 Hunting practices and safety concerns 176 The compiled average use of decoys by hunters was low ( ~ 3 5 % ; 33 % weighted ) in data 177 entries from 1985 – 2000 (n = 7 ) but increased to 70 % (65 % weighted) in compiled data entries 178 from 200 1 – 2020 (n = 7 ; Figure s 4 & 5 ). Of the data entries that measured safety concerns (1 0 / 179 Page 9 of 31 42 ), only two data entries reported that < 50 % of hunters were concerned about their safety , 180 although the most recent study to capture this information was conducted in 2011 181 Study design and collaboration 182 Most studies were designed to capture hunter s’ perceptions and support for hunting 183 regulations . Additionally, most studies were designed to capture hunters’ perceptions of the hunt 184 quality and their satisfaction with the hunt. Only one study included in our literature review used 185 any theoretical framework when designing their research. From 1985 – 2000, only 3 6 % of the 186 studies (n = 1 1 ) were a collaborative effort between agencies and university researchers, whereas 187 from 2001 – 2020, 47 % o f studies (n = 1 9 ) were a collaborative effort. All studies included in the 188 literature review collected their data using questionnaires; no studies used qualitative interviews 189 or a mixed - methods approach. 190 DISCUSSION 191 The findings of our literature review indicate several key trends: 1) the average age of 192 turkey hunters is increasing; 2) turkey hunting remains heavily male - dominated; 3) safety 193 concerns remai ned consistent but haven’t been captured again since 2011 ; and 4) while 194 collaborative human dimensions of turkey hunting efforts are becoming more common, studies 195 incorporating theoretical frameworks remain scarce. Many of these trends indicate separation of 196 turkey hunters from other groups of hunters targeting other popular species (e.g., deer) and 197 should be addressed for the long - term sustainability of turkey hunting. 198 The 2022 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife - Associated Recreation 199 estimated that the median age of U.S. hunters was 35 – 44 years old, and that 22 % of hunters 200 were female (USFWS 2023) . In contrast, the findings of our literature review reveal that turkey 201 Page 10 of 31 hunter studies in the last decade indicate that turkey hunters are ~ 94 % male and an average age 202 of 5 0 . Although the last national survey examining t urkey hunters was in 2006, the findings from 203 this survey estimated that the median age of turkey hunters was 44 and that 94 % were male 204 (USFWS 2010) , echoing the trends of our literature review that the average turkey hunter is 205 increasing in age while participation from women hunters is stationary. In contrast , the most 206 recent national survey of U.S. deer hunters in 2011 estimated that 88 % of deer hunters were 207 male (USFWS 2016) , suggesting substantially larger participation from women in deer hunting 208 compared to turkey hunting. Furthermore, the number of female deer hunters increased in the 209 national survey from 2006 to 2011 (91 % were male in 2006 ; USFWS 2011; 2016 ). While these 210 numbers are concerning for the turkey hunting community, a recent study sampling women’s 211 shooters and hunters indicated that ~ 65 % were interested in hunting turkeys (NWTF 2020) 212 This highlights that barriers may be preventing women interested in turkey hunting from 213 participating and underscores the need to more deeply explore barriers to recruiting new turkey 214 hunters, with an emphasis on examining the unique barriers to different groups of people (e.g., 215 women, racial/ethnic minorities, individuals < 30 years old, etc.). 216 While combatting trends in hunter age and diversity is typically approached using 217 r ecruitment, r etention, and r eactivation (R3) programs, human dimensions research also offers 218 valuable tools to gather information about common barriers to new hunters and to non - hunters 219 interested in becoming hunters. A key finding of this literature review was that studies 220 exclusively used questionnaires to gather information; no studies used qualitative interviews or a 221 mixed - method s approach to gather information about turkey hunters. Using more qualitative 222 approaches may allow for a deeper understanding of critical issues such as why many hunters 223 participate in their first turkey hunt at an older age compared to other forms of hunting (Harmel - 224 Page 11 of 31 Garza et al. 1999) , why there is such a significant gap between general hunting experience and 225 turkey hunting experience (suggesting either inconsistent turkey hunting or confirming the delay 226 in age when becoming a turkey hunter; Isabelle & Reitz 2016; Hunt et al. 2004), and why 227 women may be more inclined to hunt deer as opposed to turkey. While qualitative approaches 228 have been used more broadly to assess hunter recruitment and retention ( Hansson - Forman et al. 229 2020; Larson et al. 2014), many of the unique practices and traditions related turkey hunting 230 likely require standalone research to rigorously examine barriers to becoming a turkey hunter. 231 Our literature review demonstrates that safety concerns have remained consistently high 232 temporally for turkey hunters. Furthermore, studies have indicate d that safety concerns may be 233 higher for individuals hunting on public land compared to private (Isabell e & Reitz 2016; 234 Vangilder et al. 1990) Importantly, research has not been conducted to establish if safety 235 concerns may be a barrier to recruiting new turkey hunters. Since many agency and organization 236 sponsored youth and introductory hunts occur on public land where safety concerns appear 237 highest, exploring safety concerns as a potential barrier should be a high priority of future human 238 dimensions of turkey hunting research. Additionally , future research should explore safety 239 concerns related to new hunting practices, such as reaping, which has grown in popularity in the 240 last decade , like the increased use of decoys since the 1980s documented in our study . Although 241 few studies in our literature addressed reaping, 22 % of hunters in a 2018 South Carolina sample 242 stated that they have used this approach and 6 % of a 2017 sample in Maryland stated the same 243 (MDNR 2017; SCDNR 2018). Only 31 % of hunters in the 2018 South Carolina sample stated 244 that reaping was not a safe practice and 50 % believed it was a fair and ethical approach (SCNR 245 2018). As of 2024, seven states have (to some extent) banned reaping (Alabama, Michigan, New 246 Page 12 of 31 Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee; Simms 2023; Weddington 247 2022) , mainly on public land where safety concerns are likely highest. 248 Even with new hunting practices and technology , reported turkey hunting incidents have 249 dramatically decreased since the 1990s (NWTF 2021 b ), in cluding Pennsylvania which 250 previously had incident rates as high as 16.2 incidents per 100,000 hunters in fall of 1990, now 251 has consistently had < 2 incidents per 100,000 hunters in recent years (Casalena 2018). Similarly, 252 Missouri which once had > 40 incidents per 100,000 hunters when combining fall and spring 253 turkey hunting, has seen a massive reduction to < 10 for both seasons in recent years ( Isabelle & 254 Reitz 2016). Dramatic decreases in turkey hunting incidents may explain why safety concerns 255 have not been captured in human dimensions of turkey hunting research since 2011. While 256 turkeys were at one point in time one of the most dangerous game species to target (Kantola et al. 257 1987; Langenau et al. 1985; Smith et al. 2005), major safety efforts such as modifications to 258 hunter safety courses and disseminating safety information in hunting magazines and 259 promotional materials were implemented that addressed these issues and led to these significant 260 declines in incident rates (NWTF 2021 b ). However, our findings indicate that safety concerns 261 remained high for turkey hunters throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, despite the national 262 reduction in turkey hunting incidents. This suggests a potential disconnect between perceived 263 risks and actual risks of turkey hunting that could be addressed using a human dimensions 264 research approach. Importantly, future research could explore and compare perceived risks of 265 hunting various game species to document how safety concerns vary depending on the species, 266 and then contrast this with actual reported incidents for each species, to determine if this 267 potential disconnect is displayed for multiple species. Additionally, documenting potential 268 approaches that might alleviate some of these safety concerns is critical, as much of the emphasis 269 Page 13 of 31 has been placed on hunter orange requirements. For example, our literature review found that 14 270 of 42 data entries addressed hunter orange requirements, but few other options to address safety 271 concerns were explored. Lastly, exploring media coverage of turkey hunting incidents could 272 provide additional information about how this coverage influences perceived safety risks by 273 hunters. 274 A positive finding of our literature review was the increasing number of collaborative 275 research efforts between agencies and university researchers. Prior to 2000, state agencies were 276 largely responsible for any human dimensions of turkey hunting research, but in the last decade 277 this has shifted to include more collaborative efforts. This collaboration is critical because the 278 diversity of perspectives can lead to more comprehensive research. However, the increase in 279 collaborative efforts has no t translated into an increase in the application of theoretical 280 frameworks. Theoretical frameworks, especially behavior changes theories, have large potential 281 to gaining a better understanding of various components of turkey hunting behavior (e.g., a 282 hunter targeting a hen in Fall or an experienced hunter deciding to mentor new turkey hunters) 283 that are difficult to explore simply through standalone questions and likely cannot be explained 284 merely through capturing demographics and hunting motivations. Instead, assessing values, 285 beliefs, trust in government, and personal norms of hunters may be necessary to understand these 286 complex behaviors. 287 Theoretical frameworks have previously been used to assess complex pro - environmental 288 behaviors such as native plant gardening (Champine et al. 2022), support for biosecurity (Pienaar 289 et al. 2022), and support for invasive species management (Steele et al. 2021). Specifically, 290 regarding hunting, the theory of planned behavior has been used to assess factors influencing 291 participation in hunting overall ( Hrubes et al. 2001 ) and deer hunting ( Shrestha et al. 2012; 292 Page 14 of 31 Shrestha & Burns 2016) . Other studies have generated their own theoretical frameworks (often 293 using constructs from other frameworks) to test and apply to participation in deer hunting ( Barro 294 & Manfredo 1996 ) and to assess hunters’ opinions regarding harmful hunting practices ( Ghasemi 295 & Kyle 2022 ). Across all these hunting examples applying a theoretical framework , the majority 296 utilized a form of path analysis or structural equation modeling to assess the relationship between 297 different theoretical constructs. This analysis method furnishes a more integrated approach that 298 provides an understanding of both the direct and indirect effects of different theoretical 299 constructs and variables to the behavior of interest. This would be particularly informative to 300 understand how different factors like years of turkey hunting experience and level of safety 301 concern, interact with theoretical constructs such as values and personal norms to influence 302 behaviors like the decision to hunt turkeys on public or private land and to travel out of their 303 state of residence to hunt turkeys. 304 Despite over 40 years of research on the human dimensions of turkey hunting, only two 305 stud ies gathered data from a w estern state (Arizona and Idaho ). While turkeys were introduced to 306 many w estern states ( Dolkas 2019; ODFW 2024) and may not have the same turkey hunting 307 tradition as s outheastern states , many w estern states now have large turkey populations and large 308 participation in both f all and s pring turkey hunts. For example, in Spring 2022, > 20,000 turkeys 309 were harvested in California ( CD FW 2021 ). In Fall 2021, > 1,200 turkeys were harvested in 310 Oregon (ODFW 2022) and > 6,000 in California (CD FW 2021) . In comparison, in s outheastern 311 states like Alabama , < 50 turkeys were harvested in Fall 2022 ( Duda et al. 202 3 ). The large 312 participation in both Fall and Spring turkey hunts in w estern states provides a great opportunity 313 to conduct human dimensions research, especially considering the unique circumstances of these 314 turkey populations. For instance, research can explore whether hunters in w estern states are 315 Page 15 of 31 motivated from a conservation perspective to help control the population of a non - native species. 316 Additionally, research can explore the development of turkey hunting traditions and culture in 317 w estern states to compare with other regions of the U.S. like the s outheast. 318 Limitations 319 Our literature review compiles data from various human dimensions of turkey hunting 320 studies to assess historical trends. However, our literature review is heavily skewed towards 321 southeastern states and some trends may be influenced by state and regional differences. 322 Additionally, while we weighted compiled percentages based on sample size when applicable, 323 some of the trends we’ve identified may still be influenced by differences in sample size. 324 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS 325 Our literature review documents that human dimensions of turkey hunting research has 326 largely been conducted using questionnaires, and largely focused on capturing respondent’s 327 perceptions of hunting regulations and hunting quality. While these topics are critical to the 328 objectives of state agencies, expanding human dimensions of turkey hunting research to include 329 qualitative and mix - method approaches may allow for deeper assessment of important issues like 330 barriers for new hunters to becom e turkey hunters , factors influencing support for policy, 331 practice, and conservation, and concern for hunter safety . Examining barriers to turkey hunting is 332 particularly vital because our findings indicate that the average age of turkey hunters is 333 progressively becoming older, while participation from women in turkey hunting remains 334 stationary. Understanding barriers for NTPH is important for addressing these trends , especially 335 documenting if hunter safety is a barrier to welcoming more new turkey hunters . Additionally, 336 expanding questionnaire - based research to utilize theoretical frameworks may allow researchers 337 Page 16 of 31 to examine more complex behaviors and more thoroughly assess support for different hunting 338 regulations. Lastly, our findings revealed a large regional bias in human dimensions of turkey 339 hunting research, with only two stud ies including data from a w estern state. Expanding the scope 340 of human dimensions of turkey hunting to include more w estern states may provide a great 341 opportunity to explore the rapidly developing turkey hunting populations in these states. 342 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 343 We would like to thank B. Long for providing access to the findings of a 2007 Maryland 344 hunter survey. We would like to thank A.D. Holmes and D.J.E. Sturgeon for providing helpful 345 feedback and encouragement regarding this manuscript. Additionally, we would like to thank the 346 University of Florida Libraries team for providing access to several articles used in this literature 347 review. 348 ETHICS STATEMENT 349 No ethical information provided. 350 CONFLICT OF INTEREST 351 The authors declare no conflicts of interest. 352 Page 17 of 31 References 353 Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Pages 11 – 39 in J. Kuhl 354 & J. Beckman , editors. Action - control: From cognition to behavior . Springer, Heidelberg, 355 Germany 356 Barber, C. L., N. B. Prescott, J. R. Jarvis, C. L. Sueur, G. C. Perry, and C. M. Wathes 2006. 357 Comparative study of the photopic spectral sensitivity of domestic ducks ( Anas 358 platyrhynchos domesticus ), turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo ) and humans. British 359 Poultry Science 47 : 365 – 374. 360 Barro, S. C. , and M. J. Manfredo 1996. Constraints, psychological investment, and hunting 361 participation: Development and testing of a model. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1 : 42 – 362 61. 363 Bender, L. C., P. C. Morrow, M. E Weisenberger, and B. Krueger 2019. Population dynamics 364 and control of exotic South African oryx in the Chihuahuan Desert, south - central New 365 Mexico. Human - Wildlife Interactions 13 : 158 – 166. 366 California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]. 2022. Upland Game Bird Harvest Survey 367 2020 - 2021 . California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California , USA 368 Casalena, M. J. 2018. Pennsylvania wild turkey management plan (2018 - 2027). Pennsylvania 369 Game Commission, Harrisburg, P ennsylvania, USA. 370 Chamberlain, M. J., M. Hatfield, and B. A. Collier 2022. Status and distribution of wild turkeys 371 in the United States in 2019. Wildlife Society Bulletin 46 : e1287. 372 Page 18 of 31 Champine, V. M., M. S. Jones, S. Lischka, J. J Vaske, and R. M. Niemiec 2022. Understanding 373 individual and diffusion behaviors related to native plant gardening. Journal of 374 Environmental Psychology 81 : 101798. 375 Chapagain, B. P., N. C. Poudyal, O. Joshi, C. Watkins, and R. D. Applegate 2020. Seasonal and 376 regional differences in economic benefits of turkey hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin 377 44 : 271 – 280. 378 Dickson, J. G. 1992. The wild turkey: biology and management . Stackpole Books, 379 Mechanicsburg, P ennsylvania, USA. 380 Dickson, J. G. 2001. Wildlife of southern forests: Habitat and management. Hancock House 381 Publishers , Blaine , Washington, USA. 382 Dolkas, M. 2019. Where Did California's Wild Turkeys Come From? 383 < https://openspacetrust.org/blog/wild - turkeys/ >. Accessed Nov 2024 384 Duda, M. D., M. Jones, T. Beppler, S. J. Bissell, A. Center, A. Criscione, P. Doherty, G. L. 385 Hughes, C. Gerken, A. Lanier, J. Curcuruto 2019. A mericans’ attitudes toward hunting, 386 fishing, sport shooting, and trapping Responsive Management National Office 387 (Harrisonburg, V irgnia, USA ) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (Newton, 388 C onnecticut, USA ). 389 Duda, M. D., M. Jones, T. Beppler, S. J. Bissell, A. Criscione, P. Doherty, G. L. Hughes, A. 390 Center, J. Morris, A. Lanier 2023. Alabama Hunter Harvest 2022 - 2023. Responsive 391 Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA. 392 Page 19 of 31 Eriksen, R. E., J. V. Gwynn, and K. H Pollock 1985. Influence of blaze orange on spring wild 393 turkey hunter success. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13 : 518 – 521. 394 Fishbein. M. 1967. Attitude and the prediction of behavior. Pages 477 – 492 in M. Fishbein , 395 editor. Readings in a ttitude t heory and m easurement . Wiley, New York , N ew York, USA. 396 Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen 197 5 . Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to 397 theory and research. Addison - Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, USA. 398 Ghasemi, B., and G. T. Kyle 2023. Hunters' opposition to harmful hunting practices on 399 ecosystems: values, beliefs, norms, and identities. The Journal of Wildlife Management 400 87 : e22449. 401 Hagen, R., A. Haydn, and R. Suchant 2018. Estimating red deer ( Cervus elaphus ) population 402 size in the Southern Black Forest: T he role of hunting in population control. European 403 Journal of Wildlife Research 64 : 1 – 8. 404 Hansson‐Forman, K., C. Sandström, and G. Ericsson 2020. What influences hunting 405 participation of potential new hunters? Qualitative insights from Sweden. Wildlife 406 Biology 4:1 – 9. 407 Harmel - Garza, D., C. E. Adams , J. K. Thomas , and M. J. Peterson. 1999. Characteristics of wild 408 turkey hunters in Texas. Pages 390 – 401 in Proceedings of the 1999 Annual Conference of 409 the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies . Greensboro, North Carolina, 410 USA. 411 Heffelfinger, J. R., V. Geist, and W. Wishart. 2013. The role of hunting in North American 412 wildlife conservation. International Journal of Environmental Studies 70 : 399 – 413. 413 Page 20 of 31 Hrubes, D., I. Ajzen, and J. Daigle 2001. Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An 414 application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences 23 : 165 – 178. 415 Hunt, K. M., J. T. Arnold, and V. Mittapalli 2004 C haracteristics of wild turkey hunters in 416 M ississippi & their attitudes towards wild turkey management issues Human 417 Dimensions & Conservation Law Enforcement Laboratory Forest & Wildlife Research 418 Center Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi , USA. 419 Isabelle, J. L, and R. A. Reitz 2016. Characteristics, attitudes, and preferences of spring wild 420 turkey hunters in Missouri. Pages 249 – 258 in Proceedings of the 11 th National Wild 421 Turkey Symposium . Tucson, Arizona, USA. 422 Kantola, A. T., R. D. Gasaway, and J. Thornhill 1987. A nalysis and implications of A labama 423 hunting accidents, 1976 - 1985 Pages 533 – 545 in Proceedings of the 1987 Annual 424 Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Mobile, 425 Alabama, USA. 426 Langenau, E. E. Jr., T. J. Fournier , and J. A. Dabb 1985. Analysis of 1977 - 1983 hunting 427 accidents in Michigan. Mich igan Dep artment of Nat ural Resour ces , Pittman - Robertson 428 Proj ect W - 127 - R Lansing , M ichigan, USA. 429 Larson, L. R., R. C. Stedman, D. J. Decker, W. F. Siemer, and M. S. Baumer 2014. Exploring the 430 social habitat for hunting: Toward a comprehensive framework for understanding hunter 431 recruitment and retention. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 19 : 105 – 122. 432 Lashley, M. A., M. C. Chitwood, A. K. Moeller, W. D. Gulsby , A. D. Potash, K. O’Neil, and M. 433 A. Turner. In - Review. Decreased female survival may explain wild turkey decline. In - 434 Review at Wildlife Society Bulletin. 435

Risultati di ricerca (168,332)

Premium Event Photography Services in Orange County â Capture Every Moment in Style

Principales Beneficios De Utilizar Cámaras De Seguridad Electrónicas Inalámbricas Para Su Negocio

GUIA PARA DORMIR

MAYRA CARMENATE LIMA

PRP Ankle Sprain Injury Treatment & Arthroscopy

ODP 2025 State Convention Rules

Nick Hickman

WINNER Essay Contest 2025

Maraheb menu

Best Construction Consultants in Dubai for Residential & Commercial Projects

ROF - VerificaciÃ³n Digital de Aprobaciones

LTAIPEQArt66FraccXXXV

ART66-XXXV-1T-2025-SecretariaGobierno2

ART66-XXXV-1T-2025-SecretariaGobierno1

ART66-XXXV-1T-2025-SecretariaGobierno7

ART66-XXXV-1T-2025-SecretariaGobierno6

ART66-XXXV-1T-2025-SecretariaGobierno5

ART66-XXXV-1T-2025-SecretariaGobierno4

ART66-XXXV-1T-2025-SecretariaGobierno3

Fathers Day

Difference Between Software and Program

Sam Robert

Fathers Day

Steele2025

Currículo - Thaynara

Thaynara_Leticia_CV (1)

Best Roofing Sheet Manufacturers - Malur Tubes Pvt Ltd

stripchat tokens free mod

stripchat tokens free

ReportonHaitianCommunity_FinalPrint

Bridal Hair and Makeup in Chicago

Easy Tips to Keep Your Kitchen Appliances Last Longer

Top 10 Reasons to Hire a Professional Makeup Artist in Chicago for Your Next

Understanding the key benefits of getting NDIS home modification services

Acquire the best taxation & accounting services from professionals in Epping