Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhdw20

Download by: [107.77.76.22] Date: 14 December 2017, At: 15:24

Human Dimensions of WildlifeAn International Journal

ISSN: 1087-1209 (Print) 1533-158X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

Wild-Harvested Venison Yields and Sharing byMichigan Deer Hunters

Amber D. Goguen, Shawn J. Riley, John F. Organ & Brent A. Rudolph

To cite this article: Amber D. Goguen, Shawn J. Riley, John F. Organ & Brent A. Rudolph (2017):Wild-Harvested Venison Yields and Sharing by Michigan Deer Hunters, Human Dimensions ofWildlife, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2017.1409372

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1409372

View supplementary material

Published online: 14 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Wild-Harvested Venison Yields and Sharing by Michigan DeerHuntersAmber D. Goguena, Shawn J. Rileya, John F. Organb, and Brent A. Rudolphc

aDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA; bU.S. GeologicalSurvey, Reston, Virginia, USA; cMichigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan, USA

ABSTRACTAn increased societal focus on wildlife as food and recent policydeliberations regarding legal markets for wild-harvested meat areencouraging wildlife managers and researchers to examine theamount, use, and distribution of meat yielded through recreationalhunting. We used responses to questions on the Michigan DeerHarvest Study to estimate the maximum yield of edible venisonand assess hunters’ sharing behaviors. We estimated 11,402–14,473metric tons of edible venison were procured during the 2013 huntingseason. Of hunters who harvested a deer, 85% shared their venison.Hunters who shared did so with an average of 5.6 people (SD = 4.5).Sharing occurred most frequently within tight social networks: mem-bers of hunters’ households (69%), relatives (52%), and friends, neigh-bors, or coworkers (50%). In the absence of legal markets, venison isdistributed widely by hunters and greatly amplifies the number ofpeople benefiting from hunting. Nonetheless, we also identified thepotential breadth of exposure to disease or contaminants from wild-harvested meat.

KEYWORDSEcosystem services; gamemeat; hunting; meatconsumption;wild-harvested meat

Introduction

Wild-harvested meat produces ecosystem services that contribute to the physiological andsocial development of humans (Larsen, 2003). Meat procured through hunting is con-sumed, shared, bartered, and traded for its nutritional, economic, ecological, and socio-cultural importance throughout the world (Fischer et al., 2013; Freese, 1997). Althoughample research has focused on bushmeat in the tropics or subsistence communities(Alvard, Robinson, Redford, & Kaplan, 1997; Davies & Brown, 2007; Gurven, 2004b),recreational hunters annually procure abundant yet mostly unquantified amounts of meat.During the past century an emphasis on recreational, management, and economic valuesof hunting in the US broadly supplanted views of hunting as a means to obtain food,creating gaps in our knowledge (Marchello, Berg, Slanger, & Harrold, 1985).

Early estimates suggest large yields of venison come from white-tailed deer (Odocoileusvirginanus) in the US, which represents an overlooked or undervalued ecosystem service(Marchello et al., 1985; Novakowski & Solman, 1975; Wilcox, 1976). Harvests of white-tailed deer have nearly tripled since those early estimates, but little more is known abouthow much meat is yielded or how wild-harvested venison is used in the US. Insights into

CONTACT Amber D. Goguen goguenam@msu.edu Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 480 Wilson Rd, RM 13,East Lansing, MI 48824.

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.

HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFEhttps://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1409372

© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

yields of meat and the breadth of sharing by hunters will inform deliberations about legalmarkets for wildlife, contribute to understanding the nutritional and cultural roles ofhunting, and elucidate public health issues created by consumption of wild-harvestedmeats.

Meat produced from hunting is now gaining attention by stakeholders with diverseconcerns. An inability to control white-tailed deer populations (Thogmartin, 2006)), issuesof food security (Burger, 2002), food safety (Iqbal et al., 2009), the role of wild-harvestedmeat in maintaining the relevancy of hunting (Ljung, Riley, Heberlein, & Ericsson, 2012),and the growing local food movements (Cerulli, 2012) are interests that motivated ourinquiry.

Wild-Harvested Meat

We chose the term wild-harvested meat instead of game meat because the former moreclearly defines the source (i.e., wildlife) and the means of procurement (i.e., hunters). Wedefine wild-harvested meat as meat obtained through legal hunting of free-ranging wildlife(Food Law 2000; Peterson, Peterson, & Peterson, 2016). For our purposes, meat refersbroadly to the meat of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, but not fish or shellfish.Data presented in this article, however, focuses on meat of legal, hunter-harvested white-tailed deer from the wild (wild-harvested venison or venison).

Sources of Wild-Harvested Meat in the United States

The sale and trade of wild-harvested meat is illegal throughout most of the US, althoughregulations vary from state to state and exceptions exist for some species (Abhat & Unger,2010; Geist, 1988). Because meat from most species is not available in U.S. stores orrestaurants, it is normally obtained directly from a hunter without monetary exchange(i.e., sharing). Non-hunters who have consumed wild-harvested meat are evidence ofhunters sharing their harvest (Burger, 2000, 2002; Responsive Management [RM] &National Shooting Sports Foundation [NSSF], 2011; Stedman & Decker, 1996).Although social networks of hunters play a key role in distribution (Ljung et al., 2012;Stedman & Decker, 1996), little is known about with whom and how much sharing takesplace.

Research on and Significance of Wild-Harvested Meat in the United States

New Jersey (A3039, 2014) and Maryland (S. SB0748, 2015) recently put forth legislation toallow the commercial harvest of wild deer and sale of venison to aid in controllingabundant deer populations (Thogmartin, 2006; VerCauteren et al., 2011). Such proposedchanges deviate from current policy and practices that explicitly prohibit sale of meat fromwildlife.

Wild-harvested meat affects human health through food security and safety (Burger,2000, 2002; Iqbal et al., 2009; Paulsen, Bauer, & Smulders, 2014). “Food Security is thecondition in which all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access tosufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences foran active and healthy life” (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,

2 A. D. GOGUEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

1996). Food safety refers to the management of biological, chemical and physical hazardsin food to prevent illness (Paulsen et al., 2014). Wild-harvested meat can be a healthysource of local, free-range, lean protein that is high in energy and essential macronutrients(Marchello et al., 1985). Access to such meat may address consumers concerns for meatfree of antibiotics, hormone supplements, and other additives. Despite its benefits, wild-harvested meat also is associated with potential adverse health risks such as zoonoticdiseases and ingestion of bio-accumulated chemical contaminants and heavy metals (Iqbalet al., 2009; Paulsen et al., 2014).

Societal transformations are changing the way humans interact with nature, potentiallythreatening the relevancy of traditional uses of wildlife (Manfredo, Teel, & Henry, 2009;Whittaker, Vaske, & Manfredo, 2006; Zinn, Manfredo, & Barro, 2002). When hunting ischaracterized as a method of obtaining food, however, public support is strongest(Campbell & Mackay, 2003; Duda, Jones, & Criscione, 2010; RM & NSSF, 2008). Theeffects of sharing wild-harvested meat on the relevancy of hunting to society may gobeyond simply discussing hunting in terms of food. Sharing of meat may socialize non-hunters to hunting (Heberlein, 1991; Stedman & Decker, 1996). In Sweden, wild-harvestedmeat consumption is correlated with positive attitudes toward hunting (Ljung, Riley, &Ericsson, 2014; Ljung et al., 2012). Local food movements concerned with where and howmeat is produced have embraced wild-harvested meat in recent years. Hunting recruit-ment strategies based on this new stakeholder group are being considered (Larson,Stedman, Decker, Siemer, & Baumer, 2014; Tidball et al., 2013).

The Current Study

Our objectives were to identify the amount of wild-harvested venison produced annuallyin Michigan and to investigate characteristics and extent of sharing of venison by recrea-tional hunters in Michigan. To achieve these objectives, we assessed the amount ofvenison produced in a single hunting season and explored sharing of this venison byquantifying the number of hunters who shared, with whom they shared, and identifyingcharacteristics of hunters who shared. We studied venison because: (a) the keen interest indeer hunting (Fuller, 2016); (b) deer harvests typically yield large quantities of venison,which creates opportunities for sharing (Gurven, 2004a); (c) venison is readily used andvalued by humans (Roth & Merz, 1996); and, (d) desire for venison is being explored as amotivation for additional harvest to control deer populations (Robinson et al., 2016;VerCauteren et al., 2011).

Methods

Study Area and Population

The state of Michigan has a population of 9,883,640 people (U.S. Census, 2010).Michigan’s hunting population ranks second in the US in the proportion that pursuedeer and ranks fifth in the total number of resident deer hunters 16 years and older(Fuller, 2016). About 90% of Michigan hunters obtain a license to hunt white-tailed deer,the most abundant deer species present in the state (Frawley, 2006). In Michigan in 2013,712,404 people purchased at least one deer hunting license, and an estimated 661,788

HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

people hunted deer (Frawley, 2014). The 2013 harvest of 385,302 deer was a reduction intotal harvest of 8.3% and 8.7% from 2012 and 2011, respectively (Frawley, 2014). Themean age of Michigan deer hunters in 2013 was estimated to be 42 years, 89% of whomwere male (Frawley, 2014). Our estimates of venison yield and sharing are limited to theactions of individuals who purchased a 2013 Michigan deer hunting license. Tribalmembers and others, who hunted under circumstances that did not require a licensefrom the State of Michigan, were not included in our analyses. Additionally, responses toour questionnaire do not pertain to deer harvested with Damage Management Assistance(DMA) permits though DMA harvests were included in estimates of venison yield.

Sampling Design

Questions were included on the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)2013 Michigan Deer Harvest Study (Frawley, 2014). A full description of survey meth-odologies is reported elsewhere (Frawley, 2014). Deer hunters who voluntarily reportedtheir harvest online (n = 3,772) were removed from the sample frame prior to drawing asample for the mail-back questionnaire, which created an effective population size ofN = 708,632. To ensure inclusion of all hunting license purchasers the population wasdivided into four mutually exclusive strata based on the type of deer hunting licensepurchased (e.g., firearm or archery, antlerless, mentored youth, or combination) and theseason in which it was valid. The first stratum included hunters eligible only for thearchery, firearm and muzzleloader seasons (N = 439,173). The second stratum includedhunters eligible only for the early and late antlerless seasons in addition to the seasons inthe first stratum (N = 208,866). The third stratum included hunters eligible for the Liberty(veterans and youth) season (N = 56,931) and the fourth stratum included only disabledhunters (N = 3,662). Strata were sampled separately to ensure all types of hunters hadsample sizes large enough for statistical tests. Strata also were sampled randomly, resultingin a final sample of 55,537 hunters who were mailed questionnaires: 27,438 from the firststratum, 13,106 from the second, 11,517 from the third, and 3,476 from the fourthstratum.

Data Collection

The 2013 Michigan Deer Harvest Study used a modified Dillman Tailored DesignMethod (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009) with three mailings on January 22nd,March 14th, and April 26th, 2014. In addition to the questionnaire, mailings included aletter of consent describing the study from the chief of the MDNR Wildlife Divisionand an offer from Safari Club International Michigan Chapter to be entered in adrawing to win a firearm or bow if the questionnaire was returned by February 20,2014. Permission to access demographic data from license sales and survey responseswas given by MDNR.

Level of urbanization of a hunters’ residential area was identified by mapping zip codesused in survey mailing in relation to census defined urbanized areas using ArcGIS 10.1(Environmental Systems Research Institute [ESRI], 2012; Urban area criteria for the 2010census, 2011. Zip code polygons completely within the urbanized area layer were identi-fied as urban. Zip code polygons that intersected the urbanized area boundary line were

4 A. D. GOGUEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

identified as the urban buffer. Zip code polygons completely outside the urbanized areaslayer were identified as not urban.

Survey Instrument

The 2013 Michigan Deer Harvest Study was a four-page questionnaire about hunterharvest activities, satisfaction, and statewide deer management issues. Standard surveyquestions provided information on hunter harvest for the 2013 season including totalnumber of deer harvested and specifics on antlered and antlerless harvest, seasons inwhich the hunter participated, and the type of hunting equipment used. We includedadditional questions about individuals with whom hunters shared their wild-harvestedvenison in the past 12 months. Response options included I did not share; immediatehousehold members; relative not within household; friends, neighbors, or coworkers;landowner whose property they hunted; community group game dinner; food bank orother donation program; or other open-ended response. We also asked for an estimatednumber of people with whom they directly shared venison within the past 12 months. Theresponse option was a fill-in-the-blank with number. (See Goguen [2015] to view thecomplete questionnaire.)

Categories for possible relations with whom a hunter shared venison were derived frompilot interviews with hunters, discussions with MDNR researchers, and previous surveysasking non-hunters about their relationships with hunters (Ljung et al., 2012; Stedman &Decker, 1996). Sharing was defined in the questionnaire as “offering raw (meat) orprepared (cooked) venison to another person.” All questions about wild-harvested venisonsharing behaviors were limited to a reference period of 12 months to assist respondentrecall (Dillman et al., 2009; Vaske, 2008). A 12-month period was used due to the seasonalnature of venison availability combined with the possibility of long-term cold storage ofvenison. Venison a hunter reported sharing was not limited to the 2013 harvest and couldhave been harvested during any season. Only the behavior of sharing venison was limitedto a 12-month recall. An open-ended estimate for the number of people with whomhunters directly shared their venison was used to elicit a range of possible answers andavoid influencing potential answers with response options (Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski,2000; Vaske, 2008).

Calculating Edible Wild-Harvested Venison Yield

Five studies provided ratios, regression equations, or raw data to calculate edible venisonyield from white-tailed deer (Table 1). Although equations to estimate yield vary, likelydue to differences in location and methodologies, these equations currently provide thebest available methods for estimating the maximum edible venison yield. Regressionequations were used when possible to improve the accuracy of estimates. Regressionequations are more accurate than ratios for estimating edible venison yield because largerdeer provide more edible venison per kilogram than smaller deer (Severinghaus, 1949).When necessary, regression equations were converted from pounds to kilograms. Averagelive weight and composition of the harvest by age class and sex are needed to use theseequations. Average live weights for Michigan white-tailed deer by age (0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5,4.5, and 5.5+), sex (doe or buck) and year-round nutrition (poor or good) were adapted

HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

from Ozoga, Doepker, and Sargent (1993, p. 43). Average of field dressed weights fromdeer with poor and good nutrition were used for each individual age class within each sex.Field dressed weights were converted to kilograms and multiplied by the conversion factor1.28 to estimate live weights (Case & McCullough, 1987; Harder, 1980).

The age structure and total antlered and antlerless harvest from the 2013 Michigan deerhunting season was determined from 2013 MDNR deer checking station data (Mayhew,2014) and from the 2013 Michigan Deer Harvest Survey Report (Frawley, 2014), respec-tively. The yield of venison for a single deer, based on average live weight by sex and ageclass for each equation was calculated, and then multiplied by the total number of deerharvested during the 2013 Michigan deer seasons (385,302 deer) per sex and age class toget the estimated edible venison yield by deer sex and age. These estimates were thentotaled by equation and the average and range of these sums were used to estimate themaximum yield of edible venison taken during the 2013 Michigan deer hunting season.

Analysis

Statistical TestsPearson’s Chi-squared (χ2) was used to test if hunters’ sharing behaviors (0 = not share;1 = share) differed across the binary and categorical covariates. The phi (Φ) coefficient andCramér’s V were used to measure the strength of association (effect size) between hunters’sharing behaviors and the binary and categorical covariates, respectively. Two-sample t-testswere used to test if hunters’ sharing behaviors differed across the continuous covariates.Point biserial correlations (rpb) were used to measure the strength of association betweenhunters’ sharing behaviors and continuous covariates. Ninety-five percent confidence inter-vals for the proportion of the sample observed with trait of interest (p̂) were calculated usingthe formula for a known population (Zar, 1996). A binary logistic regression and zero-

Table 1. Edible venison produced from white-tailed deer

Citation

Data source Equations(kg)Sample description Location

Hamilton, 1947 9 WTD 5 Western NY abandoned farmland; 2Adirondack region NY; 2 Ontario

EV = 0.68*LW-7.52

Severinghaus,1949

109 WTD: 22 Bucks, 78 Does; Aged5 months – 11 years; plus Hamilton’sdata.

Majority Catskills and Western NY;few Adirondack region NY plusHamilton’s data

EV = 0.66*LW-6.19

Hamerstrom &Camburn, 1950

24 WTD: 5 Fawns (2 doe, 3 buck); 6yearlings (2 doe, 4 buck); 13 adults (4doe, 9 buck)

Edwin S. George Reserve, LivingstonCounty, Michigan

FLDW = 0.54*LW-0.67

Cowan et al.(1968)

13 WTD aged 12–39 months Not specified, likely Pennsylvania. EV = 0.44*LW+1.52

Marchello, Berg,Slanger, &Harrold, (1985)

15 WTD North Dakota EV = 0.49*LW

Definitions from Cowan et al. (1968)EV Weight of edible red meat (muscular tissue). This does not include the heart or other organs that

may be used for consumption.LW Total weight of the deer before it is harvested (before bleeding).FLDW Term used by Hamerstrom and Camburn (1950) and defined as “whole carcasses were sawed

lengthwise through the vertebral column, given a final trimming and cleaning, and weighted again”(p. 6). This does not include internal organs, head, hide or hooves, but may include some bones.

WTD White-tailed Deer

6 A. D. GOGUEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

inflated negative binomial regression were used to predict a hunter’s sharing behaviors.These models had issues with interpretation due to misspecification and small effect sizes;their results are discussed briefly within the article, and full model outputs are provided assupplemental materials (https://msu.edu/~goguenam/SupplementalMaterials_Wild-harvestedvenisonyieldsandsharingbyMichigandeerhunters.pdf).

Non-Response BiasExternal non-response bias was not estimated due to lack of telephone numbers forrespondents. There are also concerns about internal non-response bias, meaning withinrecorded responses to the questionnaire. Hunters who did not harvest a deer in 2013 weremore likely to skip questions about venison sharing than hunters who harvested a deer. Tominimize potential biases associated with those non-respondents, hunters’ sharing beha-viors are reported in a binary variable that is a combination of their responses to bothquestions about sharing. Sharing behaviors of non-respondents to both questions wereinputted using reported sharing percentages for respondents based on their deer harvestfor 2013. Imputed data were used for overall sharing estimates, not for statistical analysis.Without these adjustments, sharing estimates would be exaggerated.

Results

Respondent Characteristics and Analysis Sample

Of an initial 55,537 questionnaires mailed to licensed hunters, 54,277 (98%) were deliv-ered, and 27,834 (51%) were returned. Minors (less than the age of 18, n = 5,856), hunterswho reported they did not participate in the 2013 season (n = 1,775), and non-residenthunters (n = 1,041) were removed from the sample, which resulted in a final sample size of19,981. Males comprised 89% of respondents. The mean age of the total sample was44 years, which closely resembles population parameters for all deer hunting licensebuyers in Michigan (89% male, mean age = 42 years).

Maximum Edible Wild-Harvested Venison Yield

A maximum estimated 11,402–14,473 metric tons (M = 13,256 metric tons) of edible wild-harvested venison were yielded during the 2013 Michigan deer hunting seasons; 4,496–5,447 metric tons were derived from antlerless deer (M = 5,118 metric tons) and 6,905–9,025 metric tons from antlered deer (M = 8,138 metric tons) (Table S1 online). Theestimates vary considerably depending on which equation was used. This converts toapproximately 101–128 thousand meals of venison or 10–13 meals of venison per personper year in Michigan (1 meal equals 113 grams or 4 ounces). The 2015–2020 DietaryGuidelines for Americans suggest consumption of 737 grams (26 ounces) of meat, poultry,or eggs per week based on a 2,000-calorie diet (U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015). If venison comprised an individuals’entire recommended animal protein for one year (38 kilograms), the wild-harvestedvenison produced in Michigan would provide the annual recommended animal proteinintake for 297–378 thousand people or 3–4% of the total Michigan population.

HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

Wild-Harvested Venison Sharing by Hunters

Nearly 52% of respondents who participated in the 2013 deer-hunting season reportedsharing wild-harvested venison in the 12 months prior to survey administration. Thepercentage who shared increased to 85% when a hunter reported harvesting a deer in2013. Nearly 25% of hunters who did not harvest a deer in 2013 still reported sharingvenison in the 12 months prior to receiving the questionnaire. Extrapolating to allMichigan hunters who participated in the 2013 deer hunting season, an estimated341,483 ± 4,500 Michigan deer hunters shared their venison. Only variables related to2013 deer harvest (harvested at least one deer, harvested an antlered deer, harvestedantlerless deer and total harvest) were statistically significant predictors of sharing beha-viors with functional effect sizes (Table 2, Table S2 online, & Table S3 online). Age andlevel of urbanization of residence were statistically significant predictors of sharingbehaviors, but effect sizes were small. Increase in age exhibited a negative statistical

Table 2. Hunting-related characteristics and demographic profile of hunters who did and did not sharewild-harvested venison

Variable

All respondents(n = 17,262)*

Shared venison(n = 9,475)

Did not sharevenison

(n = 7,787)Tests for statisticaldifference betweenshare and not share Effect sizeN % n % n %

Harvested in 2013Yes 8,537 49 7,263 77 1,274 16 χ2 = 6200 p < .001 Φ = .600No 8,725 51 2,212 23 6,513 84

Harvested Antlered Deer in 2013Yes 5,675 33 4,861 51 814 10 χ2 = 3200 p < .001 Φ = .433No 11,587 67 4,614 49 6,973 90

Harvested Antlerless Deer in 2013Yes 4,507 26 3,898 41 609 8 χ2 = 2500

p < .001Φ = .378

No 12,755 74 5,577 59 7,178 92Total number of Deer Harvested0 8,725 51 2,212 23 6,513 84 t = 81.567

p < .001rpb = .509t = 77.603p < .001

1 5,817 34 4,834 51 983 132 1,994 12 1,747 18 247 33 535 3 507 5 28 04 133 1 119 1 14 05 36 0 34 0 2 06 18 0 18 0 0 07 4 0 4 0 0 0

Age18–29 1,988 12 1,120 12 868 11 t = 9.041

Pr (T > t) =.001

rpb = -.069t = −9.041p < .001

30–39 2,173 13 1,273 13 900 1240–49 3,352 19 1,965 21 1,387 1850–59 4,405 26 2,537 27 1,868 2460–69 3,851 22 1,902 20 1,949 2570–79 1,255 7 576 6 679 980–89 230 1 97 1 133 290+ 8 0 5 0 3 0Mean 51 12 51 15 53 18

SexMale 15,940 92 8,754 92 7,186 92 χ2 = 0.071 p = .790 Φ = -.002Female 1,322 8 721 8 601 8

Community Type (n = 17,215)Not Urban 9,838 57 5,443 58 4,395 57 χ2 = 1.830

p = .400Cramer’s V = .010

Urban Buffer 5,944 35 3,224 34 2,720 35Urban 1,433 8 782 8 651 8

*All respondents who provided information on sharing behaviors.

8 A. D. GOGUEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

relationship with sharing, while levels of urbanization had an inverse relationship withsharing behaviors.

Michigan deer hunters, who shared their venison, shared with a mean of 5.6 (SD = 4.5)people, excluding events that resulted in numerous recipients, such as game dinners ordonations to food banks (Figure 1). Considering the number of hunters who share, anestimated 1,912,305 people ± 67,209 (95% CI) people, or 19% ± 0.7% of the total Michiganpopulation, received venison from hunters during the 12 months prior to survey admin-istration. Of hunters who reported sharing their venison, approximately 69% shared withmembers of their household, 52% with relatives, and 50% shared with friends, neighbors,or coworkers (Table 3). Slightly more than 2% of hunters who shared reported donatingtheir deer to a food bank or other donation program: This equates to an estimated15,882 ± 1,390 (95% CI) hunters.

Discussion

Our results establish the relative magnitude of wild-harvested venison yielded annually byMichigan deer hunters and the extent of sharing occurring under current regulations and

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 29 31 35 40

Num

ber

of p

rovi

ders

Number of receivers

Figure 1. Number of people with whom hunters reported sharing venison.

Table 3. People with whom Michigan deer hunters provided wild-harvested venison

Receivers n% Out of those who shared

(n = 9,063)% Out of all respondents to the

question (n = 15,223)

I did not share any of my venison 6,160 40Members of my household 6,243 69 41Relatives not in my household 4,713 52 31Friends, neighbors, or coworkers 4,568 50 30Landowner whose property I hunted 1,165 13 8Community group game dinner 243 3 2Food bank or other donation program 219 2 1Other - not specified 75 1 0

HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

social norms. Despite an absence of legal markets for wild-harvested meat, recreationalhunters distribute venison frequently and broadly though their social networks, high-lighting the cultural importance of venison to hunters. This magnitude of sharingoccurred despite only 6% of the state’s population in any given year being licensed deerhunters (Fuller, 2016). Sharing behaviors amplify ecosystem services provided by venisonbeyond the hunting population. Yet, our findings also highlight potential pathways for thetransmission of disease and contaminants from venison handling and consumption.

Venison produced and shared by hunters in Michigan demonstrates one ecosystemservice, nutrition, provided by wild-harvested meat. Based on our estimates, it is possiblethat a small portion of the Michigan population can rely on venison to meet their annualanimal protein intake. Venison is a potential key factor in the food security of someMichigan households, although more information on hunter household consumption ofvenison is needed to refine estimates.

If our estimates are broadly applicable, the 2011–2013 average estimated harvest of 6.1million white-tailed deer in the US (Adams & Ross, 2015) yielded 182–231 thousandmetric tons of venison. This estimate is derived from multiplying the average amount ofedible venison produced per deer (29.6 – 37.6 kilograms of meat per deer) by the totalmean annual harvest of white-tailed deer. The only other available estimate to compare isfrom Wilcox (1976), who estimated the amount of edible venison produced from hunter-harvested deer for all 50 states from 1969–1974 was over 2.3 million deer, providing over51 thousand metric tons of venison annually. Estimated yields of meat from white-taileddeer, combined with yields from other hunted wildlife species, illustrate an immenseecosystem service provided by wild-harvested meat.

Estimated values of wildlife resources typically are reported in monetized economicterms, such as price per pound of a roughly equivalent product (Ready, 2012; Wilcox,1976). Purposefully, no monetary value for wild-harvested venison is realized under thecurrent management framework (Organ, Mahoney, & Geist, 2010). Farm-raised venison isavailable in stores, restaurants, and online, but prices vary considerably and marketresearch is lacking. Venison is comparable to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)standard grade beef in amino acid content, but has lower levels of fat and calories, andgreater levels of protein, ash and cholesterol (Marchello et al., 1985). From January 2015 toJanuary 2017, the average retail price per pound for the lowest cost beef (ground beef) was$3.74 and the highest cost beef (USDA choice boneless sirloin steak) was $8.34 (Hahn,2017). Based on our estimates, the economic value of venison procured by Michigan deerhunters during the 2013 deer seasons ranged between $94-$266 million U.S. dollars. At anational scale, venison from hunter-harvested white-tailed deer represents an economicvalue annually exceeding 1.5 billion U.S. dollars.

Ecosystem services provided by venison extend beyond nutrition. An overwhelmingmajority of hunters who harvested a deer reported sharing their venison. Venison mayplay an important cultural role in the life of deer hunters. Cultural food practices serveeconomic, political, recreational, social, aesthetic, religious, and ceremonial values (Bryant,DeWalt, Courtney, & Schwarts, 2003). Sharing of food is a social activity that builds andmaintains the social bonds within and external to the familial unit and is a way thesebonds are expressed (Jiménez, Montón-Subías, & Romero, 2011). Food also may functionas a symbol of social status and prestige (Bryant et al., 2003). Although conclusions drawndirectly from our data about hunters’ motivations for or benefits from sharing venison are

10 A. D. GOGUEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

speculative, the presence and popularity of sharing does suggest widespread culturalimportance of wild-harvested meat sharing among recreational hunters.

Hunter-sharing behaviors were highly correlated with having a deer; hunters cannotshare what they do not have. The effect sizes for age and level of urbanization wereminimal, evoking questions about the role of sample size in producing statisticallysignificant results (Johnson, 1999). The bivariate logistic regression failed the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of fit test for p < .05 regardless of group size. Nonetheless, this test ismore likely to reject model fit as sample size increases (Kramer & Zimmerman, 2007).Although we report age and level of urbanization as factors affecting hunters’ sharingbehaviors related to venison, there is no theoretical basis on which to draw cause andeffect conclusions about these relationships. The variables used to identify the character-istics of hunters who share originate from the 2013 Michigan Deer Harvest Study. Theory-based research is needed to provide insights into the relationships between demographicvariables and sharing behaviors.

It is possible that hunters involved in our survey shared with some of the same people,which caused double reporting and increased our estimates of sharing. Our estimate of thenumber of people with whom hunters shared, however, is conservative in comparison toother research. Nearly 61% of non-hunters who responded to a survey in upstate NewYork reported eating some sort of wild-harvested meat (Stedman & Decker, 1996). Anestimated 42% of Americans nation-wide consume wild-harvested meat annually(Responsive Management [RM] & the National Shooting Sports Foundation [NSSF],2011). Importantly, these studies used the term game meat and did not specify the sourceof meat or whether hunters procured it. Likely, some respondents in previous studies whoreported that they ate game meat had farm-raised in lieu of wild-harvested meat. The actof sharing venison may be habitual enough for deer hunters that they may be less likely toremember each specific occurrence (Nolin, 2010; Tourangeau et al., 2000), which results inan underestimate of sharing. In addition, the estimates hunters provided did not includepeople with whom they shared at large events. Consumption by non-hunters reported inother studies also is affected by sharing of meat other than venison.

Sharing of venison may serve several functions beneficial to hunters. Ecosystem servicesprovided by sharing could be a key component of maintaining the relevancy of hunting toMichigan society. A positive relationship between frequency of consumption of wild-harvested meat and attitudes of non-hunters toward hunters and hunting was identified inSweden (Ljung et al., 2012). Public support for hunting is consistently strong when themotivation for hunting is obtaining food (Campbell & Mackay, 2003; Duda et al., 2010;Responsive Management & The National Shooting Sports Foundation (RM & NSSF),2008). Identifying how hunters use and distribute wild-harvested meat, and disseminatingthis information may be a simple way to encourage positive attitudes about hunting andmaintain relevancy of hunting to society.

That hunters reported sharing venison most often just within their household isexpected based on evolutionary theories of food sharing based on kin selection, whichpredicts increased sharing of food with kin because it increases chances of offspringsurvival (Kaplan & Gurven, 2005). Hunters reported sharing less often as social distanceincreased; social proximity appears to be a key factor influencing sharing behaviors amonghunters. Hunters’ social networks most likely limit the distribution of venison and itspotential benefits. Considering that hunters are a relatively homogeneous group

HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

comprised of rural white middle-aged males (Fuller, 2016; Stedman & Heberlein, 2001),wild-harvested meat may not be as accessible to urban, young or elderly, female and non-white populations. People who are close to hunters, particularly household members, arelikely more at risk from any potential negative effects of consuming wild-harvested meats.

We consider our estimated yields of wild-harvested venison as a maximum. Accuracy ofhunters’ shots, care and speed in dressing and bleeding, butchering proficiency, anddifferences in deer size or weight all influence the amount of edible venison a deer yields(Cowan et al., 1968; Hamerstrom & Camburn, 1950; Hamilton, 1947; Marchello et al., 1985;Severinghaus, 1949). Weights of white-tailed deer vary based on subspecies, region, season,age, and habitat quality (Sauer, 1984). Michigan hunters typically harvest deer younger thanfive years, which likely further increases variability in live weights (Ozoga et al., 1993). Typeof hunting equipment used and the physical condition of deer at time of kill also influenceyields of edible venison (Jenkins & Bartlett, 1959). Additional studies that calculate realisticestimates of edible venison yielded by recreational hunters under the array of normal fieldconditions could enable more accurate estimation from total harvests.

There is a lack of data in the U.S. for conducting human health risk assessments forwild game (Conder & Arblaster, 2016). Our results provide information useful for con-ducting human health risk assessments and communication about current or future healthrisks from the handling and consumption of venison in Michigan. When providing publichealth information to consumers of wild-harvested meat, it is essential to recognizevenison, and presumably wild-harvested meat generally, is consumed by more peoplethan hunters. The vast quantity of venison produced and distributed throughout societymay be a motivator for increased testing for food safety and for developing programs infood safety for hunters and receivers of wild-harvested meats.

Conclusions

Our research demonstrates that despite a lack of legal US markets in wild-harvested meat,venison is widely shared and distributed beyond the population of hunters. A system ofsharing and consumption operated by informal institutions appears to have evolved.Imposing a legal market on wild-harvested meat in this system could change who benefitsand how those benefits are interpreted by society. From a public health managementperspective, the network of sharing we describe identifies pathways for exposure tozoonotic disease and contaminants.

Methods used to estimate yields of edible venison provide a starting point for others tomake such estimates and stimulates collection of data on: (a) harvest statistics includingage distribution and carcass weight; (b) average deer size based on age class and sex; and(c) the amount of edible venison produced by recreational hunters. Similar data fromother states or countries and for other species could provide more accurate insights aboutyields of wild-harvested meat and its use.

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to B. Frawley for assistance with data collection. S. Hyngstrom improved themanuscript by reviewing an early draft. Permission to access demographic data from license salesand survey responses was given by MDNR and approved by the MSU Human Research Protection

12 A. D. GOGUEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

Program Social Science/Behavioral/Education Institutional Review Board to ensure the protectionof human subjects (IRB #x13-721e).

Funding

Our research was funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the Pittman-RobertsonWildlife Restoration Act Grant MI W-155-R, Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ WildlifeDivision through the Partnership for Ecosystem Research and Management, Michigan StateUniversity through a University Distinguished Fellowship, and the National Science FoundationGraduate Research Fellowship Program.

References

A3039, Leg., 216th Sess. (N.J. 2014).Abhat, D., & Unger, K. (2010). Managing wildlife in shades of gray: Threats to the pillars of the

North American Model. The Wildlife Professional, 4(3), 58–63.Adams, K., & Ross, M. (2015). Part 1: Deer harvest trends. Quality Deer Management Association’s

(QDMA’s) Whitetail Report, 4–15.Alvard, M. S., Robinson, J. G., Redford, K. H., & Kaplan, H. (1997). The sustainability of subsistence

hunting in the Neotropics. Conservation Biology, 11, 977–982.Bryant, C. A., DeWalt, K. M., Courtney, A., & Schwarts, J. (2003). The cultural feast: An introduc-

tion to food and society (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Burger, J. (2000). Gender differences in meal patterns: Role of self-caught fish and wild game in

meat and fish diets. Environmental Research Section A, 83, 140–149.Burger, J. (2002). Daily consumption of wild fish and game: Exposures of high end recreationalists.

International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 12, 343–354.Campbell, J. M., & Mackay, K. (2003). Attitudinal and normative influences on support for hunting

as a wildlife management strategy. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 181–198.Case, D. J., & McCullough, D. R. (1987). The white-tailed deer of North Manitou Island. Hilgardia,

55(9), 1–57.Cerulli, T. (2012). The mindful carnivore: A vegetarian’s hunt for sustenance. New York, NY:

Pegasus Books.Conder, J. M., & Arblaster, J. A. (2016). Development and use of wild game consumption rates in

human health risk assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: an International Journal,22(1), 251–264.

Cowan, R. L., Hartsook, E. W., Whelan, J. B., Watkins, J. L., Lindzey, J. S., Wetzel, R. W., &Liscinsky, S. A. (1968). Weight your deer with a string. Pennsylvania Game News, 39, 17–19.

Davies, G., & Brown, D. (Eds.). (2007). Bushmeat and livelihoods: Wildlife management and povertyreduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-modesurveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Duda, M. D., Jones, M. F., & Criscione, A. (2010). The sportsman’s voice: Hunting and fishing inAmerica. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). (2012). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.1 [computersoftware}. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

Fischer, A., Sandström, C., Delibes-Mateos, M., Arroyo, B., Tadie, D., Randall, D., . . . Reljić, S.(2013). On the multifunctionality of hunting–An institutional analysis of eight cases from Europeand Africa. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56, 531–552.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1996). Rome declaration on world foodsecurity and world food summit plan of action. Retrived from http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm

HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

Frawley, B. J. (2006). Demographics, recruitment, and retention of Michigan hunters: 2005 update(Wildlife Report No. 3462). Lansing, MI: Department of Natural Resources.

Frawley, B. J. (2014). Michigan deer harvest survey report 2013 seasons (Wildlife Report No. 3585).Lansing, MI: Department of Natural Resources.

Freese, C. H. (Ed.). (1997). Harvesting wild species. Implications for biodiversity conservation.Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fuller, M. (2016). Deer hunting in the United States: Demographics and trends: Addendum to the2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Report No.2011-10). Arlington, VA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Geist, V. (1988). How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the sale of hunting privileges,jeopardize wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, 2(1), 15–26.

Goguen, A. D. (2015). Sharing and consuming wild harvested meat: providers and receivers ofvenison (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMINo. 1598567), East Lansing, MI:Michigan State University.

Gurven, M. (2004a). Reciprocal altruism and food sharing decisions among Hiwi and Ache hunter–Gatherers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 56(4), 366–380.

Gurven, M. (2004b). To give and to give not: The behavioral ecology of human food transfers.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(4), 543–559.

Hahn, W. (2017). Retail prices for beef, pork, and poultry cuts, eggs, and dairy products [Data file anddocumentation]. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads.aspx

Hamerstrom, F. N., & Camburn, F. L. (1950). Weight relationships in the George Reserve deer herd.Journal of Mammalogy, 31(1), 5–17.

Hamilton, W. J. (1947). Dressed weights of some game mammals. The Journal of WildlifeManagement, 11(4), 349–350.

Harder, J. D. (1980). Reproduction of white-tailed deer in the north central United States. In: R. L.Hine, & S. Nehls (eds.), White-tailed deer population management in the north central states. InProceedings of the 41st Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Urbana, IL. (pp. 23–35).

Heberlein, T. A. (1991). Changing attitudes and funding for wildlife: Preserving the sport hunter.Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19, 528–534.

Iqbal, S., Blumenthal, W., Kennedy, C., Yip, F. Y., Pickard, S., Flanders, W. D., . . . Brown, M. J.(2009). Hunting with lead: Association between blood lead levels and wild game consumption.Environmental Research, 109(8), 952–959.

Jenkins, D. H., & Bartlett, I. H. (1959). Michigan whitetails. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department ofConservation.

Jiménez, G. A., Montón-Subías, S., & Romero, M. S. (2011). Guess who’s coming to dinner: Feastingrituals in the prehistoric societies of Europe and the near east. Oakville, CT: Oxbow books.

Johnson, D. H. (1999). The insignificance of statistical significance testing. The Journal of WildlifeManagement, 63(3), 763–772.

Kaplan, H., & Gurven, M. (2005). The natural history of human food sharing and cooperation: Areview and a new multi-individual approach to the negation of norms. In: H. Gintis, S. Bowles, R.Boyd, & E. Fehr (Eds.), Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperationin Economic Life (pp. 75–114). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kramer, A. A., & Zimmerman, J. E. (2007). Assessing the calibration of mortality benchmarks incritical care: The Hosmer-Lemeshow test revisited. Critical Care Medicine, 35(9), 2052–2056.

Larsen, C. S. (2003). Animal source foods and human health during evolution. The Journal ofNutrition, 133, 3893S–3897S.

Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Decker, D. J., Siemer, W. F., & Baumer, M. S. (2014). Exploring thesocial habitat for hunting: Toward a comprehensive framework for understanding hunterrecruitment and retention. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19, 105–122.

Ljung, P. E., Riley, S. J., & Ericsson, G. (2014). Game meat consumption feeds urban support oftraditional use of natural resources. Society & Natural Resources, 28, 657–669.

Ljung, P. E., Riley, S. J., Heberlein, T. A., & Ericsson, G. (2012). Eat prey and love: Game meatconsumption and attitudes towards hunting. The Wildlife Society Bulletin, 36, 669–675.

14 A. D. GOGUEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Henry, K. L. (2009). Linking society and environment: A multilevelmodel of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Social ScienceQuarterly, 90, 4007–4427.

Marchello, M. J., Berg, P. T., Slanger, W. D., & Harrold, R. L. (1985). Cutability and nutrientcontent of white-tailed deer. Journal of Food Quality, 7, 267–275.

Mayhew, S. L. (2014). Deer checking station data – 2013 seasons: Summary Tables. Lansing, MI:Department of Natural Resources.

`Food Law, Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 289.1101-8111 (2000). Enrolled House Bill No. 5196.Act 92 of 2000, FOOD LAW OF 2000, (289.1101-289.8111).

Nolin, D. A. (2010). Food-sharing networks in Lamalera, Indonesia: Reciprocity, kinship, distance.Human Nature, 21, 234–268.

Novakowski, N. S., & Solman, V. E. F. (1975). Potential of wildlife as a protein source. Journal ofAnimal Science, 40(5), 1016–1019.

Organ, J. F., Mahoney, S. P., & Geist, V. (2010). Born in the hands of hunters. Wildlife Professional,4, 22–27.

Ozoga, J. J., Doepker, R. V., & Sargent, M. S. (1993). Ecology and management of white-tailed deer inMichigan (Wildlife Report No. 3209). Lansing, MI: Department of Natural Resources.

Paulsen, P., Bauer, A., & Smulders, F. J. M. (Eds.). (2014). Trends in game meat hygiene: From forestto fork. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Peterson, M. J., Peterson, M. N., & Peterson, T. R. (2016). What makes wildlife wild? How identitymay shape the public trust versus wildlife privatization debate. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 40(3),428–435.

Ready, R. C. (2012). Economic considerations in wildlife management. In: D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley, &W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human dimensions of wildlife management (pp. 68–83). Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.

Responsive Management & The National Shooting Sports Foundation (RM & NSSF). (2008). Thefuture of hunting and the shooting sports: Research-based recruitment and retention strategies.Harrisonburg, VA: Produced for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Grant Agreement CT-M-60.

Responsive Management & The National Shooting Sports Foundation (RM & NSSF). (2011).American attitudes toward hunting, fishing, and target shooting 2011. Newton, CT: NationalShooting Sports Foundation, Inc.

Robinson, K. F., Fuller, A. K., Hurst, J. E., Swift, B. L., Kirsch, A., Farquhar, J., . . . Siemer, W. F.(2016). Structured decision making as a framework for large-scale wildlife harvest managementdecisions. Ecosphere, 7(12).

Roth, H. H., & Merz, G. (Eds.). (1996). Wildlife resources: A global account of economic use. NewYork, NY: Springer.

S. SB0748, Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2015).Sauer, P. R. (1984). Physical characteristics. In: L. K. Halls (ed), White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and

Management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books.Severinghaus, C. A. (1949). The live weight-dressed weight and live weight-edible meat relationships

(in deer). New York State Conservationist, 4(2), 26.Stedman, R. C., & Decker, D. J. (1996). Illuminating an overlooked hunting stakeholder group:

Nonhunters and their interest in hunting. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1, 29–41.Stedman, R. C., & Heberlein, T. A. (2001). Hunting and rural socialization. Rural Sociology, 66, 599–

617.Thogmartin, W. (2006). Why not consider the commercialization of deer harvests? BioScience, 56,

957.Tidball, K. G., Tidball, M. M., & Curtis, P. (2013). Extending the locavore movement to wild fish

and game: Questions and implications. Natural Sciences Education, 42, 185–189.Tidball, K. G., Tidball, M. M., Larson, L. R., Curtis, P. D., Poindexter, L., & Stedman, R. C. (2014).

Locavore preferences for wild fish and game: Implications for wildlife-based recreation in NewYork State (Human Dimensions Research Unit Series No. 14-6). Ithic, NY: Department ofNatural Resources, Cornell University.

HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State & county Quickfacts: Michigan, USA. Retrieved March 15, 2015,from http://quickfacts.census.gov

Urban area criteria for the 2010 census 76 Fed. Reg. 53029. ((August 24, 2011) [Docket Number110714393-1393-01]).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015). 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (8th ed.). Retrived from http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and humandimensions. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

VerCauteren, K. C., Anderson, C. W., Van Deelen, T. R., Drake, D., Walter, W. D., Vantassel, S. M.,& Hygnstrom, S. E. (2011). Regulated commercial harvest to manage overabundant white-taileddeer: An idea to consider? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 35, 185–194.

Whittaker, D., Vaske, J. J., & Manfredo, M. J. (2006). Specificity and the cognitive hierarchy: Valueorientations and the acceptability of urban wildlife management actions. Society & NaturalResources, 19, 515–530.

Wilcox, S. W. (1976). Deer production in the United States 1969-1973. Tempe, AZ: Arizona StateUniversity.

Zar, J. H. (1996). Biological statistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Zinn, H. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Barro, S. C. (2002). Patterns of wildlife value orientations in hunters

families. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7, 147–162.

16 A. D. GOGUEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

107.

77.7

6.22

] at

15:

24 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2017