Goodwill Hunting? Exploring the Role of Hunters as Ecosystem ...

Goodwill Hunting? Exploring the Role of Hunters as Ecosystem Stewards
Author(s): Robert H. Holsman
Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 808-816
Published by: Allen Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783835
Accessed: 21/04/2010 15:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acg.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wildlife Society Bulletin.

.: b _r&:__k: ' ! -:x :> j
se:N.e- .. i | A a * ................... :^ >w:-'g.s:
A.: s s s * --.-E.vze sE. -Ei 7..8 2::^BB .:.R: ... C ^re' r j j
80E ¢ SPECIAL COVERAGE
Key Words environmentally responsible behavior, hunter education, hunting, moral norms,
stewardship
or many wildlife management professionals and for hunteini
advocates, the ideas of hunting and stewardship go
hand in hand. The relationship between hunters and state
:>wildlife agencies has evolved in part on the presumption
that hunters form a base of concerned citizens (i.e., stewards)
who support efforts to achieve broad-based conservation
goals. This fundamental assumption is rooted in
the precursory assumption that hunting as an activity promotes
stewardship values in individuals through exposure
to, and interaction with, wild things and wild places
Goodwill hunting?
fi Exploring the role of
t0000.E -s i | f i&,-,ffEi ; s
. .;\ .- 3j | t 01 | { io8

stewardship. For example, Bob Lange, Division Chief
for Federal Aid of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, recently supplied the following rationale for his
agency's sponsorship of special early-season youth
waterfowl hunts:
"While the (USFWS) encourages youth participation
in all wildlife activities, the opportunity to provide families
with memorable outdoor experiences through hunting
is unique. Hunting offers everyone the opportunity to
learn about animal behavior, the ecosystems that feed
wildlife, and also the chance to
Hunters as ecosystem stewards * Holsman 809
actually become part of the natural It is likely tha
surroundings. Hunting on this spe- . it more persuasive rationales than population
cial day introduces youth to the control wlll b te needed to maintain recreational hunting in
ethical use and stewardship of the future.
waterfowl, and encourages family
participation" (Lange 1999:15).
Lange's invocation of "stewardship" typifies use of the
term in conservation circles, a use that promulgates the
notion that stewardship results from hunting, yet the term
itself remains poorly defined. By stewardship, what
exactly do we mean? What are our expectations or aspirations
for those we refer to as stewards or partners in
conservation efforts? This paper is an attempt to explore
the hypothesis that participation in hunting is associated
with individual stewardship.
First, I discuss a formal definition for ecosystem stewardship
proposed by Dixon et al. (1995) and provide
examples of the need for stewardship attitudes and
behaviors in the current era of wildlife management.
Second, I review and critically analyze the historical
foundations for the assumption that hunting promotes
stewardship. Third, I review the research that has
explored, explicitly and implicitly, the extent to which a
relationship between participation in hunting and stewardship
can be inferred. Fourth, I discuss agency oppor-
. . . . . .
tunltles tor encouraglng steware shlp among consumptlve
users of wildlife resources.
There are several reasons it is prudent to critically
examine hunters' roles in stewardship as wildlife management
emerges into a new era. First, although many of
us would acknowledge that hunting provides a public
service with many associated benefits (Witter 1999),
evaluation of hunting and of hunters by the nonhunting
public is increasing, as evidenced by the trend in ballot
initiatives seeking to restrict or eliminate certain types of
hunting and trapping (Minnis 1998). Traditional justifications
for allowing regulated sport hunting (e.g., population
regulation) are increasingly ringing hollow among
the nonhunting public and even some wildlife professionals
(Woolf and Roseberry 1998, Brown et al. 2000). It is
likely that more persuasive rationales than population
control will be needed to maintain recreational hunting in
the future. Establishing evidence that participation in
hunting signif1cantly contributes to the development of
individual stewardship of natural resources may cast
hunting in a better light with nonhunters.
Second, agencies are increasingly interested in and
involved with efforts to recruit and retain consumptive
users (Dann and Peyton 1996). Agency sponsorship of
programs to promote hunting, even among underrepresented
groups, can appear self-serving unless there is a
greater redeeming value for recruiting more hunters than
perpetuation of income from license sales. Similar to the
first issue, it would make agency-sponsored recruitment
efforts more acceptable if an irrefutable connection
between hunting participation and stewardship could be
made.
Third, the focus of traditional wildlife conservation
continues to broaden its scope. Efforts to restore game
species and habitats that hunters so grandly supported in
the past have been achieved (too successfully in some
cases) and agency priorities are shifting. There is a need
for stewards to support plans to reduce game species
when necessary to restore or maintain diversity, protect
endangered species, or nurture ecological health. Many
hunting practices such as feeding and baiting undermine
attempts to manage wildlife populations and impact on
broader goals. The question ultimately to be addressed is
whether the hunting community is meeting the expectations
and needs for stewardship, especially in light of
expanding resource management goals. _
Stewardship
a conceptual orientation
ti. ;d * *-Ls
considered^
The notion of stewardship draws its philosophical and
theoretical underpinnings from A Sand County Almanac.
Leopold (1949: 240) spoke eloquently about developing
a land ethic where man's role is transformed from con- j
queror of the biotic community to "just plain member j
and citizen of it." He further established a benchmark by
which individuals' actions may be evaluated in relation to
their environment: "A thing is right when it tends to i
maintain the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic ]
community, it is wrong when it tends otherwise" A
(Leopold 1949:266). ;; s;
... wE

OQ 1 Yer7. Os wlldlife Society Bulletin 2000,28(4):808-816
Although Leopold's maxims are certainly poetic and
thought provoking, they are far from clear as to what
behaviors or actions would qualify as stewardship. A
definition proposed by Dixon et al. (1995: 4243) gets us
a step closer to such an understanding:
"Stewardship is the moral obligation to care for the
environment and the actions undertaken to provide
that care. Stewardship implies the existence of an
ethic of personal responsibility an ethic of behavior
based on reverence for the earth and a sense of obligation
to future generations. To effectively care for
the environment, individuals must use resources
wisely and efElciently7 in part by placing selfimposed
limits on personal consumption and altering
personal expectations, habits, and values. Appropriate
use of natural resources within the stewardship
ethic involves taking actions that respect the
integrity of natural systems."
This definition of stewardship posits the existence of
fundamental values that guide one's conduct toward the
environment. Explicating stewardship as a moral norm
with altruistic motivations (i.e. taking action to benefit
others) that necessitates personal action by individuals
establishes a clearer, if not ambitious, definition. The
focus on individual behavior also distinguishes stewardship
from another frequent use of the term. In the parlance
of natural resource management, stewardship often
refers to the institutional mission to conserve and sustain
wildlife and ecosystems in the public trust. For this
usage of the term, stewardship can be thought of as a cultural
value whereby agencies take on the moral and legal
obligation of maintaining the resource on behalf of the
public trust. While the importance of institutional stewardship
is acknowledged, it represents a different focus
than that of this exploration.
Need for hunter stewardship
As professional wildlife management moves toward a
more holistic approach that contributes to overall ecosystem
sustainability, it will be more important than ever to
engender stewardship among all citizens, but especially
hunters who have traditionally been considered strong
allies in conservation efforts. What are the expectations
and needs for stewardship that hunters can contribute in
light of expanding wildlife management goals?
First hunter stewardship can take the form of support
for wildlife management program goals designed to meet a
balance of social values including optimal (rather than maximum)
production of game species, a diversity of recreational
opportunitiesS and control of nuisance wildlife species.
In this case, stewardship behaviors could range from
tacit acquiescence to advocating support of agency programs
even if all goals do not maximize hunter interests.
Second, stewardship also can take the form of active
support and participation in broader ecological objectives
arising from the advent of conservation biology and concern
for loss of biodiversity. Stewardship behaviors may
include participation in habitat restoration projects or
vocal support for native species reintroduction efforts.
Third, hunter stewardship may manifest itself in the
earnest participation in achieving population objectives
related to enhancing social or ecological objectives. The
need for hunter willingness to participate in aggressive
harvest of nuisance populations of species like deer and
geese is necessary now more than ever. For example,
there appears a need in many areas for hunters who are
willing to forego opportunities to harvest bucks to take
antlerless deer where overbrowsing is threatening habitat
quality.
s . . > .
rlna y, ancl per laps east otten conslc ered zy the
wildlife management profession, there is a need for
hunters (and all citizens) to adopt lifestyles and behaviors
which serve to reduce the negative impacts of human
beings on general environmental quality. While this represents
a broad and potentially painful set of behaviors
(e.g., driving less, using alternative energy sources, green
consumerism, etc.), the need for this level of stewardship
is real, given the numerous anthropogenic threats to global
biodiversity and overall ecosystem sustainability.
Historical assumption of hunter
steward*hip: a critical analysis
There is no shortage of writers (hunters) who say that
hunters inherently possess an ethical obligation to conserve
that extends beyond self-interest. Mahoney (1996:
78) is among those who defend hunters as stewards who
are grounded in holistic, ecological awareness:
"Hunters also recognize that you cannot maintain
healthy numbers of preferred (i.e., game) species
unless you protect many other species of prey and
their habitats which in themselves may not be of
otherwise direct or significant interest to the hunter.
In this sense then the hunter must be, to some extent,
an ecologist, recognizinqg the compulsory interdependence
of all life."
The professional-cultural assumption in wildlife management
that hunters are stewards has its roots in 3 primary
sources. First, many members of the wildlife management
profession chose their careers because of a love
for the outdoors that has at its roots a passion for hunting
(Organ and Fritzell 2000). We dedicated our professional
lives to doing something for wildlife because our own

Htlnters as ecosystem stewards * Holsman 811
personal experiences in the woods and swamps forged and participation in wildlif'e conservation is tantamount
our values for conservation and ecology. Thus, the con- to stewardship for desired game species and their habinection
between hunting and stewardship is natural on an tats, rather than ecosystem-level stewardship. Though it
intuitive level. Though we ought not disregard such is true many nongame species of wildlife benefit from
evidence completely, science demands more stringent production of game species' habitats, there are numerous
proof that a connection exists.
examples of specialist species (evg., interior forest song-
Second, hunters (and anglers) are often afforded the birds) that may suffer frotn conservation efforts too narlabel
of stewards based on their Elnancial support of Elsh rowly focused on the needs of generalist or game species
and wildlife agencies through purchasing licenses and (Scott et al. 1995).
revenue generated from an equipment surcharge estab- Again, the point of this critique is not to discount or
lished through federal legislation (Peterson 1996, Swan deny the signiElcant impact of hunter monies on restoring
1996, Lange 1999). This credit likely stems from the and managing America's wildlife, game and nongame.
fact that it was hunters who originally lobbied to tax Instead, it is intended to il]ustrate that these oft-cited
themselves to provide the funding that subsequently examples of stewardship, the current funding structure,
restored many species of wildlife and their habitat from and the species-centered activities of organizations do not
perilously low levels (Gray 1992). Though the recovery provide evidence to support the presence of a stewardship
of many game species and their habitats is a notable
achievement for which hunter-generated revenue deethic
among hunters as individuals.
serves credit, what does it really say about the stewardship
of today's hunters? Should payment of involuntary Research findings
taxes be a sufficient indicator that hunters are stewards? In reviewing the literature, 2 questions were consid-
Skeptics could easily argue that Elnancial support is ered: 1) What evidence exists that hunters are ecosystem
coerced through pre-existing legislation rather than a stewards? and 2) What evidence exists that participation
conscious and willing donation made by hunters to sup- in hunting increases one's stewardship? In the absence
port wildlife management. This argument suggests of studies that measure stewardship as this paper has
hunters pay because they are required to pay to pursue defined it, we are left to consider the suite of attitude and
their recreation, not because of a voluntary interest in behavior studies from which ecosystem stewardship may
funding conservation. To draw a comparison, I do not be inferred.
renew the vehicle registration on my truck annually
because of my desire to be a steward of road mainte- Attitudes
nance and construction; I do it because it's the law. Several recent studies have found hunters to hold atti-
Critics of the current funding mechanism also have tudes in opposition of ecological management objectives.
argued that flnancial support of Elsh and wildlife manage- For example, a 1995 Times-Mirror national opinion surment
by hunters and anglers is merely a way to make vey found that hunters were less likely than nonhunters
sure that agencies remain beholden to narrow consump- to support endangered species protection that conflicted
tive interests (i.e., capture theory; Culhane 1981; Mac- with private property rights. In this case hunters may be
Kay 1996). I do not raise these issues to suggest that more likely to be property owners and may suppress
today's hunters and anglers are not stewards but merely stewardship attitudes when threatened with a loss of
to say that adherence to legal requirements of obtaining a other values. Meanwhile, Beldon and Russenello (1996)
license for pursuit of Elsh and game does not in itself conducted a national study on public awareness and attiestablish
individual stewardship.
tudes toward biodiversity. They used cluster analysis to
The third basis for the assumption that hunting pro- identify segments that were most likely and least likely to
motes stewardship is the conservation activities that are support efforts to maintain biodiversity. They found that
undertaken by a myriad of interest groups like Ducks participation in hunting was a dominant characteristic of
Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, the Ruffed Grouse Society, the group least likely to support biodiversity, thus they
and others. The money raised by these groups and dedi- labeled this segment "Disconnected SportSsmen."
cated to habitat protection and restoration efforts is A study of public land l;lsers in southern Michigan
indeed impressive But skeptics would again be correct found that most hunters disagreed when asked whether
in pointing out that active support of and participation in "managers should divert ef'forts from game species manwildlife
conservation through organizations like Ducks agement to focus more on non-game species" (Holsman
Unlimited represents only a minority of hunters. Further- and Peyton 1999). Similarly, Jacobson and Marynowski
more, one also could argue that most hunter concern with (1997) found that hunter at;titudes at Eglin Air Force Base

812 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2000, 28(4):808-816
in Flonda were neutral to slightly negative toward 4'placing Table 1. Responsible environmental behavior scale used byTheodori et
al (1998).
more emphasis on management of native and endangered
species". Hunter attitudes also were more negative than
attitudes of nonhunting recreationists regarding this issue.
Moreover, Bull and Peyton (1999) found that deer hunters
in Michigan's Upper Peninsula ranked "maintaining ecological
integrity of the forest" much lower than objectives
related to hunt-enhancing objectives (e.g., producing larger
7 itemsa measuring "environmental concern"
Have you engaged in any of following behaviors during the past year?
1. contributed money or time to an environmental or wildlife
conservation group;
2. stopped buying a product because it caused environmental
problems;
deer with larger antlers) as important priorities for deer
managers to consider. Lastly, work done by Diefenbach et
al. (1997) revealed strong support for high deer densities
among Pennsylvania hunters despite their being shown
evidence that current population levels were damaging to
3. attended a public hearing or meeting about the environment;
4. contacted a government agency to get information or complain
about an environmental problem;
5. read a conservation or environmental magazine;
6. watched a television special on the environment;
7. voted for or against a candidate based on her position on the
deer habitat and ultimately the deer themselves. Nearly environment
one-quarter of these hunters believed there were not
enough deer unless some starved to death each winter.
They failed to recognize that by the time starvation is
a Positive responses were scored (+l ) and summed into a scale score.
documented, deer will have damaged their habitat to the pation in 8 types of outdoor recreation. The strongest
point where it will take years or decades to recover zero-order correlation with ERB was found with bird-
(Diefenbach et al. 1997).
watching (r=0.26), and hunting produced the weakest
Behaviors
correlation (r=0.074, Theodori et al. 1998).
Though this finding potentially weakens the claim that
Thus far I have considered selected findings that speak hunting and environmentally responsible behaviors are
to hunter stewardship, insofar as attitudes toward broad- related strongly, Theodori et al. (1998) correctly noted
based ecological objectives can be said to indicate stew- that the results are somewhat deceiving in that many peoardship.
Work done to establish the relationship between ple participate in both consumptive and nonconsumptive
participation in hunting and responsible environmental activities (USFWS 1996). Although their sample size did
behavior may provide further insight. Dunlap and not permit examination of "dual users," those people who
Heffernan (1975) were the flrst to test the relationship engage in both consumptive and nonconsumptive recrebetween
participation in different types of outdoor recre- ations, they did retest the second hypothesis using mutuations
and environmental concern (EC; again, not stew- ally exclusive paired activities (e.g., people who hunted
ardshipS but a close proxy). Using regression analysisS and did not birdwatch and vice versa). Once effects of
Dunlap and Heffernan (1975) found significant but some- age, education, gender, income, and political ideology
what weak positive correlations between participation in were controlled for, the statistically significant relationselect
outdoor recreations and environmental concern, ships drop out among all 18 outdoor activities pairs in
including hunting and fishing. The study also found their study. These findings neither substantiate nor denisomewhat
stronger support for an association between grate the association between hunting and stewardship,
participation in "appreciative" recreations (hiking, camp- but they do suggest that individual differences may have
ing, and visiting scenic areas) and EC than for participa- more explanatory power than does participation in outtion
in consumptive recreations (hunting and fishing) and door recreations, including hunting.
EC. In the past 2 decades, several other researchers have In a study of stakeholder attitudes toward ecosystemattempted
to replicate Dunlap and Heffernan's study and based management in Michigan, the stewardship value of
have produced inconsistent results (Theodori et al. 1998). hunters and other wildlife users was explored as an off-
Most recently, Theodori et al. (1998) investigated the shoot of the primary research objectives (Holsman 1999).
link between recreation participation and stewardship Data were collected in a questionnaire during the sumamong
Pennsylvania residents, including hunters. Their mers of 1997 and 1998 following the total design method
study improved upon previous attempts to measure this (Dillman 1978). The survey contained 4 items that
relationship because they used measures of behavior attempted to measure stewardship in a general sense
rather than attitudes to form a scale for the dependent without specifying exact behaviors (Table 2). A comparivariable,
environmental concern (Table 1). Ultimately, son of 3 groups, hunters, environmentalists, and appreciathey
found signiElcant correlations between engaging in tive wildlife users indicated significant differences in
environmentally responsible behaviors (ERB) and partici-
their mean stewardship scores (Table 3).

Table 2. Items to measure stewardship value in Michigan study of
hunters. [Response options ranged from strongly agree (1 ) or strongly
disagree (5)].
. . .
1. Our generation has a major responsibility to incur whatever costs
and sacrifices necessary to sustain wildlife species into the future.
2. I intend to seek ways to reduce whatever negative impacts my
daily life may pose on the future well being of wildlife species.
3. If I could be convinced that the money was being spent
effectively, I would be willing to donate money to an organization
that is working to safeguard the well-being of plant and wildlife
.
specles.
4. I intend to make every effort to live my life so as to participate in
the conservation of forests, wetlands, and other types of
ecosystems for the future.
Though hunters scored less on average than did environmentalists
in the study, both groups indicate strong
stewardship at a general level. The scores also indicated
that hunters had only slightly greater stewardship values
than nonconsumptive wildlife users. Results from the
study also found that there was a signiElcant, positive correlation
between hunters' stewardship scores and number
of nonconsumptive recreations (values from 0 to 4) in
which they participated (r=0.29, P

8 1 4 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2000, 28(4):808-8 1 6
least situational for hunters who may be willing to act as Landowners in this case may merely be maximizing selfstewards
if the sacriiSlces to individual benefits are not too interest rather than acting out of a sense of moral obligahigh.
Finally, though participation in hunting may be one tion to act for conservation. This is an important distinccausal
influence on developing stewardship attitudes and tion because Thogerson (1996) found that financial
behaviors, it does not necessarily appear to be a strong incentives for participation ip recycling programs did not
link and it may be less influential than participation in lead to development of moral norms in participants, but
nonconsumptive activities.
rather the old behaviors (noncompliance with recycling)
It is important to consider a limitation of the evidence returned after Emancial incentives were discontinued. In
provided here; most of the work done to date has focused other words the pro-conservation behaviors were not
on behavior related to environmental issues rather than internalized. Therefore, approaches that target short-term
those more typically associated with conservation. To behavior changes based on appeals to utilitarian beneElts
that extent, hunter concern, or stewardship, may be atten- may not foster individual stewardship values that direct
uated in these fi1ndings by the framing of the dependant future behavioral choices.
variable as environmental concern.
Stewardship behaviors may also result from adherence
There needs to be much more research that explores to social norms. The theory of reasoned action suggests
the relationship between hunting and stewardship before that behavioral intentions result from a weighted combimore
can be said. Much of this research will need to nation of an individual's attitude toward a given behavior
focus on developing valid indicators of stewardship and and his/her evaluation of the judgments of signiElcant
investigating under what conditions hunters express those others? (e.g., a spouse, hunting companions, etc.) regardviews.
An important dimension of this research chal- ing the behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977). Thus the
lenge will be capturing the awareness of hunters about opinions of others serve as a social norm for appropriate
the consequences of behavioral choices or holding certain stewardship behaviors. Agencies should consider opporviews.
For example, there is a need to diagnose whether tunities to use social norms to influence individual
hunters understand the tradeoffs of managing to promote hunters and hunting organizations. Using hunter spokesgame
species and their habitats. Finally, there also is a persons or groups to deliver agency messages to other
need for more work to develop the theoretical basis for hunters about the need to support a given management
how stewardship develops among hunters and others. objective may be one effective way to enhance steward-
Opportunities for change
ship through social norms. If organizations take the lead
in establishing and modeling a holistic, ecosystem vision
Agencies should seek opportunities to encourage grounded in a land ethic, that can serve as a social norm
hunter consideration of and participation in broad-based for their members. The challenge here is that organizamanagement
goals to develop a constituency that under- tions are often reluctant to take positions counter to the
stands the provision of recreational opportunity in the current values of their memberships.
context of a larger Inission. Several options are available If ecosystem stewardship is to be lasting and univerto
agencies seeking to strengthen stewardship among sally applied by hunters across behaviors, it must ultitheir
hunting clientele. Of course, behaviors can be mately be guided by moral norms. Schwartz (1970) discoerced
through regulation, but this approach is counter- tinguished moral norms from social norms, which he
productive in fostering a personal ethic of responsibility. calls "non-internalized' references. In other words,
Stewardship behaviors also may result when agencies whereas social norms theoretically influence one's behavor
programs provide a concomitant set of beneElts for the ior based on the expectations of significant others (Ajzen
individual or organizations. For example, the Conser- and Fishbein 1977), moral norms are based on personal
vation Reserve Program promotes stewardship practices standards of right and wrong. Thogerson (1996) points
among landowners by offering cash payments for dedi- out that social norms may become integrated into one's
cating acreage for increasing wildlife habitat. Promoting personal value system and can become moral norms if
other benefits can be effective when the goal is to gain reinforced over time. It seems the best time to shape
immediate support or action for a speciElc management hunters' moral norms would be at the time of recruitment
objective (in this case enhancing grassland habitats on and training. In that case, hunter education classes which
private lands), but there is a drawback to this approach as typically have addressed ethics only within the context of
well. Gaining behavioral compliance through financial hunt-specifilc behaviors need to play a larger role in
incentives is theoretically based in economic models of addressing a stewardship ethic and ecosystem conservasubjective
utility in which individuals are motivated by tion. Given the reliance on volunteer-based training prothe
desire to maximize private utility (Thogerson 1996). grams in hunter education, this will not be an easy task.

Though it is unrealistic to expect that all hunters will
adopt Leopold's land ethic as their guiding worldview,
we should be striving to initiate hunters who embrace a
holistic view of the environment and their personal role
in maintaining its quality.
Diefenbach and Palmer (1997) articulated the need to
market the science of management to gain hunter acceptance
of management objectives. There is ongoing need
to educate hunters, young and old, of "big-picture ecology."
We have created an understanding of habitat management
as a means for game production. Many
landowners are successfully finding ways to "farm" deer
using ecological principles. They are successful utilitarian
conservationists, but lack an understanding of the
impacts of the overproduction of game populations.
There appears to be a need to shift educational efforts to
broaden the understanding that producing more deer,
ducks, and wild turkeys is not conservation of wildlife, or
of natural resources.
Acknowledgments. The author would like to thank
Peter A. Pritzell, Jr., Donna L. Minnis, R. Ben Peyton
and 2 anonymous reviewers for feedback that strengthened
the presentations of these ideas.
Literature cited
AJZEN, I., AND M FISHBEIN. 1977. Attitude-behavior relations:A theoretical
evaluation of empirical research.
918.
Psychological Bulletin 84: 888-
BELDEN, N.ANDJ. RUSSONELLO. 1996. Human values and nature's future:
American's attitudes on biological diversity. Belden and Russonello
Research and Communications, Inc.,Washington, D.C., USA.
BROWN,T. L., D.J. DECKER, S.J. RILEY,J.W. ENCK,T. B. LAUBNER, P D. CURTIS,
AND G. F. MATTFIELD. 2000. The status of hunting as a mechanism to
control white-tailed deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:
?22_??2
... ...
BULL, P.,AND R. B. PETON. 1999. Stakeholder preferences for deer management
in DMU 15. Technical report submitted to Champion
International, Inc.,The Sand County Foundation, and the Michigan
s
Wildlife Bureau. Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.
CULHANE, RJ. 1981. Public lands politics: interest group influence on
the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns
DANN, S. L.AND R. B. PEYrON. 1996 Facing realities in recruiting, retaining,
and training consumptive Elsh and wildlife users. Transactions
of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference
61: 3 1 5-323.
DIEPENBACH, D. R ,W. L. PALMER,AND W. K. SHOPE. 1997. Attitudes of
Pennsylvania sportsmen toward managing white-tailed deer to protect
the ecological
25: 244-251.
integrity of the forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin
DIEFENBACH, D. R.AND W: L. PALMER. 1997. Deer management: marketing
the science. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 378-381.
DILLMAN, D.A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design
metnoa. Wlley, New YorK, New YorK, USA.
D1XON, D. O.,W. F. SIEMER,AND B.A. KNUTH. 1995. Stewardship of the
Great Lakes environment:A review of literature. Department of
Hunters as ecosystem stewards * ISolsman
Natural Resollrces, Cornell University, Human Dimensions Research
Unit, Publication No.95-5, Ithaca, NewYork, USA.
DUNLAP, R. E. AND B. HEFFERNAN. 1975. Outdoor recreation and environmental
concern: an empirical explanation. Rural Sociology 40:
18-30.
GRAY, G. G. 1992. Wildlife and people:The human dimension of wildlife
ecology. University of Illinois, Urbana, USA.
HOLSMAN, R. H. 1999. Stakeholder values with implications for ecosystem-based
management in Southern Michigan. I)issertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.
HOLSMAN, R. H.,AND R. B. PEYTON. 1999. Social values and biodiversity: a
perspective on Southern Michigan public land users. Michigan
Academician 31:309-323.
HUNGERFORD, H. R. & T. L.VOLK. 1990. Changing learner behavior
through environmental education. Journal of Environmental
Education 21(3):8-21
JACOBSON, S. K.,AND S. B. MARYNOWSKI. 1997. Public attitudes and knowledge
about ecosystem management on Department of Defense land
in Florida. Conservation Biology 11 (3): 770-781.
JONES, M. 1997. 5 rare swans shot and killed this fall; deaths at hunters;
hand harm efforts to bring trumpeters back to the state. The
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,24 November 1997:1.
LANGE, B. 1999. Creating a future together! R & R News (Summer
1999): 5,15.
LEOPOLD,A. 1949. A Sand CountyAlmanac. Oxford, London, United
.
ngdom.
MACKAY, B. K. 1996. Hunters, anglers given near-monopoly on wildlife.
The Toronto Star,21 July 1996: P.E5.
MAHONEY, S. P. 1996. The role of hunters in the conservation of wildlife.
4th Governor's Symposium Ol1 NorthAmerica's hunting heritage.
Wildlife Forever,30 August 1996, Minnetonka, Minnesota, USA.
MARLENEE, R. 1995. Sportsmen seek delay of park wolf plan. The Cody
Enterprise. Cody, Wyoming, USA.
MERCHANT, C. 1997. Fish first!:The changing ethics of ecosystem management.
Human Ecology Review 4(1): 25-30.
MINNIS, D. L. 1998. Wildlife policy-making by the electorate: an
overview of citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives on hunting and trapping.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:75-83.
NEGRA, C.,AND R. E. MANNING 1997. Incorporating environmental
behavior, ethics, and values into nonformal environmental education
programs. Journal of Environmental Education 28(2): 2-10.
ORGAN,J. F. AND E. K. FRITZELL. 200(). Trends in consumptive recreation
and the wildlife profession.Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: ???-???
PETERS-GRANT, M. 1987. The influence of life experiences in the voca
tional interests of volunteer environmental workers. Dissertation
Abstracts International 47(10).
PETERSON D. 1996. A hunter's heart: honest essays on blood sport. Holt
and Company, New York, New York, USA.
SCHMITT, S. M., S. D. FITZGERALD,T. M. COOLEY, C. S. BRUNIN@FANN, L. SULLIVAN,
D. BERRY,T. CARLSON, R. B. MINNIS, J. B. PAYEUR, AND J. SIKARSIE. 1997.
Bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed deer.Journal of
Wildlife Diseases 33(4): 749-758.
SCHWARTZ, S. H. 1970. Moral decision making and behavior. Pages
127-141 in J. Macauley and L. Berkowitz, editors. Altruism and
helping behavior. Academic, NewYork, New York, USA.
ScorrJ. M. M., E. D.ABLES,T. C EDWARDS,JR., R. L. ENG,T.A. GAVIN, L. D.
HARRlSSJ. B. HAUFLER,W. M. HEALY, E L. KNOPF, O.TORGERSON,AND H.1!
WEEKS,JR. 1995. Conservation of biological diversity: Perspectives
and the future of the wildlife profession. Wildlife Society Bulletin
23: 646-657.
SwAN,J. P. 1996. In defense of hunting. Harper, San Francisco, California,
USA.
STATE COMMIrrEE ON BOVINE TB IN WILD DEER. 1997. Recommendations
for elimination of bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed
deer in Michigan. Report submitted to the Departments of
815

8 1 6 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2000, 28(4):808-8 1 6
Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Public Health, Lansing,
Michigan, USA.
TANNER,T. 1980. Significant life experiences: a new research area in
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education
11(4):20-24.
THEODORI, G. L.,A. E. LULOFF,AND F. K.WILLITS. 1998. The association of
outdoor recreation and environmental concern: reexamining the
Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociology 63(1):94-108.
THoGERsoN,J. 1996. Recycling and morality: a critical review of the literature.
Environment and Behavior 28: 536-558.
TIMEs-MtRRoR. 1995. The environmental two step: looking back, moving
forward. Times-Mirror Conservation Council,Washington, D.C.,
USA.
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1993. 1991 National survey of
fishing, hunting and wildlife associated recreation. United States
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Program Plans,Washington, D.C., USA.
WEYERMANN, D. F. 1999. Effort to save bird migrates east, west seen
lacking interest in protecting whooping crane. The Boston Globe,
30 December 1999:A1.
WITTER, D. 1999. Communicating about hunting to non-hunters.
Presentation at the Midwest Fish andWildlife Conference 61:173.
WILDLIFE LEGISIATIVE FUND OF AMERICA. 1993. Let s make the ESA work
for wildlife conservation: common sense amendments to
Endangered SpeciesAct. Wildlife Legislative Fund of America,
Columbus, Ohio, USA.
WooLa,A. AND J. L. ROSEBERRY. 1998. Deer management: our profession's
symbol of success or failure? Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 515-521.
Robert H. (Bob) Holsman is currently a visiting assistant professor in
the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and
Communication at Michigan State University (MSU). He received his
Ph.D. in the human dimensions of fisheries and wildlife from MSU in
1999. He holds an M.S. in environmental education and a B.A. in
communications and political science from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens
Point. His research interests include the social and psychological
antecedents of responsible environmental behavior, public
involvement in natural resource planning and management, and
applied survey research. Bob enjoys numerous outdoor recreations,
including hunting.
Associate editor: Peyton