CHARACTERISTICS, ATTITUDES, AND PREFERENCES OF SPRING WILD TURKEY HUNTERS IN MISSOURI Jason L. Isabelle 1 Missouri Department of Conservation, 3500 East Gans Road, Columbia, MO 65201, USA Ronald A. Reitz Missouri Department of Conservation, 3500 East Gans Road, Columbia, MO 65201, USA Abstract: Given their ability to inform harvest management decisions and improve understanding of hunter opinions and preferences, the Missouri Department of Conservation has conducted surveys of wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ; hereafter, turkey) hunters in 1988, 1994, and 2000. Continuing these surveys, we mailed a 40-item questionnaire to a simple random sample of 7,206 individuals (resident and non-resident youth and adults) who purchased a permit during the 2011 spring turkey season in Missouri. We compared responses to those from previous turkey hunter surveys to assess changes in characteristics, attitudes, and preferences of hunters towards turkeys, turkey hunting, and turkey management. Average hunter age (42 years) was the same in 2011 as in 2000 and 1 and 3 years older than in 1994 and 1988, respectively. Respondents had more experience turkey hunting ( ̄ x = 14 years) than in previous surveys ( ̄ x = 10 years in 2000, 9 years in 1994, 7 years in 1988). Only 26% of respondents hunted turkeys the previous fall firearms season, which continued a declining trend in hunting participation during fall firearms season. Although most hunters (86%) had very little or no difficulty locating a place to hunt, percentage who leased land for turkey hunting has increased in each survey (8% in 2011). Percentage of hunters indicating concern about being shot while hunting turkeys declined from 68% in 1988 to 34% in 2011. Hunters had become more selective, with just 21% indicating they harvest the first male turkey that presents an opportunity. Hunters continued to receive great enjoyment from hearing turkeys gobble, hunting with friends and family, calling to turkeys, seeing turkeys, and harvesting an adult male turkey. Hunter satisfaction was positively correlated with harvesting a turkey and negatively correlated with hunter interference and trespassing hunters. Satisfaction and success were greater for those who hunted only private land. Although hunters were generally supportive of the current spring hunting season framework, support for liberalization of some regulations will make balancing opportunity, hunt quality, and hunter satisfaction increasingly challenging, given recent declines in turkey abundance. Opinions about fall hunting regulations differed considerably based on whether or not a respondent hunted the previous fall season. Given the dynamic nature of turkey populations, managers should recognize that hunter satisfaction and opinions may change relatively quickly, necessitating need for frequent hunter surveys. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 11:249–258 Key words: eastern wild turkey, human dimensions, hunter characteristics, hunter satisfaction, Meleagris gallopavo silvestris , Missouri, survey, turkey hunting. The first modern spring hunting season for eastern wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo silvestris ; hereafter, turkeys) in Missouri occurred in 1960. Less than 700 permit-buyers participated in the 3-day season, which was open in 14 of 114 counties and resulted in a harvest of less than 100 turkeys (Lewis 2001). Popularity of turkey hunting in Missouri has since increased considerably. In 1998, more than 100,000 hunting permits were purchased and turkey harvest during spring peaked at over 60,000 during the 2004 season (Isabelle 2010). Because hunter input is an important component of the Missouri Department of Conservation’s (MDC) turkey management program, the agency conducts periodic turkey hunter surveys (see Vangilder et al. 1990, Vangilder and Sheriff 1996, Hubbard 2002). These surveys have been used to determine characteristics, preferences, and opinions of turkey hunters and to inform harvest management decisions. Since the early 2000s, Missouri’s turkey population has declined by approximately 30% (Isabelle 2010). Concur- rently, from their peak in 2003 and 2004, respectively, spring turkey permit sales and harvest in Missouri have declined 22% and 30% (Isabelle 2010). Because number of turkeys seen (Dingman et al. 2005), heard (Vangilder et al. 1990), Associate Editor: Stewart 1 E-mail: Jason.Isabelle@mdc.mo.gov 249 and harvested (Swanson et al. 2005) can impact hunt quality, identifying changes in hunter opinions and preferences would be especially beneficial when considering harvest regulations and management goals. Therefore, our objectives were to determine characteristics, attitudes, and preferences of turkey hunters with respect to turkeys, turkey hunting, and turkey management in Missouri and to compare responses with those from turkey hunter surveys conducted in 1988, 1994, and 2000. METHODS In 2011, Missouri had a statewide, open-permit, spring turkey season consisting of a 2-day youth season, which occurred on a weekend, and a 21-day regular season, which began on a Monday. Individual bag limit was 2 bearded or male turkeys. Only 1 turkey could be harvested during the first 7 days of the season and only 1 daily during remainder of the season. Hunting was permitted until 1300 (CDT), except it was permitted until sunset during youth season. Missouri’s fall firearms turkey season was 31 days in length and open in 107 of 114 counties. A 112-day fall archery white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) and turkey season occurred statewide. Both fall seasons had an individual bag limit of 2 turkeys of either sex. We mailed a 40-item questionnaire to a simple random sample of 7,206 individuals (resident and non-resident youth and adults) who purchased a permit to hunt turkeys in Missouri during the 2011 spring season. Following Dillman (2000), we mailed duplicate surveys during August and September 2011 to individuals who failed to respond to previous surveys. We asked many of the same questions as previous Missouri turkey hunter surveys (Vangilder et al. 1990, Vangilder and Sheriff 1996, Hubbard 2002) to determine response change through time. Our survey contained 4 sections designed to assess: (1) hunter demographics, (2) factors affecting turkey hunting experience, (3) opinions about spring turkey hunting, and (4) turkey hunting safety. Within these sections, we asked questions to determine hunter participation, effort (number of days hunted), success ( 1 turkey harvested), satisfaction (5-point scale: excellent, good, fair, poor, no opinion), preferences, and opinions about changes to turkey hunting regulations (5-point scale: strongly support, somewhat support, neither support nor oppose, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose). We asked about land type hunted (private, public, or both), how difficult it was to locate a place to hunt (4-point scale: very difficult, difficult, not too difficult, no problem), and perceptions about hunter interference and trespassing (5-point scale: great problem, somewhat of a problem, very little problem, no problem, don’t know). We also asked hunters to rate (5-point scale: great, some, little, none, no opinion) factors (e.g., seeing turkeys, hearing turkeys gobble) that contribute to a positive spring turkey hunting experience. To determine factors potentially im- pacting turkey hunting safety, we asked hunters how frequently (4-point scale: always, usually, occasionally, never) they exhibited certain behaviors (e.g., wearing hunter orange, using a decoy) while spring turkey hunting. We tested the null hypothesis that frequency of a response did not differ among response choices for the 2011 survey using chi-square tests ( a = 0.05; PROC FREQ; SAS software, version 9.2; SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA). We used a general linear model (PROC GLM; SAS software) to test for differences in years hunted for successful and unsuccessful hunters, and for turkeys harvested based on harvest preference. Because raw data were not available for previously conducted turkey hunter surveys in Missouri, we conducted statistical tests only for the 2011 survey. RESULTS Survey mailings ( n = 7,206) produced 264 non- deliverables and 2,766 usable surveys, resulting in a 40% response rate (adjusted for undeliverables), which contin- ued a declining trend in turkey hunter survey participation (75% in 1988, 70% in 1994, 54% in 2000). Resident and non-resident hunters accounted for 91% and 8% of responses, respectively. In 2011, 94% of spring permit- buyers were Missouri residents and 6% non-residents. Hunter Demographics and Success A typical spring turkey hunter in 2011 was male (95%) and 42 years old ( ̄ x = 41.6, SE = 0.36, n = 2,750), which was the same age as in 2000 and slightly older than in 1994 and 1988 (Table 1). Most hunters grew up (77%) and currently live (73%) in a rural area or small town. Although most respondents in previous surveys had a small town background, hunters with a rural background have represented a smaller proportion of respondents in each survey (85% in 1988, 83% in 1994, 79% in 2000). The typical respondent had hunted (all game) for 28 years ( ̄ x = 28.2, SE = 0.34, n = 2,735), which was the same as in 2000 and slightly longer than in 1994 and 1988 (Table 1). Although the typical hunter had more spring turkey hunting experience ( ̄ x = 14.2 years, SE = 0.23, n = 2,637) and had harvested more turkeys ( ̄ x = 12.6, SE = 0.30, n = 2,035) than hunters in previous surveys, hunter success was less in 2011 (39%) than in previous years (Table 1). Percentage of respondents who indicated there were enough turkeys to provide ample harvest opportunity was also less (73%) than in previous surveys (91% in 1988, 85% in 1994, 89% in 2000). Successful hunters had more experience spring turkey hunting ( ̄ x = 17.0 years, SE = 0.38, n = 992) than unsuccessful hunters ( ̄ x = 12.8 years, SE = 0.29, n = 1,511) (F 1,2,501 = 76.63, P , 0.001), as did respondents in 1994 and 1988 (not reported in 2000). Hunter Participation and Effort Most respondents (95%) hunted during the 2011 spring season. The typical respondent hunted 5 days ( ̄ x = 5.4, SE = 0.07, n = 2,556), as did hunters in 1994 and 1988, despite a season that was 7 days shorter. Respondents hunted an average of 6 days during the 2000 spring season. Most hunters (86%) reported it was either not too difficult or no problem to locate a place to hunt, as did hunters in 1988 (88%), 1994 (86%), and 2000 (84%). In 2011, the typical respondent encountered 4 other hunters during the spring season ( ̄ x = 3.7, SE = 0.13, n = 1,212) and most respondents (85%) reported having very little or no 250 Harvest Management and Hunting 23285540, 2015, S1, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2328-5540.2015.tb00394.x by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License problem with either hunter interference or trespassing hunters (Table 2). Only 26% of respondents hunted the previous fall firearms turkey season, which continued a declining trend in fall firearms hunting participation for spring hunters (59% in 1987, 48% in 1993, 43% in 1999). Declining interest in fall hunting is also reflected in fall firearms permit sales, which have declined by 70% in Missouri since 1988 (Fig. 1). Of those who hunted during the 2010 fall firearms season, 29% were successful, which was greater than in 1999 (22%), but less than in 1993 (49%) and 1987 (52%). In 2011, 31% of respondents hunted turkeys during the 2010 fall archery season for white-tailed deer and turkey, which was less than other surveys (36% in 1987, 41% in 1993, 39% in 1999). Hunter success during fall archery season (8%) was the same as in 1993 and greater than in 1999 (5%) and 1987 (5%). Hunter Preferences A greater percentage of respondents (79%) than in previous surveys indicated they hunt and harvest adult male turkeys primarily or exclusively (75% in 2000, 70% in 1994, not reported in 1988; Table 3). Percentage of hunters who received at least some enjoyment from harvesting a juvenile male turkey has declined with each survey (57% in 1988, 53% in 1994, 48% in 2000, 41% in 2011). In 2011, hunters were less likely than in previous surveys to harvest the first male turkey that presented an opportunity (Table 3). Respondents who indicated they harvest the first turkey that presents an opportunity had harvested fewer turkeys ( ̄ x = 8.4, SE = 0.52, n = 343) than those who hunt and primarily ( ̄ x = 13.0, SE = 0.42, n = 1,030; F 1,1,365 = 32.17, P , 0.001) or exclusively ( ̄ x = 15.7, SE = 0.66, n = 559; F 1,898 = 37.02, P , 0.001) harvest adult males. These respondents also had less turkey hunting experience, suggesting hunter selectivity increases with experience and previous success. Hunter Satisfaction Respondents indicated that hearing turkeys gobble, hunting with friends and family, calling to turkeys, seeing turkeys, and harvesting an adult male turkey were the activities from which they received greatest enjoyment. Seeing turkeys and harvesting an adult male turkey were also among greatest ranked activities in previous surveys. Hearing turkeys gobble, calling to turkeys, observing other wildlife, and hunting with friends and family were also greatly ranked activities in previous surveys. Successful hunters were more satisfied with their hunting experience than were unsuccessful hunters ( v 42 = 475.7, P , 0.001) and were more than twice as likely to rate their season excellent or good than hunters who did not harvest a turkey. A greater percentage (41%) of respon- dents who hunted only private land rated their season excellent or good than did those who hunted public land Table 1. Characteristics and success rates of spring wild turkey hunters in Missouri. Data were obtained from self-administered, mail- back questionnaires sent to simple random samples of individuals who purchased a permit to hunt turkeys in Missouri during the spring seasons 1988, 1994, 2000, and 2011. 1988 1994 2000 2011 ( n = 5,041) ( n = 4,683) ( n = 3,769) ( n = 2,766) Wild turkey hunter information ( ̄ x ) or % SE ( ̄ x ) or % SE ( ̄ x ) or % SE ( ̄ x ) or % SE Age ( ̄ x ) 39.2 0.21 40.7 0.22 41.6 0.25 41.6 0.36 Years hunted ( ̄ x ) 25.6 0.21 26.9 0.22 27.5 0.25 28.2 0.34 Years spring wild turkey hunting ( ̄ x ) 6.7 0.08 9.1 0.11 10.3 0.15 14.2 0.23 Total wild turkeys killed during spring season ( ̄ x ) 4.3 0.09 6.2 0.12 6.8 0.16 12.6 0.30 Hunter success a (%) 42 46 45 39 a Harvested 1 wild turkey during survey year. Table 2. Hunter opinions about amount of interference and trespassing during spring wild turkey hunting season in Missouri. Data were obtained from self-administered, mail-back questionnaires sent to simple random samples of individuals who purchased a permit to hunt turkeys in Missouri during the spring seasons 1988, 1994, 2000, and 2011. Hunter interference and trespassing 1988 ( n = 5,041) 1994 ( n = 4,683) 2000 ( n = 3,769) 2011 ( n = 2,766) Interference by other hunters Great problem (%) 6 6 5 3 Somewhat of a problem (%) 20 18 16 11 Very little problem (%) 23 20 18 15 No problem (%) 50 56 60 70 Don’t know (%) 1 1 1 1 Trespassing hunters Great problem (%) 5 5 4 2 Somewhat of a problem (%) 11 11 11 7 Very little problem (%) 11 10 11 7 No problem (%) 69 71 67 78 Don’t know (%) 3 4 7 5 Wild Turkey Hunter Characteristics Isabelle and Reitz 251 23285540, 2015, S1, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2328-5540.2015.tb00394.x by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License exclusively (29%; v 12 = 13.7, P = 0.002). Respondents who experienced less hunter interference ( v 162 = 112.1, P , 0.001) and trespassing ( v 162 = 52.5, P , 0.001) also had greater satisfaction. Hunting on Private versus Public Land Most respondents (73%) hunted exclusively on private land, 16% hunted on private and public land, and 10% hunted only public land. Respondents who hunted only public land were less successful (25%) than those who hunted only private land (39%; v 12 = 20.9, P , 0.001), as were respondents in 1994 and 1988 (not reported in 2000). Those who hunted only public land also had more interference from other hunters ( v 42 = 114.6, P , 0.001) and encountered more than twice as many hunters ( ̄ x = 5.6, SE = 0.41, n = 198) than those who hunted private land exclusively ( ̄ x = 2.5, SE = 0.09, n = 710). Despite greater interference than those hunting private land, most public land hunters (69%) reported very little or no problem with interference. Hunter Residency In 2011, 94,954 (94%) and 6,173 (6%) resident and non-resident spring turkey hunting permits were purchased in Missouri, respectively. Non-resident permit sales also accounted for 6% of total spring permit sales in 1988 and 8% of permit sales in 1994 and 2000. In 2011, non-resident hunters were more successful (49%) than resident hunters (38%; v 12 = 8.3, P = 0.004), as they were in 1988, but not in 1994 (not reported in 2000). In 2011, 8% of respondents paid someone for the right to hunt turkeys on their land and non-residents were twice as likely (14%) to lease land than were residents (7%; v 42 = 14.3, P , 0.001). Percentage of respondents who paid someone for the right to hunt turkeys on their land during spring has increased with each survey (3% in 1988, 4% in 1994, 7% in 2000). Hunting Regulations A slight majority of hunters (53%) felt opening day of spring hunting season was timed about right, whereas 37% felt the season opened too late and 2% felt the season opened too early. Most hunters in 2011 (66%) and 2000 (73%) indicated the 21-day regular spring season was about the appropriate length. Most respondents in 1994 (72%) and 1988 (75%) indicated the 14-day season was about the appropriate length. In 2011, most hunters (67% and 69%, respectively) were opposed to reducing spring season length and bag limit. Opposition to reducing season length Figure 1. Number of permits sold to hunt during the fall firearms wild turkey season in Missouri, 1978–2011. Table 3. Hunter harvest preferences during spring wild turkey hunting season in Missouri. Data were obtained from self-administered, mail-back questionnaires sent to simple random samples of individuals who purchased a permit to hunt turkeys in Missouri during the spring seasons 1994, 2000, and 2011. Survey response 1994 ( n = 4,683) 2000 ( n = 3,769) 2011 ( n = 2,766) Shoot first legal male wild turkey that comes within shotgun range (%) 30 25 21 Hunt and shoot adult male wild turkeys primarily but will, under some circumstances, shoot a juvenile male (%) 52 52 50 Hunt and shoot only adult male wild turkeys (%) 18 23 29 252 Harvest Management and Hunting 23285540, 2015, S1, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2328-5540.2015.tb00394.x by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License did not differ between successful and unsuccessful hunters ( v 12 = 0.1, P = 0.76). However, unsuccessful hunters ( v 12 = 16.8, P , 0.001) and hunters who rated their season poor ( v 12 = 53.3, P , 0.001) were more likely to support reducing the bag limit. Hunters who indicated there were fewer turkeys in the area they hunted than 5 years ago were more likely to support reducing season length ( v 12 = 70.7, P , 0.001) and bag limit ( v 12 = 65.5, P , 0.001) than hunters indicating turkey numbers were stable or increasing in their hunting area. Allowing 2 turkeys to be shot the same day has received increasing support across surveys with 49% support in 2011 (Table 4). In 2011, most hunters (64%) continued to support allowing 2 turkeys to be shot on any 2 consecutive days during the season (Table 4). Opinions regarding opening the regular spring season on a Saturday have varied, with a similar proportion of hunters in 2011 supporting (39%) the idea, as opposing it (42%; Table 4). Support for extending regular spring season shooting hours to sunset has also varied among surveys, from 39% of respondents thinking it was a good idea in 1994 to 59% indicating support in 2011 (Table 4). Respondents who indicated support or opposition and did not hunt during the 2010 fall firearms turkey season showed more support (59%) than opposition (41%) for reducing fall firearms bag limit to 1 turkey. Conversely, those who had fall hunted the previous year were more opposed (62%) than supportive (38%) of a bag limit reduction ( v 12 = 73.1, P , 0.001). Similarly, respondents who did not hunt during the 2010 fall firearms season were more likely to support (55%) reducing fall firearms season length than were respondents who had hunted the previous fall firearms season (31% support; v 12 = 92.4, P , 0.001). Hunters who indicated there were fewer turkeys in the area they hunted than 5 years ago were more likely to support reducing fall firearms bag limit ( v 12 = 81.1, P , 0.001) and season length ( v 12 = 56.0, P , 0.001) than respondents indicating turkey numbers were stable or increasing in their hunting area. Hunter Education and Safety In 2011, 27% of respondents indicated they had attended a turkey hunting seminar provided by the MDC, the National Wild Turkey Federation, or a privately sponsored event. Although interest in these events has declined with each survey, most (64%) respondents in 2011 indicated they would be willing to attend a seminar. Number of incidents involving a turkey hunter being shot while hunting has declined considerably since the first turkey hunter survey was conducted in 1988 (Fig. 2). In 2011, 34% of respondents indicated they had ever been concerned in their lifetime about Table 4. Hunter opinions about spring wild turkey hunting regulations in Missouri. Data were obtained from self-administered, mail-back questionnaires sent to simple random samples of individuals who purchased a permit to hunt turkeys in Missouri during the spring seasons 1988, 1994, 2000, and 2011. Survey question 1988 1994 2000 2011 ( n = 5,041) ( n = 4,683) ( n = 3,769) ( n = 2,766) Start the season on a Saturday Good idea 46 41 46 Bad idea–Not a very good idea 45 48 41 No opinion 10 12 13 Support 39 Oppose 42 Neither support nor oppose 19 Allowing 2 wild turkeys to be shot on the same day Good idea 23 29 42 Bad idea–Not a very good idea 67 60 46 No opinion 10 11 12 Support 49 Oppose 36 Neither support nor oppose 15 Allowing 2 wild turkeys to be shot on any 2 consecutive days Good idea 52 54 75 Bad idea–Not a very good idea 36 32 14 No opinion 12 14 11 Support 64 Oppose 20 Neither support nor oppose 16 Allowing all-day hunting Good idea 53 39 42 Bad idea–Not a very good idea 35 50 47 No opinion 12 11 11 Support 59 Oppose 29 Neither support nor oppose 13 Wild Turkey Hunter Characteristics Isabelle and Reitz 253 23285540, 2015, S1, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2328-5540.2015.tb00394.x by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License being shot by another hunter while turkey hunting, which was less than in previous surveys (68% in 1988, 64% in 1994, 56% in 2000). Respondents who hunted only public land were more likely to have ever been concerned in their lifetime about being shot by another hunter than respondents who hunted private land exclusively in 2011 ( v 12 = 10.4, P = 0.001). Percentage of respondents in favor of a mandatory hunter education course for turkey hunters has declined with each survey (47% in 1988, 41% in 1994, 39% in 2000, 33% in 2011). Although nearly half (48%) of hunters at least occasionally wear orange while moving through the woods, most continue to oppose a hunter orange requirement (82% in 1988, 88% in 1994, 88% in 2000, 86% in 2011). After a successful hunt, slightly more than half (52%) of respondents indicated they either always or usually wrap orange around, or conceal a dead turkey while transporting it, which did not differ considerably from previous surveys (47% in 1988, 54% in 1994, 52% in 2000). Most hunters (75%) indicated they either always or usually leave the area if they find another hunter already calling to a turkey, which was less than in previous surveys (80% in 1988, 1994, 2000). Percentage of respondents who indicated they always or usually use a decoy has increased in each survey (13% in 1988, 33% in 1994, 57% in 2000, 69% in 2011). DISCUSSION Response rate for the 2011 survey was less than previous surveys, continuing a declining trend in hunter participation. This trend is not unique, however, as the MDC has experienced declining response rates on other surveys (R. A. Reitz, unpublished data), as have other government agencies (De Leeuw and De Heer 2002). Given this trend, wildlife managers may find it increasingly challenging to obtain hunter information in the future and should consider ways of increasing survey participation. Recruiting young hunters is an important consideration of many state wildlife agencies. The MDC had previously initiated efforts to increase number of youth turkey hunters. These included reducing youth permit prices and estab- lishing a youth spring turkey season. Since their imple- mentation, recruitment and retention of young hunters has increased considerably (Beringer et al. 2005). Given that mean age of hunters from the 2011 survey was the same as in 2000, and sales of youth spring turkey hunting permits increased more than 3-fold in Missouri from 1996 to 2004 (Beringer et al. 2005), our results seem to support these findings. Despite increasing participation from youth hunters in Missouri, hunter numbers in the United States are declining in both absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population (Duda 1993, Responsive Management/ National Shooting Sports Foundation 2008), suggesting that hunter recruitment and retention efforts should continue to be important for state wildlife agencies in Missouri and elsewhere. On average, Missouri’s turkey hunters have become more experienced, as they have in Ohio (Swanson et al. 2005) and Pennsylvania (Casalena et al. 2011). Hunters have also become more selective, showing an increasing preference for hunting and harvesting adult male turkeys rather than juvenile males. Changes in hunter selectively could have important implications on regulatory preferences of hunters and future harvest management decisions (see Butler et al. 2015, Stevens et al. 2015). Specifically, although proportion of juvenile and adult males in spring harvest should contain information about harvest rates (Healy and Powell 1999), increasing preference of hunters to shoot adult males may begin to obscure this relationship. As such, managers should recognize potential for changes in hunter selectivity to impact ability to determine age-structure of the male turkey population from spring harvest data. Not surprisingly, in addition to becoming more selective, our results indicate experienced turkey hunters were also Figure 2. Spring and fall wild turkey hunting incident rate (incidents per 100,000 wild turkey hunters) in Missouri, 1988–2011. 254 Harvest Management and Hunting 23285540, 2015, S1, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2328-5540.2015.tb00394.x by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License more successful. Along with decoy use, which has increased considerably by turkey hunters in Missouri and elsewhere (Taylor et al. 1996), advancements in hunting equipment such as shot shells designed specifically for turkey hunting, shotgun chokes, camouflage patterns, and hunting blinds likely offer today’s hunters a greater chance of success. Recruitment of new, inexperienced, turkey hunters may offset increasing success of existing hunters, but relationships between hunter numbers and turkey harvest may change through time, making estimates of harvest rates important. In addition to greater experience and selectivity, our results indicate spring turkey hunters in Missouri have become increasingly safe. Swanson et al. (2005) reported a similar trend in Ohio. Along with a decline in percentage of respondents indicating they have ever been concerned about being shot while hunting turkeys in Missouri, there has been a considerable decline in number of hunting incidents. Considering that hunter education was not mandatory until the late 1980s, less than half of respondents to the 1988 survey were hunter-education certified. By 2000, over 2/3 of respondents had taken a hunter education course. Although hunters were not asked on the 2011 survey whether or not they were hunter- education certified, it is likely that an even greater percentage had received training. Declines in number of turkey hunting incidents in Missouri during the 1990s and 2000s, despite increasing hunter numbers (Isabelle 2010), suggests hunter-education efforts have been important in reducing frequency of incidents. Although hunter education is now mandatory for turkey hunters in Missouri (for those born on or after 1 January 1967), agency-sponsored hunting seminars and other educational events represent an additional venue for disseminating information about hunter safety. Because most survey respondents continued to indicate interest in attending these events, educational seminars likely represent an effective tool for turkey managers to promote safe hunting practices. Despite having one of the greatest numbers of spring turkey hunters in the nation (Eriksen et al. 2015), most Missouri turkey hunters continue to indicate they have little difficulty locating a place to hunt and have minimal problems with hunter interference and trespassing hunters. These factors are likely to contribute to their opposition to establishing hunter choice zones (Vangilder et al. 1990, Vangilder and Sheriff 1996, Hubbard 2002), in which individual hunting activities would be limited regionally. Our results, therefore, provide justification for maintaining Missouri’s open-permit framework at this time from a hunter perspective. Although hunter interference and ease of access to hunting lands do not appear problematic at this time, an increase in frequency of leasing land for hunting could make hunter access to private lands an important consideration for wildlife managers in the future. Several states, including Kansas (Kansas Wildlife Parks and Tourism 2015), Pennsylvania (Casalena 2006), and Wis- consin (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2015) have initiated programs to open private lands to public hunting. If hunter access in Missouri becomes restricted, programs like these may represent a viable option for increasing hunting opportunity. Reduced access to private lands may result in greater use on public areas by turkey hunters, potentially making availability and management of these areas increasingly important. Although public lands represent less than 10% of Missouri’s land area, over 25% of respondents indicated they hunted at least 1 day on public land during the 2011 spring season. Because hunter density and effort on public lands is likely greater than on most private lands, it is not surprising that those who hunted public land exclusively were less successful, saw more hunters, had greater interference, and were less satisfied than those who hunted only private land. Hunter numbers are not controlled on most public lands open to turkey hunting in Missouri, which, in addition to increasing potential for interference among hunters, can result in greater harvest rates (Hubbard and Vangilder 2005). Although it would reduce opportunity, restricting hunter access on some public lands through a limited quota system may increase satisfaction of public land hunters (Little et al. 2001, Nicholson et al. 2001). Alternatively, restricting vehicle access on public lands may be popular among hunters (Cartwright and Smith 1990, Thackston and Holbrook 1996) and represents another possible means of reducing hunter interference and improving hunt quality on these areas (Steffen et al. 1988). The degree to which hunters in Missouri would support a reduction in opportunity or access for a potential increase in hunting quality remains unknown. Given potential for increased use of public areas by turkey hunters, managers would benefit from an increased understanding of motivations, opinions, and desires of those who hunt these areas. Most of Missouri’s turkey hunters are currently satisfied with timing, length, and bag limit of the spring season. Despite a general acceptance of the current framework, some degree of support for these regulations can likely be attributed to tradition and familiarity. For example, most respondents to the 1994 survey indicated the 14-day spring hunting season was of appropriate length. Only 7 years later, most hunters surveyed in 2001 believed the 21-day season (established in 1998) was of appropriate length. Although there may be other factors that influenced opinions about season length, we suggest some acceptance was due to hunters’ familiarity with current regulations. In some cases, tradition may result in reluctance of hunters towards regulatory change. We agree with Casalena et al. (2011) that managers should be aware of initial opposition to regulatory change and that education and time can be necessary to garner support for some regulations. Although hunters were generally satisfied with the current season framework, most respondents supported extending daily shooting hours and allowing increased flexibility in how the season bag limit could be filled. Because lack of time can impact hunter participation (Responsive Management/National Shooting Sports Foun- dation 2008), desire for additional opportunity may be a function of increasing time constraints on hunters. Given recent declines in turkey abundance in Missouri (Isabelle 2010) and elsewhere (Eriksen et al. 2015), a greater demand for opportunity by turkey hunters may make balancing opportunity and hunt quality increasingly challenging. Hunter surveys will continue to be important to determine this optimal balance depending upon specific management goals and objectives. Understanding factors that influence hunter opinions is an important consideration for wildlife managers (Vaske et Wild Turkey Hunter Characteristics Isabelle and Reitz 255 23285540, 2015, S1, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2328-5540.2015.tb00394.x by University Of Florida, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License al. 2001). Although numerous factors can influence hunter satisfaction (Eichholz and Hardin 1990), our results suggest turkey abundance has a strong influence on opinions and satisfaction level of hunters. Similarly, in Florida (Nich- olson et al. 2001), Mississippi (Little et al. 2001), and Minnesota (Dingman et al. 2005), seeing turkeys was an important factor in determining quality of spring turkey hunting. In Georgia, hearing and harvesting turkeys appeared to be determining factors affecting hunt quality ratings on public lands (Thackston and Holbrook 1996). Given the strong influence seeing, hearing, and harvesting turkeys has on hunter satisfaction, we agree with Dingman et al. (2005) that managers should strive to increase turkey numbers when habitat availability and conditions allow. Hunters were more supportive of conservative hunting regulations in areas where they perceived turkey numbers had declined compared to hunters who perceived stable or increasing turkey numbers. Given the dynamic nature of turkey populations, managers should recognize that hunter opinions may change relatively quickly with changes in turkey abundance, necessitating a need for periodic hunter surveys. Additional to perceived turkey abundance, opin- ions about fall hunting regulations varied considerably between those who had and had not hunted during the previous year’s fall season. This disparity underscores importance of recognizing that fairly substantial differences of opinion can exist among various segments of the turkey hunting public and importance of selecting an appropriate sampling frame when conducting hunter surveys. Although our results indicate success affects hunter satisfaction, there were numerous other factors that affected how satisfied respondents were with their hunting experi- ence. Respondents indicated they received great enjoyment from hunting with friends and family. As such, season frameworks and regulations that allow hunters to maximize time afield with family and friends (e.g., youth seasons, allowing hunters to call for others after filling their bag limit) have potential to increase satisfaction. Respondents indicated that harvesting a turkey was one of their most enjoyable activities while spring turkey hunting. However, hunters received greater enjoyment from seeing, hearing, and calling to turkeys. Because these factors are influenced by turkey abundance, managers should recognize that, along with hunter opinions, satisfaction may change in relatively short timeframes. Moreover, because extrinsic factors strongly influence turkey populations (Porter et al. 1990, Clawson et al. 2015), managers should recognize they have only limited ability to affect turkey abundance and hunter satisfaction. Although proper harvest manage- ment should prevent adverse impacts to population growth (Vangilder and Kurzejeski 1995, Rolley et al. 1998, Alpizar-Jara et al. 2001), the dynamic nature of turkey abundance is likely to result in fluctuating levels of hunter satisfaction. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Hunter surveys provide managers with information that is important to making harvest management decisions. Declining response rates across our surveys suggest managers seek ways of increasing survey participation, perhaps using a mixed methods approach. Understanding changes in factors that contribute to a quality turkey hunting experience will continue to be an important component of maintaining hunter satisfaction. Although access does not seem problematic for Missouri’s turkey hunters at this time, continuing to monitor hunter perceptions of land access will be important to identify remedial actions should they become necessary. Although hunters are generally supportive of the current spring season framework, support for liberalization of certain regulations will make balancing opportunity, hunt quality, and hunter satisfaction increasingly challenging given recent declines in turkey abundance. Moreover, managers should recognize that tradition and familiarly with regulations is likely to influence degree of support. Although it has been nearly 25 years since the first turkey hunter survey was conducted in Missouri, many of the factors that contribute to a satisfying hunting experience have remained the same. Efforts to increase hunter success and reduce interference and