Hunters in regal hunting system: case of Serbia Authors: Lavadinović Vukan, Schraml Ulrich, Petrović Nenad Corresponding author: Pathways 2014, , Estes Park, Colorado, USA

Content Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion

Approx. South Carolina

Regal hunting system Game belongs to the State Ministry establishes a hunting ground and gives it to users for 10 year period 323 hunting grounds in the country, approx. 98% of the territory Most of the stakeholders are representatives of the State Hunters required to be members of the Hunting Association Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Forest state enterprises National parks Army University Hunting Association of Serbia

Serbia is a country in transition New Law on Game and Hunting(2010) New stakeholders, power re- distribution, new regulations, new hunting practices, new organization, new hunting grounds… Not all expectations fulfilled Inadequate research, focused on traditional studies No data and knowledge of hunters No transparency and hunters’ participation in decision making Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion

Role of hunting has changed Anti-hunting pressure Traditional conflict with forestry Conflict with agriculture Conflict with recreational use of forest and wilderness Hunters’ recruitment and retention Aging population of hunters Biodiversity loss Habitat degradation and fragmentation Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion

– Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion HUNTING SECTOR IN SERBIA Hunters’ characteristics Attitudes Opinions Motivations Problems Hunting participation Hunting grounds Game abundance Bag limits Investment

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion “Average Serbian hunter” Socio-economic characteristics Hunters’ characteristics Hunting preferences Wildlife value orientations Opinions Attitudes Motivations to hunt Behavior

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Research questions Do hunters’ socio-economic characteristics shape their motivations to hunt and wildlife value orientations? Could Manfredo’s Wildlife Value Orientation model be implemented in Serbian hunting/wildlife management arena?

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Research design Deductive Quantitative Descriptive-explanatory characteristics Face to face interviews Questionnaire 50 items Questions in several groups: – Hunters’ characteristics – Hunters’ opinions – Cognitive hierarchy – Socio-economic questions

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Theoretical population (All hunters in Serbia) Sampling frame Registered hunters with hunting licenses Simple random sample

Response rate 376/390

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Average Serbian hunter 48 years old (19-87) 23 years of participation Starts at 25!?! High school education - 70% (College - 8%; University – 8%) Married Rural (80%) “Farmers” (55%) avg. property 6 ha (15 acres) Rarely members in other clubs/fellowships 75% earn up to 7750 USD/year

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Average Serbian hunter 12% consider to stop hunting Reasons: Finances – 38% Policy issues – 20% Health issues – 18% Lack of game – 11 % Only 23% of hunters are satisfied with the new legislation Less than 6% of hunters have any knowledge of legislation

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Average Serbian hunter 69% had hunters in the family – 69% father – 16.4% grandfather 94% own shotgun – 80% have 1, 18% have 2 55% own rifle – 86% have 1, 12% have 2 15% own a gun – 91% have 1, 7% have 2 50% have bird dogs

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Average Serbian hunter

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Average Serbian hunter Motivations to hunt: Socialization/ comradeship – 98% Recreation – 95% Leisure – 67% Tradition – 59% Shooting – 43% Meat – 8.9% Dog training – 2.5% Health/exercise – 0.5%

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Average Serbian hunter Motivations to hunt: AmusementPrime Recreation.822 Socialization.788 Leisure activity Shooting.763 Meat.694 Tradition.584

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Wildlife Value orientations Source: Manfredo et al., 2009 Wildlife Value orientation Domination Extensive colonization functional basis Mutualism Influence of egalitarian ideology in cognitive hierarchy

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Wildlife Value orientations Summary Item Statistics MeanMinimumMaximumRange Maximum / MinimumVarianceN of Items Inter-Item Correlations,236,014,400,38628,784,0106 Scale: Appropriate use beliefs Scale: Hunting beliefs Summary Item Statistics MeanMinimumMaximumRange Maximum / MinimumVarianceN of Items Inter-Item Correlations,117-,026,727,753-27,911,0824 Scale: Hunting beliefs Scale: Social affiliation beliefs Summary Item Statistics MeanMinimumMaximumRange Maximum / MinimumVarianceN of Items Inter-Item Correlations,384,336,560,2241,667,0074 Scale: Caring beliefs Summary Item Statistics MeanMinimumMaximumRange Maximum / MinimumVarianceN of Items Inter-Item Correlations,379,222,588,3652,644,0115

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Wildlife Value orientations Scale: Hunting beliefs Summary Item Statistics MeanMinimumMaximumRange Maximum / MinimumVarianceN of Items Inter-Item Correlations,114-,137,726,864-5,291,02510 Scale: Domination Scale: Mutualism Summary Item Statistics MeanMinimumMaximumRange Maximum / MinimumVarianceN of Items Inter-Item Correlations,346,119,589,4704,957,0139

Auto-Clustering Number of Clusters Schwarz's Bayesian Criterion (BIC)BIC Change a Ratio of BIC Changes b Ratio of Distance Measures c , , ,7821,0002, ,08616,751-,0531, ,52133,435-,1051, ,92153,400-,1681, ,16177,240-,2421, ,765115,604-,3631, ,309139,544-,4381, ,124141,815-,4451, ,094142,970-,4481, ,425154,331-,4841, ,787156,363-,4911, ,416156,628-,4911, ,650170,234-,5341, ,517175,867-,5521,013 a. The changes are from the previous number of clusters in the table. b. The ratios of changes are relative to the change for the two cluster solution. c. The ratios of distance measures are based on the current number of clusters against the previous number of clusters. Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Wildlife Value orientations Scale: Hunting beliefs TwoStep Cluster

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Wildlife Value orientations Scale: Hunting beliefs Centroids Mean Cluster 12Combined Nacin_gazdovanja_sa_divljaci 2,404,793,75 Zastita_divljaci 2,313,873,19 Odstrel_divljaci_ako_ugrozava_ zivot 1,192,291,81 Odstrel_divljaci_ako_ugrozava_ imovinu 2,725,164,10 Zivotinje_u_eksperimentima 5,416,566,06 Svrha_divljaci_na_zemlji 3,896,315,26 Obilje_divljaci_za_lov 1,681,67 Lov_je_surov_i_nehuman 1,442,301,93 Lov_ne_postuje_zivot_zivotinja 1,632,472,11 Mogucnost_za_ljude_koji_zele_ da_love 1,341,571,47 Svet_bez_straha_za_ljude_i_zi votinje 4,352,623,37 Prava_zivotinja 6,584,785,56 Divlje_zivotinje_su_mi_kao_por odica 5,763,374,41 Sva_stvorenja_su_mi_kao_jedn a_porodica 4,992,833,77 Stalo_mi_je_do_zivotinja_kao_ do_drugih_ljudi 6,083,334,53 Osecam_se_bolje_kada_pomaz em_zivotinjama 6,054,555,20 Uteha_u_zivotinjama 4,482,893,58 Emotivna_povezanost_sa_zivoti njama 5,073,053,93 Prijateljstvo_sa_zivotinjama2,751,562,08 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variancest-test for Equality of Means FSig.tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference LowerUpper Appropriate_use_beliefsEqual variances assumed 1,252,264-16,188361,000-1,84485, , ,62073 Equal variances not assumed -15,942316,052,000 -1,84485, , ,61717 Hunting_beliefsEqual variances assumed 25,399,000-4,528361,000 -,47992,10598-,68834-,27151 Equal variances not assumed -4,697360,711,000 -,47992,10217-,68084-,27901 DominationEqual variances assumed,450,503-16,735361,000 -1,29888, , ,14625 Equal variances not assumed -16,602326,993,000 -1,29888, , ,14497 Social_affiliation_beliefsEqual variances assumed,434,51014,519361,000 2,02089,139191,747162,29462 Equal variances not assumed 14,652348,240,000 2,02089,137931,749612,29216 Caring_beliefsEqual variances assumed 1,291,25714,021361,000 1,81222,129251,558042,06640 Equal variances not assumed 14,126346,525,000 1,81222,128291,559902,06454 MutualismEqual variances assumed 2,296,13116,978361,000 1,90496,112201,684312,12561 Equal variances not assumed 17,256354,430,000 1,90496,110401,687852,12207 Cluster Profiles T-test

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Wildlife Value orientations Scale: Hunting beliefs Cluster Profiles Cluster 12Combined Humans should manage widlife to benefit 2,404,793,75 Human needs have priroity over wildlife 2,313,873,19 Acceptable to kill wildlife if threats their life 1,192,291,81 Acceptable to kill wildlife if threats their property 2,725,164,10 Use wildlife in research 5,416,566,06 Wildlife on earth for human use 3,896,315,26 Strive for world abundant with wildlife for hunt 1,681,67 Hunting is cruel and inhuman to the animals 1,442,301,93 Hunitng do not respect the lives of animals 1,632,472,11 Opportunity for people who want to hunt 1,341,571,47 World where humans and widllife live no fear 4,352,623,37 Animals should have right like humans 6,584,785,56 Wildlife are like my family 5,763,374,41 I view all living things as one big family 4,992,833,77 I care about animals like other people 6,083,334,53 More rewarding when I help animals 6,054,555,20 Great comfort in relationship with animals 4,482,893,58 Strong emotional bond with animals 5,073,053,93 I value companionship received from animals2,751,562,08 Centroids / Mean

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Wildlife Value orientations Domination 158 hunters 43.52% Mutualism 205 hunters 56.48% Response rate 376/ hunters without complete responses

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Wildlife Value orientations are shaped by: 1.Hunting frequency 2.Motivations to hunt 3.Number of hunting rifles 4.Employment 5.Profession 6.Type of preferred hunted game

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Motivations to hunt are shaped by: – Hunters’ participation – Number of rifles – Age Amusement hunting: – Hunters’ participations, number of rifles and age - 5% Prime hunting: – Hunters’ participation and age – 8.6%

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Serbian hunters fit rural profile Threats: – Old – Poor – Ilinformed Two motivations to hunt: – Primal – Amusement Hunting has a social function

Introduction Problem statement Aim of the study Methodology Results Discussion Answers to research questions: – Socio/economic characteristics influence both motivations to hunt and wildlife value orientation, but poorly explained – Manfredo’s WVO model works, but with unexpected results – Modified for Serbian hunters