From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:55:20 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad) writes:

>In article <altar.703144584@sfu.ca>, altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>|> 
>|>  
>|>      What stated reasons do hunters themselves give for quitting?
>|> Believe it not, not only a few quit, but quite a significant
>|> number within a short period of time from first starting.  That

>How does this correlate with other activities?  I would wager that you
>could find a "significant number" of golfers (or insert any another activity)
>who quit after shortly after starting for any number of reasons.  Ted, have
>you ever tried a new hobby only to find, for whatever reason, it was not
>for you?  In hunting and fishing literature aimed at beginners (as well as
>many other activities) you often find words to the effect of "don't buy
>extremely expensive equipment at first unless you are certain you will
>continue in the sport."

Let's not imply that our new hunters who quit the game are "failures".
Yes, it might well be the case that other activities show a similar
pattern of desertion, but we are not talking about a group of bored
city folk idly trying out another recreational activity.  In New
Jersey, there is a hunter-education program that is mandatory.
People enrolled in a program like this are much more committed
than simply someone off the street buying a hunting licence.  How
many people who enroll in a driver education program later give
up driving?  I know, this is not quite the same.  Well, let's
try a boating education program.  Again, there is little attrition,
but I guess you could argue that again this is not quite the same.
Maybe you are right, but it is equally presumptious to also compare
our ex-hunters with ex-golfers.  If you got some data, fine, lets
compare the figures and add to our knowledge.



>|> was the question posed to 296 people who first hunted in New
>|> Jersey in 1976 but who did not purchase a hunting licence in
>|> 1981.
>|>  
>|>      Over the past decade there has been about a 30% overall
>|> decline in New Jersey's hunting-licence sales.  You can be

>Are you trying to imply that the ten reasons distilled from 296 ex-hunters
>who bought licenses perhaps only once in a 5 year period is a valid
>sample to deduce why there is a 30% decline in NJ's overall license sale?
>That seems like a huge jump to make.  You are making a lot of assumptions
>here that probably are not valid.

Yes, there are assumptions, no they are not invalid.  Ok, permit me
to make some remarks about the relevance of sample sizes for research.
I think this is a common misconception so that it is worth a few
words.
 
I think you would agree that you do NOT need sample sizes of millions 
or thousands or even hundreds of people.  It is a common misconception
that the more people in your study, the better. 
 
Sample sizes of less than 100 and as small as 10 people will do just fine.  It 
depends on the nature of the problem, the kind of methodology that is being 
used, and how "representative" of the general population one's sample needs to 
be.  If we were sampling Canadian's attitudes towards the NDP party for 
purposes of predicting an election outcome, then of course you need a large 
sample since attitudes vary widely among people and across geographical and SES
regions.  The same degree of individual and regional variability does not occur
with physiological responses being measured in a controlled experimental 
situation.
 
As I mentioned before, studies involving large samples can be misleading simply
because they are sensitive to trivial effects (remember my discussion about 
statistical power?).  I am more impressed by experimental results from small 
samples simply because the effect size in such studies must be greater in order
to achieve statistical significance.  This seems to be an under-appreciated 
fact even among well-trained researchers. 
 
 Let me give you an hypothetical example.  Say that I hypothesize that Western 
Canadians have a different level of IQ over Eastern Canadians.  Now, suppose 
that I collect everyone's IQ score in my sample.  Hence, I have millions of 
people in my two groups.  Well, guess what?  Of course I am going to find a 
statistically significant difference in the average IQ!  I'm not going to 
predict in which direction, but Western Canadians will have on average IQ that 
will be different from that of than Eastern Canadians.  In fact, I would find a
significant difference no matter how I split up my sample of all Canadians into
two halves.  Remember, parametric statistics like the t-test depend upon the 
assumption of the population being normally distributed, but in nature no such 
population of things will conform exactly to our mathematical model of the 
Gaussian curve (normal curve).  There will be minor deviations and by using 
such ridiculously large sample sizes, the statistical power is so great that 
you will pick up even the most minute and trivial deviation.  The average IQ 
difference might only be, say, .001 IQ point, which may well be a "significant"
difference statistically, but it is a difference that has utterly no meaning 
whatsoever in the real world (standard error of measurement for IQ is 3 whole
standard scale points)..

Now, let us return to our sample of 296 ex-hunters.  We are not asking 
them how they will vote for purposes of predictive accuracy where only
a few percentage points can make all the difference in the world.  Nor
are we dealing with the whole hetergenous population of the U.S, but 
only a sub-population of people who hunt.  Presumably, these people
show greater homogeneity (or homoscadasticity) with respect
to their attitudes towards hunting.  You are not likely to find AR types
like myself in that sub-population.  Hence, we do NOT need a large
sample numbering thousands of people.  Indeed, the total population
of people completing the mandatory hunting course in 1976 was 16,021.
A randomly selected sample of about 2% from such a population is really
very good (political polls are usually smaller and their accuracy must
be greater and they are dealing with greater variability across
samples).

So, unless you have evidence or statistical arguments to the contrary,
the sample size for our study, given its modest purpose, is more than
sufficient.  
 
It is too bad that students do not take courses in statistics at the high 
school level.  This would be far more useful than say, the learning of 
calculus, simply because statistics is becoming ever more important for 
everybody in the modern world.  Although statistical theory is based upon some 
calculus, you can sufficiently understand statistics with only a basic 
knowledge of algebra and just a little geometry.  



>|> assured that the "wildlife management" officials are mighty
>|> worried since the larger portion of their salaries comes from
>|> these licence sales.  Such, is the weakness of a system of
>|> wildlife "protection" that would make that system depended upon a
>|> vested interest group (hence, we have not wildlife protection,
>|> but "management").  The following results were compiled by

>Oh get off this bit about the DNR's being the puppets of hunters.  Sure 
>some of their budget comes from license fees and some of it comes from 
>other places. 

Let's get our facts correct.  Not some, but most of their budget.
Are you so innocent as to think that what in effect has become the
financial dependency of wildlife "management" upon hunters is not 
going to affect their policies and proposals?  Let's not feign
such political innocence.


> If they were totally beholden to hunters why would they waste
>time on things like state parks, campgrounds, outdoors law enforcement,
>research and publications that have nothing to do with hunting, tourism
>promotion, and many others, when that same money could be used for more
>deer production? 

It's a complex world, is it not?  Other interests do compete for their
attention, and such facilities also benefit the hunters.  Hunters like
good access roads, parking facilities, lodges, etc.   Even law
enforcement benefits the majority of hunters, as we have been repeated
reminded on this conference.

>> Also, hunters and fisherman are not one monolithic group.
>Many disagree with the way the DNR handles certain situations.  Basically
>the DNR has to deal with pressure from just about anyone who uses any
>outdoor resource in the state including hikers, boaters, campers, farmers,
>industry, environmentalists, birdwatchers, etc. and yes hunters and
>fishermen.  This thing you have about DNR's being run totally by and for
>hunters seems pretty weak.

True enough, but which interest group, when conflicts occur, is going
to get the most attention?  That's right, the one which can exact the most
political and economic pressure.  Making the DNR directly dependant
upon hunting licence fees exerts a considerable amount of economic/political
pressure, to say the least.  Better if the hunting fees went into 
general federal reserves, but I don't think hunters would like that idea?
And why not; the reason is obvious.


>|> trained interviewers at the Eagleton Instutite at Rutgers
>|> University.  Based upon a content analysis of responses to an
>|> earlier open-ended questionnaire, a set of 10 reasons for
>|> quitting were educed.  A sample of 296 "deserters" were then ask

>Only ten reasons for almost 300 people.  The short description of each
>reason makes for easy questionaire tabulation but may not give accurate
>results.  Was there an "other" catagory?

Do you know how to undertake a content analysis?  Read Hosti's book
on the subject and you will soon see that this is indeed a rigorous and
time consuming procedure.  Yes, the categories could be faulty,
but that is true with the categories of any research.  That they
at least started with an open-ended questionaire to educe those
categories, instead of an a priori induction, is a much more
respectable method.

Why not give "accurate" results you say?  What does that mean?  If you
want some pristine, unrealistic perfect accuracy, then we would have to
read some 296 verbal protocals of the responsdants.  Hardly practical,
hardly a sign of  good research which attempts to summarize unmanagable 
quantities of information.  Is a simple arithmetic mean an accurate summary
statistic?  Yes and no.  For a reasonably normal or symmetic distribution,
it is a adequate measure of central location, but not for non-symmetric
distributions.  With respect to individuals, a mean can be quite 
misleading; supposedly the average male has 1.85 testicals, but no such
individual exists.  

Now, the point that I want to stress here is that "accuracy" is an
informed judgement call, not some external standard readily available
for all to take one's measure by.  Yes, it is my informed judgement
that this survey is reasonably accurate for the purposes at hand.
You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. 


. . . .
>|> 8.  Now one to hunt with ..................  16%            84%
>|> 9.  Don't have equipment to hunt ..........  12%            88%
>|> 10.  Some people I know disapprove
>|>       of hunting ..........................  11%            89%
>|>  
>|>  
>As already mentioned, #1 seems pretty meaningless unless you have similar
>statistics for other activities.  

Again, let me make the point that research of any kind is to ALWAYS be
evaluated with respect to the purposes to which it was designed to
serve.  We are NOT interested in a comparision of hunter "desertion"
with ping-pong "desertion".  If you are, fine, get your own data but
don't presume to judge this set of data by your idiosyncratic interests.
This set of data simply helps to provide some answers as why hunters,
not ping pong players, quit the game (at least as hunters themselves
would understand and state their reasons, which could well be suspect).


>I would expect reasons #2 and #3 to be high
> . . .>
Look, I don't mean to be rude, but I am not interested in what you
"expect" to be the case, since we have at hand data that informs us
what in fact IS the case.  This is not to say that your idle specuations
might not be true, but this makes us dependant upon your authority as
some kind of expert, and what we should be doing here is try give good
evidence for why we might expect such and such.  

Now, are you an ex-hunter?  Is your one view worth considering over the
stated views of 296 hunters?  Remember, I did ask that we stop 
thinking about ourselves for just one moment (we each all can't be the
the center of the universie), and consider what is being said by this
sub-population of ex-hunters.  So please, no testimonies from the
hunting lodge.r



>population at large.  But then I forget that you accepted the opinion of
>one hunter as representative of the whole group when it was published by
>that feminist author you were quoting awhile back.  As I said in an earlier
>post, if this is valid then I've decided that I'll pick a violent ALF
>member to be representative of AR folks.

With respect to your last point, that seems to be what has 
indeed already happened, at least in the minds of the anti-AR folk.  We
AR folk on this conference have been repeated tarred with the same brush. .

Look, I'm sorry that I never did answer your posting on that passage
from Andree Collard, Professor of Romance and Comparative Literature
at U. of Brandeis before she died.  I thought I explained my position 
sufficiently already to John.

Ok Joe, let me repeat myself.  With respect to knowledge, I believe that
there is more than one kind of question.  Answers to empirical questions
are to be evaluated by the rigor of empirical methodology and the logic
of scientific theory justification.  Proposed answers or advancements to
philosophical/ethical questions are best evaluated by the standards of
rational discourse (logical consistency, coherence, conceptual power and
insight, etc.) and by their social consequences in the case of
ethics.  Literary and artistic works are to be evaluated by the
quite different standards of literary/artistic creativity, expressiveness,
"language charged with the upmost meaning, phenomenological accuracy to
human experience, etc.  Now, a work of cultural criticism like that
of Andree Collard's RAPE OF THE WILD: MAN'S VIOLENCE AGAINST ANIMALS
AND THE EARTH, is to be properly evaluated by standards of hermenutic
insight in reading the "text" of cultural phenomena.  To the extent
that her insights "ring true", or deepen an already nascent awareness of
something, or comprehend what was merely fragmentary for the reader, 
then to that extent her book is a success.  Of course, it is going to fail
with those she would criticize.   Now, there are some more objective
standards like that of how well her theory and insights match or
fit with the extant tradition of cultural criticism.  Extensive footnotes
and references to other academic writings at the end of each of her
chapters provides some indication that she at least made the effort 
to produce a scholary work and not just a frenzied diatribe.

I was probably unfair to her work by citing only those 3 most 
incendiary passages about hunters from her book.  Still, the
purpose was to expose you guys to a different perspective, even
if it is one that you might not appreciate.



>|>      Now, the first thing that our inveterate hunters should note
>|> is that it is not us AR folk who are threatening your so-called
>|> "sport", but rather, it is that the activity of hunting

>No, I think currently in most places the AR folks are minor irritants.  The
>major problems are population growth, habitat loss, pollution, etc.

Again, you are discounting the data in which the ex-hunters themselves
gave their stated reasons.  You are simply speculating here as to
what it is that they really believe.  No, that is not true.  You are
simply stating what you believe, which is fine, but completely 
irrelevant to these conclusions that are at least attempting to
founded themselves upon what the ex-hunters
themselves said.


>|>      The next most often cited reasons simply bear on what
>|> hunters themselves are doing to themselves.  I regret to say that
>|> you and your "sport" are your own worst enemies.  Too many of you
>|> are stalking after that one Bambi.  It is crowded out there, and
>|> it is no wonder that hunting firearm deaths and crippling are a
>|> serious problem (see "Hunting Firearm Injuries" AMER. J. OF
>|> PUBLIC HEALTH, 1988, 78(12): 1585).
>|>  

>It's crowded on golf courses too, Ted, especially on weekends.  Experienced
>hunters either have better places to go (little known or private), avoid
>opening days, and avoid weekends.  Other activities have safety risks as
>well, Ted.  Actually I have seen very few people in the field that were
>not handling their guns in a responsible manner.  Many states have gone
>to mandatory gun safety courses.  I believe in Mn the number of firearm
>injuries per deer season has actually trended down over the past few years
>to a very small number.

Fine, believe what you wish but please do look up the reference I've
provided.  Did you see my posting in the r.f.v. conference on risk
assessement?  Here is an example of how people really are very bad at
assessing their personal risks.  About 1 in 2 people during their
lifetime will have a car accident more serious than a mere fender 
bender.  Most people think that they will not be one of those 
having a car accident, because they think themselves to be 
better than average with respect to their driving skills.  Do
you think that you are a better than average driver?  Do you
know what percentage of drivers think that they are better then
average?  Well, it turns out to be 90%   That's right, they
can't all be better than average, only 50% can be above average
(that is why the mean is called a "mean" statistic :-) ).  Now,
guess what percentage of people who end in hosptital still think
that they are better than average?  Surprising, the same 90%
figure occurs!  You would think that experience would have some
effect.

So, again, believe what you wish about your actually risks, but the
the evidence is in that people are very poor risk evaluators,
especially with respect to their own risks.



>|>      Note that only 1 in 5 chose ethics (5th on the list) as one

>I wouldn't use the word ethics here, Ted.  These people just said they don't
>like killing animals.  They didn't say they think it is wrong or unethical
>for others to do so if they choose to.  Unless all 296 people also became
>vegan when the quit hunting they can't be saying that.

Then you are making my point even stronger; you guys are not at all 
very readily moved by ethical considerations.  Too bad, I was giving
these ex-hunters more credit than is their due.  ;-) 



>|> of the reasons prompting their not bothering to purchase a
>|> hunting licence.  Not very impressive, is it?  With respect to
>|> social pressure, only 11% chose reason #10 as having any weight
>|> in their decision (the least frequently chosen reason).  And what
>|> might we conclude from this?  Again, it is not us AR folk that

>Might we conclude that hunting does not have the public disapproval that
>the AR types would like to portray it as having?  (Probably not from
>this study, but is as valid a conclusion as some of the ones you're trying
>to make.)

No, you might not conclude such since this study was not designed to
answer that question.  


>|> are your worst enemies, nor is it even your conscience, or even
>|> social disapproval by friends, etc.  So why are you Elmer Fudds so
>|> hostile to us harmless AR wabbit folk?  Looking for a scapegoat?
>|> What the above results show is that according to ex-hunters
>|> themselves, it is inherent to hunting that this killing of
>|> harmless animals is simply less interesting than many other
>|> things, and it is you yourselves and the loss of habitat that is
>|> destroying the opportunity for easy kills and even its "pleasure"
>|> (such as it may be for whatever cross-grained reason).  So guys,
>|> don't blame us if your numbers are declining, blame this "sport"
>|> for being uninteresting and yourselves for finding better things
>|> to do.
>|>  
>|>                                               ted
>|>  
>See my comments above about taking a narrow, specialized sample of
>ex-hunters and applying their responses to a questionaire to the whole
>hunting community. 

I've seen them and found them wanting in their understanding of
research methodology and statistics.


> Hunting and fishing are not for everyone, for a
>variety of reasons, certainly more than ten. 

We are not talking about everybody, only about a sub-population that
was operationally defined as people who started hunting, but did
not continue to renew their licence.  Call them "deserters" if you
wish, as did the pro-hunting authors of this paper.


> Nobody is forced to hunt
>or fish, yet millions of Americans and Canadians choose to do so, again
>for a variety of reasons.  We are hostile to you AR folks because at least
>some of you would like to ban hunting for what we perceive as misguided
>reasons, even in places where it is a needed management tool.  We are
>hostile because at least some of you harass hunters and disrupt hunters
>in the field.  We are hostile because some of you publish blatent lies
>such as the Myths poster that Werling typed in. 

 Then show some proper discrimination and stop tarring everybody with
the same brush.  I've never posted any lies and I would challenge 
you to cite one example.  You don't know what my outside
political activities might be and it is presumptious of you to
presume to know.  If there is the rare protest on your favourite
hunting grounds, then that is the very small price of a democracy.
You've been more often "disrupted", and to a greater extent, by
labour strikes.  Are you equally hostile to them as well?

The evidence suggests that your hostility is misplaced; you are looking
for a scapegoat and it is not I.  So take your bile elsewhere where it 
might more appropiately be originating.


> There are millions of
>people who either enjoy or make their living from hunting and fishing.
>Many of these people feel that the priviledge of doing so is worth
>defending against the threat of a small but vocal minority of misguided
>activists.  Its really too bad that we can't all join together and fight
>the real threat to wildlife, habitat destruction due to human activity.

I agree that habitat destruction is the major cause of destruction to
wildlife.  I never said otherwise, nor has any AR folk here on this 
conference.   This is not the enviromental conference, this this
talk.politics. animals conference where the ethics of killing harmless
animals for superfluous reasons is at issue.  

                                         ted

e