4.1 Article

Hunting and the Local Food Movement: Insights from Central New York State

Journal

WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN
Volume 41, Issue 4, Pages 720-728

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/wsb.802

Keywords

food; hunting; local; locavore; wild game

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Hatch Funds [2011-2-140]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Concerns within the conservation community about declining hunting participation and associated conservation consequences have catalyzed hunter recruitment and retention strategies targeting nontraditional hunting populations. One emerging group of interest includes individuals motived to eat food that is grown, raised, produced, or harvested locally. Sometimes referred to as locavores, this group has motivated many wildlife agencies and organizations to develop hunting programs focusing on their assumed desire for local wild game. However, little empirical information speaks to locavore interest in harvesting and consuming wild game. We surveyed 1 subgroup: 471 subscribers to a local food-oriented magazine in the Finger Lakes Region of central New York, USA. Most respondents (82%) had eaten wild game at least once, though <20% of respondents did so on a regular basis. Few respondents (8%) personally harvested wild game (most [77%] received it from friends and family), and <10% were active hunters. However, 23% said they would consider hunting, and many (59%) expressed interest in learning about preparing wild game and conservation benefits associated with wild game consumption. Our findings, although limited to one particular population, suggest that, at minimum, the local foods movement could generate indirect conservation impacts through expanding social networks supporting wildlife-based recreation. Future research should explore these possibilities and identify strategies that might foster links between different types of food-motivated stakeholders and hunting. (C) 2017 The Wildlife Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available